food vs. fuel, number two?

since we've been talking about sources of fuel across the country and different environments which support the various renewable energies, I thought I might add a fuel source that works in virtually any environment that could be utilized in every region...

you don't need fancy equipment, cellulosic converters or large amounts of space to produce it. It doesn't even require much time or labor- unless you count tossing your food scraps into a seperate container and occasionally aerating the soil "work".

We're talking compost. It's simple, it's a free source of plant nutrients for those front bushes at your house, your indoor houseplant, or even for a gardening friend or compost collector (some farms are willing to take donated compost to grow their crops). It can significantly decrease your tossed waste... and works anywhere that food is produced!

while we're at it, why not take a look at making actual fuel from food scraps?

This article adresses a process some Vermont farmers are already using, where anaerobic composting is used to produce methane gas, which can be burned (and still leaves the compost usable). These farmers tend to use cow manure, which has a lower energy value than food scraps; working a combination of these two compostable sources of energy may create a better source of fuel... although this process may not provide the bang for its buck in rural areas, it could be a way for more urban farms to follow a "zero-waste strategy".

a simple alteration

It's all the rage to have a "reusable," "earth-friendly", canvas or recycled plastic bag these days to use for groceries, library books, and anything you might need a disposable bag for.
I happen to have a few that I take to the grocery store. But it struck me when I last used them that nearly everything was wrapped in plastic- the bag of apples, carrots, the nuts, the bread, and all the produce, which I seperate into smaller plastic bags to weigh before plopping them into the grocery cart...
I throw away wads of these produce bags- normally, I tear into them instead of untying the knot, meaning they can't be used again... but if I saved a few that I just put back into the reusable bags each time I visit, I would be saving a LOT of excess plastic.
.. I have also found that if you fold the bags up (really, it could be any thin plastic) long-wise, and then cut them into strips and knot them together, you can make a "fiber"- a long thread of plastic that can be wound into a ball... It gives me my own way to recycle the material- and for all those who know any fiber art (think crochet/knitting), you've got free source of yarn that's not getting tossed into the dumpster.
here's a blog that shows the process I'm talking about.

food vs. fuel

here's an interesting comparison chart relevant to our recent discussions in class:

We've been talking about various renewable sources of energy, which brings up the food vs. fuel debate.

at what point does growing food for biomass (biofuels) take away from growing food for people who can't get enough (the homeless/hungry in our own country as well as third-world countries without sustainable food production)?

Here's a PDF from the institute for agriculture and trade policy about the production of ethanol and the issue of aggravating hunger/poverty. It claims that the US production of biofuels will NOT further hunger/poverty... while this article seems to feel the benefit of this technology is debatable.
I think that the production of biofuels have the potential to work, but currently the process is unsustainable. In the next few years, however, I sense an onslaught of technology for alterative energy sources... But clearing miles and miles of excess land to grow ethanol (the current amount of US crop land, as seen in the chart, isn't even close to meeting half our energy needs) is simply adding onto the problem..

time for a little congressional action (HR 875)

I recently recieved a spammish, fowarded email about "a bill to outlaw organic farming".
really, now? I couldn't help but do some research on something that seemed so absurd. Ignoring the fact that I support organic/local/small-scale farming, doing something so radical would spur negative media attention (especially now that "green living" is on most American's to-do lists) .

so, here goes...

The U.S. House and Senate are about to vote on a bill called the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009. Among other things, it claims to want to increase food safety by creating a "Food Safety Administration", and establishing rules rules rules for the creation, processing, and distribution of food.
Instead of summarizing the whole thing, I'll mention a couple of things that caught my eye.


In section 3, it defines "FOOD PRODUCTION FACILITY- The term ‘food production facility’ means any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation". Following this vague definition, any food production facility could include someone's backyard garden as well as small farmers and larger corperations. This would mean that anyone who grew their own food would need to register and pay fees (Sec. 202. a. In General- Any food establishment or foreign food establishment engaged in manufacturing, processing, packing, or holding food for consumption in the United States shall register annually with the Administrator.) hmmm...

It goes on and on about hazards, safety, contamination... and then I find in one little section in 206.c.3. regulations which "include, with respect to growing, harvesting, sorting, and storage operations, minimum standards related to fertilizer use, nutrients, hygiene, packaging, temperature controls, animal encroachment, and water".... Woah, wait a minute! I can logically understand the hygiene, animal encroachment, everything but minimum standards for fertilizer... A few immediate consequences pop into mind- more Nitrates, for example, pumping into waterways, affecting the health of ecosystems and having the potential to affect human health. This seems contradictory when they define "CONTAMINANT- The term ‘contaminant’ includes a bacterium, chemical, natural toxin or manufactured toxicant, virus, parasite, prion, physical hazard, or other human pathogen that when found on or in food can cause human illness, injury, or death" and "HAZARDOUS CONTAMINATION- The term ‘hazardous contamination’ refers to the presence of a contaminant in food at levels that pose a risk of human illness, injury, or death or are capable of reaching levels that pose such risk during the shelf life of the product". Although it is much more difficult to pose a threat to human health through excessive fertilizer use, the environment recieves a much greater impact.... WHY is a hazardous material one which only damages HUMAN health? One farm's run-off could kill off an entire river ecosystem without being "hazardous"...

seems to be like this bill benefits to large-scale coorperations the greatest- who have a much easier time paying fees, recieving inspections, using mass-produced cleaners, pesticides, etc. which have been dictated for use... I like a good bit of this bill, but I can't ignore some of these "slips"- amendments, anyone?
check out this website, which allows you to follow a bill through congress, comment on specific sections, and read what other people have to say about it.
oh. and interested? try contacting congressman Spencer Bachus (local office number 969-2296 and Washington office number 202-225-4921). or senator Jeff Sessions at 202-224-4124 and senator Richard C. Shelby at 202-224-5744.