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.