Vote 'yes' on the Garver Arts Incubator

Election day draws near (it's April 7, in case you forgot), and in amongst the many candidate and referendum choices available to Madison residents will be a question on whether or not the city should sell the old Garver Feed Mill to Common Wealth Development. And I highly encourage you to vote 'yes' for that move.

Why? Because CWD, a non-profit organization that has done a lot of good for our community over the years, wants to transform the beautiful old--currently vacant--building into an arts incubator. They're proposing a LEED-certified renovation of the space so that it will provide much-needed, affordable studio and learning space for area artists. According to a CWD press release:

The Garver Arts Incubator will include 40 art studios. Visitors can enroll in art classes, attend performances or view a gallery while interacting with artists. A three-story atrium, indoor/outdoor café, gift shop and rooftop garden are also included in the plan. In addition, the renovation will be a sustainable development project and the building will be LEED certified.

They go on to emphasize that the center will not be paid for with city taxpayer money. Instead, "If the referendum passes, the City of Madison will sell the Garver building to Common Wealth who would retain ownership of the land through a minimum 30-year lease." Money for the project would be gotten through private funds, tax credits, and some federal assistance.

Certainly there's added appeal for me in a project like this. I'm heavily involved in the arts community, and many of my friends are artists who would likely benefit from its creation. In fact, the idea reminds me very much of the Mellwood Arts & Entertainment Center in Louisville, Kentucky. A few of my Wis-Kino comrades and I went down to Louisville to participate in their 48-hour filmmaking festival, and the final screening was held in a very nice room in the center.

It's an old, converted meat packing warehouse that now houses artist studios, a cafe, fitness center, some retail space, galleries, and teaching spaces. I remember being very impressed with the look and feel of the building, and that the city had such a great resource for its artists. The Garver Arts Incubator could be just such a space for Madison.

The main reason it's had to come up for referendum is that, "Under the city's shoreline preservation ordinance, voters must endorse the project located near Starkweather Creek before construction can begin." I'm hopeful that, based on CDW's track record of working closely with the community and paying close attention to environmental concerns, shoreline preservation will be a top priority in construction plans. They've already made plans to have "on-site storm water management and a comprehensive transportation plan that minimizes parking," which is a good start.

I encourage you to read more about it over at the CWD website. They have detailed plans and proposals available. And if it means anything to you, The Capital Times has endorsed the idea, and my own alder, Marsha Rummel, has been championing the project as well.

Vote Yes for the Garver Arts Incubator.

Buying up the land

Alexander Co. is a development company. Buying land for development is what they do. OK, fair enough, right? But I can't help but notice that their name has come up at the center of several contentious land-use and development debates over the past year or so.

They're currently in the midst of an argument over the future of Drumlin farm, a situation that certainly paints them as being somewhat overzealous and thoughtless about the needs and realities of the community. Recently, they tried to get permission to remodel the Acacia House in downtown Madison, as well as build a new apartment building in the small lot behind it (the proposal was shot down by the Madison City Council).

And just today it was announced that Alexander Co. has purchased the Northgate Mall complex on Sherman Ave.

I can't help but have mixed feelings about their plans for the space. While revitalization of the area is needed, the company's track record isn't exactly pristine. It's worth keeping a close eye on any future plans and proposals made by them--and other such companies--to make sure we create an environment that is both good for businesses looking to invest in city improvements and that fosters thoughtful, ecologically sound planning.

Hopefully, I'm reading too much into all of this and it won't become more of an issue. But I have a feeling that the people currently dealing with Alexander Co. over Drumlin farm would tell me otherwise.

UPDATE: This is a good step on the part of AC, so long as they don't end up asking a prohibitively expensive amount for the land.

The new Victory Garden

The movement to convince the Obamas to plant an organic Victory Garden on the White House grounds is growing, and a Madison-area farmer has been nominated for the theoretical position of official White House Farmer by one of the groups pushing the notion.

I am extremely excited by this idea (it has come up before), and sincerely hope the new First Family will take up the cause. Having an organic garden on the premises would not only provide fresh produce to the White House and, potentially, surrounding food pantries, but also serve as a powerful example to the rest of the country.

During World War II, the White House planted a Victory Garden and encouraged citizens to do the same, all as part of helping the country to attain a sense of food security during a time of crisis.

Now we're all faced with a growing threat to our our food supplies, both in terms of quality and availability. In accordance with the "teach a man to fish" line of thinking, I think encouraging and supporting community agriculture projects is one of the more important movements of the day. So I'm signing petitions and raising my voice and hoping that our new president heeds the call.

You can learn more and lend your support to the cause at the following websites: Eat the View, White House Farmer, and TheWhoFarm. Green thumbs for all!

Thoughtful economic stimulus package needed, emphasis on 'thoughtful'

The economy is ill. We all know it. Several hundred point fluctuations in the stock markets have become so common place that they barely raise eyebrows anymore. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost. Too many homes foreclosed. Banks and large corporations are going belly up. The auto industry is on life support.

President-elect Barack Obama has called for the creation and implementation of a massive economic stimulus package, something on par with (or greater than) the New Deal policies of the 1930's. He wants hundreds of billions of dollars to go toward unfreezing the markets and creating enough new jobs to get us all back on track again. A major attribute of those jobs, Obama says, should be that they are in "green" sectors of the economy.

Because the environment is ill, too.

Some people don't believe that we can both right the economy and the environment at the same time, that focusing on conservation and sustainability will only hinder the markets and make things worse for us all.

What many other people are saying, though, is that we can have it both ways. We'll all need to ante up and kick in, work hard, to make it happen--but it can happen.

The November/December issue of Mother Jones includes a series of articles dealing with this very conundrum, and they're all well worth the read. Perhaps the most important thing to take away from them, though, is this number: 350.

And what does that mean, precisely? James Hansen, the NASA scientist who in 1988 was one of the first public voices to warn that burning fossil fuels was warming the earth, recently published a paper in which he (and several coauthors) laid out the case for "Target Atmospheric CO₂" levels. It says:

If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO₂ will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm.

The Mother Jones article goes on to clarify:

Get that? Let me break it down for you. For most of the period we call human civilization, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere hovered at about 275 parts per million. Let's call that the Genesis number, or depending on your icons, the Buddha number, the Confucius number, the Shakespeare number. Then, in the late 18th century, we started burning fossil fuel in appreciable quantities, and that number started to rise. The first time we actually measured it, in the late 1950s, it was already about 315. Now it's at 385, and growing by more than 2 parts per million annually.

And it turns out that that's too high. We never had a number before, so we never knew whether we'd crossed a red line. We half guessed and half hoped that the danger zone might be 450 or 550 parts per million—those were still a little ways in the distance. Therefore we could get away with thinking like the young Augustine: "Lord, make me chaste, but not yet." Not anymore. We have been told by science that we're already over the line.

Scary as that is, it's not an impossible goal. Some might balk at how much of a challenge it might be, or how much reaching that number will alter the economic world as we know it. But, as always, I ask this: Would you rather the alternative? A world toxic to life itself? I hope not.

The fears of the greedy souls so thoroughly entrenched and invested in a fossil fuel dependent society are well-founded, and frankly I'd like to see their worst nightmares come true--A world powered by human innovation that leads to sustainable, renewable sources of energy and technologies.

Obama has the right idea when he calls for a vast stimulus package that focuses heavily on creating "green jobs" - but the devil's in the details.

His promotion of so-called "clean coal" is, unfortunately, misguided. Coal is not and is not likely ever to be clean. From its extraction through habitat destroying processes, to its harnessing through pollutant spewing factories, coal is far from the answer.

We should also be wary of the calls for more infrastructure spending. While it's incredibly important to upgrade our aging bridge, sewage, and power transmission systems, we shouldn't allow expensive and unnecessary road building projects to weasel their way into the game, too.

Unfortunately, all too many state governors and mayors have sent reams of just such proposals off to the Obama administration. Right here in Wisconsin, Gov. Doyle is requesting funds for a much disputed plan to expand I-94 from Milwaukee to the Illinois border. John Norquist, CEO of Congress for the New Urbanism, writes that:

Though it will achieve only minimal reductions in drive times, it is projected to add more than 200,000 automobile miles per day. Say hello to 130,000 pounds in new daily carbon emissions (assuming the average miles-per-gallon of cars on the road climbs to 30). It’s the kind of project Exxon might dream up to get cars back on the road after seven unprecedented months of declining driving.

That's not the direction in which we want to go if we want any chance at getting our emissions down to the recommended 350.

We should instead be focusing on developing better mass transit systems, like the proposed Midwest commuter railway that would link cities like Madison, Milwaukee, and Chicago. Things like that would get more cars off the road while helping a wider range of people to get from city to city, all the while cutting down on emissions and creating jobs (we'll need people to build, operate, and maintain those rails, after all).

Intentional, well-thought out urban infill would help, too, making more people less dependent on their cars to get them to their jobs, grocery stores, schools, etc. It would free up more land for conservation, and for sustainable farming that could serve local communities.

We need to make a serious, concerted push to pump more money into those industries and organizations working to innovate greener modes of transportation and energy. Right now, alternatives and renewables only receive a pittance in terms of tax incentives and government grants, while the oil, coal, and natural gas industries sit pretty and fat. Our priorities need to pull a 180.

And in the meantime, we need to put a hard cap on the amount of CO₂ our nation releases, heavily taxing those industries that exceed set limits (and making them pay for permits to do so). The companies would then, presumably, pass those extra expenses on to consumers, who would likely cut their usage dramatically.

To offset the burden placed on the consumer, however, the government could take some of the money earned from the industry payments for their emissions, and maybe money from a gas tax as well, and give it back to us regular folk by way of a monthly check (or something similar), then invest the remainder in helping create newer, cleaner, more affordable means of powering our lives in the long-run.

There are many opportunities to go about this the right way, and just as many to go about it the wrong way. We have lots of smart, thoughtful people out there working on the problems right now. What we lack is the national (and international) willpower and cooperation to properly fund their efforts, and to see this through to the hopefully less bitter end.

We can hope that an Obama administration understands that, and acts on it--but we also need to make sure they do. Hold them accountable. Speak up. Don't allow yourself to be cowed by pretty rhetoric or the easy path. Make it happen. We have to, now, before the pendulum swings so far out and up that there's nowhere to go but crashing down.


(h/t: Sprawled Out)

The 12 Days of Christmas: Lend a helping hand

December 25 marks the beginning of what's traditionally referred to as "the 12 Days of Christmas" - and if you don't know exactly what that is, I'm sure you're at least familiar with the song. But as defined, the 12 days are:

...the associated evenings of those twelve days (Twelve-tide), are the festive days beginning the evening of Christmas Day through the morning of Epiphany (January 6). The associated evenings of the twelve days begin on the evening before the specified day. Thus, the first night of Christmas is December 25–26, and Twelfth Night is January 5–6. This period is also known as Christmastide.

The 12 days has its origins in the pre-Christian Scandinavian Winter Solstice, in which the Midwinter Feast lasted at least twelve days, hence the twelve days of Christmas.

This seems like as good a time as any to start a Lost Albatross tradition of giving--or, in this case, lending. I've set up a "lending team" through Kiva.org, a great non-profit site that connects people across the world through what are called microloans. I'll let them explain the process:

Kiva's mission is to connect people through lending for the sake of alleviating poverty.

Kiva is the world's first person-to-person micro-lending website, empowering individuals to lend directly to unique entrepreneurs in the developing world.

The people you see on Kiva's site are real individuals in need of funding - not marketing material. When you browse entrepreneurs' profiles on the site, choose someone to lend to, and then make a loan, you are helping a real person make great strides towards economic independence and improve life for themselves, their family, and their community. Throughout the course of the loan (usually 6-12 months), you can receive email journal updates and track repayments. Then, when you get your loan money back, you can relend to someone else in need.

Go check out the site, look around a little, and please consider signing up to make a loan. Then when you do, you can opt to have your loan count toward the total for the Lost Albatross lending team! All repayments still go directly to you, but your efforts will be part of our little network, too.

This is the traditional time of year to think about giving, but I hope to continue these efforts into the "off-season" as well. I can't think of a better way to really help people get on their feet and then to sustain themselves. Instead of just giving a single gift, we're helping people in need to be able to provide for themselves and their communities in the long-term. And that, I think, is what it's all about.

Please consider signing up with Kiva, and joining the Lost Albatross team. And regardless, happy holidays!

The future of food

I highly, highly recommend reading an article recently published in the New York Times by Michael Pollan, written as a letter to the next president, all about moving America toward a better, more secure food future.

Seriously, read the whole thing.

Pollan has so many good suggestions for moving away from monocultures and toward more sustainable, but still large-scale food production techniques: "sun-based regional agriculture", he calls it. Some of the proposals are so simple that you'd be hard pressed to think of a reason not to implement them. Even the trickier ones still make perfect sense.

This should be required reading for everyone, especially the next president.

Preserving our history and our parks

James Madison Park, located on Madison's near east side and running along the lovely shores of Lake Mendota, has long been a green gathering space for students playing frisbee or football, families with young children who enjoy the playground equipment, people reading on benches, and folks wishing to rent canoes at the boathouse. It used to be the site of WSUM's Party in the Park, and usually hosts a few other festivals and gatherings throughout the year. It's a great resource, and one example of city ownership of lakeshore land in the interest of keeping it publicly accessible.

The state of the park and the various historic buildings that lie in and around it, however, is somewhat up in the air these days. Mayor Dave and certain development interests appear keen on moving those historic buildings, selling some of the land, and re-purposing sections of the park.

From my admittedly recent browsing (this issue has come up, off-and-on, for decades really), it's hard to really gauge the facts of the matter: why move the houses? how much would that cost the city? is it ever a good idea to sell off publicly held property, especially lakefront land? do the current residents want this?

Currently, a committee of alders and citizens, appointed by the mayor, exists to "report back to the Board of Park Commissioners on a proposal for the properties at 646, 640 and 704 East Gorham and the land under Lincoln School." This ad hoc committee has been mostly favorable to the idea of selling off the land under the Lincoln School, whereas the Madison Parks Commission has voted unanimously, on several occasions apparently, not to do so.

The ultimate decision may end up being left to referendum. According to a recent Capital Times article:

The decision to sell the houses, including the land under the Lincoln School Apartments, would likely be considered a change in the legal status of the park, assistant city attorney Anne Zellhoefer told the James Madison Park Property Planning Committee Thursday night. According to a 1992 city ordinance, changes in legal status as well major construction projects on parks bordering lakes and navigable waters require a referendum.

This seems reasonable to me, especially in light of the many passionate testimonials from residents regarding their feelings about the park and the historic buildings. You can read several of them in the meeting minutes from a public hearing held back in June. The overwhelming consensus, with which I pretty much agree, is that selling the historic houses is a good idea, but moving them is not. As for whether or not to sell the land under the Lincoln School, opinion seems fairly split down the middle--and for how little information I can find regarding what a sale like this would actually mean, I can understand why that is.

Selling the historic homes appears to be a good idea because the city has done a sub par job of maintaining them up to this point, and having private parties interested in historical preservation and good use would mean both preserving these places and saving the city a lot of money. In fact, the city would likely take in revenue from the sale of the homes and leasing of the land under them. You can read the original draft proposal relating to this here (click on "Conditions for JMP" link).

However, moving the homes would cost the city a great deal of money, and, in my opinion (and that of many others) take away from the historic character of the neighborhood. All designed by the same architects, they provide a great, cohesive corridor through a historic area of town that would be lost if jumbled around to different locations. Mayor Dave and his committee seem to be arguing that moving them would make for a better sight line between E. Gorham and the lake, but at present, I don't find anything aesthetically displeasing about their location. In fact, I would contend that it adds to the beauty of the park and the area, and encourages people to actually get out of their cars and walk around.

As for the Lincoln School plans, things get a bit more complicated. The current landlord of the building, ULI, has proposed buying the land under the school for a minimum of $600,000 or, if the number is higher, the appraised value (which we don't yet seem to have). Their designs for the site, though restricted from changing the exterior of the building, include turning the apartments into condominiums - something that (rightfully, I think) irks current residents and advocates of affordable housing like the area's alder, Brenda Konkel. The argument is that most of the folks now living in the building would not be able to afford the condos, and installing yet more of the buggers would only contribute to a growing income disparity on the isthmus.

ULI, it's worth noting, are apparently the same folks that wanted to demolish historic capitol square buildings (like L'Etoile and the Old Fashioned) in order to put in a nearly block-sized new development.

Plus, there's the issue of whether or not it's a good idea to sell off public, lakefront land at all. Currently, ULI holds a long-term lease on the land which, I can only assume, limits their ability to alter the use of the building. As far as I can tell, buying the land would allow them to make whatever changes they so wished to the interior, and certain city officials would then plan to use money made from the sale to, depending on what you read, plug holes in the operating budget or improve/expand the park.

But really, I have no idea what pro-selling advocates want to do with the park. That's never been made particularly clear, and that's what has most caught my attention.

It's important to balance historic and parkland preservation with responsible economic development. Finding private parties to maintain the homes seems like a sound choice, all around - but moving them, or selling the land underneath them, strikes me as a poor decision that would likely come back to haunt those who make it in the future.

I think the mayor, the committee, the alders, and the developers owe it to the community--especially the residents who actually live in the neighborhood--to be as open and honest about their plans as possible. We need to make an informed decision about these proposals, and it's understandably difficult to do so when there's so much stalling and lack of details.

Groceries a-go-go

I've been out of the loop again, but this time I blame it on the fact that I don't live in the effected neighborhood. Last I'd heard, Whole Foods was slated to move out of its old 3313 University Ave. location and into a shiny new space just a few blocks up, where a new development is slowly being built. That seemed a bit odd to me, especially seeing as how there's already a Sentry right across the parking lot, and a Copps just down the street. What neighborhood needs, let alone can support, three full-service grocery stores?

Apparently, however, the downturn in ye ol' marketplace and other such factors have nixed Whole Foods' plans to move and open a new store. Poor babies*. Y'know, I'd like to see a mixed used, preferably sustainable development go in where there is now only a big, gaping hole, but I think they could (and will likely now have to) find better use for it than yet another grocery store. And, too, there are other neighborhoods in this city that are decidedly lacking in easy-to-access groceries. If we're going to encourage new stores to open, why not point them in the direction of an area that actual wants/needs them?

It's important for neighborhoods to have various essentials within reasonable walking distance. We've done a great job of building totally isolated communities where you're pretty much forced to hop in the car to do any errands, and that's a damn shame. Not only is it ecologically smart to build mixed-used, it's also financially smart for the people who live there: less gas money (and car payments, insurance, etc.) to get where you need to go, more exercise, more community connectedness.

So I'm not at all bummed to hear that Whole Foods is likely having to pull out of its weird plans to move a few blocks just to be in the same 'hood as two other big stores. I'm not surprised, either, to hear that these large, ambitious developments are having financial trouble. Hindsight is certainly 20/20, but I think there were plenty of sound voices in the wilderness warning us about unchecked building even before the current downturn. If nothing else, we now need to take the opportunity to really rethink how we go about improving our neighborhoods and cities. It's becoming more and more crucial every day.

*Whole Foods as a store is nice enough and all, but I've never been a big fan of their overall business plan and bizarre CEO.

Overflowing abundance

This year was my first as a member of a local CSA, and I have not been disappointed. Since late spring, me and my two (now former) roommates have been receiving the bounty of Ridgeland Harvest--everything from early season greens to the now seemingly endless supply of zucchini and squash. It is, simply put, awesome. Of course, being that the three of us no longer live together, working to cook meals from this supply has gotten a bit trickier and has left each of us with a bit more food than we individually know what to do with.

Specifically, I suddenly find myself with more green beans than you could shake a stick at--if you're the shaking-sticks-at-beans sort, that is. This is not an entirely unpleasant dilemma to have, as I happen to adore green beans, but I also don't want them to go to waste. One person simply cannot eat multiple pounds of fresh anything before it goes bad. And so it is that I am now on a personal quest to learn how to properly store fresh produce for longer periods of time.

Turns out blanching and freezing the suckers may be my best option, but this is a skill I have yet to acquire, so the process may be both entertaining and potentially disastrous. We'll see. In the meantime, I wanted to share some of the great resources I've found for learning how to preserve your food. And might I also add that, should you find yourself with more zucchini than you can use, don't simply ditch it on a neighbor's front porch and run away: donate it to a local food pantry!

• Check out the National Center for Home Food Preservation
• Freezing fruits and vegetables
• PreserveFood.com
  

Get serious about your throne

I'm going to resist making a terrible, toilet related pun and just mention that today's State Journal has an article detailing a proposal that Madison's water utility is making that would, in theory, help to cut water consumption:

The city's Water Utility is recommending a rebate plan to encourage residents to buy high-efficiency toilets, which could save about 2.3 million gallons of water daily, the output of one well.

The rebate plan, which would offer $100 per dwelling unit — a third of the cost of installing a high-efficiency toilet — is the centerpiece of the utility's goal of cutting residential water use by 20 percent by 2020.

The utility would provide $250,000 for rebates annually, enough for 2,500 toilet replacements each year.

If all homes switched toilets, the water savings would represent two-thirds of the utility's conservation goal.

In general, this sounds like a good plan. The only caveat is that this pitch (which is part of a more detailed, multi-pronged proposal) comes with an 18% rate hike. Certainly, that's going to make some residents balk, and understandably so. But here's the thing: if we were to each cut our water consumption from our current average of 73 gallons a day (good Lord!) down to 58 gallons a day, it might well completely negate any rate increase. It's paying more for less, but when it comes to what is arguably our most precious natural resource, I think it'd be worth it.

We in the United States have been incredibly lucky to have such easy, cheap access to abundant clean water. That's not true of many places in the world, and clean water is becoming more and more difficult to come by all over the planet. We would do well to cut our consumption which, at 73 gallons a day, is way over what we all really need.

Still, I'd be curious to know if the $100 rebates will be coming out of the Water Utility's own pockets, or what. Also, I'd be very curious to know if these rebates will be made available to the landlords of the various apartment buildings around town. I rent, but I'd love to have a low-flow toilet in my apartment. I can't really do that right now unless I own the place. I imagine that renters use a lot of water, too, so offering these rebates to landlords would be a good move and good incentive.

I also admit that the last I'd heard of low-flow toilets, they weren't always terribly reliable in the fully-flushing, not-clogging department. Happily, however, the newer generation of low-flows seems to have fully addressed all of the old problems, and there are several models available now that work even better than the old, water hogging kinds. Plumber Terry Love provides comprehensive, field tested reviews of many low-flow models for your perusal here.

Conservation is one of the key elements to creating and maintaining a more sustainable, healthy environment in which we can all live--right on down to our grandchildren and their children and so forth. It's important to take some personal responsibility for this effort, but equally so that we all work to make it as affordable as possible to do so.

Who needs an environment, anyway?

Man, apparently it's crazytown week in environmental news. The good James Rowen over at the Political Environment, and also Wayne Bigelow (chair of the Dane County Democratic Party) who mentioned it again this morning on Lee Rayburn's show, pointed out the absurd new rules that the Bush Administration is trying to push through that would essentially gut the Endangered Species Act:

The Bush administration wants federal agencies to decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects might harm endangered animals and plants.

New regulations, which don't require the approval of Congress, would reduce the mandatory, independent reviews government scientists have been performing for 35 years, according to a draft obtained by The Associated Press.

The draft rules also would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats.

I'm trying to find another way of saying that this is like "the fox garding the henhouse" because everyone and their mother seems to be using that phrase, but damn if it isn't 100% accurate. Maybe we could call it "the crack addict gaurding the crack house" to make it even more obvious what we're dealing with here.

The officials that are pushing for this change claim that individual federal agencies now have enough expertise to make appropriate determinations about the impact of new construction on wildlife and their habitat, that the new rules make sense and would help cut down on delays and higher costs.

You'll excuse me, however, if I have a hard time believing that no one would abuse this, intentionally or not. Independent oversight and regulation of federal agencies and corporations is an incredibly important part of a functioning democracy, wherein corporate and/or other monied interests are not supposed to run things (not that that's what actually happens most of the time, but we've got to have goals!). And all of this whining about alleged delays and higher costs? I won't lie, it pisses me off a little bit.

We're talking about trying to rationally manage our natural resources--you know, the stuff that allows us to go on living a relatively healthy and balanced life on this here sphere. I get the distinct impression that, left entirely up to lobbyists, corporations and certain politicians who take their money, we'd quickly have ourselves a thoroughly paved over, run down, dirty, dying world. And they'd be dancing a little jig on its corpse with money-stuffed pockets, until, of course, they die of mercury poisoning.

Oh but the world and its environs were already saved 2,000 years ago (give or take a few) by Jesus, and we don't need to do anything more! Or at least, that's according to Minnesota congresswoman Michele Bachmann:

"[Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said that she's just trying to save the planet," Bachmann told the right-wing news site OneNewsNow. "We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet -- we didn't need Nancy Pelosi to do that.

Oh Minnesota, why you gotta go and elect someone like that? Too many politicians in my former (and current) home states have been offering up wacky stuff like this as of lates, and I'm starting to worry that there's something in the water...which means I've drunk it too. That might go some ways in explaining the incessent blogging....

Look, even for committed Christians, the whole Jesus dying on the cross thing was meant to absolve us from having to make more burnt offerings, and to forgive us, eternally, for our sins. Unless you decide to apply the latter as a blank check for fucking the world's shit up, then I don't know how it makes sense to say that Jesus already saved the environment, and Pelosi should just back off. It just doesn't make sense! But then, not a lot of what the rabidly pro-development-and-environment-be-damned types say ever makes sense, just cents. Lots of 'em.

UPDATE: And the road through Crazytown continues, with one right-wing think tank declaring that immigrants, both legal and illegal, are to blame for rising CO2 levels.

More drilling won't help you now

Gas prices skyrocket, and suddenly everyone's crying for more domestic oil drilling. It is human nature, or so it would seem, to deal with disasters as they happen instead of preparing in advance. This most recent example would appear to be no exception.

The big GOP talking point of the day is "More offshore drilling! Open ANWR!" In response to this, the Democratic talking points have been "Implement a windfall tax on oil companies!" and even the confusing "Open more coal power plants!" Everyone's reacting, and very few are actually acting. Don't even get me started on forethought.

Over at folkbum's, a debate erupted over this very subject when it was brought up that the latest feigned outrage was over Obama making some remark about people needing to keep the tires on their cars filled so as to save gas. The comment is pretty much a non-issue in my opinion, but the conversation (if you can call it that) it sparked, and the greater subject to which it relates, is certainly worth examining.

It should be obvious that both Obama and McCain are playing to their percieved constituents on this issue: one calling for more oil drilling and nuclear power, the other for conservation and alternate sources of fuel (and when I say "alternate" I don't necessarily mean all-green, as is the case with his call for new coal-fired plants). Their positions are fairly predictable given their political parties, and neither one is really getting to the root of the problem, or proposing viable, long-term solutions.

It's understandable that people want relief from the crazy high fuel prices, and that they want it now. The transportation industry--the people who bring us our food and other material goods--is especially suffering now, with diesel hitting an average of $4.68/gallon and gas at just over $4.

Here's the thing, though: even if we opened currently off-limits off-shore sites to drilling right now, the data suggests that we 1) wouldn't see any of this new oil for another decade or so, and 2) it would likely only decrease the cost of gas by a few cents.

The Energy Information Administration put out a substantive and informative report on the subject, wherein even after taking an optimistic look at future trends, they conclude that opening the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to new drilling "would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030." They add that, "For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case. Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant."

What's especially significant about that last part is, as pointed out by the folks over at Climate Progress, that:

Offshore drilling is projected by EIA to deliver less extra annual oil production in 2030 than Saudi Arabia announced it would add this year, an announcement that had no significant impact whatsoever on oil prices. [In fact, oil prices actually went up — see yesterday’s AP story, “Oil prices rise despite Saudi vow to pump more.”]

The Bush Administration's own energy analysts' research flies in the face of what both the White House and the McCain campaign are trying to sell the American people on. Read another great, in-depth look at the shenanigans here.

So, the numbers just don't add up. And neither do the very real environmental risks we'd run by opening more of the OCS to drilling, but for some reason that argument seems to ring less important with certain of the more oil advocates.

Then what about the coal powered plants and the coal-to-liquid fuel of which Obama speaks? Those ideas, too, are sketchy at best--and primarily because people, politicians mostly, are trying to (or mistakenly) conflate the two. They are not the same. While IGCC coal plants (coal gasification, or producing electricity from coal) can be relatively environmentally sustainable if the process includes effective carbon sequestration, the much-touted coal-to-liquids process (producing diesel fuel from coal) is pretty much across the board a bad idea: "because even if the CO2 created in manufacturing is sequestered, the fuel itself releases twice as much CO2 as gasoline when combusted."

What to do, then? Both candidate's are right when they talk about better energy conservation, and that's something we can all implement, in both big and small ways, right now. But it will take more than that to secure a future where we're not destroying the earth in the name of a quick-fix solution.

I've pointed out this article before, but I'm going to do it again because I think it's that good and that relevent: "The Seven Myths of Energy Independence" by Paul Roberts makes an excellent case for why we should be focused more not on "energy independence," but rather on "energy security." That is, the United States cannot hope to move into a more sustainable future without the help of the rest of the world, so working to make this place more secure for everyone is more important than looking only inward in an attempt to solve all of our problems.

Drilling for more oil isn't going to help enough to make a positive difference. Neither will coal-to-fuel plants, or even corn-based ethanol (that's a topic for another post, though). This has nothing to do with political affiliation and everything to do with sound research, planning, and the hope for a better future.

Gas prices are going to suck for awhile, and that's pretty much the only garauntee we have right now. And what we do right now to address the problem will determine whether we continue our slide down into complete energy insecurity and environmental destruction, or whether we pull ourselves up into a greener, more sustainable future in tandem with the rest of our world.

UPDATED TO ADD: This solid essay on the matter from HuffPo.

Local matters now more than ever

I just read this piece in the Mail Tribune (a paper out of southern Oregon) about how farmer's markets are suffering because of higher fuel prices. It's an interesting read, and makes mention of our own Dane County market, but what struck me the most was the final quote in the article, attributed to one NYC vendor: "Local soon will not be that important."

My knee-jerk reaction to such a notion is "YOU'RE WRONG! TAKE IT BACK RIGHT NOW!" But then, I'm trying to put my petulance aside and really look at the issue. The conclusion I've come to, though, is the same--local does matter, now more than ever, and it is precisely because of the skyrocketing cost of fuel (and environmental concerns, and the so-called obesity epidemic, etc. etc.).

The contention of the article is that higher oil costs, and the associated greater cost of supplies for smaller farmers, is forcing them to raise their prices. Large chain grocery stores, however, can better absorb the cost increases without passing it on to customers quite as much. Evidence points to this being the case, so I'm not arguing against this point.

It shouldn't be like that, though. Food grown and prepared locally tends to be fresher, tastier, and more sustainably grown. Plus, you're truly supporting family farmers instead of giant corporate operations. As a nation, we pay a lot of lip service to these family farmers and how important they are to our way of life, but we don't seem to do much to actually support them.

And since locally produced food has to travel a lot less to reach our tables, it should logically follow that it be somewhat cheaper. So then, why isn't it?

Farm subsidies might have something to do with it. Most of the money and benefits of these subsidies goes toward the big operations, most of whom don't really need the help. Originally enacted to help struggling family farmers during the Depression, the subsidies now primarily game the system in favor of large agribusinesses and Fortune 500 companies. That's certainly no good. The trick, of course, is that many of the arguments against the subsidy system stem from a belief that the free market will right all wrongs. What's left out, however, is the effect it has on local farmers in various, less developed countries around the world.

It's a fine balance. On the one hand, we want to make sure that people all over the world have reliable and affordable access to healthy food. Looking at the current state of world food prices (crazy high), it's easy to see how one might jump to the conclusion that the best remedy for the problem is to make it easier to import produce from abroad at cheaper prices. I won't argue that that's completely wrong, especially considering the poor environmental conditions of certain parts of the world (both man-made and as a result of natural disasters). It's important to have a global system of food production and distribution to aid people and places that are, for one reason or another, unable to support themselves at any given time.

But shouldn't our main focus be on making sure that most places can, in fact, support their local populations? It's the old adage: don't give away fish, teach them how to do the fishing. Easing farm subsidies shouldn't mean glutting foreign markets with goods and essentially forcing local, smaller producers out of the game. This seems especially important now with the cost of fuel growing ever-higher. Food security should take just as much precedence as energy security, in that perhaps we ought to be focusing on making sure populations have access to more domestically, locally produced goods. This reduces the cost of transporting the food, the risk of accidentally importing a piggybacking pest, and increases the likelihood that people will be able to sustain themselves in the event of catastrophes elsewhere in the world.

If we subsidize anyone, shouldn't it be the local, smaller farmers and producers? After all, they tend to be the ones at the forefront of innovative and more earth-friendly growing techniques. And shouldn't they be allowed to grow crops based on both the demands of their local markets and the capabilities of their local environments? This would have the positive effect of providing affordable, nutritional, and more sustainably grown food--and of helping to empower local communities who would be able to take a larger stake in their own well-being.

Community gardens and garden communities

In an effort to momentarily suppress my frustration and dismay over yesterday's FISA amendment vote, I'm distracting myself with a far, far more positive story.

Madison has long been known as a green-leaning city, having several community garden projects and farmer's markets and other such neighborhood improvement efforts. We're not perfect, and there's always room for improvement, but perhaps because we've never been a particularly industrial city, these sorts of ideas have been around for a good long while.

That isn't really the case with Detroit. The Motor City, once a shining metropolis of industry, has, in more recent decades, been abandoned by corporate interests and left to rot away on the shores of Lake St. Clair. Personally, I've heard little else about Detroit than that huge swaths of it are rapidly decaying, that crime is rampant, and that no one seems interested in investing in its future. In short, the story seems pretty grim.

And yet, some enterprising residents have decided that they're not ready to give up on their city. They've recognized something somewhat unique and full of promise in the midst of the urban decay: green space, nature slowly taking back the factories and empty homes, even pheasants wandering through inner city fields.

What they've decided to do with all that abandoned space is, plainly put, inspiring.

I watched this short doc about Detroit's citizen's efforts to help neighbors start their own gardens, all in an effort to alleviate what has become a "food dessert" in their neighborhoods--that is, there are no major grocery chains in the entire city, only fast food joints and expanded liquor stores, and it's extremely difficult for people to get fresh produce and other good-for-you food.

It led me to the Garden Resource Program Collaborative (a group that includes the Detroit Agriculture Network, Earthworks Garden/Capuchin Soup Kitchen, The Greening of Detroit and Michigan State University), which provides very affordable seeds, starter plants, information and tutorials to any interested person or group within the city. Slowly but surely, organizations like these are helping to reclaim the empty spaces for productive, green, sustainable purposes, breathing life back into a city all but declared dead by the rest of the country.

No doubt it will be a long, uphill battle - all good causes are - but the important thing is that they're doing it, and making it work. They're helping to empower residents long neglected by the big corporations and corrupt or inept governments. And just as importantly, they're helping to provide a healthy, sustainable food source. That's something we should all be working toward.

Any city, large or small, could stand to take a cue from these groups in Detroit. Urban infill as an idea has been around for some time now, and frankly, I think its proponents are on to something. In order to cut down on sprawl, the depletion of natural resources, waste run-off and the paving over of wetlands, etc., we need to focus on making our cities better, leaving the countryside for agriculture that can support surrounding areas, and open space simply to support nature. This also cuts down on transportation costs and the associated pollution, as our food sources become increasingly more localized. Gas ain't getting any cheaper, after all.

I'm both encouraged and impressed by the efforts in Detroit. I have family that live in the area, and I've seen first-hand just how devastated and neglected the city has become. It's good to know that there are still people out there who care, and who are working hard to make real, long-term improvements. Outside help would, of course, be useful, but this strikes me as a good example of locals taking the initiative to improve their lives and their communities. Ultimately, that's what it's all about.

You can read more about the Detroit community garden and sustainability programs here and here.

Easier every day to eat local

This is so cool.

Four geography students at the UW-Madison have created an interactive map of local food sources (within 100 miles of Madison), including farms, co-ops and markets. It's still in beta mode, which means it's not quite done, but what they've got so far is quite impressive and pretty slick.

Check out the "100 Mile Diet Map" here.

I love stuff like this. Easy to use and pretty thorough, it makes the task of getting more of what you eat from local sources so much simpler. And frankly, if we hope to get more people on board with the local food movement, the easier it's made the better.

A few other local food resources:

• Wisconsin Local Food
  
• Slow Food Wisconsin
• Wisconsin Eat Local Challenge
• Eat Wild (national resource with many WI farms)
• Wisconsin's Farm Fresh Atlas
• Home Grown Wisconsin (sustainable growers serving restaurants)
• Savor Wisconsin

It is possible to get most of your food from more local producers, and with world food prices being what they are, we should be doing our best to encourage people and governments to get more of their food from nearby sources. It cuts the cost of transporting it, helps support local economies, lowers the demand for fuel, and helps with sustainability issues. Will it fix everything overnight? Probably not, but all signs point to it being the healthier, longer-term solution.

Fools rush in

Skyrocketing fuel prices? Dig up the oil sands in Canada! Skyrocketing food prices? Tear out the Amazon rainforest for agricultural use!

Seemingly easy solutions like these are awful tempting when we're faced with ever increasingly daunting challenges in the world. A global food crisis is at hand (or already in progress, depending on how you look at it), and we're all feeling the pinch at the gas pumps. But is more really the answer? And more important, is easy really better?

An argument can be made for the former question--increased efficiency, better technology and new sources may help us increase food and fuel production without overwhelmingly negative consequences--but as for the latter, it's not likely.

Dan Gunderson, in an editorial for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, argues that we need to up production in places like Alberta, Canada where vast oil sand reserves live:

While "renewability" is an important factor in our future energy choices, reliability is also essential. Contrary to popular perception, world oil and gas reserves remain abundant. But the lack of access to these reserves is a primary limiting factor in our domestic energy supply.

More than 20 years of ill-considered public policy that restricted access to government lands or prohibited exploration activities has led to higher prices and a significant tightening in current global energy supplies.

...

Not everyone understands that the oil sands and other petroleum resources found in places like Canada increase U.S. energy reliability and security. Some people even suggest that we can simply eliminate petroleum from the American way of life and the economy will continue to grow and create jobs and the promise of a better quality of life for future generations. These folks, it seems, would simply turn 300 million automobiles into so many lawn ornaments, eliminate millions of jobs, do without valuable products, and use the bicycles that the Chinese and Indian people are so eager to abandon.

While I agree that we can't afford to simply and immediately eliminate all petroleum from our lives, to reach the important long-term goal of at least mostly phasing out its use we must think long-term.

Oil sands production and refining is extremely energy intensive, requiring a great deal of natural gas and water. Natural gas production in Alberta has apparently already peaked, and any increase in oil sands production is likely to accompany a reduction in natural gas imports to the United States. Not a great outcome. Plus, oil sands extraction is "generally held to be more environmentally damaging than conventional crude oil - carbon dioxide emissions, for example, are roughly three to five times greater with tar sands extraction." Plus, digging up huge swaths of land, in this case Boreal Forest, is very likely to cause irreversible damage to the ecosystem.

What's important is that we increase the efficiency and safety standards for current production sites while also working hard to create and improve more sustainable, renewable sources of energy. These new sources, like any new market, will help to create a great number of new jobs, many of which aren't likely to require a great deal of retraining for workers already skilled at jobs in existing energy fields. The trick in all of this, of course, is doing our best to make the transition as smooth as possible. Kinks will be inevitable, but certainly human ingenuity can help to minimize their impact and maximize the positive results.

Plowing ahead with the same old methods without thinking through their long-term effects and consequences is what got us into our current mess. Why repeat the same old mistakes?

Under the guise of growing a more en vogue crop, that's exactly what Blairo Maggi, the governor of Brazil's chief soy-producing state, would have us do. Now, I'm a huge fan of soy--as a vegetarian, it's probably my largest food group. But we don't need to plow under the Amazon rainforest to grow it. Maggi, however, seems to think otherwise:

"With the worsening of the global food crisis, the time is coming when it will be inevitable to discuss whether we preserve the environment or produce more food. There is no way to produce more food without occupying more land and taking down more trees," Maggi told Folha de Sao Paulo. "In this moment of crisis, the world needs to understand that the country has space to raise its production."

He's right on the last count, but the country has space outside of the rainforest to raise its production. This according to their own government officials:

Still, Brazilian government officials maintain that agricultural expansion need not come at the expense of the Amazon rainforest. In January Brazilian Agriculture Minister Reinhold Stephanes told Reuters that outside the Amazon, Brazil has 100 million hectares of land available for cultivation, including 50 million hectares of degraded pasture land and 50 million hectares of cerrado, a grassland ecosystem bordering the Amazon rainforest.

So why on Earth would you choose to destroy one of the world's most valuable and fragile resources instead? The soil in the rainforest is extremely bad for agricultural uses. "The soil in the rainforest is very fertile but only the top few inches and only while the rainforest itself is left in place. If you take away the rainforest, the soil itself is not very good at all. The soil's fertility derives from the intense biological activity in the rainforest. This activity is so rapid that biomass from dead plants is recycled and the nutrients made again available in a matter of weeks." Once you clear all of the flora that sustains this cycle, the land begins to erode and degrade at a rapid pace.

Plus, undisturbed rainforests (of which there are few, if any, left) help maintain a worldwide balance between oxygen output and carbon dioxide intake. Greater rates of tree felling and organic decomposition lead to far greater amounts of carbon dioxide being released into the air, as does burning large swaths of the forest. And the repercussions wouldn't end there.

Fact is, we need to apply our vast cerebral and monetary resources to developing and improving more sustainable, more long-term productive methods of fuel and food production. This is possible. It already exists. All that seems to be lacking is education and willpower.


(photo credits here and here, h/t John A. for the subject)

McIlheran loves people, DDT, but misses the point

I read with some interest and confusion Patrick McIlheran's recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial, "Consider the humans on Earth, too" - his reaction to the Earth Day holiday. In it, he says that "Greens have long argued that energy is too cheap..." and that environmentalism has blinded some people in malaria-struck regions enough to refuse the use of DDT in fighting the disease. Among other things.

McIlheran seems to be making the argument that preserving the environment is incongruous with producing cheap energy and making sure people, especially those in developing countries, have enough to eat.

He's right to call out those people who claim to be environmentalists and make demands without consideration for how they will immediately effect communities around the world. We need to be careful about the measures taken to protect our world--there is a balance to be struck between being green and being affordable. This is a balance that is emminently doable, too, but where McIlheran goes wrong is in his assertion that "activists" think we need to cut back to "Haitian levels" of energy consumption, and that "Environmental policy is, instead, a set of trade-offs, and what is traded for cleanliness is someone's portion of economic prosperity."

I disagree, and strongly.

We all want cheap, abundant energy. It should not come at the cost of the health of our people and our planet, though. Poorly planned and executed environmental policy may indeed limit someone's portion of economic prosperity, but it needn't be that way. There are projects currently underway in all corners of the globe that aim to (and often succeed at) helping the poorest of the poor to get things like clean water, electricity, education, and agriculture, all with a greener, more sustainable bent. If done right, being more environmentally sound can lead to greater economic sustainability, too. If the source of your livelihood--the land--isn't degraded, you can live off of it indefinitely.

As for DDT, McIlheran is wrong when he claims that the pesticide is both safe and banned. While DDT has long been banned outright in most developed countries (with good reason), its use for "vector control" is still approved in many areas afflicted by malaria. When used carefully and in smaller amounts, it can be just as effective, but without the many environmental and health problems that result from widespread usage.

I'm also uncomfortable with his implication that "activists whose main concern is the environment have appropriated the moral high ground once used by those demanding racial equality." If someone were to actually do this, I'd be inclined to give 'em a good smack, but I've yet to meet someone dedicated to a greener way of life who also thought that one was more important than the other.

One should not overshadow the other. They're both extremely important, and frankly, I think they're also somewhat tied together. If we're talking about the rights of working class and poor communities, then the discussion must include the effects of pollution on their lives. Pollution often caused by large, poorly regulated corporations that feel they can get away with dumping on less wealthy, less empowered people. We can combat these situations with better regulation of industry, greener business practices, and by empowering these communities with ways to help themselves through sustainable means.

So yes, we need to care for our fellow human beings. But a major part of that is wrapped up in how we treat our environment. We should be thoughtful and careful about how we do this, but you cannot separate the two. After all, we can't survive without the Earth, but the Earth can survive without us. I'd rather it not come to that.

The good, the bad, the delightful

The Good:

A "sustainable village," complete with natural sewage treatment, a school of organic agriculture and businesses powered by the sun, wind and renewable organic fuel could find a home in Fitchburg.

I have been known to bag on Fitchburg (where their downtown is a "state of mind") on more than a few occasions. Word on the street back in the day was that this next door neighbor of Madison's was essentially formed by business interests that wanted a place nearby to the city where they could operate with fewer regulations and taxes. Call me wacky, but that seems like an odd reason to establish a city. Aaaanyway, I was pleased as punch to read this article in the WSJ today.

The Bad:

Ever wonder who really owns some of those tasty organic and "natural" food brands that we all know and love? Yeah, disappointing. I was heartened not to find Amy's on the list, because Amy's is the shit. Seriously.

The Delightful:

Can you smell that? That's the scent of snow melting, ice breaking, sand clogging sewer drains and mud forming all around--in other words, SPRING! And not a moment too soon. Even us hearty Wisconsinites had had quite enough of this winter by about, oh, the beginning of February. I was starting to think wistfully of places like LA, places that normally instill a healthy sense of dread, and their warmer weather. No more! There's nothing like an especially harsh winter to make spring a truly glorious experience.

Have a great weekend!

Go green to save green

When the talk turns to environmental sustainability and so-called "green" standards in business, one of the major counter arguments tends to be that it'll be too cost prohibitive, cut into a company's bottom line, and therefore be bad for business and the economy. I'm always tempted to fire back with "But you're putting profits before the long-term health and survival of the planet!" which, really, just tends to put people off. No one will ever convince anyone to change their ways by insulting their humanity.

Here's the thing, though: the more I research green technologies, the more I'm seeing that many of them actually save companies money in addition to saving resources. Ingenuity and a greater focus on sustainable practices have produced a whole slew of products and processes that are good for both the planet and the bottom line, but we seem to be falling short on actually promoting them. We have to get the word out, so that when it comes time to discuss new, greener ideas, the "it costs too much" argument will be mostly moot.

Right here at our very own UW-Madison, a man by the name of Marjid Sarmadi has developed a more sustainable way to make carpeting. I'll be honest; it's not something I'd ever thought of before. Apparently, however, making one square yard of carpet requires 50 gallons of water, significant amounts of energy and harmful chemicals like formaldehyde. Plus, it's the number one textile found in landfills.

However, Sarmadi has hit on a way to make carpeting that is 100% recyclable, doesn't use some of the more harmful chemicals, and actually costs less:

...the most surprising part of the project has been that the final project not only saves water and energy, but lasts longer and costs much less. Sarmadi’s carpeting standards have a 30–year warranty, as opposed to the typical 10— to 15–year warranty, and have saved the LACCD the equivalent of $40 million.

And there are stories like this one cropping up all over the place. Plus, green technologies create green jobs (y'know, that thing the presidential candidates have been gabbing on and on about). The renewable energy industry, for instance, has been seeing substantial growth, even in the midst of the current economic downturn.

Again, the main ingredient for seeing more successes like this one is will power: willingness to research and try new things, willingness to properly fund the efforts, willingness to place more emphasis on long-term benefits than short.

We've got opposable thumbs and big, squishy brains, and we've proved that we can make just about anything happen if we put our minds to it. In this case, it's both good stewardship and good business.

(h/t Isthmus Daily Page and TreeHugger)

A Greener Wal-Mart?

There's been a lot of talk recently about the newly opened Wal-Mart Supercenter out in Monona. Much lip service has been paid to the more "environmentally friendly" tack the store is taking, all part of Wal-Mart CEO Scott Lee's plan to turn his company green.

It's a noble goal, and one that I support wholeheartedly, even though I don't shop at Wal-Mart and generally despise their business practices.

But like any good Wal-Mart skeptic, all the talk of sustainability made me wonder just how much work was being done to meet that goal. I hoped, because I'm an optimist at heart, that what Wal-Mart was claiming was true: that they were in fact cleaning up their act, making a serious effort at becoming a sustainable, eco-friendly business. Is that really possible for such a behemoth, though? Can a company that requires the sheer numbers of goods and services that Wal-Mart requires make good on its word?

An article in the Capital Times laid out what the new Monona Supercenter is boasting:

The new Wal-Mart is a little different from most, since it was built on an old torn-down retail area with little room for acres of surface parking. Shoppers can park in a 499-stall parking garage under the store, taking escalators to and fro, with a special escalator designed to hold shopping carts.

Rooftop skylights allow sunlight to pour into the building, saving electricity. Refrigeration system water is recirculated to help heat the building. Lights in freezer cases turn on when someone walks up and turn off when no one's there.

That all sounds pretty good to me. But then I found the following report, a critique of Wal-Mart's sustainability efforts put together by a coalition of interested organizations. Their conclusions don't lend well to the Wal-Mart PR machine's picture of the company. The following are just a few of the more interesting findings of the study:

Organics: Although the company announced plans to expand organic products, the Cornucopia Institute has documented incidents of Wal-Mart misrepresenting conventional food products as organics and charges that the company has attempted to drive down organic prices by using factory farm products of questionable quality, including some from China and other countries where regulations are weak.

Illegal Logging: Wal-Mart claims that it will remove illegal wood products from its supply chain. But the Environmental Investigation Agency charges that the company has failed to monitor its suppliers adequately. Moreover, Wal-Mart’s constant demand of decreased prices from its suppliers drives illegal logging, and some 47 percent of Wal-Mart’s wood-containing products are manufactured in China, which sources from countries known to have major problems with illegal logging.

Cypress Mulch: Wal-Mart is fueling the destruction of cypress forests, the Gulf Coast’s best natural storm and fl ooding protection, by distributing cypress mulch throughout the country. Wal-Mart was proud of their relief work after Hurricane Katrina, but now the company is endangering coastal communities and important wildlife along the Gulf of Mexico. The Gulf Restoration Network and the Save Our Cypress Coalition are working to convince Wal-Mart to drop this unsustainable product.

Global Warming: Wal-Mart’s goals for reducing global warming pollution leave many sources of greenhouse gases off the table. According to the Institute for Policy Studies and Friends of the Earth, the company’s supply chain creates more than 40 times the emissions the firm says it is aiming to eliminate. Combined with emissions from its retail operations, Wal-Mart’s greenhouse gases are the equivalent of about half the amount produced annually by France. Wal-Mart’s “cheap” imports are not cheap if you consider the estimated 2 million tons of annual
carbon emissions associated with shipping from China to U.S. ports, pollution from inefficient non-U.S. trucking fl eets, and the health impacts of port pollution on local communities. Wal-Mart’s contribution to sprawl has increased shopping travel to the point where traffic associated with its stores produces more carbon dioxide than all of its other U.S. greenhouse gas emissions combined.

And the report just goes on and on. While I acknowledge that the timbre of the report is pretty obviously biased against Wal-Mart, their findings have considerable merit and are worth further review.

I understand why people shop at big box retailers like Wal-Mart: often it's what you can afford, it's extremely convenient, and sometimes it's the only option a person has for certain goods in smaller towns. It's hard to begrudge someone the right to shop at Wal-Mart when there's no other place to go, or when their income dictates having to seek out the cheapest products.

People who can boycott the store should, but we also shouldn't turn our noses up at those who keep going. There should be a sustainable, affordable option for buying your essentials. Time and time again, though, Wal-Mart has shown that it is more interested in its huge bottom line than it is in the welfare of the people who shop (and work) there and their planet.

A few cosmetic improvements to make themselves look better in the eyes of the communities they come to, like the token efforts at greening the store in Monona (which are a step in the right direction, but only a step), are not enough to undo the years of damage they've already done, and will continue to do, until they are finally held truly accountable and made to take drastic, long-term measures to improve the way they do business.

This goes for all of the big box retailers, the number of which has grown considerably in recent years, mostly on the far east and west side of the city. Wal-Mart is easier to pick on because they are so ubiquitous, and because their violations are many and varied. But the trend toward giant stores is a bad one in general, helping to create sprawl, increase the use of automobiles, degrade the land they're on, and more.

There's a better way to meet the needs of a community, ways that are sustainable in more ways than one. In-fill, the idea of building a city up rather than out, is one good idea. Holding the bigger businesses to higher standards is another. Limiting the size of big box stores, or indeed banning them outright, is another option. The possibilities are out there, researched, proven. Like anything, it just lacks the community willpower to get it done, and that, perhaps above all else, is what we need to work to change.