Air Gardens

I have been posting a lot recently about the many new techniques and inventions that make gardening and homegrown food easy and accessible for people that live in large cities or don’t have access to a real garden. Well this one tops them all. It is a futuristic method of growing that looks very high-tech but is easy to do and relatively affordable.

The basic idea of the Aero Grow product is a garden that can fit in your small apartment or home because it doesn’t use soil or hydroponics. Instead this little garden is just 16 x 9.5 x 11.8 inches and weighs only twelve pounds. I stumbled upon this great innovation in gardening when I visited my grandmother who is at least 80 years old over Thanksgiving. Hopefully this gives you an idea of how labor intensive this product is. Anyways, she has one in her home and as she put it “It like the planters you would imagine a spaceship to have. You don’t even need to water them, it’s all on autopilot.”

I have to hand it to her; this really does sum up the aero garden. The product uses a design in which plant roots are suspended in a high humidity and high oxygen chamber that also regulates nutrient levels through the mist in the chamber. The inventor and now CFO of the product Michael Bissonnette spent years (since 2002) in the testing phase before finally perfecting the idea. The idea was to create a completely self-sufficient garden system that runs on it’s own internal timers and requires very minimal effort. The Aero Grow website even claims that the product produces plants that are more rich in nutrients than soil grown plants because of the completely automated nutrient and oxygen regulators.

Admittedly I can’t quite afford one myself yet. Although there are several different sizes, they are all over $70 bucks but for most people I think that’s not too bad. With the cost of the seed pods which you have to buy from the company and shipping, getting started with “classic” model will cost you around $104. But with Christmas around the corner it might be time to splurge on a great new addition to your home.

Makes You Think a little about all these new Ad campaigns

Today’s consumer culture is changing. This is obvious right? Though we are still emerged in a culture that is founded on the capitalism of yesterday we are beginning to see a new economic movement towards the merging of two seemingly opposing forces—consumption and charity.

Though capitalism is founded on the principle that the living you earn is for your own personal use the idea of sustainable consumption has taken hold and is beginning to change the way we think about buying. The joining of consumption and charity is a particularly interesting topic within the context of sustainability because it through the avenue of consumption that many sustainable projects have taken off.

Lets get down to earth for a minuet, literally. What I’m talking about is the fact that Starbucks, Wal-Mart and many other big corporate businesses as well as small businesses everywhere have begun to make considerable efforts to market their products as “sustainable.” Other times there is a certain percentage of your purchase that gets donated to a charity thus giving consumers the feeling that they are “doing there part” by buying certain product over others. In the simplest sense they are praying on our guilty conscience and making us feel like we can contribute to good causes by consuming.

So what’s the big deal? This is a little manipulative but ultimately it benefits those in need and the earth right? Well maybe. According to some people like Slavo Zizek, a noted philosopher and cultural theorist, this phenomenon is exactly what is keeping us from realizing the flaws of the current capitalist system. Basically we are bandaging a problem and putting it out of mind by doing small things that seem to help the problem. What happens then is that the problem doesn’t get fixed it only gets worse until it is too late and global warming is at our doorstep. It is an interesting conundrum. This illustrated version of Zizek’s argument helps put it all in perspective.

Gaia Soil

Until recently I was (and I bet you were too) under the imperession that styrofoam was the least sustainable product created by man. In fact styrofoam has gotten such a bad wrap from environmental campaigns that I was thought it was literally only good for polluting the world and keeping my Chinese take-out food warm until it arrived at my door. I was wrong.

This past week I was working in the native plant garden of Union Square when I noticed that the soil was littered with little bits of Styrofoam. At first I was extremely discourage. Then, when I told my supervisor about this I was shocked when she informed me that in fact, styrofoam is an essential part of a new innovation in soil techonology called “Gaia soil.”

The idea of Gaia soil was created by Paul S. Mankiewicz to solve the problem of rooftop gardens being too heavy to be supported by many roofs. The significance of Gaia soil is thus two fold. It is an innovation in urban gardening because it allows less structurally sound roofs to facilitate gardens. On top of this it uses what is usually nothing more than a landfill’s dream substance, Styrofoam, by turning it into a useful material.

So how exactly how does Styrofoam become useful for green roofs? The thing about Styrofoam is that it is an extremely light material. Thus it makes what would be extremely dense and heavy soil lighter and therefore more suitable for roofs. Unfortunatley you cannot just pepper Styrofoam into your soil and throw it on your roof because Styrofoam on its own has properities that makes it repel water (hydrophobia) and thus your soil will dry out. However it can be treated so that it takes on the opposite qualities. When this happens the Styrofoam becomes a both a means of making soil lighter but also acting as a water retention agent which s important for rooftop gardens because they are often exposed to lots of wind.

I guess I should be completely honest and make it clear that you can’t simply start putting your old Styrofoam into the garden—your plants will die. Making styrofoam hydrophilic (“water-loving”) isn’t a simple process but, if done properly does make it a super useful product for green roofs. Ultimately it’s actually just crazy to think that we can make a something that is as indestructible and unsustainable as Styrofoam then turn around and use it to grow plants.

Anyways if you want to here if from a Pro here is the man himself.

Powering a Fridge with Fire?

It would seem that by living in the developed world we are inherently harming the environment. Yes, we live in cities and apartment buildings and are surrounded by infrastructure that defiantly effects our environment and probably does so negatively. But, in today’s world, we have the options to make our impact minimal. Civilizations have been moving towards better technologies for a long time because they allow us convenience and (arguably) a better quality of life. While I will be the first to admit to skepticism about the actual quality of life being improved by technology and development, there is no doubt that the lives of those in developed countries are more “comfortable.” My question is why can’t the technology that allows us the luxuries we are now accustomed to also be good for the environment. Are convenience and sustainability directly opposed?

With this in mind, I was shocked to come to the realization after learning that of the 6.9 billion people on this earth about 1.6 billion don’t have access to electricity. This means that they don’t have refrigeration something I think we all taken for granted today. Think about it for a second cause it should blow your mind. If you didn’t have refrigeration you probably wouldn’t have many of the things your buy at the grocery store. Milk, cheese, and most meat can only keep for a few days on their own which means that they probably wouldn’t be a part of your diet—they would be more hassle than anything. Condiments and any other perishables wouldn’t be available. It would be really difficult to have the diverse and healthy food options we enjoy today because everything would have to be immediately consumed.

The solution to this problem is obvious: provide electricity to all the people in the world who don’t have it. Or so I thought. While this would be nice, it would ultimately be an unsustainable solution to the problem. Instead, as I learned from Adam Grosser the solution is the absorption refrigerator, a device that doesn’t require electricity but fire—something that is common throughout the world. The device works by heating a chamber that is filled with a “working liquid” (water and ammonium) that will later condense and cool the device so that it acts as a refrigerator. This is the most basic principle so if you are interested read up on it.

I think it is clear that beyond this being a very cool innovation it is an extremely sustainable and useful tool for bringing technology and convenience to those without electricity. It is this type of invention that we as members of the first world must be striving to bring into existence. Through these inventions we can narrow the gap between the impoverished and the wealthy and help those in the world with less than ourselves an ideal I think we can all agree is important.

View from the Top: Window Farming

How often do you find yourself sitting in the living room of your modest Brooklyn apartment chatting with your roommates about how important the environment is, why organic and local foods are better, essentially enumerating the many reasons to be sustainable and healthy. Discussion soon turns to how great it would be to move to a farm and grow your own food and how the rural holistic life would be ideal. Then the conversation ends and you are back in Brooklyn, in your apartment in a city, surrounded by plaster and concrete and steel but you don’t even notice these things anymore. What happens to those fantasies of surrounding yourself with plants and nature and growth? They fly away in the chaotic whirlwind that is life in this city. They are too far away to holdfast in our minds and instead you fixate on something more tangible –closer to home.

What if instead of letting these thoughts float away until the next time you sit down and reflect on our lives in a massive city, you did something in your small little apartment to bridge the gap between these two worlds. Could you somehow bring some part of the rural world, some sense of growth and greenery into the cold grinding city that harbors the dreams of artists and business people alike? I believe that with a little time and interest this merging of worlds is entirely possible.

One common approach to the idea of bringing vegetation into your life is a garden. Urban gardens are a great way to live the city life with the satisfaction of watching plants grow and getting a little closer to the farm life ideal. Unfortunately, urban gardens take a lot of work and starting them can be relatively costly. Whether you want to grow in planters or in soil is another important consideration. In many urban environments such as New York City the soil in the ground is actually filled with lead residue from industrial plants that contaminate water. This means that growing vegetables is practically impossible or if you do grow them, you cannot eat them. Still the thing that makes urban gardens most difficult is space. Anyone living in an apartment knows that while talking about urban gardens in nice, it’s simply an impossible feat. There is no room.

So without space or money how is one to make any considerable move towards having and keeping plants in your home. Think simple and intuitive. Where is there access to sunlight in your apartment? What materials are similar to pots but aren’t expensive or hard to find? How might you utilize the space in your apartment even though you only have 600 sq feet of floor space?

Answer these questions correctly and you have the brilliant innovation that is sweeping the sustainable community Window Farming! The idea is perfect for homes or apartments with no backyard, little money to start growing and who want the freedom and peace of mind to grow vegetables at home. To start will cost about $125 which is a small price to pay for fresh home grown greens. This is because the project uses easy and cheap materials like plastic water bottles and tubing. Space is also taken care of because of the vertical design of the window farm. As long as you have a window that has access to sunlight for a good portion of the day, there is practically nothing stopping you bringing the farmer mentality and aesthetic right into your cramped New York City home.

Check out this website for directions on how to start your Window Farm.

The Real Price of Organic Farming

After a brief investigation into the technical differences between organic and conventional farming practices last week I think it is apparent that organic farms can be sustainable. In fact, many of the studies I cited last week point out that organic farms are often more environmentally friendly than conventional ones. Still, as this article on the Ethicurean rightly observes, there is a price to pay for being organic, and that price might be undesirable labor practices.

Why is this? The answer is that organic farms for the most part use less machinery and chemicals to solve the problems of farming and instead do things by hand. In other words, these farms employ workers to do things like weeding, setting pest traps and keeping animal quarters clean than do conventional farms.

According to this study (PDF form) I found by the University of Maine, hired-labor is one of the two factors that make organic dairy farming so expensive compared to conventional methods. It also notes that organic farms use considerably more hired-labor than non-organic farms.

What does this mean? It means that while organic farms may be a good move towards sustainable farming they are still a costlier one. Because organic farms require a lot of labor they are generally more expensive to maintain and that is one reason that organic food costs so much. The increased labor demands of an organic farm can also result in practices that are out of line with human rights ideals and labor union groups. Because organic farms have to compete with farms that have significantly lower labor needs, they often employ non-unionized and immigrant labor which is cheaper overall than union workers. This study (PDF form) titled “Farm Labor Conditions on Organic Farms in California” showed me that the average non-organic farm provided better benefits and wages to its workers than did organic farms of the same scale. The question we have to ask is can organic farms be both sustainable and humane?

After reading up about the issue of labor in organic farming I was naturally a little discouraged to find that human rights and sustainable organic practices were in some senses at odds with one another. However, I was excited to stumble upon the Swanton Berry Farm in Davenport, which is the only organic strawberry farm in the country that has a contract with the United Farm Workers Union.

Their statement on the issue of labor which can be found here on their website is one that makes the difficulty of working within the parameters of both organic and humane work practice sound easy. Furthermore it shows that even though the difficulty may in fact be great, it can be done and there is no question that it is the right thing to do.

Can We Go Organic Sustainably

Think about that fact that when you walk into the grocery store that offers both organic and conventional options the organic ones always cost more. Why is this? Advocates claim that organic produce, because it is unexposed to chemical pesticides and has not been pumped with growth hormones is cleaner and better for you, which although it has been contested sounds like a good argument but does it mean we should be paying more?

I’m concerned that too little of the public’s attention has been directed, toward the relationship between organic farms and the sustainability movement. Food safety and sustainability are two movements happening today that in my mind, want a world that has similar standards for human and environmental health, but do their respective practices actually line up? Often critics (like ones noted in this article) of organic produce will claim that organic farms have smaller and less efficient yields and are ultimately worse for the environment than conventional farms. It seems like the question is up in the air so I decided to do some investigating.

First of all, I think it is easy for people to believe (without knowing) that organic farms require more energy and effort than conventional farms because they have to pay more for organic produce. What is being misunderstood is that even though organic farms have different methods of coping with the hardships of farming like disease and nitrogen resources they have methods that work. This article uses a table shown here explain the methods of each type of farm.

If you do a little research, it’s clear from the variety of studies on energy costs of organic farming that the issue has not escaped the lens of the academic microscope. Cornell University, a top dog in the agricultural studies world put out this study in which Dr. David Pimentel, a professor of ecology and agriculture, states "Organic farming approaches for these crops not only use an average of 30 percent less fossil energy but also conserve more water in the soil, induce less erosion, maintain soil quality and conserve more biological resources than conventional farming does,” Other studies have made similar assertions.

So if all the experts say organic is more efficient and you can sell organic food for more, what stops all the farms from going organic? The answer is labor. An organic farm while it does have innovative solutions to the problems of farming sometimes those solutions require a lot more labor than conventional farms. For example, a conventional farm deals with the problem of invasive species of weeds by spraying chemical herbicides that prevent those weeds from growing and hurting crop yields.

Organic farms, which don’t want to use these, have to hand weed or mulch, which costs a lot compared to the spray on weed killers. Ultimately it becomes a numbers game, and from observation alone it seems that more often than not, the conventional farm wins. In the end, it’s not all wrong to believe that the cost of organic food reflects the effort put into growing it. What is doesn’t mean is that it is less efficient or out of line with the move towards sustainability, which is a happy notion. It would be a shame to see the two movements towards sustainability and organic farming pitted against each other when their worldviews seem to match up so well.

If you are still curious here are some more articles on the matter:

1. http://food.change.org/blog/view/organic_farming_can_feed_the_world

2. http://www.hodgeslab.org/2008/05/organic_farming_efficiency.html

3. http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html

What is Local Food

In the past decade the eye of the health food world however has become exceedingly skeptical of almost anything we eat. Still is has long been know (at least since the mid 1930’s when Popeye began devouring spinach to keep his strength up in comics) that produce has the vital elements we need for good nutrition. When the health food craze first began, it immediately took to the notion that organic produce was healthier because it has uncontaminated by artificial pesticides and chemicals. Now however there is a new push within the food community that contends that locally grown food is the way to go.

The first question relevant to the issue is what exactly constitutes a local food. There have been definitions provided by various sources, which might help pin down what is meant by local but still the issue is clearly up for debate. For example, the U.S. Congress stated in the 2008 Farm Actthat a food could be considered locally produced if it meets one or both of the following conditions:

· (I) The locality or region in which the final product is marketed, so that the total distance that the product is transported is less than 400 miles from the origin of the product; or

· (II) The State in which the product is produced.

This seems like an authoritative definition for what is local; still it might not actually capture what is meant by a local food. It has also been defined here as “food that is grown in a local area, supporting a local economy." By this definition, there is no way that a food grown at the bottom of Texas and shipped to the northern most point would be considered local, and maybe it shouldn’t be. Another article on the matter by Sarah DeWeerdt found here suggests that local food is food grown within a 100-mile range of its consumers.

She cites Alisa Smith and J.B. MacKinnon who claim in their book “The 100-Mile Diet” “that “a 100-mile radius is large enough to reach beyond a big city and small enough to feel truly local.” Truthfully there is no consensus about what it means to be local. However, it can be said that the movement towards local food is one that is concerned with a few things: food quality, transportation distance, local economies and sustainability. With these things in mind it might be said that local food is food that travels the least and best promotes local economy while remaining environmentally and sustainably conscious. This is still only a functional definition, as it can’t be used to determine the “locality” of a given food. But on the other hand it might be moving towards thinking about local food on a case-by-case basis which would mean that calculating the locality of a food would be much more than finding out how far away from it’s consumers it is being grown.

Of course it would then become a debate about what factors should be considered other than proximity. Obviously proximity would be near the top of the list showing that the definitions given by Congress and "The 100-Mile Diet" are good places to start.

For more on local food, check out this video with Ken Meter.

Journal

What is the most appropriate way to cover the news about the mosque near ground zero without missing or omitting information that gives a truthful account of the debate. More importantly how is it possible to write with the biases we have about the situation?

After pouring over several articles about the proposed new mosque I have gotten a better idea about how exactly reporters and journalists are treating this issue. It is clear that there is a large difference between how different publications write this story. Many factors must be taken into consideration when writing this story and it is clear that such a multitude of factors makes each story on it unique. For example, the New York Times, has a very different angle than the Guardian on this issue. I can only guess that perhaps the fact that the NY times is based in New York where the news is happening they have a very in depth look at the situation in there publication. The Guardian on the other hand is writing for an audience at least once removed from this news, even if it is only the result of their physical distance. To give more concrete examples of what I am referring too, the NY times has put out at least one article a day updating the news on the situation and following different threads of information to their sources. The NY/Region section of the Times, as well as the local news publications like the New York Post have are flooded with the intricate details of the situation. On the other hand, the Guardian has run only three big stories that really deal with the mosque debate since the anniversary ceremony. This seems to tell me that news, no matter how globally relevant, will for the most part be concentrated in the area that its effects most directly. This may seem like the most obvious statement but it hits upon a facet of journalism that I am just discovering.

There is another point that I found interesting in the way that the story is written stylistically. The Guardian, as compared with the times and the post has a very different approach to writing about the mosque. To begin, there are more willing to take risks in there writing. Which is good because it makes clear their angle and bias. For example in his story, Charlie Brooker, writes about how Americans are very upset about something that actually doesn't exist yet. In a kind of poking way, he seems to be getting at the fact that we are caught up in a debate of principle. His point clear enough but he is able to mediate his bias with statements like "I'm exaggerating. But I'm only exaggerating a tad more than some of the professional exaggerators who initially raised objections to the "Ground Zero mosque". They keep calling it the "Ground Zero mosque", incidentally, because it's a catchy title that paints a powerful image – specifically, the image of a mosque at Ground Zero.". These explanations of his own writing as a response to the words and writings of others makes more clear his purpose for writing and thus his bias is no longer hidden but available to be taken into consideration by readers. In contrast to the way the Guardian has been running stories, I feel like it is pretty clear that the NY times and the NY post both feel like there are walking on thin ice and thus have to publish only the facts. In the article titled "Iran cash might fund Ground Zero mosque" There is very little that can be said to have any explicit bias or voice. The reporting is highly factual and for the most part dry. This might be the best way to cover the story, but I can't help feel as though they are hiding an agenda. Perhaps it is only hidden in the sense that they are choosing which information to give you and which is to be withheld. Either way I liked the way the Guardian was willing to attack the issue and make more real attempts at connecting the dots of the situation. In this sense, even though the Guardian ran fewer stories about the issue, their articles truly seemed to cut to the core of it rather than, as was the case with the NY Times, who wrote at ton about the issue in a way that was relatively incohesive as a way of getting the bigger picture.
These of course are only my personal sentiments on the reading I have done, and I have not read every single article on the issue from any of the above mentioned papers. However, after carefully sifting through at least 3 articles from all three papers I felt that the Guardian did the most apt job at giving me the news.