Personal Reflections on the Semester in "Sustainable Communities"

Bill and Reen,

I am so glad that I had the opportunity to take this course this semester. I have taken sustainability and permaculture courses in the past, as well as read many articles on sustainability issues, but I think that this class did an exceptional job of tying together the importance of community involvement and fostering sustainable behaviors within our communities in a way that no other course or article has done for me. The group and personal projects were wonderful tools for us to learn hands-on about what it takes to engage your community members and implement sustainable changes that will have great impact, both on our personal lives and on the community as a whole.

I thoroughly enjoyed the readings that we used this semester, and feel that they are texts that I will return to again and again in the future. I also grew to like the blogging process that accompanied the readings. I think that there is great value in having to synthesize your thoughts on a topic that you have just read an article about; it continues to amaze me at all of the different directions you can take your thought processes that are spawned from a single topic (my peers' excellent blogs are evidence of this).

Thank you for a great semester!

~Rachel

Personal Project Final Update: Evaluation of the Recycling Program at Little Tibet

The greening of Anyetsang's Little Tibet continues...

Now that recycling has been going on at Little Tibet for almost a month now (we started just before Thanksgiving), it's time to evaluate how the program is working, and what changes might be made to make it work better.

What's working well?

Overall, the recycling efforts have been quite successful! The waitstaff have been very compliant with the new procedure, and while I do occasionally come into work and see a wine bottle in the garbage can, for the most part people have been recycling as they should. This was honestly not a surprise to me, since most of my waitstaff peers are environmentally conscious and recycle at home as well. Having a convenient recycling program at Little Tibet further confirms the idea that recycling is highly dependant on convenience!

I estimate that our recycling efforts at the restaurant are now diverting upwards of 80 wine bottles from the garbage each month. This is encouraging! According to the Recycling-Revolution organization:

    Recycling just one glass bottle saves the same amount of energy that is needed to power a   
       100-watt light bulb for 4 hours, or a CFL for 20 hours

    Glass takes over 4,000 years or longer to decompose in a landfill


Recycling glass causes 20% less air pollution and 50% less water pollution than when new bottles are made from raw materials

With these statistics in mind, it  makes our recycling efforts at Little Tibet seem all the more valuable!


What changes need to happen in order to make the recycling program work better?

Overall the recycling program at the restaurant has been a success, but one aspect that is in need of improvement is the transportation of recyclables from the restaurant to the homes of me and the other participating waitstaff (currently two others are helping me take recyclables from the restaurant).

Transporting the recyclables from the restaurant to my home is a bit of challenge since my mode of transportation is by bicycle.
Typically I can take home between six and eight bottles at a time in my backpack (more if I don't have many books with me that day), which is doable, but also highly dependent on the weather (I don't particularly like biking in the rain with a heavy backpack full of glass- it doesn't seem like a safe choice, so I avoid it!) Also, once it starts getting snowy, I don't think that I will be able to transport the bottles via bike. This means that I will need one of my co-workers to drive me home with the recyclables. So far, this has happened twice, actually, and was quite convenient since I live on the way to my coworker's house. However, I would like to have the recycling program be as carbon-neutral as possible, so I inherently dislike the idea of transporting the recyclables via car.

Ultimately, I would like to see all of the Fourth St restaurants collaborating together on recycling, so I am hoping that in the future there will be recycling facilities on Fourth St, which will eliminate the issue of difficulty in transporting the recyclables.

Personal Project: From Intent to Action

 The greening of Anyetsang's Little Tibet continues...

Now that a free, feasible option for a recycling program has been determined (and approved by the owners!) at Little Tibet, it's time to move beyond words into action.

Here's the process of how the recycling program is going to be implemented:

1) Organize and rearrange the mid-front of house area to make room for two milk crates. 

• Two milk crates should be sufficient (at least initially) for the number of glass wine bottles that are generated on a biweekly basis at the restaurant. However, during the summer when sales of wine tend to be higher, more than two milk crates may be needed- we will cross this hurdle next summer; for the time being, two crates will suffice.

2) Inform waitstaff and other employees of the new recycling program.

• Discuss new recycling setup at the next waitstaff meeting. Explain that all recyclables from waitstaff operations will now be able to be recycled.
• Garner volunteers for helping me to take recyclables back to our homes, where curbside recycling is free of charge.
• Put up "Recycle!" reminder signs around the waitstaff prep area so that people won't forget and fall back on old habits.

3) Start recycling!






Note: This blog post is late in coming, the recycling at Anyetsang's Little Tibet has now been ongoing since November 22, 2011, just prior to Thanksgiving.

Personal Project: Alternative Solutions- Overcoming the Barriers to Recycling

The greening of Anyetsang's Little Tibet continues...

In my previous post I examined the four main barriers to recycling at Anyetsang's Little Tibet, which include:
              1) Funding
              2) Space
              3) Convenience
              4) Attitude

Despite these barriers, I am confident that solutions do exist. Here's why:

1) Funding:   Funding is only needed if the restaurant decides to contract with a company to pick up its recyclables. Since the owners are unwilling to budge on their decision to not fund recycling pick up, this means whatever solution is found must be free or have minimal costs that could potentially be covered by the restaurant's sustainability fund. With this in mind, I think that a possible solution would be for an employee(s) to take the recycling from the restaurant to their home, where curbside recycling is offered free of charge by the City of Bloomington.

2) Space:  True, space is indeed a huge issue in the kitchen, but what about space in the mid-front area of the restaurant where waitstaff does intermediary prep work (making salads, drinks, managing the phones, etc...)? With a little bit of rearrangement of the waitstaff table, and reorganization of materials to use the existing space more efficiently, I believe that it would be possible to have a bin for recyclables.  
While it is more common for restaurants that recycle to do so in the kitchen, according to a 2011 report issued by the National Restaurant Association, 43% of restaurants that recycle use front of house recycling programs. (Note: Unfortunately, the owner did not agree to photos being taken of the prep area for me to show the current set up and its potential role in a recycling program at Little Tibet.)

3) Convenience: If recycling containers are able to be placed in the mid-front prep area, convenience for recycling is no longer an issue! Waitstaff currently throw recyclables away because we don't have a recycling program, but if bins are installed it will be just as convenient to put recyclables into the recycling bins as it would be to throw them in the trash- barrier eliminated!

4) Attitude: As mentioned in my previous post, no one working at the restaurant is opposed to recycling. With a convenient option available to them and encouragement to participate, I think that waitstaff will be more than willing to cooperate with the recycling efforts. Furthermore, since waitstaff would be entirely responsible for the recycling program, the owner of the restaurant is far more likely to be supportive of the recycling effort- another barrier eliminated!


So, what does this all mean? The barriers to recycling at Little Tibet are surmountable!

A recycling program (run by waitstaff out of the mid-front prep area of the restaurant) is a free, feasible option!!!

Personal Project: Barriers to Recycling at Little Tibet

The greening of Anyetsang's Little Tibet continues...

Before being able to move forward in developing a recycling program at the restaurant, it was essential to first identify the specific factors that are the main deterrents to recycling at the restaurant. Below is a summary of what I found to be the primary barriers, assembled from my personal observations, as well as from direct communication with the owners.

Barriers to Recycling at Little Tibet

1) Funding ($$$)

• The financial situation at Little Tibet is like that of many small businesses (especially small, family-owned restaurants) in that money is tight.
• The owners are unwilling to pay any extra for recycling (recycling pick up is usually $40-$50 per pick-up), and when I suggested that there might be a way to find funding from somewhere else in the existing budget, I was informed that there actually isn't an official budget for the restaurant (This is an entirely different problem in and of itself! I honestly don't know how a business can NOT have a written, planned budget and still make money!) 
• So, working without any funding from the restaurant is a huge barrier, however, it is not impossible to overcome. Suggestions that I put forth for alternative funding include the following two options:

                          1) Restaurant Sustainability Fund: Have a collection jar near the front door to collect donations towards a fund that could be used to support sustainable operations, including recycling pick-up costs. (Note: The owner's were receptive to this idea, but it seems unlikely to be a feasible option for financing the entire cost of recycling pick-up).
                          2) Small Business Grants: Apply for a small business grant to obtain funding for a recycling program. (Note: there are many grants available for recycling in other states such as this one in Colorado, however, in the past several years Gov. Daniels has effectively eliminated such grant opportunities in Indiana; I was unable to find any grants that would be applicable to this project).

2) Space

Representative kitchen space

• The kitchen is VERY tiny, with no extra floor or wall space for a recycling bin to be placed. I wish that I could post photos of the kitchen to clearly show how crowded it is, but unfortunately, the owner did not agree to photos being taken of the kitchen ("Secret recipes!" was his reasoning behind this?) Anyways, the photo to the right is a depiction of a fairly similar kitchen set up. However, at Little Tibet there is even less space between the stoves and the washing area because there is a rack that holds all of the serving plates, rice pots, etc... In fact, the trash can in the kitchen at the restaurant is in the middle of the walkway between the rack and dish washing area simply because there is no other space for it (this makes it a bit hazardous during the busy dinner rush!)

3) Convenience

• If recycling is going to happen, it HAS to be convenient for the waitstaff and other employees. This means that we must find a way to have recycling bins inside and easily accessible for employees to deposit recyclables in, otherwise they will continue to use the trash cans.

4) Attitude 

• The owner is not against recycling per se, but he is very set in his ways. Whenever I make suggestions regarding the restaurant, whether it be about the setup, flow, recycling etc... the owner is very resistant to hearing me out. However, I have found that by incrementally bringing up topics and speaking about them over a long period of time, he is typically more receptive!
• The waitstaff also is not against recycling, we simply have never had a system before, which is why they currently throw recyclables in the trash cans.

Shifting Focus: "Preparing for a New Economic Era"

"A visitor from outer space might conclude, with considerable justification, that our species measures well-being by the amount of garbage we generate."
           -David C. Korten from Environment and Urbanization (1996)

I began this blog with a discussion of consumerism and our society's seemingly constant quest to obtain more and more material goods as a measure of our worth. This idea has been present throughout the course of the semester, and once again appears in this week's examination of community economic development. Ultimately, it seems to me that discussions of sustainability always come down to the basic concept that we need to refocus our intent and purpose in life and focus on the quality of our lives, as opposed to the quantity of things we procure in a lifetime. The idea of local, community-based economic development as a model for this ideological shift is inspiring and empowering, because it puts the power to make this change happen into our very own hands.

As described by Korten in his book, Environment and Urbanization, our current system, which revolves around capitalism and consumerism, encompasses three socio-ecological classes: the over-consumers, the sustainers, and the excluded.

The over-consumers are, I'm afraid to say, most of the people reading this post- myself included. They are the ones that require an average of three planet Earth's (or more) to sustain their lifestyle choices.

The excluded are those bottom 20% of the world's population who live in "absolute deprivation," as Korten puts it. They are the people the over-consumers toss under the train tracks without a second thought via their addiction to obtain ever more material goods.

The sustainers are yet to be defined in our culture. They are (ideally) the ones that live within their means and the means of the Earth, giving back as much as they take and not causing irreparable harm.

From a sustainability approach that targets environmental health, economic prosperity, and social equity, moving both over-consumers and the excluded towards this middle ground ideal is the ultimate goal. For the excluded, this means an opportunity for them to experience social equity for the first time in their lives. For the over-consumers, this does not mean total sacrifice of their affluent lifestyles, but it does mean a readjustment of values and overall perception of how success and wealth are measured- do we measure wealth by the quantity of material items we own? By the prestige that monetary wealth supposedly brings us? Or do we measure success and wealth based on overall quality of life and happiness? On our ability to be compassionate and care for other people and the Earth itself?

We say time and again that money can't buy happiness, so why aren't people abandoning our financial economic system that is tying us down to a sinking ship? We are sinking in our economic system as it is now, we need to get off and grab onto the lifeboat moving towards sustainable thinking and practices. Developing community, developing the social bond and the social capital in our local settings is our way out. It is essential that we recognize that "social bonding is as essential to the healthy function of a modern society as it was to more traditional or tribal societies." Only when we realize this will we be able to move away from our destructive, consumerist life-approach into a new economic era where success and wealth are measured not in terms of how much we own or how much money we have in the bank, but in terms of happiness and overall quality of life.

Bloomington Community Orchard (Sustainability-Related Event #3)

This weekend I attended the Bloomington Community Orchard's first-ever Cider Fest extravaganza! The event was a great success, filled with cider making (and tasting), face painting, wassailing, hammer dulcimer playing, and all-around good cheer. I helped greet people as they entered the orchard, collected donations, and passed out maps and information about the orchard to those who were interested.


I had gone to the initial meetings at City Hall when the orchard was just getting started, and worked at Collins LLC to get people voting daily in the Edy's Plant a Tree competition, but it wasn't until this weekend that I actually have made it out to the orchard in person. I was so impressed with what it has become, and definitely want to be involved in the future in more of the hands-on work (weeding, composting, watering, and planting)! For those who would also like to get involved, the next orchard work day is on Sunday, November 20th (details can be found here). Kudos to Amy Countryman for beginning such an amazing project that ties together care for the environment, community, and social justice all in one marvelous place!

Personal Project (Tangent): An Update on Developing a 4th St Cooperative Recycling System

View of restaurants along 4th St. in Bloomington IN.

Over the last two weeks, I have been working on gauging interest in forming a recycling co-operative with the other restaurants on 4th Street, in a similar fashion to the operation going on at The Village Deli. This project is tangentially related to my personal project, "The Greening of Little Tibet," and will not be completed this semester, but is instead a long-term goal that I would love to see come to fruition over the course of the next year.

My initial work regarding this idea has included the initial field research into the Deli's cooperative system, ongoing discussions with Liz Sanders, manager at the Village Deli, and most recently, the development of a survey (see below). Before continuing with the idea of creating a recycling co-operative on 4th St, I want to see what the general perception and attitude toward recycling are at the restaurants.

In my initial post stating the subject of my personal project, I made the assumption that all of the restaurants along 4th St lack well-developed recycling capabilities, and while I am fairly certain that this is indeed the case, I want to find out for sure, as well as determine what barriers exist that deter these restaurants from recycling. Thus, over the last several weeks  I have developed a survey  (thank you SurveyMonkey!)to address some of these questions and concerns and have begun to administer it to the restaurants along 4th Street.


Below you will find an example of the survey that I am asking the restaurants to fill out. Once I have some responses, I'll check back in with another update on this long-term project!

(Sample) Survey to Gauge Recycling Interest on Fourth Street

Business Name:

Contact Person:

1. What materials does your business CURRENTLY recycle? Indicate all that apply.

a) Cardboard           

b) Steel                       

c) Plastic           

d) Glass                       

e) Other recyclables

f) We do NOT currently recycle.                       

g) We didn’t realize the above materials are recyclable.

2. What barriers deter you from recycling? Indicate all that apply.

a) Cost: Recycling is too expensive                                   

b) Space: There is no room for recycling at our facility

c) Time: Too hard to separate recycling from trash           

d) Time: Too hard to get the recycling to a recycling center

e) Lack of interest in recycling.                                   

f) Unaware that these materials are recyclable.

3. If recycling were offered at a consolidated site along “Restaurant Row” on 4^th Street, would your business be interested in participating in recycling?

a) Yes                        b) No                         c) Maybe

4. What would deter you from participating in a cooperative consolidated recycling system for 4^th St Restaurants?

a) Cost (If it was too expensive)                       

b) Space (There would be no room for recycling storage)

c) Time (It would be too hard to separate recyclables from waste)

d) Time (Employees wouldn't want another task to perform)

e) Other (Explain: ___________________________________________________)

5. What would encourage you to participate in a cooperative consolidated recycling system for 4^th St Restaurants?

a) Being able to advertise as being "Green" and/or "Sustainable"

b) Reduction in quantity of waste (and potentially costs)

c) Nothing, I have no interest in recycling.

d) Other (Explain: _____________________________________________________)

6) How much might you be willing to pay for recycling pick up each month? (Write in a dollar amount below.)

7) Would like to be contacted in the future if further plans develop to implement a cooperative recycling system for 4th St Restaurants?

a) Yes                        b) No

Sierra Club Hosts "Real Climate Project" Lecture (Sustainability-Related Event #2)

The second sustainability-related event that I am reporting on this semester was this evening's lecture on climate change hosted by the local chapter of the Sierra Club at the Monroe County Public Library, entitled "The Climate Reality Project." While I normally find lectures on the topic of climate change to be interesting and enlightening, or at a bare minimum, accurate review of information I've already learned, I was very disappointed in the lecture presentation this evening.

The lecture was essentially a brief summary of some of the key points of Al Gore's famous documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," but in my opinion the information that was presented was very outdated, overly simplified, and in some cases, incorrect. Perhaps it is because I have taken a significant amount of coursework that has examined in detail the inner workings of climate change and looked extensively at the physics, chemistry, and biological ramifications and driving processes of climate change that made this presentation frustrating to listen to. However, more significantly, it worries me that outdated information is being disseminated by a supposedly reputable organization with Al Gore's backing, and is incorrectly informing listeners who don't have a science background about what climate change actually is and its implications for human and environmental health.

Although the presenter clearly had good intentions and is certainly well-versed in his presentation script, I think that The Climate Reality Project would do well to update its information before passing along seriously outdated information to listeners around the country.

The third "E" of Sustainability: Environmental Justice

Of the three "E's" of sustainability (which address economics, the environment, and social equity), environmental justice is oftentimes underrepresented, both in discussion as well as in policy implementation. When considering sustainability initiatives, the economic and environmental pros and cons are usually laid out on the table, and sustainability is often viewed as a give and take process that strives to find a balance between the two, but the third "E" is often ignored entirely. This may be in part due to the wide range of social issues that social equity encompasses. As Robin Morris Collin, Professor of Law at Willamette University succinctly explains, "Environmental justice is an American-based movement challenging disparities in risk-exposure and access to benefits. Environmental justice and sustainability reflect a deep division along race and class lines."

Although we would like to think that in 2011, the U.S. has achieved social equity and is a land of equal opportunity for all people without regard to the color of people's skin, socio-economic background, or other characteristics, the truth is that not all communities in the U.S. are equal when it comes to "protection of environmental, health, employment, housing transportation, and civil rights laws" (Bullard). Many communities face environmental discrimination, such as when "NIMBYism" allows wealthier communities or communities with more political sway to force environmental health risks from industry or waste disposal into communities that are less wealthy and/or have less lobbying power.

Environmental injustices can be seen in communities around the country, such as in North Carolina, where a 2006 study done by the Department of Epidemiology in the School of Public Health at the University of NC-Chapel Hill, showed that the odds of a landfill being placed near a community were as follows:

• 2.1 times higher in communities with more than 10% people of color compared to communities with less than 10% people of color; and

 

• 1.4 times higher in communities with average house values less than $100,000 compared to areas with average values $100,000 and greater.

 Another version of environmental injustice is evidenced in Appalachian communities where mountain top removal is performed by outside companies, despite public outrage and the high risks the industry presents to human and environmental health. As Bullard explains, "In Appalachia... (the people) are basically dumped on because of lack of economic and political clout and lack of having a voice to say "no" and that's environmental injustice."

Nuclear Panel Discussion at IU (Sustainability-Related Event #1)

I attended the nuclear panel discussion on Tuesday evening (Oct. 25th) during which time three panelists (Paul Sokol, Greg Crouch, and John Applegate) presented their views on nuclear energy before opening up the floor to questions from the audience. I have to admit that going into the discussion I was already of the opinion that nuclear energy isn't the panacea that anti-coal proponents and others claim it is, mainly because I think it is incredibly reckless to produce energy using a system in which we have no safe way to dispose of the end waste products (although one could rightfully argue that it is incredibly reckless to produce energy using a system that is changing the composition of our atmosphere and climates around the world i.e. coal)...

The panelists' discussions were very informative; some of the key points that I took away from the evening included the following:

• Nuclear energy emits no pounds of carbon dioxide/ kWhr produced (coal emits 0.994 pounds/kWhr)
• Nuclear energy accounts for up to 80% of energy production in some European countries (such as in France)
• There is no known way to safely (i.e. permanently) dispose of the waste from nuclear plants
• There are fewer accidents associated with nuclear energy production than with any other form of energy production (coal has one of the highest number of accidents)
• There are fewer deaths from nuclear energy production than from any other kind of energy production (coal production has one of the highest death tolls of any kind of energy production when one takes into account the mining process)

From listening to the panelists, I think that my views on nuclear energy production are now better informed, but I can't say that my worries were assuaged. I still think that we shouldn't be pursuing nuclear energy until we actually have a safe way to dispose of the waste products, and it still terrifies me that a nuclear meltdown could send radiation spewing into our air and contaminating our planet. However, it also struck me how significant a toll energy production from coal has on the planet, as well as in the number of human lives it takes on a regular basis compared to the relatively small toll from nuclear energy production.

I know that we can't keep burning coal, but I also think that it is wrong to assume that nuclear is the right way out of our energy-dependency issues. I'm putting my vote in for more renewable energies like solar and wind, and I can't help but think that if all of the financial resources that were being targeted at coal and nuclear energy production were instead focused on renewable energy development that we could really come up with some viable solutions to our energy crisis.

Personal Project: Field Research Findings

 The "greening" of Anyetsang's Little Tibet continues...

Following my literature review, I decided to do some field research in Bloomington at restaurants that I knew recycled, in order to see and learn how their systems are set up and how they function. I started by compiling a list of restaurants in Bloomington whom I wanted to contact, a list that includes:

• Bloomington Bagel Company
• The Village Deli
• Soma
• Laughing Planet Cafe
• Bloomingfoods
• Nick's English Hut
• Upland Brewing Co.
• FARM

Recycling Facilities behind The Village Delli

From speaking with Liz Sanders, a manager at The Village Deli, I learned that the Deli acts as the central hub for a cooperative recycling system between Nick's, Bloomingfoods, BBC, Cafe Django, Soma, and the Laughing Planet. All of the participating restaurants take their recyclable materials to the back of the Deli every day and put them into the properly sorted receptacles. The Deli has a great set up, with a covered area out back behind their restaurant so that the recyclables aren't exposed to the weather and can be better organized and contained.

Plastic and steel recycling at The Village Deli

Cardboard recycling at The Village Deli

The Deli charges each restaurant a fee to participate in the joint recycling program (the exact cost was not disclosed), which goes to cover the costs the Deli pays for recycling pickup to Pedal Power (a locally owned recycling pick-up company that uses bicycles as its mode of transportation) and Monroe County Solid Waste. Liz said that for the most part, the recycling system worked well, but that there were issues with employees not putting recycling away in an orderly manner- apparently sometimes the Deli staff has to go clean up the parking lot because there are recyclables all over the place! Also, the glue on cardboard can attract insects, so the Deli has to be careful and make sure that the recycling facilities are kept very clean. Currently, the Deli is looking into purchasing a cardboard binder that can be used to bind the cardboard and make it easier for Pedal Power when they come pick it up.

Seeing the set up at the Deli and the adjoining restaurants has inspired me to think that a similar set up should be implemented for the Fourth Street Restaurants (more to come on this thought)!! However, since my initial plan was to get Little Tibet recycling, the next course of action is to demonstrate to the owners of Little Tibet that recycling can be done, even on a scale much smaller than the operation going on across the street on Kirkwood! In the meantime, I will also  keep brainstorming a long-term proposal for a cooperative recycling system for the restaurants along Fourth Street!

Personal Project: Literature Review Results

The "greening" of Anyetsang's Little Tibet...

I started off by looking for what has already been done at other restaurants and food-businesses by doing a literature review, and discovered that there is a great deal of literature on how to make the restaurant business more sustainable. In general, I was pleased to discover that Little Tibet already is doing much of what appears on the standard "sustainable-restaurant practices" checklists, but honestly, most of the "green" suggestions are just smart business practices. For example, Little Tibet already:

• Buys food in bulk whenever possible (thereby reducing packaging and shipping)
• Uses reusable table linens and dinnerware
• Uses reusable cloth cleaning towels (instead of paper)
• Uses multipurpose cleaners (and nontoxic ones, wherever possible)
• Prepares food to order (prevents over-production)
• Turns off all the lights in between the lunch and dinner shifts (saves electricity)

So, what needs to happen to make Little Tibet more sustainable?  RECYCLING. The National Restaurant Association recently published the results from its survey on recycling practices and attitudes towards recycling in the restaurant business, which indicates that "65 percent of restaurant operators embrace the practice of recycling and have recycling programs in place at their restaurants." However, this 65% includes restaurants that may recycle only some materials, and while some recycling is certainly better than none, I'm afraid that the majority of restaurants still dispose of a great deal of recyclables in their dumpsters.

Based on my review of the literature, it seems that the key factor that determines whether restaurants recycle or not is whether there is someone to remove the recyclables from their facilities in a timely fashion. Although restaurants are usually tight on space, sorting out recyclables from non-recyclables is doable- if you encourage the staff and can reduce the costs of waste disposal at the same time. However, many cities in the U.S. simply don't have recycling facilities or businesses that are able to pick up recyclables at a price that restaurants can afford to use.

Right now, Little Tibet contracts with Hoosier Disposal for their garbage collection (which happens once a month, for $115). This company does offer recycling services too, but the restaurant is hesitant to add on additional costs to their garbage pick up price. In order to determine if it would be beneficial to add recycling into their budget, I decided to contact other local restaurants that I know recycle and see how they go about their recycling. To read more about my field research on restaurants recycling in Bloomington, check out my other post: Personal Project: Field Research Findings.

Reflections on the Keystone XL Pipeline Proposal

This post is not directly in response to any of our readings or discussions in class, but is more so generated out of my increasing frustrations with the situation surrounding the Keystone XL Pipeline proposal; however, this topic is inherently tied into sustainability and the future of our planet, and as such, seems pertinent to this blog's theme.

The best article summary that I have read regarding the current situation surrounding the Keystone XL Pipeline project was written by Lois Beckett for ProBUBLICA, a news source that encourages muckraking and "journalism for the public interest" (now isn't that a novel concept?! news that aims to accurately report the situation and NOT cater to corporate interests in exchange for financial backing?!) If you have time, I'd really suggest reading the article, otherwise, here are the key points that really stuck with me (and my responses to them):

The proposed project consists of a "1,700-mile pipeline that would transport crude oil from Canada to refineries in Texas." 

1)            Proponents say that the project will provide our country with energy security and 20,000 jobs! 

But won’t most of these jobs be temporary in nature, and if so, what is going to happen to those 20,000 people when they’re out of work again in two years’ time? Is an oil pipeline really going to be a boon for our economy the way TransCanada says? Furthermore, these job numbers were generated in a study that TransCanada Oil paid for themselves- you be the judge of how reliable this data actually is... (Not to mention the EIS was conducted by another company that has financial ties to TransCanada Oil as well).

2)            The pipeline will cross over the Ogallala Aquifer. This means that if an oil spill does occur (and given our country's past record of inspecting and enforcing environmental regulations on oil companies, this doesn't seem far fetched to me) we will be contaminating our country's arguably most important water resource. Is that something on which we really are willing to gamble?! Cleaning up a surface oil spill and working to rehabilitate damaged ecosystems is hard enough when we can directly see the damage, can you imagine how much more difficult (or impossible?) it would be to reclaim our groundwater aquifer system if a spill occurs?

3)            TransCanada is a Canadian oil company, yet if this project is approved, they will be able to take private property from land owners under eminent domain, as is written into our country’s laws. Eminent domain has always seemed slightly unfair to me, but what really rattles me is that this is a foreign country using eminent domain to their advantage- if we allow this, won't a precedent be set for foreign companies to do the same in the future? Haven't we already outsourced our industry enough? Are we willing to essentially outsource land (and private rights) within our own country as well?

I think that if this pipeline proposal becomes a reality, we will be continuing to reinforce our dependence on (and commitment to) fossil fuels. If the US hopes to ever be energy independent, how is this a step in the right direction? Furthermore, what will this pipeline do to efforts to establish alternative energies in the US? If this pipeline goes through, won’t the US be sending its citizens, and foreign countries, the message that we are perfectly happy to keep on maintaining the status quo? I don’t think that this pipeline is worth the purported benefits that TransCanada claims it will bring to our country, and I definitely don't think it's worth the risks.

Climate Change Is Real: Check Your Air

“We are changing the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere.”

-Roseland, 103

Terrifying as it is, this statement is factual- and is backed by scientists the world over, yet some people (and some news media, in particular) still claim that climate change is not happening, they claim that they don’t BELIEVE it. Well, wake up people! This is not a matter akin to believing in Santa Claus or the right way to rear children, or even the nature vs. nurture debate- no, this is a purely scientifically backed TRUTH- climate IS changing, and we (human beings- including me and you) are honest-to-goodness altering the atmosphere’s composition. 

Current and future consequences of global climate change.

Ok, so what if you don't deny that human's are tinkering with the Earth's atmosphere, why does it matter? Won't we develop some new technology or geoengineer some innovative solution to fix this mess? Well, maybe-- but maybe not. And what are we to do in the meantime? The climatic ramifications of our actions are (to me) scary enough, but for those who don't care so much about Earth, but might be more inclined to take note if they can see how people are directly impacted, might want to consider how climate change directly impacts human's health.

 

The Clean Air Act was established in 1970 and designed to improve and protect the quality of the country's air, and presumably, improve American's health. But how effectively is this bill living up to its claims? Sure, we no longer see factories billowing black clouds of smoke over our cities the way they used to, but how safe is the air we breathe? Just because pollutants are more highly regulated than in the past doesn't mean they aren't being put into our air, and the fact is that we don't fully understand how atmospheric pollutants affect human health.

But we do know that there is cause for concern. I was chatting with my neighbor, Steven Higgs, the other day about his work, which he has dedicated to raising awareness of environment and health related issues, particularly those near and dear to us in coal-loving Indiana. More and more, research is showing that pollution today still has significant impacts on people's health, such as the case between the link between autism and the environment or sulfur dioxide and asthma rates. 

So while some people might still be deciding whether climate change is real or not, or if it's all that important, I'd rather just let the facts speak for themselves- maybe when people begin to realize that their health is directly impacted by changes in the Earth's atmosphere they might just start believing that climate change is real.

Shallow vs Deep Sustainability: Is Recycling Enough?

Recycling is often equated with sustainable practices, and why shouldn't it be? The idea of taking a used resource and melding it into a renewed version of its previous self for use again fits very well into the sustainability fight against pollution and resource depletion.

But is recycling really enough? One could argue that recycling is in reality just a band-aid over a much larger problem.While recycling is by all accounts better for the environment than shipping off materials to the nearest landfill (or seeing trash end up in the oceans, such as what takes place in the Pacific Ocean Garbage Patch), recycling is in many ways an example of shallow sustainability practices, i.e. it fixes the problem in the short term while ignoring the long term ramifications and underlying root of the problem itself: over consumption (see previous blog post on Reducing Consumption in a Consumerist Society.)

Roseland argues, and I agree, that "'re-think' should be at the top of any waste management hierarchy," followed by practices to reduce consumption, reuse, recycle, and lastly, recover used materials (Toward Sustainable Communities, 74). While recycling may prolong the length of time between the creation of a product and its demise in a landfill, the fact is that if we were to reconsider our consumption in the first place, there would be far less material in need of being recycled at all. When it comes down to it, recycling your plastic bottle may make you feel good about yourself, but it doesn't negate the true costs that went into that bottle's production.

Recycling isn't enough- we need to change our current practices to lead a life that aligns more closely with the tenets of the deep ecology movement, which views life as an interconnected web of interactions and relationships. Recycling certainly will play an important role in our future, but it is not the final answer to using our resources sustainably.

Community Gardens: Good Food For All

"Perhaps the greatest benefit of urban agriculture is the provision of affordable food supplies for lower-income people."
           -Toward Sustainable Communities (Roseland 52)

 How much does it cost to eat a healthy diet?

To put things in perspective...

A McDouble from McDonald's Dollar Menu will cost you just $1+ tax, and provides you with 390 calories, 22g protein, 19 g fat (of which 10g is saturated fat), and 920 mg sodium.

How can we expect people who have limited incomes to pass up what seems like such a great deal (price-wise) on food? Time and again, studies show that when money is tight, cutting food costs is one of the first things that Americans do (see the NY Times article on this topic, "When Money is Tight, and Junk Food Beckons" ).

Community gardens are proving to be a viable source and alternative to cheap junk food, especially for those on a limited budget. Take for example Mother Hubbard's Cupboard in Bloomington, IN, a NGO that puts a twist on your normal food pantry set up by providing low-income clients with as much local, organic produce and wholesome foods as possible, much of which is grown in the community gardens that have been established around the city.

Community gardens not only provide access to good, healthy food for all who participate, but also serve as educational tools to teach people about the basics of gardening and nutrition. They connect people to the food they're eating, helping people to take a step back from an industrialized food system in which most of our food travels 1,300 food miles from the source of it's production before it ever reaches our plate (Roseland 51).

If community gardens can help provide high quality, healthy food for the poor AND reduce people's global environmental footprint, what are we waiting for? Let's get gardening!

Personal Project: Greening the Restaurant Business-A Case Study

Walking down Fourth Street in Bloomington, Indiana is usually a pleasant experience- delicious aromas waft towards you from every direction as your gaze falls upon the quaint ethnic restaurants that line the street on either side of the road. However, this wonderful street is hiding a dirty little secret- NONE of these restaurants (to my knowledge) recycles, let alone composts, any of its waste!

While I have little control over how each restaurant operates, I have worked as a waitress at Anyetsang's Little Tibet for over a year and a half and am going to make it my personal project to design a recycling program that works for them.

Constraints that I will need to consider when developing this program include the following:


     1) Space is (VERY) limited, both inside the kitchen and out back by the dumpsters
     2) Recycling has to make the flow of the kitchen EASIER, not harder, for everyone involved
     3) Storage of recycling outside cannot interfere with the parking area or dumpsters
     4) The recyclables need to get from the restaurant to the recycling center on a regular basis
     5) Little (or most likely, NO) money will be available to fund any changes to the current system

Thankfully, the owners are all interested in the idea of recycling and are in agreement that recycling should become a practice at the restaurant- now it's just a matter of figuring out how to actually make it happen!

Reducing Consumption in a Consumerist Society

"If everyone lived like today's North Americans, it would take at least two additional planet Earths to produce the resources, absorb the wastes, and otherwise maintain life-support... North American footprints are double European footprints, and seven times that of the average Asian or African footprint."
               -Toward Sustainable Communities, Mark Roseland

Consumerism is a driving force in today's society that is a major contributor to the reasons for which our current system of living is unequivocally not sustainable. The ideas that wealth and success are in large part measured or evaluated to some degree on the quantity of belongings that we posses is a staggeringly different approach to living than we should be embodying if we hope to achieve a system of living that can be deemed "sustainable."

Our current culture is so entrenched in the consumerist model that changing the system will be difficult, but ultimately a major shift in lifestyle is necessary for the health of the planet. The benefits of consuming fewer goods are undeniable- less consumption will require the use of  fewer natural resources, especially fossil fuels, which will in turn translate into less pollution of the environment. Reducing consumption will also result in less "trash" generation, and hopefully would result in more wide spread recycling and reuse practices.

Reducing consumption also applies to land use practices, and in particular, the urban sprawl that has been the model of development around most cities in the world. Urban sprawl is to some extent an extension of the consumerist mentality in that each household wants a piece of land for its own, entirely separate and under its individual control. This approach to land use is not sustainable, and perpetuates the desires of individuals to consume more in order to outfit their lives in the suburbs, which in themselves are neither rural nor urban, and as such are distally located from both the raw resources and the final creations of goods that drive their consumption habits.

In short, a dramatic shift in lifestyle choices is necessary for the health of the planet; reducing consumption is just one way to enact such change.