What I Learned This Summer
One
of the benefits of being an academic is the opportunity to spend time during
the summer catching up on work put off during the hectic semesters. This
summer, outside of studying for a big Scrabble¨ tournament, performing a bunch
of home maintenance jobs, and prepping a space downtown for a new community
center (more on this project in an upcoming essay), I got a chance to read a couple
books, watch a few films, and attend two conferences/workshops. Let me share
some of the things I learned.
Early in the summer I got a chance to watch a
documentary on corn—entitled, King Korn (put out by Mosaic Films Inc.)—and to reread,
much more closely than I did the first time, An OmnivoreÕs Dilemma, by Michael Pollan. Both of these works shed
substantial light on how industrial agriculture works in the 21st
century. And while both confirmed my previous learnings, they expanded on them
with historical background and real world examples that the writer and the auteurs
(i.e., film makers) experienced while creating their educational works. Here
are a few things made pretty clear by these projects:
(1)
Corn and soy farmers cannot make a living without huge government subsidies.
The price of either (by the bushel) is so cheap now that most are compelled to maximize
the size of the farm and minimize labor costs (through the use of chemicals,
monocultures, and large equipment), though both actions put farmers in greater
debt and make them more reliant on multinational corporations.
(2)
The bulk of the calories that we consume ultimately come from corn and soy
fields, such as the ones that surround Galesburg. Whether they be meals
prepared at fast food ÒhamburgerÓ joints, high-fructose laden soft and ÒfruitÓ
drinks, food additives, alcohol (in beer), or even a tofu burger, almost
everything comes from corn and soy. Actually, it is fairly easy to find out
where ones food comes from. There are scientific tests that can determine the
source of the carbon isotopes Tests of this sort on the flesh of Americans
reveal that we are huge corn consumers.
(3)
The age of the animals that are eaten today has gotten younger and younger. A
typical steer goes from 80 pounds to 1,100 pounds in a mere 14 months. Hens get
to market in a mere 7 to 9 weeks after birth! How do animals grow so fast?
Well, they are stuffed full of corn (something cows are not built to eat),
protein (often coming from other animals—something many people think has
ended, but hasnÕt), and an arsenal of drugs.
Interesting points, but so what? Well, if farmers
canÕt make a living unless the government highly subsidizes their operations,
donÕt you think this makes our entire agricultural system very shaky? What if
the government wasnÕt able to provide these subsidies? What if subsidies were
shifted to a more diverse and healthier assortment of crops instead? Are the
high rates of suicide in farming communities a sign of economic hardship driven
by the ever increasing size of ÒfamilyÓ farms? Does the fact that we eat mostly
corn and soy limit the vitamins and micronutrients found in our diets? Have we
considered the implications of a highly simplified diet for our nationÕs
people? DonÕt you wonder what impact all this pumping of animals with improper
food which is dosed with hormones, antibiotics, and pesticides has on our
bodies? These are just a few questions I am left thinking about after reading
and watching these amazingly informative works. Check them out and share the
questions that you have afterwards with the rest of us.
Another movie that I watched was Who Killed the
Electric Car? Though I had heard
about electric cars (which made their way on to the California highways in the
late-1990s) and I was intrigued by the provocative title, I surely wasnÕt
prepared for all that was revealed in its 92 minutes.
Legislation
passed in the 1990Õs in California required a certain percentage of motor
vehicles to be zero-emission (ZEV). Mandated to action, a few manufacturers
began providing electric cars on a limited basis to consumers. Oddly enough, the
cars could only be leased, not sold. And a few years later, when the leases
were expiring, drivers of the ZEVs were not allow to resign their lease or
purchase the vehicles outright. General Motors took the vehicles back and, as
the film shows, had them destroyed (literally crushed) even though they were
fully functional.
According
to many of those that leased the ZEV vehicles, the electric cars were very
desirable. First, they didnÕt emit dangerous gases. Two, they were very quiet
and comfortable. Three, they has very good pick up, nothing like is often
depicted; they were faster from 0-60 mph than most cars on the road. Four, they
were less demanding on a fuel budget; a Toyota RAV4 EV purportedly cost 60
cents a gallon to operate and didnÕt need tune ups or motor oil. And five, they
required no gas; they could be recharged
by plugging them in during the evening hours in a home garage. The primary
weakness of these ZEVs were their limited range; they had to be recharged every
60-160 miles (the range depending on specific vehicle and battery
used—the later built cars could travel more than 100 miles between
charges. Battery experts are quoted in the movie saying that recent
technological upgrades would allow this electric cars to go over 300 miles
between recharges. Why is it that electronic gadgets are being revolutionized
every 6-months but the combustion engine hasnÕt seemed to improve in 30+ years?
One wonders.
After
watching cars be taken from willing buyers and witnessing the demolition of
perfectly good vehicles directed by automobile companies, one gets the distinct
feeling that we, the consumers, are being suckered. It should be no surprise
that automobile companies might go out of their way to insure that highly
efficient, gasoline-independent cars do not catch on. Obviously, if they did,
this would mean much smaller profits for Big Oil. What do Big Oil and
automobile manufacturers have in common, you may ask? Well, two historical
events provide demonstrable evidence that they have colluded before. Beginning
in the 1920s, automobile magnets decided that the trolley car system (which
depended on rails in cities) had to go. They worked tirelessly with the help of
leaders in the oil industry to get one metropolitan city after another to
disband its trolley system. (Edwin BlackÕs recent book, Internal Combustion:
How Corporations and Governments Addicted the World to Oil and Derailed the
Alternatives—2006; St. MartinÕs
Press—provides a detailed look into this topic.) Also, beginning in the 1920s, heads of
oil and automobile companies forced the use of the fuel additive, tetra-ethyl
lead, into most motor vehicles. This unnecessary venture (which was dictated by
massive profiteering) caused tens of millions of lead poisonings over the next
60 years (and is still doing so in many parts of the world that continue to use
lead in their gasoline—according to The Lead Group, more than a quarter
billion people are still exposed to lead that is still emitted by road vehicle
use). (For more on lead, read Jamie KitmanÕs ÒThe Secret History of LeadÓ
published in The Nation in 2000.) With
these two events as reference points, it isnÕt surprising at all that these two
powerful industries would currently be involved in activities that are
antithetical to advancing clean and efficient energy technologies to the
general public. In fact, we should be more surprised if they werenÕt so
involved. As it is impossible to capture in words the power and force of the
revelations presented in a movie of this sort, readers are strongly encouraged
to watch this documentary on their own and to follow that up with action, if so
moved.
Earlier
this month, I had the opportunity to attend the 2nd Annual
Sustainable University Symposium sponsored by Illinois Green Government
Coordination Council and Lt. Governor Pat Quinn. During this one day event, speakers
from the public and private sector presented on various ventures and
opportunities they have been involved with to make institutions of higher
education more environmentally responsible and economically sound. Though
normally thought of as mutually exclusive concepts, these two goals have been
demonstrated to be compatible in many recent projects. For example, St. Xavier
University (in the suburbs of Chicago) recently built a LEED gold certified
dorm for $9 million; LEED is a building rating system that evaluates the
environmental principles and practices of construction projects. According to the Association for the
Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education, ÒThe 88-bed residence hall
includes carpeting made of recycled plastics, a roof with 1,000 square feet of
low-maintenance plants for heating and cooling retention, and dual-flush
toilets. 90 percent of the building's lighting comes from natural sources; and
the heating units are 90 percent more efficient and 50 percent smaller than
more traditional units. In addition, 100 percent of the building's power
consumption are generated from renewable energy sources.Ó Other schools are
changing the permeability of their parking lots, so when it rains, their lots
and sewers donÕt get overburdened—the water just works its way to the
soil underneath, something allowed by new paving materials. Other schools,
including Knox College, are being much more thoughtful about the settings on
building thermostats—not overheating/overcooling areas and paying
particular attention to spaces that are uninhabited for part of the day.
There are
several reasons why these projects are economically sound while still being
environmentally responsible. In some cases, there are savings made because the
environmentally preferred option requires less maintenance; for instance, the
safer chemicals which can be used to strip the floors in a classroom lessen the
frequency of stripping (i.e., lengthening the time interval between stripping
jobs). In other cases, the savings accrue because less waste is produced with
the more environmental sound option; for instance, using air driers, rather
than paper towels in bathroom facilities. Lastly, most projects are
economically preferred because the energy savings which accrue over time. Many
existing buildings on campuses where built during a period when some ÒexpertsÓ
projected that future energy costs would minimal. Hence, they are often very
inefficient and huge energy gluttons. Hence, there is a lot of room for
improvement and some schools are recognizing this. In fact, most of our homes also
have lots of room for improvement in this area. The American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy (www.aeee.com) and
the Department of EnergyÕs Energy Star Program (www.energystar.gov) have lots of tips of
how each one of us can make our home more energy efficient.
During the summer, I also had a chance to read the
brilliant economics book, Small is Beautiful by E.F. Schumacher. Published more than 30 years ago
now, it still makes more sense than nearly everything one hears about economics
on television. (I just hope those born after the book was published, i.e.,
1973, will have the fortune to be exposed to its wisdom.) In July, I attended a
one-day workshop on solar energy, sponsored by I-Renew (the Iowa Renewable
Energy Assocation; www.irenew.org). It was
very informative and I learned many things. Probably the most revealing message
I took from the experience was: if one installs solar panels on their home and
produces more energy than one uses, the electric company isnÕt obligated to pay
the owner for this ÒextraÓ energy. In this regard, wind energy, where
legislation exists in some states which requires energy companies to buy energy
from Òconsumers,Ó has a big advantage. Given how much cleaner solar energy
production is than fossil fuels, doesnÕt it make sense that if you provide clean,
usable energy for our society, you should be compensated? Another idea made
clear from the event was the utter lack of education on the subject of solar
energy in our country. I learned more about the topic in a six hour workshop
than I learned in four years of high school and ten years of college. Might not
this be one of our biggest obstacles? I left thinking that if more students
were educated about the subject, and government subsides were shifted to
renewable energies, there would be a huge windfall of skilled jobs available to
our citizens. Currently, most jobs related to solar are overseas.
So, there you have it. I learned quite a bit these
last three months. As always, new information is always coming forward and it
always seems like I am behind on my reading. What things did you learn this
summer that have an environment bent? I would be excited to hear about them.
Peter Schwartzman (email: pschwart@knox.edu) is associate professor
and chair of the Environmental Studies Program at Knox College. He is a
climatologist with publications in the area of climate change and human
population growth. An avid Scrabble¨ player, he is also the founder and
maintainer of a website dedicated to peace and empowerment (www.onehuman.org), natural spaces (www.blackthornhill.org), and clean air and
energy (www.chicagocleanpower.org).
08/30/07