| Monday, July 18, 2005 |  |
| The Amazing Art of Julian Beever | 64 comments |
| 18 Jul 2005 @ 19:24 It's All About Perspective...... Julian Beever is an english artist who’s famous for his art on the pavement of england, France, germany, usa, australia and belgium. It’s particularity ? Beever gives to his drawing an anamorphose, his images are drawn completly diforms which give a 3D image when viewing on the righ angle … see for yourself it’s amazing !!! More >     |
| Studies Show How and Why Organic Farming Must Become the Norm inthe USA | 2 comments |
| 18 Jul 2005 @ 18:15 Yes, I know I have been focusing almost entirely on organics and permaculture topics as of late, and may continue to do so. It is my small contribution to emphasize the importance of supporting people who are pro-life in the most down to earth, life sustaining practices. ---------------------------------------------------------- Studies Show How and Why Organic Farming Must Become the Norm inthe USA Organic farming produces same corn and soybean yields as conventional farms, but consumes less energy and no pesticides, study finds Susan S. Lang Cornell University, July 13, 2005 [via agnet] ITHACA, N.Y. -- Organic farming produces the same yields of corn and soybeans as does conventional farming, but uses 30 percent less energy, less water and no pesticides, a review of a 22-year farming trial study concludes. David Pimentel, a Cornell University professor of ecology and agriculture, concludes, "Organic farming offers real advantages for such crops as corn and soybeans." Pimentel is the lead author of a study that is published in the July issue of Bioscience (Vol. 55:7) analyzing the environmental, energy and economic costs and benefits of growing soybeans and corn organically versus conventionally. The study is a review of the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial, the longest running comparison of organic vs. conventional farming in the United States. "Organic farming approaches for these crops not only use an average of 30 percent less fossil energy but also conserve more water in the soil, induce less erosion, maintain soil quality and conserve more biological resources than conventional farming does," Pimentel added. The study compared a conventional farm that used recommended fertilizer and pesticide applications with an organic animal-based farm (where manure was applied) and an organic legume-based farm (that used a three-year rotation of hairy vetch/corn and rye/soybeans and wheat). The two organic systems received no chemical fertilizers or pesticides. Inter-institutional collaboration included Rodale Institute agronomists Paul Hepperly and Rita Seidel, U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service research microbiologist David Douds Jr. and University of Maryland agricultural economist James Hanson. The research compared soil fungi activity, crop yields, energy efficiency, costs, organic matter changes over time, nitrogen accumulation and nitrate leaching across organic and conventional agricultural systems. "First and foremost, we found that corn and soybean yields were the same across the three systems," said Pimentel, who noted that although organic corn yields were about one-third lower during the first four years of the study, over time the organic systems produced higher yields, especially under drought conditions. The reason was that wind and water erosion degraded the soil on the conventional farm while the soil on the organic farms steadily improved in organic matter, moisture, microbial activity and other soil quality indicators. The fact that organic agriculture systems also absorb and retain significant amounts of carbon in the soil has implications for global warming, Pimentel said, pointing out that soil carbon in the organic systems increased by 15 to 28 percent, the equivalent of taking about 3,500 pounds of carbon dioxide per hectare out of the air. Among the study's other findings: In the drought years, 1988 to 1998, corn yields in the legume-based system were 22 percent higher than yields in the conventional system. The soil nitrogen levels in the organic farming systems increased 8 to 15 percent. Nitrate leaching was about equivalent in the organic and conventional farming systems. Organic farming reduced local and regional groundwater pollution by not applying agricultural chemicals. Pimentel noted that although cash crops cannot be grown as frequently over time on organic farms because of the dependence on cultural practices to supply nutrients and control pests and because labor costs average about 15 percent higher in organic farming systems, the higher prices that organic foods command in the marketplace still make the net economic return per acre either equal to or higher than that of conventionally produced crops. Organic farming can compete effectively in growing corn, soybeans, wheat, barley and other grains, Pimentel said, but it might not be as favorable for growing such crops as grapes, apples, cherries and potatoes, which have greater pest problems. The study was funded by the Rodale Institute and included a review of current literature on organic and conventional agriculture comparisons. According to Pimentel, dozens of scientific papers reporting on research from the Rodale Institute Farming Systems Trial have been published in prestigious refereed journals over the past 20 years. More > |
| Buy Local, It Might Give The Children A Planet Worth Living On | 0 comments |
| 18 Jul 2005 @ 18:11 Simplifiy, Simplify, Simplify. ------------------------------ Buy Local: Long Distance Food Transportation Is a Major Cause of Global Warming Food study reveals hidden £9bn costs of transport Felicity Lawrence, consumer affairs correspondent Friday July 15, 2005 Guardian (UK) Food "miles" have risen dramatically over the past 10 years, are still rising, and have a significant impact on climate change, traffic congestion, accidents and pollution, according to a report published by the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) yesterday. Food miles increased by 15% in the 10 years to 2002. The average distance we now drive to shop for food each year is 898 miles, compared with 747 miles a decade ago. Food transport accounts for 25% of all the miles driven by heavy goods vehicles on our roads. The use of HGVs to transport food has doubled since 1974. The dramatic increase has resulted in a rise in the amount of CO2 emitted by food transport: 19m tonnes of carbon dioxide were emitted in 2002 in the course of getting our food to us, a 12% increase on 1992, the report says. Airfreight, the most polluting form of food transport, is growing fastest. The report also attempts to put a cost on the social and environmental impacts of food miles. Taking into account the time lost to traffic congestion, wear on the roads, ill health caused by air and noise pollution and accidents caused by food transport, its authors suggest the cost of food miles is £9bn a year to the UK. This is greater than the total contribution of the agricultrual sector to GDP (£6.4bn) and half the total value of the food and drink manufacturing sector (£19.8bn). Researchers identified the factors driving the rise in food miles as increased global trade, concentration of power in the hands of supermarkets with centralised systems of distribution, greater car use to shop (particularly in urban areas), and a rise in packaging and processing. The study shows that the concept of food miles is more complicated than just the distance food travels. What sort of transport is used and how food is grown make a difference. Local sourcing helps as long as transport for local food is efficient. Organic food reduces environmental damage, but does not deliver a "net environmental benefit" when flown in from abroad. In simple energy terms, out-of-season British tomatoes needing artificial light and heat produce more emissions than those trucked from Spain. Launching the report in London, the food and farming minister, Lord Bach, said the government would work with the industry to achieve a 20% reduction in the environmental and social costs of food transport by 2012. He added that the report offered clear pointers to consumers: "Internet buying and home delivery can reduce road congestion and vehicle kilometres. Organic and seasonally available food can reduce environmental impacts, but these can be offset by the way they are transported to the consumer's home." Tim Lang, who coined the phrase food miles in 1992 as part of the Safe campaign for more sustainable food, and is now professor of food policy at London's City University, said: "This report confirms that our so-called efficient food supply system is grossly wasteful. If the government doesn't take action to tackle this, all its proposals on climate change will be so much nonsense." The Food and Drink Federation, which represents manufacturers, said it was concerned about the focus on food miles in the government's strategy for sustainable food. "As food miles eat into profit, companies have already created an extremely fuel-efficient supply chain, and will therefore find it difficult to make further reductions," it said. Andrew Opie, the policy director of the British Retail Consortium, which represents leading supermarkets, said: "A sustainable policy on this issue is one that balances the demands of consumers for a broad range of all-year-round, high quality, affordable foods with any impact this may have on the environment through transport." |
| Privatization of Water in India Ignites Water Wars | 0 comments |
| 18 Jul 2005 @ 18:07 To me water rights are one of the most important issues in our lives. Though we read about what is happening in other parts of the world, privatization is happening here in the US as well. There are counties in Californina looking at selling water rights to outside investors and doing so under the radar of the media and consumer groups. Alos, our own governments abuse of water rights in Africa is killing entire communities. What to do? Educate ourselves and follow our hearts. ------------------------------------------------- Privatization of Water in India Ignites Water Wars July 14, 2005 By Vandana Shiva 1. Will Muradnagar be the next Tonk? On 13th June 2005, 5 farmers were shot dead in Tonk during a protest demanding their share in the water from Bisalpur dam, which is diverting water from villages to the city of Jaipur under an ADB project for water sector "reforms" in the State of Rajasthan currently ruled by a BJP government. Sonia Gandhi, President of the Congress Party, rushed to Tonk, called the firing barbaric and offered relief to the families of the farmers killed. Yet the Congress government in Delhi is determined to create another Tonk in Muradnagar, with its demand to divert 635 million litres of Ganga water per day to the Sonia Vihar Plant, which has been privatized to Ondeo Degrement a subsidiary of Suez. The real politics of water is not Congress vs BJP. It is World Bank/ADB and other aid agencies creating water markets for global water MNCs while robbing the Indian people both hydrologically and financially. Delhi, India's capital has been sustained for centuries by the river Yamuna. Two decades of industrialization have turned the Yamuna into a sewer and toxic drain. Instead of stopping the pollution, using the scarcity created by the pollution, the World Bank started to push the Delhi government to privatize Delhi's water supply and get water from the Tehri Dam on the Ganges, hundreds of miles away. The privatization of Delhi's water supply is central on the Sonia Vihar Plant. The Sonia Vihar water treatment plant, which was inaugurated on June 21, 2002 by Chief Minister of Delhi, is designed for a capacity of 635 million litres a day on a 10 year BOT (build-operate-transfer) basis, at a cost of 1.8 billion rupees (approx. 50 million dollars). The contract between Delhi Jal Board (The Water Supply Department of the Delhi Government) and the French company Ondeo Degremont (subsidiary of Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux Water Division - the water giant of the world), is supposed to provide safe drinking water for the city. The water for the Suez-Degremont plant in Delhi will come from Tehri Dam through the Upper Ganga Canal upto Muradnagar in Western Uttar Pradesh and then through the giant pipeline to Delhi. The Upper Ganga Canal, which starts at Haridwar and carries the holy water of Ganga upto Kanpur via Muradnagar, is the main source of irrigation for this region. Delhi's ever growing water demands have already led to major diversions of water from other regions. Delhi already gets 455 million litres from the Ganga. With the Sonia Vihar plants demand of 635 million litres, this is 1090 million litres per day of diversion from Ganga. Further diversion of 3000 million cubic metres per second from the Ganga is built into the Sharda and Yamuna river link. Delhi is also demanding 180 million litres per day to be diverted from Punjab's Dhakra Dam. Water will also be diverted to Delhi from the Renuka dam on Giri River (1250 million cubic litres per day) and Keshau Dam on Tons River (610 million cubic litres per day) from distant Himachal in the Himalayas. On December 1, 2004 water tariffs were increased in Delhi. While the government stated this was necessary for recovering costs of operation and maintenance, the tariff increase is ten times more than what is needed to run Delhi's water supply. The increase is to lay the ground for the privatization of Delhi's water, and ensure super profits for the private operators. Increasing tariffs before pivatisation is part of World Bank's "tool kit". It is part of a stepwise approach to "secure at least some private sector involvement in risky countries". Before full privatization, the "private-public partnership" is to increase tariffs through a public utility, so that increased tariffs can support a commercial operation (ie "guarantee profit margins"). Service and management contracts can be introduced while the government increases tariff. The tariff increase is not a democratic decision, nor a need based decision. It has been imposed by the World Bank. The Delhi Jal Board cites the justification for increase in tariff as based on a study done by Price Waterhouse Cooper under the World Bank study on privatization. It also cites World Bank technical paper No. 386 of 1997 on water pricing. Delhi's water operation and maintenance budget is Rs. 3.44 billion. The public utility has been recovering Rs. 2.7 billion due to 40-50% non-revenue losses such as leaks and thefts. During a conference on public-public participation, we showed how public and community participation can recover revenues of Rs. 5.00 by preventing leaks and theft. This allows Rs. 7 to 8 billion recovery, which is twice the amount needed to operate and maintain the water system. However, the tariff increase will allow a recovery of Rs. 30 billion, tenfold more than needed, guaranteeing a super profit of Rs. 26.66 billion to the corporations waiting to grab Delhi's water supply. A 10% increase is built into the tariff restricting which will double the profits for water privateers in 7 years. This profit is created not by better services but by doubling the financial burden on citizens, especially the poor. The tariff increase hides significant increases through changes in categories. Schools and agriculture have been redefined as "industry". "Piaos", a core part of India's culture of the gift of water, must also pay for water. How will they give water to the thirsty? Cremation grounds, temples, homes for the disabled, orphanages which paid Rs. 30 will now pay thousands of rupees, the cash strapped social institutions cannot pay. The World Bank driven policies explicitly state that there needs to be a shift from the social perception to a commercial orientation. This worldview conflict lies at the root of conflicts between water privatization and water democracy. Will water be viewed and treated as a commodity, or will it be viewed and treated as the very basis of life? Many privatization myths have been used to justify the tariff increase. The first is the myth of "full cost recovery" the mantra for privatization. However, as far as operations are concerned, the tariff increase implies a "ten-fold recovery", ten times more than "full cost". As far as investments are concerned, the private operators have made no investment, but will harvest public investment of Rs. 1 trillion. The "full cost recovery" logic when applied fully requires that water systems stay in the public domain as a common good. At the National Development Council Meeting on June 28th 2005, Shiela Dixit, the Chief Minister of Delhi called for the federalization and prioritization of drinking water. (Pioneer, 29th June, 2005) However, the World Bank driven 24x7 scheme is not to provide drinking water to Delhi's slums, it is to provide rich colonies with the luxury of 24 hour running water seven days a week in a period of severe water crisis. The water crisis demands reductions in water use Privatisation is encouraging increased water use. This increase in urban consumption will come at the cost of rural areas. This is part of the privatization process. Four global companies are already in the bid for the 24x7 distribution including Suez, Bechtel and Saur. The common argument for privatization and price increase is that higher costs will reduce water use. However, given the extreme income inequities. A tariff increase that can destroy a slum dweller or poor farmer is an insignificant expenditure for the rich. Privatisation as dictated by ADB and the Wrold Bank thus means that water will be diverted from the poor to the rich, from rural areas to urban/industrialized areas. And each diversion will create water wars as it did in Tonk. This is why U.P. has been refusing to divert Ganga water to SoniaVihar. Non-sustainable and inequitable use will increase with privatization because the rich can afford to pay for water waste. 2. The Planning Commission as Water Privateer The government' priority for commodification and privatization of water was clearly stated by the Planning Commission Deputy Chairman, Montek Singh Ahluwalia's statement in his opening remarks at the NDC that farmers should pay for water. While Mr. Ahluwalia argued that rich farmers are the real beneficiaries of free water, the reality is that when water is commodified, it is the rich who can afford to pay. The poor peasant, already struggling under the burden of debt, driven to suicide, will be wiped out of she/he is denied access to water and made to pay for a resource that is their common property. If poor peasants are pitted against rich agribusiness in competition for water through water markets, agribusiness will monopolise irrigation. If poor villagers are pitted against rich city dwellers in a water war, the rich will win. The problem of water waste is not agriculture per se but chemical industrial farming mistakenly referred to as the Green Revolution. It is possible to produce more nutrition per acre growing millets that need only 200 mm of water. We can increase food availability 200 fold through simultaneously conserving our biodiversity and scarce water resources. It is possible to decrease water use while increasing food output by shifting from chemical farming to organic farming. However, these water conservation strategies were not what Mr. Ahluwalia proposed He proposed more water intensive cultivation of fruits, vegetables, shrimps for exports. In other words, while India is gripped by a severe water crisis, and even more severe water conflicts, our Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission is recommending that we export water as a "virtual water" subsidy to the rich consumers of the North and instead of calling for water conservation through organic farming, be wants the impover ished peasantry to finance insane schemes like the $200 billion River Linking Scheme. The Deputy Chairman stated that "chasing short term benefits that accrue from vote bank politics, instead of seeking long term gains that flow from prudent economic policies, has become the bane of our decision-making process." (Pioneer editorial, 29th June) What Mr. Ahluwalia is calling "short term benefits that accrue from vote bank politics" others call democracy. What he refers to as "prudent economic policies" are the World Bank/IMF/ADB paradigm of water privatization which has already led to the killing of farmers in Tonk and could lead to many more water wars. The only long-term and prudent water policy is to recognize nature's limits, live within the water cycle, and guarantee every Indian their fundamental right to water. Privatisation is not a solution to our water crisis. Conservation and Community rights can help overcome the scarcity we face in both rural and urban area. Water is a commons, a public good. Privatisation is the enclosure of the water commons. Water privatization aggravates the water crisis because it rewards the waste of the effluent, not the conservation of resource prudent communities. |
| More & More U.S. Chefs Going Organic | 0 comments |
| 18 Jul 2005 @ 17:59 More & More U.S. Chefs Going Organic BY TERRA WALTERS, For The Capital Sodium acid pyrophosphate. Sodium bisulfite. Monoglycerides. Diglycerides. In the past few years, local residents have joined a legion of people across the United States who have raised concerns about such ingredients on the labels of the foods they eat. More and more, diners are going for natural foods with recognizable healthy components. In the past few years, local residents have joined a legion of people across the United States who have raised concerns about such ingredients on the labels of the foods they eat. More and more, diners are going for natural foods with recognizable healthy components. As a result, there is a growing consumer demand in our area for organic foods, and suppliers are scrambling to meet that demand. Even though stores like Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, Roots and Wild Oats have long had their following, mainstream grocers are jumping on the organic food bandwagon in a big way. Giant Food, for example, responded to customers' interest in natural and organic foods by introducing its own label called Nature's Promise, said Jamie Miller, Giant's public affairs manager. Meanwhile, Safeway is in the early stages of a market-within-a-market plan that will put a separate Natural Foods Market within every store, said Greg Ten Eyck, director of public affairs. Jerry Usilton of Super Fresh in Arnold said consumers' interest in organic products has really turned up the dial in recent months. "We have to restock the organic strawberries much more often than the regular strawberries," said Mr. Usilton. More and more chefs also are making use of organic foods and ingredients in the dishes they prepare. Mark Macuirles, owner-chef at Pampered Palate, has his own organic garden near the Pasadena restaurant. He estimates that he usually uses about 50 percent organic ingredients at his restaurant, but that percentage rises significantly during the summer when the garden is in full bloom. He said his customers are particularly fond of the organic tomatoes from his garden. Chef John "JJ" Joseph of Annapolis' new Metropolitan restaurant on West Street likes to use organic herbs and produce, which he buys from Eco Farms in Lanham. Organic lamb and salmon also are on the menu at at Metropolitan, which opened last month. Going organic has its price. Mark Schek, owner-chef of the Rooster Cafe in Elkridge, said he pays about twice as much for the ingredients in the exquisite dishes he creates at his restaurant. Mr. Schek has several established sources of the foods he uses, and shops almost daily to take advantage of seasonal foods. His commitment to organic foods, combined with his refusal to use any frozen foods, puts limitations on his ability to plan the menu, but he said his customers appreciate the distinct difference in the taste and appearance of the organic food. Mr. Schek's more than 30 years of involvement with organic food gives him a unique perspective on the current buzz about them. "When I first became interested in this it seemed that most organic farms were communes and the farmers were considered to be hippies," he said. He said today's diners have more savvy about recognizing the importance of what they eat, and he finds the growing interest in organic foods to be gratifying. Mr. Schek, a graduate of the Culinary Institute of America in Hyde Park, said relying on organic food is not without its perils. He recalls a time while cooking at a well-known French restaurant in Whitepost, Va., where the maitre de cuisine was dedicated to organic food. The chefs were raising piglets out back according to their own strict standards, and they awaited the day when the pork could be served to the restaurant's discerning clientele. Imagine their chagrin when one evening, just as the staff was moving into high gear with preparations for opening hour, one of the servers ran into the kitchen shouting that the piglets had gotten loose. A sign was hastily hung on the front door announcing that the opening would be delayed while the staff tried to catch the pigs. Chuckling, Mr. Schek recalled that some of the patrons actually joined in the chase. Although they might stop short of chasing piglets through a meadow, it's clear that more and more Annapolitans are taking an interest in organic foods. --- What are organic foods? Generally, organic food is grown without artificial pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified organisms. It can include food from a supermarket, a backyard garden or the wild. Certified organic food is grown under criteria established by governmental regulations. The Maryland Department of Agriculture has been certifying products as organic since 1991 and is accredited as an organic certifier by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which has established a fixed set of standards that must be met before the organic label can be affixed. For example, meat sold as organic must have come from animals that were fed 100 percent organic feed containing neither growth hormones nor animal byproducts - and they must have had access to the outdoors. For organic produce, synthetic fertilizers and pesticides can't be used, nor can irradiation, genetic engineering, antibiotics or sewage sludge. There are three levels of organic designation: ø 100 percent organic, which is just that. ø Organic, with 95 percent of the ingredients organically grown and the remaining 5 percent from non-organic ingredients that have been approved on the USDA's National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances. The list identifies synthetic substances that may be used. ø Made With Organic Ingredients, which requires 70 percent organic ingredients and the other 30 percent from the National L |