Addiction may be defined as a “Compulsive physiological and psychological need for a habit-forming substance.” The subject of addiction has been explored and debated for many decades. We have come a long way in recognizing, understanding, and treating people with addictions of all sorts, but one thing is for sure, no therapist or society can eliminate addiction from the human condition. Most experts agree that you cannot truly help a friend or loved one through their addictive crisis until they are first ready to admit that there is a problem. This admission is an important first step because, clearly, why would anyone willingly remove a pleasurable part of their life unless they view it from the vantage point of having an ultimately negative or harmful result.
Still, as vital as the admission may be, it is only the first step on a long journey towards recovery and independence, a journey that will doubtlessly have many pitfalls along the way. However, well before any individual names their addiction or admits to its detrimental effects there is an awareness of an underlying fear that lurks just below the surface of their brash facade; a fear born from the supposition that the loss of a certain delight will cause immediate and possibly long lasting suffering to some small part of themselves that has been so carefully hidden and smothered behind the veil of normalcy.
I think it safe to say that we all have an addiction of one kind or another that gets us through the day. These may range from caffeine to chocolate to gambling to sex, but whatever our vice may be it is largely a question of degree that distinguishes the casual user from the dangerous addict who may go on to ruin themselves, and even their family, in pursuit of their chosen sin. We tend to label this sort of person as having an “addictive personality”. This label, while valid enough, is still a sweeping generalization. It serves us by giving a name to something that needs attention and treatment, thereby allowing motivated people to take the next step forward, but at the same time this label makes the rest of us feel a little bit better about ourselves. After all, we may have our own quirks, compulsions, and cravings but obviously they aren’t interfering with our ability to do our jobs or be good parents, so we must not be addicted – meaning “we could quit whenever we want”.
I’ll never forget a discussion that I had years ago with a close friend who was seeking help for his addiction to alcohol. After much listening I said, “I can understand liking something but I’ve never understood needing it. I guess my mind just doesn’t operate that way”. He countered by saying “Well, try giving up all processed sugar for just one week”. As soon as he said this I a felt a lump form in my throat, it was not that he had stated it as a challenge, but I knew myself well enough to know that I would have to give it a try, and as someone with a sweet tooth I also knew that it wouldn’t be easy. In fact it was harder than I imagined. When we are free to reach for something anytime, anywhere, it doesn’t take such prominence in our thoughts; it is just there for the taking. But as soon as we make a pact with ourselves to eschew this same item from our thoughts, fingers, and mouths it then takes on such colossal proportion that for the first few days it may be hard to focus on anything else.
Expanding the sin tax
Like coffee and alcohol, most food addictions are seen as fairly benign cravings just as long as they can be held in check. Both food and alcohol are associated with sensory pleasures, social interaction, and forgivable over-indulgence at birthdays and holidays. We all enjoy laughing with friends over dinner as we rationalize another piece of cheese cake or one last beer. Nicotine, on the other hand, has come to be thought of as nothing but a killer, “a disgusting habit” that has no reasonable rationalization and no fundamental value. As a culture we feel justified in our almost violent opposition to cigarette smoke because it has been proven, beyond all shadow of doubt, to not only kill the intentional user but also severely damage the lungs of the innocent bystander. Therefore, politicians, teachers, and the public have gone to great lengths to not only keep cigarettes out of the hands of children but also ban them from restaurants, buses, and most public places.
In essence Americans have come to view the cigar and cigarette smoker as a second class citizen who has given up the right to smoke wherever they wish; indeed, by smoking even ten feet away from us they are said to be infringing on our civil rights by forcing us to breathe in their foul smelling, habit causing, noxious fumes. Since cigarette smokers are in the minority they are an easy mark for politicians. Denouncing both the dependency and the industry not only galvanizes support but it often brings in more state revenue through the “sin tax”. When the majority views a habit as an outright sin, with no possible good coming from it, then common sense dictates that the user should pay more, both as a compensation for health care costs and also as an incentive to quit.
In my home state of N.Y. the cigarette tax was recently raised by $1.25, bringing it up to $2.75 per pack, making it the highest in the nation. Overall it was a very popular move, "The cigarette excise tax increase is critical in saving lives and helping us reach our goal of 1 million fewer smokers by 2010," said State Health Commissioner Richard F. Daines, M.D., "We expect the $1.25 cigarette tax increase will prevent more than 243,000 New York kids alive today from ever starting smoking." Whatever our opinion of the sin tax may be statistics have shown that it works. According to the N.Y. State Dept. of Health, “Raising the price of cigarettes is the most effective way to get smokers to quit”.
To be fair and consistent it would then follow that if any product being sold on the open market were proven to be harmful to both the user and the innocent bystander it should merit a higher tax. As we have seen, factory raised livestock has become a lose – lose situation for everyone, with the possible exception of the corporate hierarchy and a few stockholders. While it may be easier to prove the distinctive health problems associated with alcohol or cigarettes, neither of these vices can touch the cumulative aberrations that the livestock industry pushes onto the planet. Additionally, these environmental toxins are not contained within our seas, skies, or soil, the contamination leaches into our bodies through our drinking water, air and food (at this point grain and vegetables as well as meat).
By measuring the level of toxicity in the average American’s blood or the average mother’s breast milk it can be said without exaggeration that the nitrates, dioxins, pesticides, mercury, and a host of other post-industrial chemicals are making their way into our bodies whether we eat an all organic diet or not. It has been shown that more toxins can be found in human breast milk than in any beverage sold in America. It has been also been shown that there are well over one-hundred man made chemicals now present in the human bloodstream that were never even known to us before 1940. Worse yet, tests have shown that even babies under a year old have high levels of chemicals swimming around in their bloodstream. "We are in an epidemic of environmentally mediated disease among American children today," said Dr. Leo Trasande, assistant director of the Center for Children's Health and the Environment at the Mount Sinai Medical Center. "Rates of asthma, childhood cancers, birth defects and developmental disorders have exponentially increased, and it can't be explained by changes in the human genome. So what has changed? All the chemicals we're being exposed to."
While there are obviously many industries that contribute to the adverse health of Americans, the food industry is especially culpable due to the increased scope of their pollutants in recent years and also due to the simple fact that everyone must eat and drink. To cite just one example: dioxin, a known carcinogen, often travels for many miles before settling in ground water or grassy fields. Compared to most toxins, dioxin breaks down very slowly, which is why we find them so often in the fat cells of animals and eventually people. The FDA warns us that “Although dioxin is an environmental contaminant, most dioxin exposure occurs through the diet, with over 95% coming through dietary intake of animal fats (including meat, fish, and dairy)”.
Similar to the cigarette companies, food producers understand that if they don’t win over potential consumers by the time they are young teenagers then they are less prone to buy their products as adults. From cookies to cows, children and parents are constantly bombarded by multi-layered advertising aimed at creating both a taste for an unnecessary food as well the illusion of health. Unlike rum or cigars, most parents will not fill their freezers and cabinets with a food unless there is at least some health rationale. This is why food manufacturers spend billions of dollars each year trying to convince hard to please kids that their food is fun and parents that their food is healthy.
As we all know, cigarettes are cancer causing and immediately damaging to the throat and lungs, which is why the government wisely intervened, passing laws banning television advertising of cigarettes and sales to minors. But consider for a moment what would happen if the manufacturing of cigarettes was found to not only harm the individual but also pollute American communities that bordered the factory. My guess is that policy makers would jump on this opportunity to pass even more stringent laws, either requiring cigarette companies to clean up their plants or stop production altogether. With public sentiment on their side this threat would be both popular and expedient.
When it comes to large scale beef, poultry, and pork producers, however, the very mention by any elected leader of new taxes or increased government regulation creates an onslaught of negative rhetoric coming from a very popular industry. Just as the biggest oil producers spent decades disseminating false information about the link between carbon emissions and global warming, so to has the food industry spent much of their time convincing the public that their factories pose only the most minimal threat to the environment. This rhetoric is believed, in part, because the public wants to believe it. Whereas most people don’t care to believe that cigarettes are healthy, they do have a vested interest in believing that their meat is not only healthy but innocuous. Sadly, this over consumption of animal products makes it very difficult for most Americans to conceive of paying more money for local, organic meat much less take the leap towards vegetarianism. Therefore, if we ever expect to offset the numerous negative effects of our meat based culture we’ll have to begin with some changes to our national food policy.
For the sake of education and fairness, one possible compromise might be for the federal government to require that all packaged meat must be labeled with its origin of production. In the grand scheme of things this is a very small step forward, but if we can look at a small plastic toy and see if it was made in China or the U.S. then why shouldn’t consumers have the right to know if their meat was raised on a factory farm or small local farm. At the very least this initial step will make it possible for all concerned consumers to do a little research of their own and find out how far their meat was shipped and what type of growing methods were used.
Another idea would be to impose the same sin tax on factory farmed meat as we now have on cigarettes. This tax could easily be raised or lowered according to the size of the farm and the average level of industrial pollutants that the farm generates. Not only would this raise state revenue, as with the cigarette tax, but it would motivate corporate farms to clean up their act before a catastrophe occurs.
In recent months the beef and dairy industry was furious and frightened due the governments discussion of a greenhouse gas tax. And even though the EPA claimed to have no interest in taxing beef and dairy farmers the media had a lot of fun ridiculing the government for meddling into the livelihood of the humble, hard working farmers who supply our meat and milk, and who would likely be put out of business if each of their cows were taxed up to $175 for belching and farting. While I agree that small sustainable livestock farms should not be further taxed, especially when they are able to recycle their waste back into the land, there is a lot to be said for taxing the cows raised on CAFO’s. If we limit the new cow tax to factory farms then the price of the meat from these farms will have to rise accordingly. In a bad economy any price hike may sound scary at first, but please consider that the price of local organic meat and dairy remains high simply because these farmers take care to treat their livestock as animals, rather than as plastic. If the price of factory farmed meat and dairy must go up based on a federal tax that would go towards cleaning up the eco-damage that they have been creating for decades, then I am all for it.
For many reasons, a sin tax on factory raised meat will be difficult, yet not impossible, to push through Congress. The main hindrance being the advocates that the beef and dairy industry has in many key states where feedlots are big business and major political supporters. Secondly, this new tax would require many respected dieticians and policy makers to label meat as a health hazard, on par with cigarettes and alcohol. Since most mainstream nutritionists agree that meat has both good and bad points, unless consumed in large quantities, they will be reluctant to label it as an unhealthy food. With a little forethought, however, this point should be easy to refute. Since the real “sin” in eating meat is the way in which it is now being produced, our representatives should be able to look past the argument of whether it is nourishing or not and implement a tax based solely on the health risks we all incur merely by living on earth.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Bottled beverages
The marketing of bottled beverages, with a slant towards the health conscious consumer, is a prime example of how a well intentioned idea can be transformed into a major environmental catastrophe. While there are still a few drinks sold in health food stores that are actually healthy, the vast majority of bottled elixirs are just sweetened water cleverly designed to catch our eye with bright logos and fancy bottles. Aside from the dubious health benefits of the beverage, it is the bottle that is the true culprit on the environmental front. Whether we are considering a bottle of soda or water, the plastic, aluminum, or glass that comes along with the product is generally more costly to produce, and more costly to the health of the planet, than what is inside. The irony being that it is the wealthiest nations, where potable drinking water flows freely from practically every faucet, that spend the most money on bottled water, while poorer areas struggle to find enough water for basic human needs.
We all know that water is as essential to human life as oxygen. Therefore back in the early 1990’s, when beverage companies began a big push to sell bottled water, it could only be viewed as a win-win situation. The theory being that active people should easily be able to rehydrate with the highest quality natural spring water available. By drinking more water it would also cut down on the amount of sugary drinks that are consumed. This theory, along with a massive advertising campaign, worked better than anyone dreamed possible. In just three years, 2002 to 2005, bottled water sales doubled, rising to 30 billion units sold annually (earning over $10 billion in sales by 2006), making it not only one of the fastest growing industries of the past decade but the second largest saleable beverage. The advantage of selling water, without the complication of recipes or ingredients, attracted corporate giants like Coca-Cola and Nestle who were in bad need of a healthy product to compliment their line of sugar based beverages.
So with all the goodness of spring water what could possibly be the problem with more Americans drinking it? Before talking of the myriad environmental concerns, we should take note that in recent years companies like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. have been forced to admit that their bottled water is nothing but purified tap water sourced from public reservoirs. Pepsi’s Aquafina, the best-selling brand, and Coke's Dasani are generally no healthier than the tap water in your own home run through a quality water filter. Additionally, even true spring water can have detrimental health effects due to the transient pollutants in the water or the leaching of chemicals from thin plastic containers into the water, especially when the bottle has been stored at higher than normal room temperatures.
But even if we were to entirely disregard the health argument, the detrimental ecological effects of bottled beverages might be enough to convince us to reduce our dependency. Presently, Americans consume about 8 billion gallons of bottled water per year. Most of the plastic bottles sold are made out of Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic which is a petroleum product and can take up to 1,000 years to decompose. Since PET degrades so slowly the discarded bottles will invariably interact with every sort of eco-system as well as a host of animals, some of them wild and many that humans use as food. Furthermore, producing these bottles for American consumption alone requires more than 17 million barrels of oil (not including the energy for transportation); this is enough oil to fuel over 1.5 million cars annually.
Along with production, the problem of what to do with the billions of containers we use each year has always been a dilemma. While recycling is preferred many view it as a necessary evil, as it is not the magic bullet that some environmentalists would like to imagine. In order to recycle anything we still rely heavily on water and energy. Plus it can be a tough sell to local municipalities as the process itself can be expensive and rarely offsets its own costs. However, given the choice between piling containers in a landfill, sending them into the ocean’s depths, or recycling them, it is far better to choose the latter. In fact, producing just one aluminum can from raw materials uses the same amount of energy that it takes to recycle twenty.
Compared to overall consumption all too few plastic, glass and aluminum containers are recycled. Of the 164 million plastic bottles that Americans use each day only about half are recycled and only about 35% of all bottled containers are recycled each year, worldwide the numbers are even lower. The Container Recycling Institute estimates that approximately 15 million barrels of crude oil equivalent were consumed in 2005 to replace the 2 million tons of PET bottles that were wasted instead of recycled.
In my home town of New Paltz, N.Y. we now have beautifully painted recycling bins on every corner of Main St. These bins were sponsored by local businesses that all recognized the importance of keeping our environment clean. While New Paltz attracts many weekend visitors it is still a very small community of under 13,000 residents. It would obviously make a much greater impact if it were obligatory for large cities to place recycling bins on major thoroughfares and subway platforms.
Where it all goes
Possibly the greatest problem with trash versus recycling is that the left over containers are either sent off to landfills or make their way into the ocean (in 2006 Americans tossed 22 billion plastic bottles into landfills). Along with livestock production, landfills are a major emitter of both methane and carbon dioxide. This so called Landfill Gas (LFG) is approximately 50% methane and is created when organic materials are decomposed by bacteria under anaerobic conditions (in the absence of oxygen). While plastic is not an organic waste product and doesn’t emit methane, it still takes up a tremendous amount of space and creates an environment where our biodegradable household trash breaks down with less possibility of going back into the earth as compost and therefore traps methane at lower levels. The good news on this front is that the LFG’s from landfills, being a static environment that can be exploited fairly easily, have recently been used to produce energy. Since most of the methane gets trapped under the rubbish, large gas collection pipes are now able to extract the LFG’s and store it as needed. Nationwide there are presently 455 landfills being used to produce electricity with many more waiting in the wings.
The problem of non-biodegradable containers that have built up in our oceans, however, is a prospect that is slightly more bleak. The industrialized world has largely ignored the accumulation of its own waste products that are now being trapped in large pockets of our oceans. Human consumption and negligence has produced the world’s largest landfill in what is now being called the “Eastern Garbage Patch” (aka the Great Pacific garbage patch), a vortex of unmanageable marine debris that has been trapped by currents in the North Pacific Ocean. This vortex has been on our radar since the mid-1980’s but the classic combination of denial and over consumption has allowed it to swell steadily, now estimated to be roughly twice the size of Texas!
Since plastics do not degrade in the same way that organic waste does, this enormous area (holding approximately 100 million tons of debris, 80% of which is plastic) continues to break down slowly into ever smaller pieces of plastic, eventually becoming tiny enough for aquatic organisms to ingest. In this way the plastic polymers enter our food chain, passing from tiny fish to larger ones. Furthermore, over half of the plastic sinks down to the depths, damaging life on the ocean floor and making our oceans increasingly acidic.
With all the talk of mercury and plastic now found in fish, we might feel better by limiting our consumption of seafood, but even if this safeguards our health there is no escaping the fact that this prodigious waste affects our climate. The ocean plays a critical role in sequestering Carbon Dioxide (CO2), in fact the amount of carbon stored in the ocean is 50 times greater than that in the atmosphere. Overall, the ocean acts as a carbon sink, with a net intake of approximately two billion metric tons of carbon per year, which is equal to about one-third of all human carbon emissions. This continuous interaction between our sea and air is a natural cycle that aims to bring atmospheric levels back into balance by absorbing CO2, trapping it, and then recirculating it for over one-hundred years.
Much of the absorbed carbon will descend to the ocean floor, where it is then trapped within deep ocean sediments. If we fail to clean up our oceans then not only will they begin to lose their greenhouse gas trapping capability but, with rising temperatures and acidity, there is also the possibility of the previously trapped carbon rising up and out of the surface. If the ocean’s pH level continues to fall, as it has over the past two hundred years, much of the previously trapped CO2 would have nowhere else to go but back into the atmosphere, causing global warming to occur at a much quicker rate.
And if the aforementioned issues weren’t enough, there is also the problem of water consumption, just to quench our thirst for water itself. Due to hygiene standards and the manufacturing process, it takes three liters of water to produce each liter of bottled water we produce. So if our intention is to stay hydrated while at the same time safeguarding our most precious natural resource (with the possible exception of oxygen), then the only logical answer is to use an in-home water filtration system and reuse a stainless steel thermos. Given that the upfront cost of a high quality water filter can be upwards of $300, it is understandable why most people opt for the quick convenience of a bottled beverage. But with the cost of bottled water running between $2-$4 per gallon (depending on what brand and how much you buy), and the cost of filtered tap water at about fifteen-cents per gallon (once the filter is purchased), the average American would save enough money in one year to pay back the cost of their filter.
As with most things, the best way to preserve a dwindling supply is to avoid unnecessary waste. We waste water in many ways, but the most commonly discussed - the toilet, lawn, and shower – amount to only about 5% of the overall water usage in the U.S. While this household waste is definitely something to be cognizant of, as it’s generally a simple fix, it will never compare to the water wasted at a factory farm or a bottling facility. When we prioritize a minor convenience over the mounting evidence of coexisting eco-damage years may pass by before any steps are taken to alleviate the consequences. By making some simple and enduring adjustments to our daily diets we will be saving massive amounts of water for ourselves and future generations.
We all know that water is as essential to human life as oxygen. Therefore back in the early 1990’s, when beverage companies began a big push to sell bottled water, it could only be viewed as a win-win situation. The theory being that active people should easily be able to rehydrate with the highest quality natural spring water available. By drinking more water it would also cut down on the amount of sugary drinks that are consumed. This theory, along with a massive advertising campaign, worked better than anyone dreamed possible. In just three years, 2002 to 2005, bottled water sales doubled, rising to 30 billion units sold annually (earning over $10 billion in sales by 2006), making it not only one of the fastest growing industries of the past decade but the second largest saleable beverage. The advantage of selling water, without the complication of recipes or ingredients, attracted corporate giants like Coca-Cola and Nestle who were in bad need of a healthy product to compliment their line of sugar based beverages.
So with all the goodness of spring water what could possibly be the problem with more Americans drinking it? Before talking of the myriad environmental concerns, we should take note that in recent years companies like Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. have been forced to admit that their bottled water is nothing but purified tap water sourced from public reservoirs. Pepsi’s Aquafina, the best-selling brand, and Coke's Dasani are generally no healthier than the tap water in your own home run through a quality water filter. Additionally, even true spring water can have detrimental health effects due to the transient pollutants in the water or the leaching of chemicals from thin plastic containers into the water, especially when the bottle has been stored at higher than normal room temperatures.
But even if we were to entirely disregard the health argument, the detrimental ecological effects of bottled beverages might be enough to convince us to reduce our dependency. Presently, Americans consume about 8 billion gallons of bottled water per year. Most of the plastic bottles sold are made out of Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic which is a petroleum product and can take up to 1,000 years to decompose. Since PET degrades so slowly the discarded bottles will invariably interact with every sort of eco-system as well as a host of animals, some of them wild and many that humans use as food. Furthermore, producing these bottles for American consumption alone requires more than 17 million barrels of oil (not including the energy for transportation); this is enough oil to fuel over 1.5 million cars annually.
Along with production, the problem of what to do with the billions of containers we use each year has always been a dilemma. While recycling is preferred many view it as a necessary evil, as it is not the magic bullet that some environmentalists would like to imagine. In order to recycle anything we still rely heavily on water and energy. Plus it can be a tough sell to local municipalities as the process itself can be expensive and rarely offsets its own costs. However, given the choice between piling containers in a landfill, sending them into the ocean’s depths, or recycling them, it is far better to choose the latter. In fact, producing just one aluminum can from raw materials uses the same amount of energy that it takes to recycle twenty.
Compared to overall consumption all too few plastic, glass and aluminum containers are recycled. Of the 164 million plastic bottles that Americans use each day only about half are recycled and only about 35% of all bottled containers are recycled each year, worldwide the numbers are even lower. The Container Recycling Institute estimates that approximately 15 million barrels of crude oil equivalent were consumed in 2005 to replace the 2 million tons of PET bottles that were wasted instead of recycled.
In my home town of New Paltz, N.Y. we now have beautifully painted recycling bins on every corner of Main St. These bins were sponsored by local businesses that all recognized the importance of keeping our environment clean. While New Paltz attracts many weekend visitors it is still a very small community of under 13,000 residents. It would obviously make a much greater impact if it were obligatory for large cities to place recycling bins on major thoroughfares and subway platforms.
Where it all goes
Possibly the greatest problem with trash versus recycling is that the left over containers are either sent off to landfills or make their way into the ocean (in 2006 Americans tossed 22 billion plastic bottles into landfills). Along with livestock production, landfills are a major emitter of both methane and carbon dioxide. This so called Landfill Gas (LFG) is approximately 50% methane and is created when organic materials are decomposed by bacteria under anaerobic conditions (in the absence of oxygen). While plastic is not an organic waste product and doesn’t emit methane, it still takes up a tremendous amount of space and creates an environment where our biodegradable household trash breaks down with less possibility of going back into the earth as compost and therefore traps methane at lower levels. The good news on this front is that the LFG’s from landfills, being a static environment that can be exploited fairly easily, have recently been used to produce energy. Since most of the methane gets trapped under the rubbish, large gas collection pipes are now able to extract the LFG’s and store it as needed. Nationwide there are presently 455 landfills being used to produce electricity with many more waiting in the wings.
The problem of non-biodegradable containers that have built up in our oceans, however, is a prospect that is slightly more bleak. The industrialized world has largely ignored the accumulation of its own waste products that are now being trapped in large pockets of our oceans. Human consumption and negligence has produced the world’s largest landfill in what is now being called the “Eastern Garbage Patch” (aka the Great Pacific garbage patch), a vortex of unmanageable marine debris that has been trapped by currents in the North Pacific Ocean. This vortex has been on our radar since the mid-1980’s but the classic combination of denial and over consumption has allowed it to swell steadily, now estimated to be roughly twice the size of Texas!
Since plastics do not degrade in the same way that organic waste does, this enormous area (holding approximately 100 million tons of debris, 80% of which is plastic) continues to break down slowly into ever smaller pieces of plastic, eventually becoming tiny enough for aquatic organisms to ingest. In this way the plastic polymers enter our food chain, passing from tiny fish to larger ones. Furthermore, over half of the plastic sinks down to the depths, damaging life on the ocean floor and making our oceans increasingly acidic.
With all the talk of mercury and plastic now found in fish, we might feel better by limiting our consumption of seafood, but even if this safeguards our health there is no escaping the fact that this prodigious waste affects our climate. The ocean plays a critical role in sequestering Carbon Dioxide (CO2), in fact the amount of carbon stored in the ocean is 50 times greater than that in the atmosphere. Overall, the ocean acts as a carbon sink, with a net intake of approximately two billion metric tons of carbon per year, which is equal to about one-third of all human carbon emissions. This continuous interaction between our sea and air is a natural cycle that aims to bring atmospheric levels back into balance by absorbing CO2, trapping it, and then recirculating it for over one-hundred years.
Much of the absorbed carbon will descend to the ocean floor, where it is then trapped within deep ocean sediments. If we fail to clean up our oceans then not only will they begin to lose their greenhouse gas trapping capability but, with rising temperatures and acidity, there is also the possibility of the previously trapped carbon rising up and out of the surface. If the ocean’s pH level continues to fall, as it has over the past two hundred years, much of the previously trapped CO2 would have nowhere else to go but back into the atmosphere, causing global warming to occur at a much quicker rate.
And if the aforementioned issues weren’t enough, there is also the problem of water consumption, just to quench our thirst for water itself. Due to hygiene standards and the manufacturing process, it takes three liters of water to produce each liter of bottled water we produce. So if our intention is to stay hydrated while at the same time safeguarding our most precious natural resource (with the possible exception of oxygen), then the only logical answer is to use an in-home water filtration system and reuse a stainless steel thermos. Given that the upfront cost of a high quality water filter can be upwards of $300, it is understandable why most people opt for the quick convenience of a bottled beverage. But with the cost of bottled water running between $2-$4 per gallon (depending on what brand and how much you buy), and the cost of filtered tap water at about fifteen-cents per gallon (once the filter is purchased), the average American would save enough money in one year to pay back the cost of their filter.
As with most things, the best way to preserve a dwindling supply is to avoid unnecessary waste. We waste water in many ways, but the most commonly discussed - the toilet, lawn, and shower – amount to only about 5% of the overall water usage in the U.S. While this household waste is definitely something to be cognizant of, as it’s generally a simple fix, it will never compare to the water wasted at a factory farm or a bottling facility. When we prioritize a minor convenience over the mounting evidence of coexisting eco-damage years may pass by before any steps are taken to alleviate the consequences. By making some simple and enduring adjustments to our daily diets we will be saving massive amounts of water for ourselves and future generations.
Tropical Rainforests
Presently, worldwide livestock production accounts for 70% of all agricultural land and 30% of the land surface of the planet. According to Jim Motavalli, former editor of E. magazine, “The livestock industry accounts for the single largest human-related use of land, with 26 percent of the ice and water free surface of the planet devoted to grazing”. Approximately 260 million acres of forest in the U.S. have been cleared for crop, pasture and rangeland in order to cater to a meat-centered diet. This imbalance has led to over-grazing and heightened levels of ammonia in the soil, causing it to slowly become too acidic for crops to grow (a large scale livestock farm may emit as much as 5 million pounds of ammonia annually). In the U.S. alone, more than 260 million acres of forest have been clear-cut for animal agriculture.
So when we stare down at the meal on our dinner plates we must connect it to the land on which it was grown. As consumers we can place food into two new categories: rather than “organic vs. conventional”, we should think in terms of “sustainable vs. unsustainable”. As much as possible, before purchasing a tomato, apple, or pint of milk take the time to find out if it was produced using sustainable methods. Essentially this is a vote for ourselves, because sustainable agriculture will continue to feed us, and our children, for generations, while unsustainable methods are polluting, insatiable, and finite. If the CEO’s of today’s largest farms fail to learn from the past then they too will be finding themselves trying to grow crops without their most essential ingredient: quality topsoil, and this will happen just as the planet goes through another population explosion.
Sadly, as all this is happening much of the land that has been bought, battered or burned is in the tropical rainforest. The world’s rainforests represent one of the best cures for our tainted atmosphere but they are being removed at a pace that is almost too fast to fathom. Every year we lose 32 million acres of tropical rainforest - an area about the size of England. Of the original eight million square miles of tropical rainforest more than half has been burned or bulldozed, 70% of the former Amazon rainforest (our planet’s breathing source) is being used for grazing or cropland. Not too surprisingly then, for each hamburger that originates from a cow raised on rainforest land, approximately 55 square feet of forest has to be destroyed.
More puzzling still is that while more than half of the planet’s original rainforests have been clear cut to be used for livestock or crop production, most rainforest land is not an optimal setting for grazing. Large scale farms continue to carve out more rainforest land each year to accommodate beef and dairy cows, as well as massive amounts of soy being grown as cow and chicken feed. According to the nonprofit group Greenpeace: all the animals and trees in more than 2.9 million acres of rainforest were destroyed in the 2004-2005 crop season in order to grow crops that are used to feed animals. Additionally, nearly eighty-percent of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon results from cattle ranching. More than 38,600 square miles has been cleared for pasture since 1996, bringing the total area occupied by cattle ranches in the Brazilian Amazon to 214,000 square miles, an area larger than France.
The importance of the earth’s rainforests cannot be overemphasized. Under normal conditions rainforests are the most diverse and complex areas on the planet. The combination of limited sunlight (due to the overhead canopy), mixed with prolific rainfall (often 100 inches per year) makes it an optimal place for the growth of completely unique plants that are both rare, resilient, and medicinal. Some of the plants have evolved high up on the tree branches and are able to extract moisture directly from the air. Many others climb up the tree trunks to grab any sunlight that they can reach. And then there are the “heterotrophs”, a non-photosynthetic plant similar to a mushroom, that can live on the forest floor, finding nutrition in decaying organic matter and root systems. These dense forests are home to half of the planet’s animal and plant species; as an example, a four-square-mile area of rainforest may contain as many as 1,500 different types of flowering plants, many of which we still do not fully understand.
Besides the fact that the rainforest mitigates the effects of Global Warming, the rare and exotic plant life is an amazingly rich source of herbal and pharmaceutical medicine. At least 120 prescription drugs sold worldwide are derived directly from rainforest plants. Many of the compounds used to treat malaria, hypertension, bronchitis, diabetes, among other common diseases are found in abundance in tropical rainforests. According to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, more than two-thirds of all medicines that have been found to have cancer-fighting properties come from rainforest plants. When we destroy rainforest land we are not only putting entire groups of species at risk of extinction but we are permanently destroying many opportunities for the continued health and survival of human beings.
When a diet is replete with animal protein it can be easy to forget that all of our food can be traced back to plants and soil. Humans can’t eat animals unless animals first eat plants. Animals can’t eat plants unless the land is rich and healthy enough to grow them. This simple fact of nature’s food cycle should remind us that all of our nutrients and amino acids come to us from plant life. We can therefore state, without hyperbole, that no soil means no life. This is a particularly sobering thought when we consider that most of the world is using it up faster than we can replace it, indeed, many areas of the once fertile and productive Middle East can no longer grow any food at all. Many scientists point to topsoil loss as an equally pressing problem as global warming, but as long as most varieties of food remain so abundant (at least ostensibly, if you happen to be among the middle class) then it rarely gets mentioned as a critical issue.
On a more personal level, by eating lower on the food chain, or at least finding out where our meat and soy comes from, we can all help to halt the ongoing destruction of the world’s tropical rainforests. If the slash and burn practices, that have been going on for decades, are allowed to continue at the present rate we will not only destroy one of nature’s most miraculous havens but we will also lose our single best ally in the fight against global warming. For this reason it is a mistake to think that these natural wonders belong only to the governments where they are located or to the corporations that exploit them. We should treat them as our own back yard, because whether you live in Brazil or Siberia the rainforests have many unseen affects on our planet’s atmosphere and on medicinal remedies, many of which are still yet to be discovered.
So when we stare down at the meal on our dinner plates we must connect it to the land on which it was grown. As consumers we can place food into two new categories: rather than “organic vs. conventional”, we should think in terms of “sustainable vs. unsustainable”. As much as possible, before purchasing a tomato, apple, or pint of milk take the time to find out if it was produced using sustainable methods. Essentially this is a vote for ourselves, because sustainable agriculture will continue to feed us, and our children, for generations, while unsustainable methods are polluting, insatiable, and finite. If the CEO’s of today’s largest farms fail to learn from the past then they too will be finding themselves trying to grow crops without their most essential ingredient: quality topsoil, and this will happen just as the planet goes through another population explosion.
Sadly, as all this is happening much of the land that has been bought, battered or burned is in the tropical rainforest. The world’s rainforests represent one of the best cures for our tainted atmosphere but they are being removed at a pace that is almost too fast to fathom. Every year we lose 32 million acres of tropical rainforest - an area about the size of England. Of the original eight million square miles of tropical rainforest more than half has been burned or bulldozed, 70% of the former Amazon rainforest (our planet’s breathing source) is being used for grazing or cropland. Not too surprisingly then, for each hamburger that originates from a cow raised on rainforest land, approximately 55 square feet of forest has to be destroyed.
More puzzling still is that while more than half of the planet’s original rainforests have been clear cut to be used for livestock or crop production, most rainforest land is not an optimal setting for grazing. Large scale farms continue to carve out more rainforest land each year to accommodate beef and dairy cows, as well as massive amounts of soy being grown as cow and chicken feed. According to the nonprofit group Greenpeace: all the animals and trees in more than 2.9 million acres of rainforest were destroyed in the 2004-2005 crop season in order to grow crops that are used to feed animals. Additionally, nearly eighty-percent of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon results from cattle ranching. More than 38,600 square miles has been cleared for pasture since 1996, bringing the total area occupied by cattle ranches in the Brazilian Amazon to 214,000 square miles, an area larger than France.
The importance of the earth’s rainforests cannot be overemphasized. Under normal conditions rainforests are the most diverse and complex areas on the planet. The combination of limited sunlight (due to the overhead canopy), mixed with prolific rainfall (often 100 inches per year) makes it an optimal place for the growth of completely unique plants that are both rare, resilient, and medicinal. Some of the plants have evolved high up on the tree branches and are able to extract moisture directly from the air. Many others climb up the tree trunks to grab any sunlight that they can reach. And then there are the “heterotrophs”, a non-photosynthetic plant similar to a mushroom, that can live on the forest floor, finding nutrition in decaying organic matter and root systems. These dense forests are home to half of the planet’s animal and plant species; as an example, a four-square-mile area of rainforest may contain as many as 1,500 different types of flowering plants, many of which we still do not fully understand.
Besides the fact that the rainforest mitigates the effects of Global Warming, the rare and exotic plant life is an amazingly rich source of herbal and pharmaceutical medicine. At least 120 prescription drugs sold worldwide are derived directly from rainforest plants. Many of the compounds used to treat malaria, hypertension, bronchitis, diabetes, among other common diseases are found in abundance in tropical rainforests. According to the U.S. National Cancer Institute, more than two-thirds of all medicines that have been found to have cancer-fighting properties come from rainforest plants. When we destroy rainforest land we are not only putting entire groups of species at risk of extinction but we are permanently destroying many opportunities for the continued health and survival of human beings.
When a diet is replete with animal protein it can be easy to forget that all of our food can be traced back to plants and soil. Humans can’t eat animals unless animals first eat plants. Animals can’t eat plants unless the land is rich and healthy enough to grow them. This simple fact of nature’s food cycle should remind us that all of our nutrients and amino acids come to us from plant life. We can therefore state, without hyperbole, that no soil means no life. This is a particularly sobering thought when we consider that most of the world is using it up faster than we can replace it, indeed, many areas of the once fertile and productive Middle East can no longer grow any food at all. Many scientists point to topsoil loss as an equally pressing problem as global warming, but as long as most varieties of food remain so abundant (at least ostensibly, if you happen to be among the middle class) then it rarely gets mentioned as a critical issue.
On a more personal level, by eating lower on the food chain, or at least finding out where our meat and soy comes from, we can all help to halt the ongoing destruction of the world’s tropical rainforests. If the slash and burn practices, that have been going on for decades, are allowed to continue at the present rate we will not only destroy one of nature’s most miraculous havens but we will also lose our single best ally in the fight against global warming. For this reason it is a mistake to think that these natural wonders belong only to the governments where they are located or to the corporations that exploit them. We should treat them as our own back yard, because whether you live in Brazil or Siberia the rainforests have many unseen affects on our planet’s atmosphere and on medicinal remedies, many of which are still yet to be discovered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)