Clear ice over Lake Superior Brownstone: Photo by Gia Klauss
ASAP
As Sustainable As
Possible:
A Working Model
to Assess and Improve the Sustainability
of Outdoor Education and Recreation
Join in the Discussions:
http://www.outdoored.com/Community/forums/39.aspx
Developed by:
OED 050 Sustainable
Backcountry Travel
Northland
College
Fall 2007
Visiting
Assistant Professor of Outdoor Education
Paul Van Horn
Students: Anna Bauer,
Hilary Bulger, Drew Cramer, Byron Emmons, Joe Graveen,
Dave Lardinois, Andrew Rasmus, Paul Sveum, Jessica
Swiercynski, Dave Thomas, Carolyn Weber
“We do not
inherit the world from our ancestors. We borrow it from our
children.”
~Haida Indian
saying
Special Thanks
to:
Connie Burditt,
Instructor and Associate Director of Native American Studies
Jorge
Conesa-Sevilla, Associate Professor of Psychology
Tim Doyle,
Visiting Assistant Professor of Religion and Philosophy
Clare Hintz,
Sustainable Systems Educator
Derek Ogle,
Associate Professor of Mathematics and Applied Statistics
Kevin Schanning,
Associate Professor of Sociology
Background
information and context by Hilary Bulger and Paul Sveum
Presented at the
Wilderness Education Association’s National Conference
San Diego,
California
February 14,
2008
Hilary Bulger,
Paul Sveum, and Paul Van Horn
What does it
mean to be sustainable? What does sustainability itself even mean?
The terms “sustainable,” “green,” and “organic” have become the
cultural phenomenon of today. Once people began to realize the
projected idea that taking away from the land more than what could
be given back was detrimental not only to the health of the planet,
but also affected humankind as well, the revolution began.
Ecological consciousness has spread, but there is still a lot of
work that needs to be done in order to create a more sustainable
society. One of the hardest industries to restructure is the outdoor
recreation industry. So much of what the outdoor industry represents
and supports involves some very unsustainable, anti-“green,”
non-organic processes, opposite of the values held by the majority,
if not all, of the individuals in the industry.
The process of
formulating a cohesive and comprehensive program intended to make
people examine their practices in hopes of inspiring change is a
grand undertaking, especially when it is centered around a term
whose own definition is often up for interpretation:
sustainability. We looked to the Natural Step for our working
definition of sustainability, or what it means to be sustainable.
The Natural Step defines sustainability from an eco-centric point of
view; where all species, people included, and the ecosystems they
live in have the right to life on Earth.
The Natural Step
is a framework of conditions that must be met for a society to be
considered sustainable. Oncologist Dr. Karl-Henrik Robert brought
together leading Swedish scientist to develop the framework,
grounded in science and natural cycles in 1989. The four conditions
and a brief discussion of each that follow are taken from the The
Oregon Natural Step Network’s website.
In order for a
society to be sustainable, nature’s functions and diversity are not
systematically subject to increasing concentrations of substances
extracted from the earth’s crust.
In a sustainable
society, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, and
the mining of metals minerals, will not occur at a rate that causes
them to systematically increase in the ecosphere. There are
thresholds beyond which living organisms and ecosystems are
adversely affected by increases in substances from the earth’s
crust. Problems may include an increase in greenhouse gases leading
to global warming, contamination of surface and ground water, and
metal toxicity which can cause functional disturbances in animals.
In practical terms, the first condition requires society to
implement comprehensive metal and mineral recycling programs and to
decrease economic dependence on fossil fuels.
In order for a
society to be sustainable, nature’s functions and diversity are not
systematically subject to increasing concentrations of substances
produced by society.
In a sustainable
society, humans will avoid generating systematic increases in
persistent substances such as DDT, PCBs, and freon. Synthetic
organic compounds such as DDT and PCBs can remain in the environment
for many years, bio-accumulating in the tissue of organisms and
causing profound deleterious effects on predators in the upper
levels of the food chain. Freon, and other ozone depleting
compounds, may increase the risk of cancer due to added UV radiation
in the troposphere. Society needs to find ways to reduce economic
dependence on persistent human-made substances.
In order for a
society to be sustainable, nature’s functions and diversity are not
systematically impoverished by physical displacement,
over-harvesting, or other forms of ecosystem manipulation.
In a
sustainable society, humans will avoid taking more from the
biosphere than can be replenished by natural systems. In addition,
people will avoid systematically encroaching upon nature by
destroying the habitat of other species. Biodiversity, which
includes the great variety of animals and plants found in nature,
provides the foundation for ecosystem services which are necessary
to sustain life on this planet. Society’s health and prosperity
depends on the enduring capacity of nature to renew itself and
rebuild waste into resources.
In a sustainable
society, people are not subject to conditions that systematically
undermine their capacity to meet their needs.
All human beings have intrinsic needs. The goal of the social
system is to provide the opportunity for all to meet those needs, as
a precondition to a dignified way of life for everyone. “What” we
do and “how” we do it matters. To make decisions which take us
toward this goal, in consideration of any policy, product,
marketing, or investment, we should always identify in advance the
people who are going to be affected, taking the widest possible
systems view. We should ask ourselves: “Would we like to be
subjected to the conditions we create?” In addition, the manner in
which we make these decisions should allow for participation, be
transparent, hold actors accountable, and be honest.
It
was in areas like environmental ethics and philosophy that we needed
the input from thinkers in those fields. We worked with Tim Doyle,
Visiting Assistant Professor of Religion and Philosophy, and Kevin
Schanning, Assistant Professor of Sociology, to sort out the ethics
rooted in environmental issues. In many of our discussions, we came
down to very basic issues of morals and ethics, that we as a class
could talk about, but knowing that our program would possibly be
used by other people outside of our small environmental college, we
had to be careful not to load any of the terms or expectations in a
way that would either offend or turn off people who potentially
would have used our program for good.
Similarly, the
issue of why came up many times. Why we need this gear, why do we
travel great distances to seek the outdoors when it usually exists
within walking distance? For these questions, we talked with
Associate Professor of Psychology Jorge Conesa-Sevilla. He
contributed the ecopsychological aspects to our program, which
really filled in the holes between the physical, what should I bring
camping, and the psychological, why am I bringing this much gear,
why am I even going?
Connie Burditt,
Instructor of Native American Studies shared her thoughts on the
connection between sustainable backcountry ethics and traditional
cultures. We realized there is a link between sustainability and
traditional knowledge and talking to Connie made that even more
apparent. So many of the problems we addressed are cultural in
essence, so having the chance to probe into a culture based on
harmonious life with the earth was important.
In the beginning
of the class, we needed to find a way to break apart this problem of
sustainability into manageable categories. We enlisted the help of
Clare Hintz, Sustainable Systems Educator, to guide us through the
different ways of system thinking to solve problems. The process of
system thinking isolates individual components of the system and
draws on the group’s ideas to make connections between the different
parts of the system.
After we
isolated the three aspects of outdoor recreation that we felt were
most addressable in out time frame – gear, locale, and food – we
split into three groups, each to tackle the research and development
of each category. The class spent the bulk of our semester
researching their area of focus, and then bringing their findings to
class to discuss with the rest of the group. After many classes we
felt comfortable with the scope of our work and spent the remaining
few classes working on the composition and structure of the ASAP
program.
For each of the
three sections there is background information describing problems
we identified and potential solutions we came up with. Much of our
focus was on low hanging fruits, accessible things we thought could
be done today or tomorrow. Each section also has a future steps and
considerations, as well as unanswered questions, which were
innumerable.
In designing our
model, we tried to come up with criteria that could be evaluated by
users. Some of them are still difficult, like determining where
every step of production takes places and what materials and
processes are used. There are certainly more criteria that could be
included. We found the following to be, in our opinion, the most
relevant and researchable.
It is worth
noting that this project was undertaken by eleven students, guided
by one professor, during a two credit, semester long course. This
is obviously a bigger issue than that. There are many, many
questions we raised that need further research, thought, and
discussion. There are many other questions we raised that there may
not be answers to, yet.
Some of the
issues yet to be resolved inherent in our model itself are some
incongruencies between sections as they were written by different
groups of students, particularly in language, depth, and citations.
The statistics, as far as the percentages and weights, given that
each section has a different possible number of points, was
something we struggled with. We consulted Derek Ogle, Associate
Professor of Mathematics and Applied Statistics for advice and
decided, for now, to accept that while the three categories hold
equal weight, changes within one category are not equal to changes
within another category.
We need to
remember that sustainability, like this model, is a work in
progress. We are on a journey and we can not be sure of what the
end will look like, but we can do our part to influence it. What is
sustainable today should not and cannot be considered sustainable
tomorrow as our knowledge, technologies (for better or worse),
expectations, and global conditions change.
Equipment
by Anna Bauer, Dave Lardinois, Andrew Rasmus, Carolyn Weber
Background
People’s desire to consume is not a new issue, as we are well aware
of. People consume resources to survive. Unfortunately, what we are
facing now is a society that has become addicted to commodities and
convenience. The bar has shifted from consumption of what is
necessary to survive to consumption of luxuries that are thought of
as necessities. The results of our purchases are not transparent and
are creating global harm. The consumption patterns have changed
drastically, evolving over time based on the influence of those in
control. The few very wealthy that control these systems have
created an economy reliant on wasteful consumerism.
J.W. Smith
suggests that, “Though most societies were efficient for the time in
which they were formed, powerful nations disintegrated when too
large a share of their labor was diverted to unnecessary tasks. Some
societies, such as the European aristocratic structures, needlessly
expended labor, resources, and capital to support militaristic elite
bent on plundering neighbors and their own workers. Each of these
societies became locked into a wasteful system of production and
distribution. The United States is also locked into a wasteful
expenditure of labor, resources, and industry” (Smith, 1994, p.4).
Just how
wasteful is this system? The processes that lead to such
disparities in unequal consumption are themselves wasteful and are
structured deep into the system itself. Economic efficiency is for
making profits, not necessarily for social good, which is treated as
a side effect. The waste in the economic system is, as a result,
very deep. Eliminating the causes of this type of waste is related
to the elimination of poverty and bringing rights to all.
Eliminating the waste also allows for further equitable consumption
for all, as well as a decent standard of consumption.
Just what are
the products made out of that we consume? Plastics, nylon, metal and
all sorts of materials with names that are most likely unfamiliar.
Being unfamiliar with these materials, we fail to realize what it
takes to produce these products. Most of the gear we buy is created
from non-renewable resources that in the process create harmful
by-products, polluting the air and stripping the Earth of its
resources. The energy that goes into these productions causes huge
amounts of carbon emissions to be released into the atmosphere. As
our society has finally publicly identified the tremendous harm
carbon emissions have on our climate, we can see how this production
system must change.
Besides using
energy and producing harmful emissions, we must understand the risk
of creating such large amounts of non-renewable resources. If we
look at the natural step, we can identify that production of these
non-renewable resources is an environmental hazard. Chemicals that
are man-made are identified as dangerous due to their unknown
factor. There is not enough research, time, or money that can
identify the effects creating these chemicals will have on people
and the earth in general. We most likely will be unable to see these
results until much time has past.
We
must also consider that creating these non-renewable materials
causes by- products. In the past by-products have been dumped, often
randomly, causing contamination to the land and dangerous sites that
future generations will have to endure. These dump sites often
become dangerous. Why must we then, create these products if they
cause so much harm to the environment and ourselves? Additionally,
the gear itself, when we are done using it, often gets dumped as
well, rather than recycled, reused, or repaired. Fortunately we can
create products from sustainably grown resources that bio-degrade.
Though not readily available in all areas for all budgets, we must
increase the demand for these eco-friendly and sustainably grown
products as a step in creating a more sustainable Outdoor Industry.
Model
Renewable
Materials
Renewable materials are grown and harvested in sustainable manner.
Examples of renewable materials are: bamboo, soy, cocona, hemp, corn
based plastic, and hevea tree. Some research is required to confirm
that they are in fact sustainable – processing may require the use
of large amounts of other materials or energy which may make the
“renewable” product no more sustainable.
2 points –
made
out of 100% renewable materials or materials that come from an
organic producer
1 point –
made
out of at least 20% renewable materials and less than one third of
materials are non-sustainable products, such as petroleum based
products
0 points –
made
of primarily non-sustainable materials
Recycled
Materials
Recycled materials are materials that have can be reused for another
purpose. This can include the direct reuse of a material such as a
glass or plastic container. This can also include the reusing of
only the material and transforming it into a different product, such
as using an old t-shirt to make a bag. An aluminum backpack frame
that is made out of old pop cans is another example. When making an
item out of recycled materials be aware of the things that go into
its creation such as glue, sewing thread, or paint for these items
are not being recycled. When purchasing an item made out of
recycled materials, make sure to research what other materials,
including energy, are used and created in the production process.
2 points –
made
out of 100% recycled materials
1 point –
made
out of at least 20% recycled materials
0 points –
made
out of primarily non-recycled materials
Carbon
Emissions
According to scientists, carbon dioxide is the number one green
house gas contributing to global warming. The production process of
many materials causes emissions of carbon into the atmosphere. The
less carbon a material produces or emits during its production
process the lower its impact. If carbon offsets or credits are
bought, research should be done on the company they are purchased
through.
2 points –
amount of production of carbon is within or below environmental
regulations stated by the Kyoto protocol (Annex 1 country), without
the purchase of carbon credits
1 point –
buys
carbon offsets
0 points
–
amount of carbon is well above environmental regulations or is
unknown
Distance from
Production to Purchase
The
transportation of goods is responsible for a large portion of the
carbon output of a product. The fewer miles a product has to travel
to the point of purchase translates directly to a decrease in the
amount of carbon produced by that product. Buying locally not only
improves the economy of the community, it also leads to fewer
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
2 points
–
entire production process and transportation is accomplished
within 100 miles of purchase
1 point
– entire production process and transportation is accomplished
within 1,000 miles of purchase
0 points
– entire production process and transportation is not accomplished
within 1,000 miles of the purchase
Synthetic
Compounds
According to the Natural Step, as summarized by the Oregon Natural
Step Network, “synthetic organic compounds such as DDT and PCBs can
remain in the environment for many years, bio-accumulating in the
tissue of organisms and causing profound deleterious effects on
predators in the upper levels of the food chain.” Purchase products
that do not use or produce synthetic compounds at any stage of their
production.
2 points
– there are absolutely no synthetic organic compounds that are
produced during or for the production process
0 points
– there are synthetic organic compounds that are produced during or
for the production process
Accessibility
of Company Information
When
doing research on a company, it is important that that company’s
policies and product information be easily accessible. This also
means that the information is clearly stated as a legitimate fact
and is not merely an attempt to sound environmentally friendly,
known as greenwashing. Look for companies that belong to the
Conservation Alliance and reference the Environmental Protection
Agency.
2 points
– company exercises public accountability
1 point
– moderately to heavy research is needed to find information on the
company’s production process
0 points
– no information is available on the company’s production process
Fair Trade
Companies that follow Fair Trade standards are more sustainably
responsible. The standards set by Fair Trade, including fair prices,
labor conditions, direct trade from the production country, and
factors of environmental sustainability, help protect the
environment and attempt to rectify the socioeconomic impacts of our
current economy. The standards guarantee that set economic, social
and environmental criteria that will be met during trade and
production processes.
2 points
- follows standards of Fair Trade
0 points
– few regulations
Multiuse
Gear
Identifying and
taking advantage of gear that has multiple uses will decrease the
amount of gear purchased and used. This, in turn, decreases the
number of resources used. A poncho, for example, can be used to as
protection from wind and rain, as a ground cloth, or as a tarp.
Think outside the box when considering what to bring on a trip as
well as when purchasing.
2 points
–
three easily distinguished and applicable uses
1 point
– two
easily distinguished and applicable uses
0 points
– one
use
Future Steps
and Considerations
The
first simple way to become more sustainable in terms of gear is to
use second hand gear, borrowed or rented gear, multi-use gear, or
make your own gear. The basic idea is to use minimalist thinking to
lessen the impact backpacking makes on the environment. Another step
is to support companies that are members of Conservation Alliance,
Fair Trade, or EPA Green Power Partnership and demand products that
have higher environmental standards. Read tags to find information
such as where the product is made and what it is made from and
research what that really means. Many companies inform consumers of
their environmental awareness by using little packaging or packaging
which is made from recycled materials. Check to see if gear catalogs
are made from recycled paper or look at products online instead. Do
we have realistic expectations as far as comfort? Many of recreation
areas are labeled as primitive or wilderness. Modern conveniences
can over shadow the rustic and wild atmosphere of the outdoors.
Unanswered
Questions
How
hard is it to determine the vast amounts of steps involved in
creating a product?
How do we
consider the regulations in each state in determining a final
system?
Will the United
States take on the Annex 1 Policy?
How effective
are carbon credits? How can buying more stuff offset consumerism?
Are there other
organizations, like Fair Trade, that certify?
How and where do
we find information about companies that are not transparent?
How high is the
demand for green power?
Do companies put
out or are required to publish public documents about creating
emissions and using certain amounts of materials, etc?
How strict is
the policy on carbon emission in the United States?
References
and Resources
Adide – sends 10% of its profits back in to the community for
programs and other environmental efforts (www.adideinc.com)
Backcountry.com
– the Green Goat is the newest idea, supporting the minimization of
the impacts on the environment to make the finest outdoor products,
for “those who strive to make the world a greener place to live” (http://www.backcountry.com/)
Chammyz Clothing – makes 100% recycled clothing made from wood fiber
waste (http://www.chammyz.com/)
Cleaner and Greener – this company focuses their manufacturing
process to be eco-friendly and better for the environment by
considering emissions and renewable ideas (www.cleanerandgreener.org)
Co-op America –
see how you can get involved in stopping sweatshops and learn how to
support living green, Fair Trade, and green energy (www.sweatshops.org)
Earth Creation – uses natural clay dies in their organic hemp and
cotton products (www.earthcreations.net)
ExOfficio – is a company that produces products that are from soy
plants (www.exofficio.com)
Fair Trade Certified
– check out how
companies are audited for Fair Trade and what it’s all about (www.transfairusa.org)
Hemp Sisters – works with Fair Trade, women, and small businesses of
Nepal (www.hemp-sisters.com)
Lonely Planet –
donates 5% of its profits to projects in developing countries, check
out hundreds of book that will help you recognize ideas of
sustainable and eco-friendly tourism (www.lonelyplanet.com)
Loyale – the clothing produced is made in the United States and is
made of materials like bamboo and organic cotton, they also donate
3% of their profits to Green Corps (www.loyaleclothing.com)
Milliken and Company (www.visaendurance.com)
Smith, J.W. (1994). The World’s Wasted Wealth 2. Institute
for Economic Democracy.
Sustainable Cotton Project (www.sustainablecotton.org)
Splaff – is a company that has a 100% no waste process for their
products (www.splaff.com)
Location
by Byron
Emmons, Jessica Swiercynski
Background
Finding ways to create a more sustainable system for backcountry
travel can be difficult and at many times mind-boggling, especially
in the case of all the different factors inherent in choosing a
location. The first major factor for the location matrix is deciding
the type of setting. For our class’s purpose, location has been
generalized into three terms: self-owned or private, established,
and undisturbed.
Land that is
privately owned can be used by its owners and their guests in an
aware manner, taking care of its beauty as well as managing its
resources. Private property generally gets less use than public,
which are available for use at all times by everyone. Resources can
be decimated faster and natural beauty can decay if a site is
over-used. Undisturbed areas remain the epitome of wilderness. To
remain relatively undisturbed regulations are enforced to monitor
amount and types of use.
There is a fair
amount of philosophical debate surround this topic. Is something
really wilderness, really undisturbed if it is managed and
regulated? If damming streams, climbing trees, and hiking off trail
are prohibited, what are we denying ourselves? It is questions like
these that need serious consideration and make choosing a location
particularly difficult.
Another important facet of locale is the mode of transportation one.
There are many modes of transportation, but for the most part they
can be categorized into three sections: human-powered vehicles,
vehicles powered by alternate mechanical forms of energy, and
vehicles powered by fossil fuels. The last category can be divided
into two subcategories: optimal usage of fossil fuel and incompetent
usage of fossil fuel. The burning of fossil fuel is one of the main
causes for the global increase in temperature. Burning fossil fuels
at high rates causes the build-up of green house gasses, which
causes massive holes in the ozone layer, which in turn causes more
sunlight to enter our atmosphere and more heat to be trapped. The
more fossil fuels are burned the more we set ourselves up to cause
our own destruction. Though vehicles may spell convenience for many,
fossil-fuel-burning vehicles also spell long-term disaster. Many
companies are working to find a way to accommodate for such loss of
fuel by creating cars that have a greater gas mileage. The greatest
way to solve the problem of over-using fossil fuels is not to use
them at all.
Distance is also a critical factor in deciding on a location,
particularly when paired with mode of transportation. It is up to
outdoor enthusiasts today to decide whether driving a distance of 25
miles is necessary or whether it could have been biked. This also
forces an outdoor enthusiast to examine his or her reasons for
recreating at his or her destination in the first place. For
example, is it really necessary to travel all the way to Glacier
National Park to go backpacking or can a person who lives in
Ashland, Wisconsin go out and backpack in the Chequamegon National
Forest and achieve the same satisfaction?
Once
at a location, it is important to be aware of how you are treating
it. Leave No Trace is a familiar set of principles, designed guide
people to preserve the ecological aspects of wilderness areas that
are open to recreation. Leave No Trace is fairly widespread and does
promote careful use of the outdoors, but is it realistic to expect
that someone is capable of not leaving a trace at all? What if it
was a good trace? Like enriching the soil by spreading broken down,
and of course cold, coals? We are going to use the term expertise
to address the skills and ideas necessary to be a good nature
traveler. By understanding, and, more importantly, practicing solid
backcountry skills, we can minimize our impact and potentially leave
a positive one.
One
current debate is whether to use wood fires or gas stoves. Wood can
be depleted quickly from an area by ignorant use, but where does gas
come from? It comes down to a matter of my backyard or your
backyard, a hole in the Earth or a hole in the woods. Knowing the
area you are going to will help you make an informed decision about
this and other issues.
Knowledge is power and the size of the group and the amount of this
knowledge that the group possesses collectively is important to
outdoor recreating in a sustainable and ecologically conscious
manner. The more knowledge a group possesses the less impact that
this particular group will have on the environment. It should be
every educator’s goal to teach his or her students about ecological
consciousness and the importance of protecting the environment for
future generations, as well as how to use the environment wisely in
order to conserve resources.
Once
a knowledgeable group ventures out, the amount of time that the
group spends in one location and the size of the group, however
knowledgeable, can cause a great decimation of resources and
aesthetic beauty. To minimize the impact that one group has on a
location one should resolve to move often and not stay in one
position for a long period of time, as a large group must use more
resources than a small group.
Ecopsychology plays an important role in the purpose behind outdoor
recreation itself, so influences location as well. Ecopsychology
explores the relationships between existential circumstances such as
“nature estrangement” and “nature alienation” and diverse situation
where psychological wellness is suggested in varying degrees of
severity (Roszak, Gomes, Kanner 1995). It can be defined as
mankind’s desire to return to nature to stay sane. It resolves to
recreate the age-old connection between humans and nature, between
humans and their origins. The connection that spans the concept of
the self and reaches beyond human society to again connect with
nature is resolved, resulting in an ecological ego, best explained
as the sense of ethical responsibility to the planet as is seen
among person to person (Conessa-Sevilla 2006).
Ecopsychology
questions the need for society’s masculine, capitalistic, urbanized
culture and cultivates ideas of a humble, open-minded, generally
rural culture. To use the outdoors to help others find their
ecological ego should be the pinnacle of reasoning behind recreating
in the outdoors in the first place. As long as someone knows their
ecological ego exists and has a desire to be outdoors and connect
with nature, any reason for recreation is acceptable. The ability to
give back to the environment instead of just take is a keystone when
it comes to sustainability and therefore it is important to
understand or at least be aware of why as a person one may require
time in the outdoors... Perhaps a spark will ignite, followed by a
desire to learn more about the environment and the compassion to act
to make a difference.
Once
a person recognizes why he or she desires to participate in outdoor
pastimes, he or she can use one’s knowledge to decide an appropriate
place to recreate. Those with a greater knowledge of ecological
consciousness should focus on the reasons they decide to recreate.
Does a person really need to visit untouched wilderness or can he or
she achieve the same desire in an established area? If this is so
one would not need to travel far or stay in one place for long or
require a remote wilderness area to appreciate the beauty that
nature has to offer. Someone who is still developing his or her
ecological consciousness, however, still might require something
more remote and intense to feel in tune with nature. It is when one
realizes that nature can be appreciated on a door step in the middle
of the city that one can truly be at peace with the inner desire for
nature. Location loses its value when full ecological appreciation
is awoken, but until then a trip’s location is what remains as the
settling factor.
Once
a place has been decided, one can figure out how distance and the
amount of time spent recreating affect one’s carbon footprint. The
idea is to travel the least amount while still spending a greater
time recreating so that shorter trips do not have to be taken
frequently, reducing the impact caused by time spent in one place as
well as reducing the possible carbon output of having to travel a
certain distance frequently. By taking one long trip instead of
multiple short trips it gives the ecosystem time to repair itself
while people are away where as short trips continue to degrade the
environment not allowing the land to heal.
Model
Type of Area
This section is
meant to address the specific areas that people choose to recreate
in. In order to allow for the least amount of environmental impact
while still remaining sustainable, it is best, if possible, to use
private property. Going to established parks, trails, and campsites
are good because they concentrate human impact so that small areas
of fragile wilderness can stay intact, but the concentration of
human impact at established areas can leave devastating effects such
as erosion, trash build up, and over harvesting of firewood.
Untouched wilderness may need to be explored for educational and
scientific purposes, but impact will be more noticeable.
3 points
– private property
2 points
– established areas such as parks, campgrounds, trails, etc.
1 point
– untouched wilderness with a purpose
0 points
–
untouched wilderness without a purpose
Fuel Consumption
The best options
for travel that are the most sustainable and the best for the
environment are those that require no mechanical parts such as
walking and horse-back riding. Alternative vehicles that are
modified so that they do not require fossil fuels are the next best
option. If using a vehicle powered by fossil fuel, look for a
vehicle that efficiently uses our precious resources. Mass transit
is efficient because of the large number of people that can be
transported if full, but does require large amounts of fuel.
3 points
–
alternate transportation options such as walking, riding a bike,
etc.
2 points
–
alternate power source transportation such as bio fuel, electric,
solar, etc.
1 point
–
transportation that uses fossil fuel to the fullest such as full
busses, trains, planes, and vehicles with gas mileage of 30+
0 points
–
vehicles that get less than 30 miles to the gallon
Distance
Simply the
distance traveled to reach your location, reflective of the fossil
fuels used and the emissions produced. These distances have a
wavering factor, left to your discretion. For example, it is up to
you to award two points or three points for a trip that is 28 miles
away. Note: if you are using a form of transportation that does not
release require fossil fuels or produce emissions, award yourself
three points.
3 points
– less than
25 miles
2 points
– 26 to100
miles
1 point
– 101 to 300
miles
1 points
– 301 or
more miles
Camping
Expertise
This easily can
be the most important aspect of sustainable travel. Having the
right knowledge to conduct your selves in the least harmful manner
is critical. Even more important then knowing is putting the
knowledge into practice on the trail. One possible credit for each
section, each credit is worth one point.
Travel
– If there is an established trail, use it in a single file line to
avoid widening it. Climb over trees and go through mud, again to
avoid increasing the width of the trail. If there is not a trail,
spread out so you don’t establish one. Watch where you step; walk
on bare rocks, firm ground, or impacted areas. Try and not step on
vegetation, humans are large animals and can be very destructive.
Avoid steep slopes to help reduce erosion.
Choosing a
Campsite
– Pick a previously used site when possible. Be conscious of your
new neighbors, do not set up camp at a local watering hole, denying
access to animals. Place tents on firm, bare, or impacted areas.
Shorter stays help to minimize impact. Sweep your camp when you
leave and leave it better than you found it.
Fires
– Clear away all organic litter that may light on fire. Keep fires
small and in control. Never leave a fire unattended! Know the area
you are in and make an educated decision on what kind and how much
wood to use, if at all. Make sure the fire is cold when done. Crush
and scatter all coals and ash and restore area to natural look.
Outdoor
Bathrooms
– Always go far away from water sources. If the waste does not have
ample time to filter through the ground, it can contaminate local
water sources. Use cat holes. If using toilet paper either pack
out or burn. Pack out everything else, including feminine
products.
Washing of
Self and Dishes
– Like going to the bathroom be far away from water. Even
biodegradable soaps put stress on the environment so be frugal when
using. Dirt and ash do a great job at cleaning out dishes. Every
food scrap, no matter how small or how biodegradable should be
packed out.
Trash and
General Respect
– If you bring it in you bring it out. You can prepare your food
and supplies before the trip by removing extra packaging, and always
bring garbage bags. Check and double check your campsite when you
are leaving. Pick up any trash you may find along the trail. Over
all be respectful to all life plant and animal alike. Use common
sense, don’t feed animals, and be respectful of other visitors.
Remember that knowing these skills is one thing but to actually get
credit you must practice them too.
1–6 points
– 1-6
credits
Group Size
The impact of
humans on the environment is connected to how much each person in a
group knows and cares about preserving the environment, as well as
the size of the group. A large group of students with a greater
knowledge is more likely to make less of an impact on an expedition
than a small group that has no knowledge or desire to care for the
environment.
3 points
- a
group of 10 members or less with an average score of 4 credits or
above on expertise
2 points
– a
group of more than 10 members with an average score of 4 credits or
above on expertise
1 point
– a
group of 10 members or less with an average score less than 4
credits on expertise
0 points
– a
group of more than 10 members with an average score less than 4
credits on expertise
Time Spent in
One Location
It would be more
beneficial for the environment if a small group of people spends
less time at a single destination rather than a large group spending
a long time at a single destination. The less time that is spent at
a destination the less likely the impact will be more noticeable and
permanent.
3 points
– the
size of the group is 10 members or less and less than a week is
spent in a single destination
2 points
– the
size of the group is 10 members or less and more than a week is
spent in a single destination
1 point
– the
size of the group is more than 10 members and less than a week is
spent in a single destination
0 points
– the
size of the group is more than 10 members and more than one week is
spent in a single destination
Ecopsychology
Ecopsychology
helps us understand why we go the places we go. By understanding
humans’ intrinsic need for nature, we can better choose appropriate
locations based on our specific purposes. See background for more
information on ecopsychology.
3 points
-
recreation for educational or cultural purposes
2 points
–
recreation for personal reasons such as fun, exploration, spiritual,
etc., has a connection with nature
1 point
– no
knowledge or reason, just something to do
0 points
- out
to take advantage of nature
Location
The impact you
have on a place is influenced by the knowledge you possess and the
type of location you are going to. The impact may or not be
acceptable depending on your reason for going there, based on your
ecological consciousness or lack of.
3 points
– if
the location is established and expertise score is above 4 along
with at least 2 points for ecopsychology
2 points
– if
the location is undisturbed and expertise score is above 4 along
with at least 2 points for ecopsychology
1 point
– if
the location is established and expertise score is below 4 along
with 2 or less for ecospychology
0 points
– if
the location is undisturbed and expertise score is below 4 along
with 2 or less points for ecopsychology
Distance
The ideal
situation is to travel the least distance to a location and then
spending the greatest time there. For example it would be better to
take one long trip every other month than a short trip every weekend
in terms of fuel usage and impact. Note: if you are using a form of
transportation that does not release require fossil fuels or produce
emissions, award yourself three points.
3 points
– the
distance traveled is less than 100 miles and more than a week is
spent recreating
2 points
– the
distance traveled is less than 100 miles and less than a week is
spent recreating
1 point
– the
distance traveled is more than 100 miles and a week or more is spent
recreating
0 points
– the
distance traveled is over 100 miles and less than a week is spent
recreating
Future Steps
and Considerations
When
dealing with the location aspect of recreating sustainably, one
deals more with personal actions instead of objects like in the food
and gear aspects of recreation. Because of the wide range of actions
that one must take responsibility for in this category and also
because all of the actions are interconnected, it is not yet
possible to distinguish any more immediate future steps than those
that have been addressed. It is up to each individual to decide
whether or not they want to follow these guidelines or whether or
not they want to update them with better options in sustainable
recreation. As long as one thinks consciously about how they are
affecting the environment and that they know why they are out in
nature, they are on the right track. This is each person’s
opportunity to take the road less traveled.
There are many
complications and subjective information involved with a study on
sustainability, particularly location issues. It is difficult to
quantify many of the relevant aspects, so specific distances and
time frames are somewhat arbitrary, but were the result of much
research, thought, and discussion. It is equally difficult to
quantify the value of various purposes, so again, use thought, care,
and consideration.
References
and Resources
Conessa-Sevilla.
(2006). Defining Ecopsychology: A New Name for an Old Science.
http://cao.house.gov/greenexpo/
Louv, Richard.
(2005). Last Child in the Woods. New York: Algonquin Books.
Rocky Mountain
Sports. August 2007. p.38.
Roszak,
Theodore, Gomes, Mary, and Kanner, Allen. (Eds.) (1995).
Ecopsychology Restoring the Mind, Healing the Mind.
San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.
Theodore
Roszak’s Eight Ecopsychological Principle’s
http://www.care2.com/channels/ecoinfo/transportation
www.communitywebs.org/ScientificExpeditionGroup/pdf/MINIMUM%20IMPACT%2
GUIDELINES.pdf
www.ecopsychology.org
www.gdrc.org/uem/co2-calculator.html
www.knowledgehound.com/topics/ecotrans.htm
www.lnt.org
www.motherearthnews.com/alternative-transportation.aspx
www.sustainabletravelinternational.org
For further
reference look at any of the publications by:
Derrick Jensen
Ralph Metzner
Betty Roszak
Theodore Roszak
Paul Shepard
Food
by Drew
Cramer, Joe Graveen, Dave Thomas
Background
In conventional
agriculture there have been many detrimental effects in and on the
environment and in human health and nutrition. The biomagnification
– “the
bioaccumulation of a substance up the food chain by
transfer of residues of the substance in smaller organisms that are
food for larger organisms in the chain” (Biomagnification, 2006) –
of pesticides has increased dramatically in the animals we eat for
food. In the 1987 book by John Robbins, Diet for a New America, he
cites research studies that “indicate that of all the toxic chemical
residues in the American diet, 95-99%, comes from meat, fish, dairy
products, and eggs” (p. 315). Pesticide residues are minimal from
diets low on the food chain including “1% from grains, 4% from
fruits, and 6% from vegetables compared to 23% from dairy products
and 55% from meats” (Realities 1989). Pesticide residues are stored
in fat cells in animals higher up on the food chain; people are
pesticide sinks, storing residues in their cells.
After World War
II, farming changed dramatically from what it had been for centuries
before. With the end of the war, the enemy was changed from Germany
and Japan to the natural world, absorbing the weapons and machines
into another sector of the economy. The tanks became tractors to
work the soil while the explosives were transformed into fertilizers
to stimulate growth of plants. Before World War II soil fertility
was dependent on manure, crop rotations, and the planting of
nitrogen fixing plants thus insuring a healthy complex system, but
after the war, with an enormous surplus of nitrogen explosives,
scientists abandoned the small complex farm and created mechanized
farms that were thousands of acres and supplied with nitrogen
fertilizers. These fertilizers and animal manure after 60 years of
constant misuse have compromised certain aspects of the environment,
especially the Gulf of Mexico, where the runoff of all the
Midwestern farms has created an enormous algae bloom – known as the
Dead Zone –
which uses up
the oxygen available for aquatic organisms. The Dead Zone, at its
peak, is almost the size of New Jersey, fluctuating from year to
year (Roach, 2005).
The over-use of
petroleum is prevalent in conventional agricultural systems because
it is heavily subsidized. If farmers had to pay the “real cost” of
petroleum today’s farms would look very different. Petroleum is
extensively used throughout the agricultural system including the
shipping of materials, the machines that plant, maintain, and
harvest, and in the creation of synthetic fertilizers and
pesticides.
Our
nation’s food supply is dependent on nationwide distribution,
ensuring that a product is in a store and not guaranteeing its
quality or taste. The average distance produce travels to reach a
Chicago market is 1,518 miles (Mason, 2006, 135). Most of the
produce comes from California and is trucked throughout the United
States on the Interstate Highway System, sometimes traveling as far
as 3,000 miles from where it was grown.
Large factory farm implements are employed in conventional
agricultural systems to increase the efficiency on the farm.
Enormous tractors that run on diesel or propane are used everyday
doing tasks around the farm. These machines are powered by fossil
fuels and generally run all day throughout the planting and
harvesting seasons.
Petroleum based fertilizers are energy intensive. Synthetic
nitrogen fertilizers are formed from the Haber-Bosch process by
combining nitrogen and hydrogen gases under vast amounts of heat and
pressure. The heat and pressure are supplied by electricity and the
hydrogen gas from fossil fuels, thus changing what had once been a
sun driven cycle to one supplemented by fossil fuels. “Every bushel
of industrial corn requires the equivalent of between a quarter and
a third of a gallon to grow it or about fifty gallons of oil per
acre” (Pollan, 2006, 45). This number is so large that it now takes
“more than a calorie of fossil fuel energy to produce a calorie of
food,” when before chemical fertilizers farms “produced more than
two calories of food energy for every calorie of energy invested”
(Pollen, 2006, 46).
The
farming practices in the meat industry should hardly be called
farming and instead should be called the industrial production of
meat. Beef, poultry, and pork are all raised in large “factory”
farms that produce meat in an industrial fashion. These animals are
fed a diet of “corn, soybeans, and fishmeal, plus vitamins,
hormones, and antibiotics. Such a diet uses massive amounts of
water and energy—to grow the feed; water the cattle, pigs, and
chickens; and produce the fertilizers” (Steinberg 190). This feed
is bought at a lower price than what it cost to grow the grains
because of government subsidies. This artificially low price allows
the factory farms to raise meat without paying for the costs to the
environment—water pollution, soil erosion, lack of diversity, and
air pollution.
Cattle are
ruminants, meaning they eat grass, and have been doing so forever.
Feeding these animals corn is going against hundreds of thousands of
years of genetic adaptation. Eating corn causes the rumen to swell
and pushes against the other stomachs, causing much pain for the
cow, and a veterinarian has to come to the farm to release the
pressure. Laying hens live in small, six inch cages, not even
allowing them to spread their wings, which are roughly 26 inches
(Realities 1989). Hogs regularly bite the tails of other hogs
because of the confinement. To live in these confined areas so
close to so many other animals, antibiotics are essential or a
disease could take out the entire building. As a result, animals
now consume more than 30 times the amount of antibiotics than humans
(Steinberg 196). This has unknown health risks, but one thing that
has resulted from this antibiotic use is increased tolerance in
bacteria, leaving older antibiotics ineffective.
Through current
“free” trade practices peoples all over the world are being
systematically extorted. Mega-corporations are able to sell their
products worldwide with no regulations addressing human and
environmental rights. The violations on human rights include child
labor, low to no wages, long hours without breaks, union busting,
and harsh working conditions. The most expense part of almost any
product is human labor and by minimizing this cost companies are
seeking to maximize profits, with no care for the welfare of the
people who work for them.
Health problems from genetically altered foods are a
dangerous concern. GMO's (genetically modified organism) can cause
include food allergies, increased toxicity, decreased nutritional
value, and antibiotic resistance to various bacterium (Genetically
Modified Organisms, 2003). Food allergies become a problem because
when genetically modifying an organism scientists take a desirable
gene from one organism and put it into another. In one case
researches put a gene from the Brazil nut into the soybean to
increase Methionine production. After the splicing of these two
plants people had unexpected allergic reactions to the soy beans
containing this gene (Case Study: Brazil nut allergen in GE
soybeans). If people can have unforeseen allergic reactions, how
many other unforeseen negative effects will GMO's bring?
Another alarming
concern regarding food today is bio-piracy. According to the action
group on Erosion, Technology, and Concentration (ETC Group),
“bio-piracy refers to the appropriation of the knowledge and genetic
resources of farming and indigenous communities by individuals or
institutions who seek exclusive monopoly control over resources and
knowledge” (Brinkman, 2005). It is then possible to obtain patents
on food. If a patented food spreads to another farmer’s field the
patent holder is able to collect royalties on that farmer. As
pollens are able to drift many miles, there is bound to be
uncontrolled cross breeding, giving one person holding a patent the
ability to sue countless others for royalties.
Many
genetically altered foods are tested in open air test plots, which
has caused uncontrolled spreading in recent years. Such was the case
in Aug, 2006 in Oregon when a GE (genetically engineered) bent-grass
escaped its testing ground. That same year a German company was
responsible for the contamination of virtually all the United
States’ crop of long grain white rice with a GE variety never
intended for human consumption (LaDuke, 2006). These crops are
sometimes consumed before they have been deemed safe, even when
after testing their level of safety should be questioned. Our tests
can not test the multitude of possibilities that occur in nature.
Also with uncontrolled spreading these plants cross pollinate with
wild strains, possibly driving them out, or creating a new
unpredictable strain. Heirloom varieties of plants that have been
cultivated for generations become extinct because of one GMO getting
loose. Through the production of GMO's we are threatening our crops
genetic diversity, something that will take countless years to get
back, if we can even get them back at all.
Terminator seeds are seeds that will only produce once,
are genetically modified, and are owned by merger mega-corporations
like Monsanto and Dupont. The problem with terminator seeds is that
they only produce one year’s crop. After they have produced they die
and no reseeding is possible (Olsen, 1999). This forces farmers to
buy them year after year, rendering them dependant upon someone else
for their crops. Since it is corporations that own these seeds they
are often able to make other seed producers go out of business,
resulting in a monopoly on seeds in their area, forcing farmers to
buy only from them.
As
our farming practices have become more and more estranged from
“real” farming, our effects on the land have become nothing short of
tragic. In the production of every pound meat, poultry, eggs, or
milk five pounds of topsoil are lost (Vandana, 2000, pp 70-71). This
loss of topsoil is caused by modern farming practices that let
erosion and soil degradation wreck our most basic of natural
resources. Topsoil takes years to be produced, and when there is no
more topsoil for the plant matter to grow on, there will be no more
plant matter to make the topsoil. If we continue to destroy our
topsoil we will soon realize the true value of dirt. There is a Cree
proverb that speaks on this issue, “Only when the last tree is cut,
only when the last river is polluted, only when the last fish is
caught, only then will they realize that you cannot eat money.”
Sustainable
alternatives to conventional agriculture can leave our future with
healthy, fertile soil instead of the biologically dead soil
conventional systems are creating. Instead of the conventional
mindset that we are combating the environment to grow our food,
sustainable systems work with nature rather than against it. They
employ natural systems and plants to maintain fertility and control
pests.
Maintaining
fertile soil is easy to do organically using compost. Compost is
the recycling of natural materials like leaves, grass clippings, and
kitchen scraps into organic matter. The finished product is black
and gives the soil that “earthy” smell, like the smell of forest
soil. Compost is home to thousands of bacteria, fungi, nematodes,
protozoa, and arthropods that feed the plants through their
interactions around the plants. Manures can also be composted with
the addition of a carbon source; these have higher nitrogen levels
and are great for heavy feeding plants like corn.
Mulches are laid
out around plants to protect the soil micro-organisms and help
retain water in the soil. The mulches also slowly break down and
can be thought of as a time released fertilizer. Green mulches can
also be grown after or before a harvest and tilled into the soil to
increase nutrients—like nitrogen—into the soil. Organic fertilizers
such as fish emulsion are used to supplement plants with their
needed nutrients. Soil minerals can also be applied to fields or
foliar fed to plants to correct mineral deficiencies.
Insect control
can be done several ways in organic farming. Healthy plants will
generally not have insect damage so pest damage is probably pointing
out some kind of deficiency. Paying close attention to crops that
are being grown and what is happening around them is crucial for an
organic farmer. If there is a pest it can be taken care of
immediately before it spreads throughout the farm. Diversity and
crop rotations disrupt insect cycles, not allowing one type of pest
to cause serious damage. Habitats that encourage predatory insects
are essential for a healthy insect population to keep the pest
species in check. If a pest does get out of control there are
biocides, insecticides derived from plants or other natural
materials that are used to kill insects. They are permitable under
USDA Organic guidelines, but if a biocide is used it will kill all
insects, both beneficial and pest.
Alternatives to petroleum based agriculture are popping up around
the country because of demands from consumers. People want food
that tastes like food, has more nutrition, and was raised fairly.
Local farming is a growing movement across the world, allowing some
people to eat within a 100 mile radius of where they live. This
reduces fossil fuel use by limiting the distance and number of
trucks used for shipping. This food has more vitamins and minerals
because it is picked at its ripest stage so it is healthier for the
consumer. By supporting this type of farming the money stays in
the local economy, building and strengthening the community. Local
food can be bought at a farmer’s markets, a co-op, off the farm,
from a membership to a CSA – community supported agriculture –
program, or even from a supermarket if labels are read
carefully.
Diverse farm practices are essential for a healthy and productive
agrarian system. There are many different kinds of farms that
employ natural methods for some or all of their crops. Organic
agriculture is the most well known of these, and it currently has
standards that have been set by the USDA. There are other farming
systems that consider themselves “beyond organic” because the word
organic does not mean what it once did. The standards that have
been created allow agribusiness to operate a farm very similar to
conventional farming, simply substituting fertilizer for manure
trucked in many miles or a biocide to control pests rather than
pesticides. Many farms that are “beyond organic” use principles
based on the food soil web, using the microorganisms underneath the
soil to maintain plant and soil fertility through adding compost,
mulch, and some no till and tilling options depending on the crop.
Another example of a diverse farming practice is permaculture, a
system of permanent agriculture developed by Australian Bill
Mollison. This type of farming mimics natural ecosystems while
producing food for humans, habitat for wildlife, and all the while
increasing the soil’s fertility. Biodynamic farming is a type of
farming that was developed by Rudolf Steiner in the early twentieth
century that uses different compost preparations to increase soil
fertility and production. All of these farms work with nature rather
than against it to feed humans in a sustainable
manner.
Free range,
grass, pasture fed meats reflect the “real cost” of raising meat
because their production is not subsidized. These animals eat a
diverse diet including many different kinds of grasses, legumes, and
herbaceous plants. This allows the different micronutrients that
are found in these plants are transferred to the animal, which in
turn is transferred to the people who eat the meat. If multiple
animals are raised on pasture operation fertilizers, pesticides, and
antibiotics are unnecessary to have a healthy, productive farm. On
Polyface Farm cows are grazed in a paddock and moved daily. After
the paddock has sat for a day chickens are brought in to scratch
through the manure, spreading it, fertilizing the pasture while
fertilizing it with their own manure, searching for parasite grubs
to eat. This disrupts the parasite-host cycle making pesticides and
antibiotics unnecessary.
The
easiest way to make sure that what you are buying is indeed giving
someone a living wage is if it has a Fair Trade label. Fair Trade is
an international, non-profit, multi-stakeholder association that
among other things sets standards and certifies certain products if
they meet these standards. Instead of impoverishing people in third
world countries, it empowers them. “Fair trade businesses return 1/3
to 1/4 of profits back to producers in developing countries” (Facts
and Figures, 2007). Buy purchasing Fair Trade labeled products you
can be assured that all workers were paid fairly.
The health benefit of using non-GMO food is that its
seed is natural and most likely organically grow, while GMO foods
are altered and can create toxins, allergens, carcinogens, or
nutritional problems (From an interview by 'noseweek', South African
investigative magazine, with Jeffrey Smith, author of 'the non-GMO
bible' Seeds of Deception, exposing bad science behind GMO's,
government and biotech industry lies).
Commons are resources owned equally by every member of
the community, even though the community recognizes that only a
limited number of members may use the resource at any given time.
Commons is most often a finite but replenishable resource, which
requires responsible use in order to remain available. It requires
not only responsible use but also active contribution from its
users.
According to
Seed Saver Exchange, a heirloom seed is any garden plant that has
had a history of being passed down in a family. Protecting heirloom
seeds is protecting the genetic diversity of that unique variety of
seed.
Proper land
management requires long range planning in terms of enhancing its
potential to produce and to be sustainable. Adopting proper land use
patterns and implementing synergistic soil and crop management
practices are necessary to conserve the potential of land in
perpetuity. Proper land management consists of the two key issues of
what to use the land for and how to use it to obtain maximum
productivity in perpetuity.
Model
This food model
is mainly focused on things that the consumer has control over. By
reading the labels of food much information can be readily had.
Since this is the information that is available to a consumer this
is how we will rate a food’s sustainability. Another part that
factors into this model is the benefit of growing your own foods or
gathering them from the land. Remember that each type of food needs
to be rated individually before averaging the scores. Note: this
model does not take into account how much of a food you are
consuming, so one cup of tea can factor the same as 20 pounds of
beef. Be aware of this fact.
Organic
Organic foods
are foods that have no pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers added.
These chemicals that are often used in food production are
synthesized from petroleum, and therefore unsustainable.
1 point
–
organic
0 points
– not
organic
Local
Most of our
foods come from hundreds if not thousands of miles away, burning
fossil fuels and toxic emissions. Foods that are grown locally do
not.
2 points
– grown locally
0 points
– not
local
Fair Trade
Labor is
expensive, therefore it is cheaper for a company to treat its
employees abominably. When companies have factories overseas they
are not subject to the same, if any, labor laws. By buying foods
that have they Fair Trade logo you can be assured that the people
who produced your food were treated appropriately and earned decent
wages.
1 point
–
Fair Trade certified
0 points
– not
Fair Trade certified
Small Farm
Large corporate
farms practice methods of farming that are over-taxing on the land.
Since they try to have high outputs they ship in resources from all
over the country to produce their food. Small farms use only what is
available to them and have to be more conscientious of how they
treat the land.
1
point
– grown at a
small farm
0
points – grown at a corporate farm
Non-GMO
Genetically
modified foods have numerous unforeseen side effects, ranging from
environmental dangers to direct health dangers. Foods that have not
been genetically modified have evolved to be consumed and have been
proven safe by thousands of years of consumption.
1 point
–
non-GMO
0 points
– GMO
Meat
Large amounts of
resources are grown to be fed to animals, who are often left inside
small cages never seeing the light of day. When they are in one
place for so long they have high levels of waste concentrated,
increasing the need for antibiotics. These animals are also often
raised in a way that is highly taxing on water and food supplies.
There is no distinct line for an ethically raised meat, read into
where your meat comes from if you are purchasing meat, and find out
the farmers’ practices. Since non-meat products are naturally less
intensive to grow they are also more efficient.
2
points – Conscientiously raised meat or no meat
0
points – Unconscientiously raised meat
Home Grown and
Locally Gathered
There are
naturally growing foods almost everywhere, even in places where you
can’t find food you can grow it. Foods that you grow or gather you
have direct control over. They are local and very likely organic.
2
points – Home grown or locally gathered food
0
points – Not grown or gathered
Future Steps
and Considerations
As this is just
the beginning of change it is necessary to plan for future changes.
This model gives a way to rate how sustainable our choices are; by
paying attention to what matters to you, you can determine possible
options that would be appropriate for your community. At our campus
every year we have Outdoor Orientation trips. Incoming students go
out on trips with several returning students. Our campus also has a
small garden, so it would be very easy to grow all the food needed
to feed all the new students on their trips. Other possible actions
would be to lead campus discussions on sustainable food options and
when awareness grows large enough we could petition our school to
only purchase only sustainable foods. These are some possible
options that are appropriate for our community, yours might be
different.
Unanswered
Questions
When
making this model there were some things that we were unable to
cover or fully understand. When doing your own research we recommend
thinking about these things:
Can non-local
foods be justifiably purchased?
Transportation
methods questioned? Short distance car versus long distance train,
which is more sustainable?
Places where
food cannot be grown easily? When local food is not available?
Price versus the
true cost of food? We pay more money for sustainable foods but
more do not pay the true cost for “normal” foods, how to
balance with small income?
Points system
needs more modification, some things more important than others?
References
and Resources
Resources
http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/indexIE.htm
http://www.biodynamics.com/
http://www.midwestpermaculture.com/
http://www.soilfoodweb.com/03_about_us/approach.html
http://ww.sustainabletable.org
References
Biomagnifacation.
(December 2006). Retrieved December 3, 2007, from United States
Geological Survey Web site:
http://toxics.usgs.gov/definitions/biomagnification.html
Brinkman, J.
(2005). Peruvian Maca and Allegations of Biopiracy. Retrieved
December 3, 2007, from The Journal of the American Botanical
Council Web site:
http://content.herbalgram.org/wholefoodsmarket/herbalgram/articleview.asp?a=3128.
Case Study:
Brazil Nut allergen in GE soybeans.
(n.d.).
Retrieved on December 3, 2007, from Genetically Engineered
Organisms
Web site:
http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/issues/brazilnut.html.
Facts and
Figures.
(2007).
Retrieved on December 3, 2007, from Fair Trade Federation
Web site:
http://www.fairtradefederation.org/ht/d/sp/i/197/pid/197.
Genetically
Modified Organisms.
(2003).
Retrieved December 3, 2007, from University of Minnesota
Environmental Health Sciences Web site:
http://enhs.umn.edu/5103/gm/harmful.html
LaDuke, W.
October 06, 2006. Manoomin, seed sovereignty and genetics.
Retrieved December 3, 2007, from Indian Country Today Web Site:
http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096413782
Mason J, Singer
P. (2006). The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter. USA:
Rodale. Inc.
Olsen, M.
(1999). Terminator Unleashed: Patenting Life – Patenting Death.
Retrieved on December 3, 2007, from Biological
koyaanisqatsi Web site:
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/terminator.html
Pollen, M.
(2006). The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals.
New York: The Penguin Press.
Roach, J. May
25, 2005. Gulf of Mexico “Dead Zone” is Size of New Jersey.
Retrieved December 3, 2007, from National Geographic web site:
http://news.nationalgeogra
