Imagine a vending machine that pays you for your product. For those readers living in a state with a bottle deposit law Reverse Vending Machines, or RVMs, may already be commonplace at your local public spaces.  An RVM is a device that accepts empty beverage containers and returns payment – either in money or another form of currency such as coupons or gift cards – to the user.  Businesses that are looking for ways to increase their sustainability initiatives may have found one in this incarnation of recycling. What blue recycling bins lack is what RVMs offer – an interactive element for the user and the opportunity to provide immediate rewards for recycling.  RVMs also provide opportunities for businesses to develop relationships with the public and further strengthen and encourage sustainability initiatives within communities.

A variety of institutions have taken their recycling efforts to the next level with the use of RVMs.  Universities such as Sacred Heart University in Connecticut have tied in their incentives with free goods from key sponsors like BIC and FUJIFILM.  Large event venues like the Dunkin Donuts Center in Providence, Rhode Island, encouraged by eco-minded entertainers, offer prizes to their patrons in the form of event tickets.  Even hospitals have honed in on the opportunities provided by RVMs.  Hospital staff and patients generate hundreds of used beverage and meal containers daily.  The Yale New Haven Hospital in New Haven, Connecticut, decided to use the recycling of these containers to the benefit of their employees.  The proceeds from each bottle or container placed into the machine go to raise money for the hospital’s Employee Hardship Fund.  PepsiCo created, in conjunction with Waste Management RVM, the ”Dream Machine,” to offer reward points to individuals who use the machine to recycle bottles and cans or cash donations to charities.  The points accumulate to earn rewards such as travel or movie tickets and coupons for Pepsi products.

These unique endeavors demonstrate how many different ways RVMs can be used by a wide variety of industries to incentivize people to recycle.

Last year “more people were killed worldwide by natural disasters…than have been killed in terrorism attacks in the past 40 years combined.”  If 2010 was the “year the earth struck back,” what will 2011 be known as?  So far in the U.S., the year 2011 has been a year of climatic record breakers—blizzards, tornadoes, floods, droughts, and most recently, heat waves.  There are few areas throughout the nation that have not been affected by intense heat this summer.  With energy costs increasingly on the rise, how can you afford to keep your home cool on a budget?  There are ways you can save money and still stay cool in this time of recession, and one place to start is the outside of your home.

If you do not already have shade trees nearby, consider planting some, particularly on the side of your home that experiences the most midday and afternoon sunlight.  Trees will block some sunlight from reaching your windows and siding and decrease the amount of heat that will build up inside, thus reducing your cooling needs.  According to the Arbor Day Foundation website, if you have an outdoor or window air conditioning unit, consider planting a tree to shade it.  Of course, trees will not grow over night, and you will want to research tree varieties to choose which are right for your unique situation.  Some fast growing varieties can be found at the Fast-Growing-Trees website.  Also, factor in the eventual need for trimming, and do not plant trees too close to your house, as mold formation is heightened and gutters can become clogged with foliage and tree debris.  Tips for pruning trees can be found at the USDA Forest Service website.  Additionally, deciduous trees may be a good choice because they will let the sun’s rays reach your home during the winter months after their leaves have fallen.  If you are currently looking to rent or buy, add shade trees to your list of search criteria.

 
Additionally, consider adding an awning to the exterior of your home.  There are fixed awnings as well as retractable ones on the market.   They can be used to shade windows, patios, porches, as well as entire sides of homes.  According to the U.S. Department of Energy, “Window awnings can reduce solar heat gain in the summer by up to 65% on south-facing windows and 77% on west-facing windows. You can use an awning to shade one window or have an awning custom-made to shade the entire side of your house.”  Also consider that awnings can prevent heat from entering your home in the winter, so a retractable or removable one may be most beneficial for your needs.

Finally, consider the color of your home.  Dark colors can absorb up to 70% to 90% of radiant energy that hits a home’s surface and much is transferred inside the home through conduction, while light colored homes reflect most radiant heat away from the home.  The key is, the more heat you can keep from penetrating your home, the less energy you will need to consume to keep the inside of your home cool.

Recently, a coworker who is also an American Public University (APU) student (as many of our employees are) sent me a link to a YouTube video that her professor posted as part of that week’s assignment.  The video, produced by The Story of Stuff Project and narrated by Annie Leonard, is 20 minutes in length and provides a somewhat scathing look at the life cycle of our “stuff.” 

Through the use of basic yet effective animations, Leonard describes in accessible terms how all of our stuff comes to be and what happens when we are finished with it.  Through the five steps of the materials economy (extraction, production, distribution, consumption, and disposal), our stuff requires tremendous resources, natural and human.  Along the way, the process harms many of the parties involved.  During the extraction process, for example, people living in the places where the first resources are culled often lose the lands and natural materials on which they have relied for generations.  Because their resources are lost, some 200,000 people a day (worldwide) move from environments that had previously sustained them for generations to cities in search of work, often finding it in the factories that are making stuff from the resources taken from their lands.  During the production process, workers are subjected to many harmful chemicals that are used to create the stuff.  At the same time, working conditions in many of the factories producing our stuff leave much to be desired. 

Even the consumer, who is the driving force behind the manufacturing of this stuff is harmed.  The toxins that go into making the stuff impact those who buy and use these items.  Leonard uses the phrase, “toxins in, toxics out” to make the point that many of our products are actually toxic to us.  Through all of this, the environment takes the most consistent abuse, however.  The loss of vast quantities of natural resources, toxins emitted into the environment, and the irresponsible disposal of most items leaves our planet quite vulnerable, according to Leonard.

During the linear process of the materials economy, we are “bumping up against limits” all along the way.  According to Leonard, “in the last decade alone, one-third of the world’s natural resources have been depleted.”  In the United States, only 4 percent of our forests are left.  Though Americans account for only 5 percent of the world’s population, we consume more than 30 percent of the world’s resources.  In only one day, the average American creates 4.5 pounds of trash – due largely in part to the fact that we also consume twice as much stuff as Americans did 50 years ago.  Leonard explains that the consumerist economy for which the United States is known is not accidental but instead was designed by American government, big business, and economists in the 1950s who sought to bulk up the American economy.  She notes that we have since become a nation of consumers – that in fact, consumerism is the characteristic for which Americans are best known.  The “golden arrow” within the materials economy that represents consumption is the key to the entire system.  Without that consumption, none of the rest of the system would be able to proceed and would become obsolete.

In relation to her discussion about consumerism in America, Leonard explains the concepts of planned obsolescence and perceived obsolescence.  Planned obsolescence is quite scandalous, really: manufacturers design and make stuff that will be obsolete quickly but last long enough to give the consumer enough faith in the product that he or she returns to the distribution center (store) to purchase another, perpetuating the cycle.  Perceived obsolescence is more of a societal and psychological problem.  This is the notion that what we already have is not good enough and often is discussed in terms of fashion.  Leonard points out that in a single day, Americans see more than 3,000 advertisements, each essentially telling the consumer that he or she is not good enough, does not have the best stuff, and urges him or her to quickly run out to purchase the newest, “best” of what is available. 

In the end of the discussion about the materials economy, Leonard explains that this is a system in crisis.  The limits that we are “bumping up against” will soon give way to no resources whatsoever.  She points out to the viewer, however, that it was people who created this system (namely the economists, government officials, and big businessmen of the 1950s).  Because people created this system, people can also dismantle it.  Leonard suggests removing the disposal component of the system altogether and moving from a finite linear model to a circular one in which consumed goods are reused for the creation of more goods.  She encourages this type of recycling as a means toward improving the system but cautions the viewer against believing that recycling is all that is needed.  She adamantly states that recycling is not enough; according to Leonard, a behavioral change is required that will not only assist in conservation efforts but could also promote greater happiness for all parties involved in the process. 

The content of this video is quite eye-opening and interesting.  To some degree, most of us know in general terms that we live in a consumer society and that our “stuff” requires tremendous resources to make.  By connecting the entire system from start to finish, however, and explaining several consumerist norms that many may not know, The Story of Stuff Project changes the way the viewer looks at his or her stuff.  While I was impressed with the content of the video, I was equally as impressed that this video was assigned in my colleague’s class, a sociology course.  Many universities have struggled with how to integrate sustainability across their curriculums.  Doing so is a requirement of the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) of which APUS is a charter signatory.  The use of this video in a sociology class is a great example of a creative way to incorporate topics of sustainability into academic curriculums where it may not otherwise be present. 

If you are interested in learning more about the “story of stuff,” check out Annie Leonard’s book of the same title.

Many people often do not equate auto performance with efficiency.  This is often true of many early American performance cars.  The first performance engine available to the masses was the Ford Flathead V-8 introduced in 1932.  It is often associated with bootlegging and hot rodding, but it was compact and fuel efficient when compared to larger inline six or eight cylinder engines.  Road tests were even able to achieve 20mpg fuel economy, quite remarkable for the times.

In 1949 the Oldsmobile Rocket 88 was introduced with the first high performance modern overhead valve V-8 engine.  The horsepower wars continued throughout the 1950s with the Chrysler C-300 becoming the top performer with its Hemi engine.  Larger, higher horsepower engines continued to be offered throughout the first half of the 1960s, but mostly in larger cars.  This was soon to change.

In 1964, Pontiac shoved a full sized 389 cubic inch V-8 from its full size car line into its midsize Tempest, calling it the GTO.  This created what some argue is the first muscle car (a large, high horsepower engine midsize car).  The Ford Mustang was introduced the same year, with high performance engines offered the following year.  Both of these cars found imitators such as the Plymouth GTX and Roadrunner, Dodge Charger, Chevrolet Chevelle SS, Oldsmobile 442, Plymouth Barracuda, and Chevrolet Camaro, just to name a few.  The large, gas-guzzling muscle cars were constructed with straight-line performance, not fuel economy as the number one priority.

Larger, more powerful engine options continued until they peaked in 1970 with the 450 horsepower Chevelle SS 454 LS6.  Higher insurance costs, stricter safety regulations, new unleaded fuel and rising gas prices, especially after the Arab Oil Embargo of 1973, resulted in the death of the original muscle car era.  The 1973-1974 Pontiac Trans AM Super Duty 455 is often cited as the last true performer of the period.  Cars increasingly offered more “show” than “go,” sporting stripe or appearance packages, but often only offering modest power when compared to earlier offerings.  The positive side of this period is that automakers began to focus more on handling and safety for performance packages that actually created more balanced cars—certainly not the blistering straight-line performers of just a few years before, but nonetheless lively and easier to manage around turns.  A good example is my sister’s 1974 Dodge Dart Sport Rallye.  It has racing stripes and rally wheels, but only has a mild 318 V-8 that makes the car snappy, but not exceptionally fast.

Muscle cars gradually began to return a few years after the second gas crisis of 1979 and by the 1990s, had employed fuel injection and computer technology to improve fuel economy and overall drivability.  Additionally, they were smaller without compromising much interior space.  In 2005 a redesigned Ford Mustang with retro looks was introduced and the Dodge Charger, Challenger and retro Chevrolet Camaro soon followed.  One feature that is found on modern V-8 performance engines is a system that automatically shuts off fuel to four cylinders when extra power is not needed.  The Chrysler version, found on some modern Hemi engines, is called the Multi Displacement System (MDS).  According to Chrysler, “the MDS system saved nearly 100 million gallons of gasoline between 2005 and 2009, and reduced carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by close to a million metric tons.” 

Although American modern muscle cars are not as fuel efficient as their 4-cylinder hybrid counterparts, they have outsold the latter for the month of May 2011.  Part of this may be due to the shortage of Japanese hybrids in the wake of the earthquake and tsunami there in March.  Nevertheless, some consumers may feel justified in purchasing a car that can reach 30 mpg and still have over 300 horsepower on demand.

Father’s Day is this Sunday, June 19th. If you are looking for an environmentally friendly gift for your dad, there are many items available.

Earthtec offers functional apparel while keeping green thinking at the forefront.  In fact, all of their products are made from recycled or renewable materials.  They focus on materials like organic cotton and wool and work with eco-textiles, as well.  Some of these new materials include recycled nylon, corn and coffee beans.

For the hungry dad, Hearst Ranch offers grass-fed meat products for shipping.  Hearst Ranch’s cattle live as foragers and grazers.  The rancher believes that this “enhances a complex and balanced mosaic of native grasslands which in turn maintains vigor and distribution of these habitats, ensuring a sustainable food system.”

Many dads are our families’ power savers.  Belkin offers a socket which can be set on a timer to automatically shut off appliances or electronics that draw unnecessary power when they are not being used.

For the adventurous dad, the Sierra Club and other companies like LL Bean, Nau, and The North Face, offer sustainable outdoor gear.  They offer products from camping gear, to hiking gear and other adventure-related items.  The North Face spends their research time on waste elimination, climate change and energy.

When you have decided on your gift, wrap Dad’s gift in eco-friendly paper like Of the Earth recycled paper.  Or use today’s newspaper and recycled ribbon.

Thank Dad for all he does by giving him not only a well-deserved gift, but one that is green and earth friendly.

The thought of “going green” can be daunting and even overwhelming.  It may appear that living a greener lifestyle will require funds that many families are finding difficult to come by.  Some people may not know where to start.  Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu said, “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”  Beginning the journey to a greener lifestyle should be looked at in the same way.  Once you take that first step, however, take several more to keep your momentum going!  Below are some easy suggestions that will not cost you much money, will not require tremendous energy or maintenance, and will get you started on your journey to a greener lifestyle.

Day 1
Change the settings on your thermostats.  Many thermostats can be programmed to automatically set themselves lower at specific times.  Set your thermostat a bit cooler than you would typically when you go to bed at night and when you leave the house for the day.  Even better, if you have ceiling fans, combine them with open windows on opposing sides of your house to get a natural breeze and some fresh air.  In the winter, keep your thermostat at 68F and in the summer, set it at 75F to get the most effective use of those systems.

Day 2
Make or purchase a composting bin and start composting.  For many, the notion of composting is unfamiliar and conjures images of waste piles that make you hold your nose.  The process of composting involves mixing yard and household organic waste in a pile or bin, then providing conditions that encourage decomposition.  The microscopic organisms in these materials devour the contents, leaving behind an organic fertilizer which can do wonders for your plants.  You can build your own composting bin or purchase one from a vendor like Planet Natural that offers many varieties of bins depending on the extent of your composting goals.  Composting can reduce yard waste by between 50 and 75 percent. 

Day 3
Find a friend with whom you can carpool to and from work.  Even if you are only able to carpool a couple of times a week, those miles not traveled will add up quickly.  This step not only costs you nothing, it actually saves you money!  According to the recent census, single occupant commuting in the United States is around 75 percent.  With the cost of gasoline so high (national average cost per gallon at time of publication is $3.84), carpooling can help you keep money in your pocket while keeping harmful emissions out of the environment. 

Day 4
Switch your light bulbs to light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs which last significantly longer and save energy over incandescent and compact fluorescent lights (CFLs).  Environmentally, LED bulbs are better because they are lit by the movement of electrons.  Incandescent lights generate a tremendous amount of heat; according to one estimate, 90 percent of the energy burned using incandescent lights is wasted as heat.  CFLs contain mercury and other toxic substances which LED lights do not, making them more desirable from a health and environmental aspect.  Though LED bulbs are traditionally a bit more expensive than their more traditional counterparts, they easily make up for that cost in lack of maintenance and replacement required.  LED bulbs can last up to 60 times longer than incandescent bulbs and 10 times longer than CFLs. 

Day 5
Switch to eco-friendly cleaning products or, even better, make your own cleaning solutions using environmentally friendly ingredients.  Environmentally friendly cleaning products can improve indoor air quality and reduce the health problems that can be associated with more traditional cleaners.  The chemicals in traditional cleaning products gets washed down your drains where it can enter the groundwater and contaminate waterways and wildlife (some chemicals are taken out of the water as a matter of practice at water treatment facilities but some are missed in this process).  Some manufacturers have taken the socially conscious step of offering an environmentally friendly line of cleaning supplies.  For example, Clorox now offers the Green Works cleaning line which contains no harsh chemicals that can harm your family and the environment.  Simple Green cleaning products are also environmentally friendly.  If you would like to take the additional step to mix your own cleaners, check out Annie Bond’s article on Care2’s Healthy & Green Living blog.

Pioneered in the mid- 1970s by Australians David Holmgren and Bill Mollison “Permaculture”- a contraction of the words permanent culture or permanent agriculture-is land use design based on ecological and biological principles.  Simply speaking, the goal of permaculture’s application is to create systems that promote harmony between the land and the people who inhabit it. Once a method -and now becoming a worldwide movement -permaculture’s methodologies can be applied to any environment and project from large farms to small urban landscapes to window gardens.
 
This broad-based, holistic approach to sustainability follows a fundamental system of core values to be applied to any situation:

Earthcare: realizing the Earth is the source of all life and that we are a part of Earth, not apart from it;

Peoplecare: supporting and maintaining one another in finding ways of living that do not harm ourselves or the planet; and

Fairshare: placing limits on consumption, and using Earth’s resources in ways that are equitable and wise.

Drawn from sources across multiple disciplines such as ecology, energy conservation, landscape design and environmental science, permaculture design follows Holmgren’s twelve design principles. Among them:
1. Observe and interact.
2. Catch and store energy.
3. Obtain a yield.
4. Apply self-regulation and accept feedback.
5. Use and value renewable resources and services.
6. Produce no waste.
7. Design from patterns to details.
8. Integrate rather than segregate.
9. Use small and slow solutions.
10. Use and value diversity.
11. Use edges and value the marginal.
12. Creatively use and respond to change.

Permaculture does not have to be a vast, complicated technique.  A simple shift in perception and attitude toward seeing “solutions not problems” will make your methods quickly adhere to the essence of permaculture.  As co-originator Bill Mollison said “you haven’t got an excess of slugs, you’ve got a duck deficiency.” For more information visit permacultureprinciples.com, or start by reading the definitive Permaculture: Principles and Pathways Beyond Sustainability by David Holmgren.

Wesley Holmes earned his Masters of Science degree in Environmental Policy and Management from APU in February 2010, graduating with honors.  For his final project, Wesley began researching the green elements associated with APUS’ new Academic Center which is anticipated to receive LEED Gold certification later this year. As part of that project, Wesley created the APUS Green Building Blog which he maintains on a regular basis.  The blog is full of information related to the APUS Academic Center, green building in general, and Brownfields sites in particular.  Earlier this month Wesley attended the National Brownfields Conference in Philadelphia and submitted the following article for publication on the APUS Sustainability Blog.  

Thickness map of Marcellus Shale. Image from Geology.com, http://geology.com/articles/marcellus-shale.shtml.

Over the course of the three day event, the National Brownfields Conference offers dozens of educational events, round tables, town halls and training sessions. Learning opportunities range from the State of Sustainability in Local Governments to Leveraging Tax Incentives for Sustainable Revitalization to Utilizing Social Media in Brownfield Development. Days before the event I was looking over the schedule trying to pick which sessions I wanted to sit in on. The Marcellus Shale presentation immediately caught my eye. The Marcellus Shale Formation is a rock formation found deep within the Appalachian Basin that contains large pockets of natural gas formed by the decaying organic matter embedded within this ancient formation. As the organic matter has broken down over millions of years it has produced pockets of natural gas. There is currently great excitement about the potential yield of natural gas contained within the Marcellus Formation.

A few facts about the Marcellus Shale Formation
• 390 Million Years Old
• Covers 95,000 sq miles over 7 states
• Contains estimates as high as 500 Trillion Cubic Ft of Natural Gas

Natural gas operations are growing rapidly in the United States, with increasing exploitation of natural gas reserves being a cornerstone of both Democratic and Republican energy proposals. Natural gas burns cleaner than traditional fossil fuels such as oil and coal, presently it is easier to get to, it’s cheaper, and perhaps most importantly, the U.S. has a lot of it. But could this rush to development of a cleaner, cheaper fuel source result in creating as many problems as it helps to address? Adjoining the rapid growth of natural gas projects, there is increasing concern and debate about the safety of the practices used to harvest this fossil fuel of the future. Daily reports of environmental impacts are emerging near natural gas development sites in the form of harmful air emissions, watershed impairment and even earthquakes. In response to these reports, legal challenges are being brought forth by environmental advocacy groups and landowners alike. How appropriate that this year’s National Brownfields Conference, sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), should also be held in Philadelphia, home to both the second largest natural gas deposit known in the world, the Marcellus Shale Formation, and the largest emerging market of natural gas production industry and its associated controversies.

Of primary concern among environmental advocates, landowners and watchdog groups is hydraulic fracturing, the primary method utilized to harvest natural gas deposits. Hydraulic fracturing or fracking, first used commercially by Halliburton in 1949, utilizes a mixture of chemicals, water and sand injected at high pressure into rock formations to cause fissures in these formations that allow natural gas pockets to merge and be extracted more efficiently. One of the chief concerns surrounding the fracking process is gas infiltration of groundwater supplies near fracking sites. An issue popularly highlighted by the documentary Gasland. Additionally, there is much concern about the residual waste left behind after a well is dry and a company’s undisclosed proprietary fracking mixture is removed and what happens to that waste water once it is removed.

Most recently the biggest shakeup in the fracking industry surrounds reports showing a troubling correlation between hydraulic fracturing and a high occurrence of earthquakes happening in Arkansas, a correlation disturbing enough to prompt a unanimous vote by the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission (AOGC) to temporarily suspend injection well operations. In early March 2011, Shane Khoury, deputy director and general counsel for the commission, said Arkansas Geological Survey researchers had found enough evidence to request an immediate shutdown of two well locations near Greenbrier, Arkansas, where a series of 800 minor earthquakes culminated in a 4.7-magnitude earthquake, the most powerful reported in the state in 35 years.

Compounding these issues is the conspicuous lack of regulatory oversight for these practices as well as a bipartisan political effort to keep scrutiny off fracking at the federal level. This lack of EPA oversight dates back to the Bush/Cheney administration’s 2005 National Energy Bill that exempted fracking from EPA regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, a provision now known as the Halliburton Loophole (a dubious provision given Vice President Cheney’s history as the CEO of Halliburton. Despite the uncertainties of environmental impact, business is booming!

Number of Shale Well Permits Issued in Marcellus Region
• 2005 – 4 Permits Issued
• 2009 -  1,984 Permits Issued
• 2010 – 3,314 Permits Issued
(Data Provided by Brian Clark of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, National Brownfields Conference, 2011)

So when I saw that there was going to be a presentation on what is being billed as the largest natural gas operation in North America, the new gold rush, the future of energy in America, I had to sit in. And I wasn’t alone. I got there 15 minutes early and seats were filling. By the time the presentation started, there was standing room only.

Right before the session started a woman walked by and offered me a piece of paper. It was a collection of excerpts from a New York Times investigative series by Ian Urbina called “Drilling Down.” It presents a laundry list of environmental hazards, air pollution, radioactivity, and specifically water quality hazards associated with the fracking process and the waste water generated and released. For example, very surprisingly, the state of Pennsylvania is the only state that allows drilling waste water to be released to regular sewage treatment plants and on to rivers with residential sewage. The brief was compiled by Protecting Our Waters. Looking it over I was thinking “Great, this is what I wanted to hear about. We’re going to get some assurances and explanations on how these troubling issues are being addressed”.

The panel arranged on the dais was an ideal group to provide answers to my questions. The moderator was Brian Clark, a rep for Buchanan Ingersoll and Rooney, a large attorney and government relations firm. Representatives from two of the largest developing interests in the Marcellus region, Daryl Grieger with Williams Midstream, one of North America’s largest natural gas gatherers and processors, and Walt Hufford of Talisman Energy, owner of the largest number of well sites in Marcellus were also on the panel. Also on the panel were Don Zuch from Hull and Associates, a project development and engineering company and Denise Brinley of the Pennsylvania Dept of Environmental Protection (PennDEP). With such a large gathering of industry professionals, legal experts and environmental management agencies, I thought, “Okay, time to get down to business.”  Alas, explanations and assurances were not on the agenda.

What followed over the next hour and fifteen minutes was not a clarification on the environmental impact associated with natural gas exploitation or what these titans of the industry were planning to do about it. The expert panel was not there to discuss water quality concerns, safety issues, regulatory schemas, or even earthquakes. What my fellow attendees and I were treated to was nothing less than a sales pitch. A good pitch, but a pitch none the less, centered on how we could make a fortune through the acquisition of Brownfield properties throughout the Marcellus region, taking advantage of all the tax benefits and incentive programs surrounding those properties, and then leasing those properties to natural gas developers for well sites.

Well site during active drilling to the Marcellus Shale formation in Upshur County, WV in 2008. Image from West Virginia Surface Owners Rights Organization, http://blogs.wvgazette.com/watchdog/2010/09/09/epa-seeks-information-on-fracking-chemicals/.

The selling points were all there. For example we were implored to consider how small the landscape footprint of these well sites are after the admittedly sizeable operation it takes to set them up; going from a substantial acreage for the equipment, buildings, drill rig and trucks to set up the well, down to just a small Christmas tree size pump once running. It is easy to see that, following the set up phase, the landscape footprint is rather tiny, especially when compared to slides depicting the squat Eifel Tower appearance of land based oil rigs and the truly astounding engineering marvels of massive offshore oil derricks. This small footprint is even more appealing when we see how new side well drilling techniques allow us to tap areas hundreds of miles wide underground from one tiny little site on the surface. “Think of the green space we can save” they lauded.

And what of Brownfields? This was a Brownfields conference after all. How can natural gas development help us with our millions of acres of contaminated lands left over from industrial boom times past?  In response to this unspoken question, the panelists presented a series of maps that clearly showed a collection of Brownfield properties right smack dab in the areas surrounding the old Pennsylvania steel towns and rust belt capitals that are already perfectly situated for natural gas operations. Just as the old factory sites needed to be saddled up to river and rail access to move the ore and steel, so to do these properties bring all the necessary ingredients for hydraulic fracturing. Water sources to feed the fracking and rail to ship out the gas container cars.

You can see the appeal can’t you? Our moderator through up his hands in desire, “Wouldn’t you just love to be sitting on these old derelict properties, today?!” The rep from the PennDEP Brownfields division was conspicuously excited at the prospect. As these old sites were abandoned and deemed contaminated they often fell to the states, who are now rife with them, like the store owner with a warehouse full of the latest hot toy that turned out to be covered in lead paint. I half expected her to jump on the table, spin her cane and shake her Derby in the air barking “We got tainted properties here! Tainted properties for sale! Prices so low you’ll think I’m crazy! Step right up and get your derelict factory today!”

I have to admit it all sounded pretty good. But what about this compilation of environmental hazards I was handed at the start of the meeting? We have not covered these issues yet. Then, before they even invited those with questions to form an orderly que at the microphone stand, she was already there, the same woman who handed me the leaflet of environmental concerns. It was not until this moment I realized she was not with the illustrious professionals on the dais. My realization was confirmed when the entire panel looked at her and frowned; cheerful throughout out their presentation, there was a visible collective sigh from the panel and a slumping of shoulders at the appearance of this naysayer. 

She led in with a summary statement of some of the highlights of environmental hazards, the toxic chemicals in the fracking compounds, the groundwater seepage, and the allowance of discharge of these materials into Pennsylvania waterways. Her delivery was polite. But losing patience, somewhat quickly I thought, our moderator twice blurted in “Do you have a question? Do you have a question?”  She had two very pointed questions: “Are any of you going to address the environmental threats being regularly discovered about this process?” and “Shouldn’t we wait for the full impact review before setting off this massive expansion of the practice?” The answers to her questions came from one of the energy company reps and from the PennDEP rep. From the energy company: “It’s not like we want something to happen. Will things happen? Yeah probably, but people need energy.” and   from the PennDEP rep, about waiting for a full impact analysis: “No, we want these Brownfields bought and this is an industry that wants them.”

Another participant asked, “Has anyone done a carbon footprint analysis of these operations, considering all the trucks and development and shipping?” There was another sigh and slump of shoulders. The answer: “No, but that’s a good question, we’ll look into it.”

And then the presentation adjourned. As I pondered over what had just transpired I realized that not only did there remain the still unanswered questions about the environmental impacts, but now I had new questions. Part of the pitch was that these efforts were going to generate jobs and bring new use to Brownfield properties. That looks to be true. But I started to think about the part of the presentation where we looked at just how small the pump sites are after the initial set up. The pictures showed a lot of people working on those sites to set them up, the drilling and piping, the building of infrastructure associated with the startup of an operation. But the after shots, the ‘operation phase’ pictures, show no one, just a solitary pump fixture the size of a Christmas tree. So it seems all those busy bees on the set up of the rig are temp jobs. Where’s the long term job growth?

Later that evening I found myself still reflecting on what had been said in that session. What had I taken away? What I heard was that natural gas production was booming and fracking is the industry preferred means to harvest our future fuel. The attitude is “full steam ahead, there is money to be made and we will address the environmental concerns as we go.”  What this means for the cash strapped states and communities around the Marcellus Shale is a much needed new revenue stream, some job growth and an outlet to redirect Brownfield properties to new use. But what kind of new use and what foundation are we laying for our future? After all natural gas is still a fossil fuel; it will inevitably run out. Its favored nomenclature in the political arena is as a “bridge fuel.” something we can turn to until renewables are “viable technologies”.

I think it is unintentionally poignant that this proposal was delivered at the National Brownfields Conference. America is covered in millions of acres of contaminated and abandoned properties. Properties, that at one time brought the jobs and money that built towns and communities, jobs and, in many cases, whole towns that are now gone, and that is sad. It’s a piece of American heritage that we have seen slip away over the last fifty years, and what is left behind is abandoned infrastructure and land and water so polluted that it is unfit for habitation. But what created these Brownfield properties? In 99.9% of cases it was not deliberate. Most people would not actively poison their local communities. What drove the degradation of these environments was the rush to growth, the mad dash for opportunity that prompted loose regulatory frameworks to attract business. When the rust belt and steel towns seized upon their natural bounty to build communities and schools and jobs out of the land and earth around them it was always in good faith. They didn’t know what they didn’t know about the long term affects of pollution. We know better now.

As we go head long into this new natural gas boom I hope people will take a lesson from the bullish but well intentioned industrial drive that built our now abandoned historic communities. In our rush to natural gas development, are we relying on the same shortsighted thinking and resistance to the admittedly slow scientific process which created the millions of acres of Brownfields we gathered in Philadelphia to discuss? As we “re-purpose” our old industrial sites for new industrial uses, and inject the earth with unknown proprietary compounds, under unprecedented pressures, with as yet unknowable but inevitable environmental consequences, we may well be laying the ground work, not for revitalization, but for the re-browning of our Brownfields.

For additional information about the Marcellus shale, visit the following websites:
• National Geographic – Special Report: The Great Shale Gas Rush, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2010/10/101022-energy-marcellus-shale-gas-rush/
• National Geographic – Mapping a Gas Boom, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/10/101022-mapping-a-gas-boom/
• EPA Hydraulic Fracturing, http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/index.cfm
• “Cornell Study Finds that Shale Gas Emissions Exceed Coal Emissions (April 14, 2011), http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/idUS299327959820110413

If you are looking for a hobby that helps the environment, provides tangible rewards for little time and effort, and only requires a small initial investment you may want to consider becoming a beekeeper. Beekeeping not only helps the environment by increasing crop yields and promoting the health of honeybees, it is also a hobby that pays you back with marketable goods that could earn you some extra income.  In her article “Beekeeping for Beginners” Linda Rountree Grove offers some reasons why beekeeping may be the “best small-farm business you’ve never considered.”

The care of bees does not require the endurance or physical strength of most other traditional farming activities.  The most physically demanding aspect of beekeeping is lifting the honey-filled “supers,” or boxes that hold the frames on which the bees build the honeycombs, from the hive. Additionally, beekeeping can be enjoyed anywhere in the United States.  Hives can survive in the cold, the desert, and even the humid Southern climate.  Local beekeeping groups can offer assistance in providing regional strategies for beekeeping.  In the city or the country as long as there are flowering plants or trees you can keep bees. Also consider that bees do not require the daily care and maintenance of other types of livestock or pets.  They generally only need supplemental feeding in spring and fall which requires checking food reserves in the hives every few days.  Summertime involves a weekly check of the health of the colony and progress of honey production, and late summer requires removing surplus honey from the hives- a task that only takes one day if you have one to two hives.  Winter requires no work for the beekeeper.

 
Beekeeping helps the environment, the bees, and the beekeeper.  Beekeeping benefits gardens, orchards, vineyards, and row crops, as honeybees are the leading pollinator of all plants. The resulting increased pollination and crop yield can be widespread as bees often travel up to three miles from their home hive to look for food sources.  In fact, some beekeepers rent their hives to other farmers for use in their pollination plans.  Beekeeping also benefits bees.  Between 2006 and 2009 nearly 1/3 of the honeybee colonies in the United States disappeared due mostly in part to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD).  When bees are kept where there is no use of pesticides it promotes their health and ability to repopulate.  Beekeeping also benefits the beekeeper as working with bees can help reduce stress.  The smooth, deliberate movements used to work with bees require focus and concentration, and the gentle hum of the bees can be a soothing, relaxing sound.

The investment required in beginning beekeeping is relatively low.  Tool kits that include a hive, basic tools, a smoker, gloves and protective wear range from $165 to $450. Bees are purchased by the package called a “nuc,” short for nuclear hive, which consists of worker bees, drones, a queen and brood. The shipment of bees will cost around $100 per “nuc.” You will also need inexpensive, even recycled, materials to build a hive box.  Free building plans for boxes and frames can be found online. While the investment is low, the return can be significant.  Home produced honey is delicious, and can help alleviate seasonal allergies.  Honey can be profitable when sold at local farmers markets or fairs.  And bees make more than just honey.  Wax, propolis, and royal jelly are also goods that can be sold at local markets, or used as an ingredient to make soaps and lotions for retail.

As a reminder, if anyone in your household has an allergy to bee stings beekeeping may not be the hobby for you. An allergic reaction to a bee sting can result in anaphylactic shock and other health complications.  Caught the buzz for beekeeping? Go to bestbeekeeping.com to get started.

With all of the information- and misinformation-that surrounds us daily about organic food most of us who want to join in the organic food movement for the health of our bodies or our planet feel overwhelmed.  Pair that with the fact that some organic foods can cost up to twice as much as nonorganic versions and we’re finished before we even start! In her article “How to Eat Organic Foods on a Budget” Kathleen M. Zelman, MPH, RD, LD shows us some simple ways, however, to incorporate organic foods into our diets without breaking the bank.

First, learn your labels.  While terms like “free-range,” “hormone free,” or “natural” are easily confused with organic, none of those terms are regulated by law.  Look for the following regulated terms:

• “100% Organic” is for foods that have no allowable synthetic ingredients.  These foods are allowed to use the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) organic seal.
• “Organic” foods have a minimum of 95% organic ingredients.  These foods are also eligible by law to use the USDA organic seal.
• “Made with Organic Ingredients” are foods that must contain at least 70% organic ingredients.  These foods are not eligible for the USDA seal.

The USDA organic seal further indicates that food was grown, harvested and processed according to national organic standards that restrict the amounts of pesticides, hormones and antibiotics in food production. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adds that foods called “organic” cannot be treated with any synthetic pesticides, sewage sludge, bioengineering or ionizing radiation.

Next, memorize the “Dirty Dozen.”  Organic foods generally cost more because of the cost of labor-intensive farming practices necessary to replace the lack of pesticide used.  So if you can’t afford to buy all organic produce, the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) lists these 12 fruits and vegetables as the most susceptible to pesticide residue which should be purchased in organic form: celery, peaches, strawberries, apples, domestic blueberries, nectarines, sweet bell peppers, spinach, cherries, kale, potatoes, and imported grapes. The EWG also lists a group of 15- aka the “Clean Fifteen”- fruits and vegetables that are likely to have the fewest pesticide residues, so you may skip buying the organic versions of these if the budget doesn’t allow for it: onions, avocado, frozen sweet corn, pineapples, mango, frozen sweet peas, asparagus, kiwifruit, cabbage, eggplant, cantaloupe, watermelon, grapefruit, sweet potatoes, and honeydew melon.

Last, consider some generic money-saving ideas.  Buy in bulk when possible, and clip coupons from the Sunday paper or from online coupon sites.  Compare prices between fresh and frozen, dried and canned variations of organic foods.  Shop grocery chains that feature their own organic brand.  Join an organic food co-op if there is one available in your community.  Shop and eat locally by purchasing produce at Farmer’s Markets, or subscribe to a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) organization available at a local farm. Or, get the family involved and go one step further by planting and preserving your own organic produce grown in a backyard garden. The keys to eating organic on a budget are knowledge and creativity.  For more ideas and inspirations, visit www.organic.org.  For additional information on the specific distinction between the use of the terms “organic” and “all natural,” see our blog article titled, “Organic v. All Natural.”