Podcast Mania

For two years now, sans TV, the radio (NPR mainly) and the Internet have become our main source of news. Since our local public radio (WPSU) airs NPR only in the morning and evening for some time (and classical music the rest of the day), I began listening to NPR online. This led to discovering a lot of interesting programs and eventually to podcasts. The list of podcasts kept changing for a while as I kept finding more and more interesting ones and dropping some that I didn't like. Now the list has stabilized a bit and I have settled into a sort of weekly routine of podcast listening. So I am posting the list of my favorite podcasts about nature, environment, conservation etc. for all of you to try them out. I have given links to the RSS feed for the podcast at the end of the little intro to each one of them. If you enjoy listening to something that is not on my list please let me know through the comments. So here goes...

1. Living on Earth (via NPR): This weekly NPR program has some really interesting stories from across the world and covers a wide range of environmental issues. From time to time they also have special features. It is through this program that I learnt about David Sheldrick Wildlife trust (program link, trust website) last year and that's how we ended up being the foster parents of little Lualeni. I also came across the story of Radiator Charlie and his heirloom tomatoes through LoE. One of their special features that I really liked was the documentary (link) about Wangari Maathai, the Nobel prize winning Kenyan activist; and her Green Belt movement. [::RSS feed ::]

2. Living Planet (by Deutsche Welle radio): This program features environmental issues in Europe (mainly) and the world. Every week they also have a feature about interesting events and issues related to the environment. The most recent one that I enjoyed a lot was about a solar powered tour boat called "The Serpentine Solar Shuttle", that has recently started ferrying tourists in London. [::RSS feed ::]

3. GLRC Environment Report (via NPR): This is a weekly roundup of environmental news and developments across the US by the Great Lakes Radio Consortium. Every week there is also a feature story from the Great Lakes region. [::RSS feed ::]

4. Allegheny Front: This is an excellent environmental news program featuring stories mainly from Western Pennsylvania. It is broadcast weekly on public radio (WYEP) in Pittsburgh and is also available as a podcast. [::RSS feed ::]

5. Inside Renewable Energy: This weekly podcast by RenewableEnergyAccess.com features news and interesting developments about renewable energy issues across the world. [::RSS feed ::]

6. Pulse of the Planet: This podcast has interesting "two minute sound portraits" of the planet earth. I really like these because each one of them is a surprise. One day you are listening to sounds from Erie county fair and on another day you are learning about Wrens from Ecuador. [::RSS feed ::]

7. Earthwatch Radio: This podcast is produced by University of Wisconsin- Madison. It too consists of a short two minute tidbit about science and environment everyday. It's like having a small "information chicklet" every day. [::RSS feed ::]

8. Natural Selections: This is a short 5 minute program produced by North Country Public Radio. Each week the hosts discuss some topic from the natural world. [::RSS feed ::]

9. Nature Stories Podcast: The podcast sponsored by the Nature Conservancy has some interesting stories from the natural world every week. [::RSS feed ::]

10. Organically Speaking: This podcast features interviews with people who share a passion for natural and organic lifestyles. The interviews are not on a specific schedule but each one of them is very insightful. I like the most recent one with Michael Pollan, the author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma". [::RSS feed ::]

I am looking for some good gardening podcasts but I haven't quite had the time to hunt for them. If you know any good gardening podcasts, do let me know. Apart from these environment related podcasts, I also listen to "The Changing World" [::RSS feed ::], from BBC and PRI. It has these amazing radio documentaries on emerging topics across the world.

That's all folks. Happy listening and do get back if you know 'bout other interesting stuff to listen.

Technorati Tags: podcasts, environment, nature, conservation

What's the mileage on that bicycle?

"Huh! what's that again?"
"You heard that right. Do you know the mileage on that bicycle?"

The logic goes thus. Everything we eat is produced somewhere, processed somewhere and transported to our supermarket and from there to our homes. It takes energy to do that. A major contribution of the energy needed to produce, process and transport our food comes from fossil fuels (the stuff USA is officially addicted to, since January'06). When you eat that sandwich, you are effectively gulping down gasoline. Every time you ride that bicycle, you are burning some of the same energy which came from the fossil-fuels. Naturally this bears the question, "How many miles can you go on that bicycle for every gallon of gasoline you consume (indirectly... through the food you eat)?". Got it? Good!

Lets go over the answer step by step:
1> How much energy does a gallon of gasoline have?
This is called the calorific value of the fuel. This EPA webpage says that the energy content of gasoline is an average 113,000 BTU/gallon. That translates to 28,476 kcal/gallon. (1 BTU = 0.252 kcal)

2>How many gallons of gasoline do you (indirectly) consume?
This depends on the type of your diet. The table below shows the amount of fossil fuel input for different types of diet. These numbers are from the book, "Food energy and society", by David and Marcia Pimentel [1]. Note that all these numbers are for a 3600 kcal daily diet (remember 1 food Cal. = 1 kcal). It is interesting to note here that average American eats ~1500 Cal. more than the daily requirement of 2100 Cal. I have converted the fossil fuel input number into gallons of fuel using the calorific value given above.

3> How many food Calories do we burn while bicycling?
My search yielded a number of different values. I found this table on howstuffworks.com and a few other websites [this pdf, page 21]. It says that 0.049 Calories are burnt per pound, per minute while cycling at the speed of 15 mph. Another table is given in the Dietary guidelines for America, and can be found on many websites [CDC webpage, also this pdf - page 4]. This says that a person weighing 154 lb, will burn 290 Cal. when bicycling at a speed less than 10 mph, for one hour. Translates to 0.031 Cal. per lb per minute. A person weighing 154 lb, bicycling at 10 mph will have to go 125.7 mile to burn 36oo Cal. daily intake.

Diet	Fossil fuel input(kcal)[1]	Fossil fuel input(gallon)	Miles to burn 3600 Cal.	Mileage (MPG)
Vegetarian (0%)	18,275	0.64	125.7	196
Lacto-Ovo (14%)	25,230	0.89	125.7	142
Average US (28%)	34,560	1.21	125.7	104

There goes the answer to the question. Bicycling is fun, it is a good exercise and nothing beats the mileage on that bicycle.

Reference:
[1] Pimentel D, Pimentel M. "Food, energy and society". Colorado University Press, 1996.

Technorati Tags: bicycling, food, fossil fuels, diet, vegetarianism

Related posts: Vegetarianism, Greens Eat Greens

Greens Eat Greens

This is a continuation of my previous post about Vegetarianism. In that post, I pointed out that one of the reasons for joining the "veggie" band was - "because it is good for the environment". In other words, "eating greens is important if you truly wish to become Green". In this post, I try to explore this issue of vegetarianism and environment.

In today's globalized world, the food we consume is not necessarily produced in our backyard or even in our country. That bottle of water you may have on your table or that sandwich you just ate for lunch or dinner contained ingredients which probably came from all over the world. Energy is expended at each and every stage in the food production~packaging~delivery chain. Let us have a comparative look at the important steps in this chain for vegetables and for meat (e.g. beef).

Vegetables/Grains:	Meat:
Growing and harvesting (Fertilizers, Pesticides, Seeds, Farm implements etc.) Packaging (material, process) Transportation and storage (refrigeration, fuel for transport etc.) Processing (most grains are processed into some other product before consumption)	Growing and harvesting feed stock for animals (Fertilizers, Pesticides, Seeds, Farm implements etc.) Transportation of feedstock Energy input to the animal farm facility (includes stuff like growth hormones or other drugs given to the animals) Transportation of animals to meat processing facility Meat production Packaging Transportation to final consumer.

It is clear that meat production involves more number of steps than vegetable production. The energy input in most of the cases is in the form of fossil fuels. Most of the fertilizers, chemical pesticides used have significant fossil fuel input in it. Transportation and farm machinery etc. requires fuel. The packaging (e.g. plastic boxes, wrapping etc.) requires fossil fuel inputs. Every morsel of food we consume provides us with energy, which is commonly measured in Calories. 1 food Calorie = 1000 thermodynamic calories or 1 kcal (I can't believe I was unaware of this fact so far!). The energy contained in fossil fuels is also given in terms of "calories/kg" or the calorific value of the fuel. So a simple measure of the energy efficiency of our diet is:

The ratio of calories of energy that we get from the diet to the calories of (largely fossil fuel) energy that go into producing that diet and bringing it to our homes.
Therefore,
% efficiency = 100 x (kcal energy output from food) /(kcal energy input into food)

Now, I am not the first one to come up with this concept. Energy sources are valuable and there have been a lot of studies done to understand how much energy we consume and the way we consume it. David and Marcia Pimentel from Cornell University have done extensive research in this area. Their book, Food Energy and Society [1] contains a lot of data regarding the energy input for various kinds of food production systems. They have calculated the amount of fossil fuel energy (measured in kcal) input in the food production system per kcal of food protein produced, for different food groups (meats, legumes, vegetables etc.). Note that the energy output is only for the protein content of the food a not total energy content. Most meats have large protein content while most grains and vegetables don't. I am tabulating some of the data which is relevant to our purpose here {from [1], chapters 8, 9, 10 and 11}:

Food Products	% energy efficiency
Animal Products
Chicken	6.3%
Milk	5.3%
Eggs	3.6%
Beef	2.9%
Range Beef	10%
Pork	1.5%
Lamb	0.5%
Range Lamb	6.3%
Tuna	5%
Shrimp	0.7%
Vegetables/Grains
Corn	250%
Wheat	220%
Oats	510%
Rice	210%
Apples	110%
Oranges	170%
Potatoes	123%
Spinach	23%
Tomatoes	60%

The numbers speak for themselves. It is clear that producing meat and animal products is a highly inefficient operation (in terms of energy efficiency as defined above). It is not simply about fossil fuel consumption. Producing meat/animal products consumes a large amount of land and water as well. But that is a totally different topic of discussion. For some interesting information on that I refer you this study [2]. David and Marcia Pimentel also compare various types of diets in their book. Data collected by them shows {from [1], page 147} that a non-vegetarian diet requires twice as much fossil fuel energy input as compared to a vegetarian diet. Lacto-ovo diet falls somewhere in between these two.

Another interesting study I found online while searching for references is a yet to be published paper [3] by Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin of The University of Chicago. They have used the energy input data given in [1] to compare the total green house gas (GHG) burden of many different diets (red-meat based, average American diet, lacto-ovo, vegan) with varying percentage of animal products. Without going into details, here are some interesting results one can find in this study {from[3], Figure 3}:

• The difference between GHG burden of average US diet (27% Animal products) and a totally vegan diet is ~1.5 ton per person per year. Compare this to the difference in GHG burden of Toyoto Camry and Toyota Prius which is ~1.05 ton per person per year.
• Switching from a red meat based diet (27% animal products) to a lacto-ovo diet (27% animal products) is equivalent to switching from a Toyota Camry to a Prius in terms of the GHG burden.

Anyway, there are many interesting articles, studies, books out there which more or less agree that a plant based diet is more efficient and sustainable than a meat based diet. If you are seriously thinking about switching from that SUV to an energy efficient car, why not think about switching to a plant based diet? At the very least, you can think about cutting down the proportion of meat you consume. If you are a true Green, think about eating green too.

Given below are the references mentioned above and links to other articles I came across while researching for this post. One of the links given have many good tips if you want to switch to a veggie diet. In my next post I want to answer the question - "how many miles per gallon does my bicycle give?". I think I have enough data gathered to do the calculation, so stay tuned.

Update (03/20/2006): What's the mileage on that bicycle?

References:
[1] Pimentel D., and M. Pimentel (Editors), 1996. Food, Energy and Society, University Press of Colorado, 363p. ISBN: 0870813862 [link]

[2] Pimentel D., and M. Pimentel, 2003: Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 78(3), 660S-663S. [subscription reqd.]

[3] Eshel, G. and P. A. Martin, 2006: Diet, Energy and Global Warming. In press, Earth Interactions. [pdf link thanks to Judith's blog]

Links:
[::] Eating Fossil Fuels by Dale Allen Pfeiffer [pdf link]

[::] Why Our Food is so Dependent on Oil by Norman Church

[::] The Ethics of Eating Meat by Charles Eisenstein. (Makes a case for farm raised animals and ethical meat eating)

[::] Fossil Fuels and Energy Use @ The Sustainable Table (Has many useful tips to have a more sustainable kitchen for both vegetarians and meat eaters).

[::] Veg How To? @ VegForLife (tips for converting to the veggie creed)

[::] Meat Production's Environmental Toll by Stephen Leckie @ Toronto Vegetarian Association

Technorati Tags: Vegetarianism, Environment, Food production, Energy efficiency, Fossil fuels

Can Markets Protect the Environment?

It has only been a short while since I got really interested in environmental movement and issues related to it. Till now my interest and involvement had been only superficial and will stay on that way for a while. Until now I have been more of an environmental "sympathizer" rather than an activist. In my opinion you have to "proactively" try to change things in your life and your immediate environment to be an activist. Blogging about it or reading about it doesn't count. I am however trying to use my blog as a meeting place of ideas I encounter and post about things I have learnt. One of the ideas that I have recently come across is "Free market environmentalism" [FME].

Proponents of FME argue that current methods pursued by the environmental movement focus too much on the government taking care of the environment. This means lobbying for new laws and stricter regulation for protecting the environment. FME proponents say that the government is very inefficient in doing the job and it can be better accomplished by utilizing the power of free markets. FME advocates propose market based measures like use of well specified property rights for protection of natural resources. Nature Conservancy is one of the leading organizations which is using such measures. It has purchased large areas of property (more than 117 million acres of land and 5,000 miles of river around the world) which are ecologically important for conservation.

There are many other market based approaches which are being tried. Some of them are trading of carbon credits to reduce CO2 emissions, Socially responsible investing [SRI] or green investing. Green investing is really interesting because it gives people the power to invest in companies which have implemented socially and environmentally responsible practices and in companies which are developing alternative energy sources. SRI philosophy does not stop at simply screening companies on the basis of their policies. SRI also advocates community investing and shareholder activism as further steps. As shareholders of a company you get to vote on the policies and direction of the company. A large number of environmentally conscious shareholders can then influence the company policies. Sierra Club has started its own green mutual funds to foster this idea.

There was one thing that struck me while reading about FME. The wikipedia entry on the subject lists several objections to the concept. One of the objections goes as follows:

The conservation of endangered species not necessarily achievable using the free market, especially where there is little economic value in the species in question. For example: there might be only limited profit to be made from a piece of land by maintaining it as the habitat of a rare beetle, whereas alternative economic uses for that land (which might be deleterious to the welfare of the beetle) - such as building a parking lot on it - might yield a greater profit. This objection (impliedly) assumes that the beetle has some innate value (even irrespective of its role in the ecosystem which, by definition, must be limited), an assumption which is not unproblematic, relying as it does on a conception of natural rights which has been comprehensively rebutted by thinkers such as Jeremy Bentham (who famously described the idea of inalienable natural rights as "nonsense on stilts").

I strongly believe that ecological niches which harbor rare species have innate environmental value even if they may not have "economical value". It may be because of my philosophical beliefs, but I find it very hard to deny any sentient being the right to exist simply because it does not have any economic value to humans.

I recently came across an article in India Together by Rajani Bakshi, about Green Investing in India. Although the idea is in its infancy in India, it is slowly growing roots. Bakshi gives a nice analogy for the slow transformation of the market through SRI or "mindful markets" as she calls it. It is the analogy of transformation of the caterpillar into a butterfly. Here it is in her own words:

"Let us reflect a moment on that phase when the caterpillar has turned into a seemingly inert and dull chrysalis. But inside that chrysalis an incredible revolution is taking place. Within the amorphous pulp of the erstwhile caterpillar new kinds of cells begin to appear which some scientists call imaginal cells. It is these cells which carry the code, the pattern of the yet to be formed butterfly. The old caterpillar cells, naturally resist these alien cells and fight back. But the imaginal cells are determined little fellows. Gradually, the old cells get the message that they are not being threatened with destruction. Instead the imaginal cells are an invitation to be transformed into an incredibly beautiful new creation. Thus the butterfly comes into being.

The striving to foster Mindful Markets is today akin to those imaginal cells. So it is perfectly understandable if, at first, the idea of fundamentally re-programming markets seems destructive, anti-profits, some kind of fluffy romantic non-sense."

Truly beautiful!

While I agree that markets and market based approaches will definitely be needed to further environmental causes, I don't agree that relying on the power of free-markets "only" will lead to all the solutions. An ideal free market may indeed be able to protect the environment in the most effective way and to the fullest of human ability but even in the "free-est" of countries markets are far from ideal.

Some good blogs I came across regarding this topic: The Commons blog, Environmental Economics

Technorati Tags: Free Market Environmentalism, Socially responsible investing, Green investing, Conservation, Environment

All Shades of Green

A random walk through the green blogosphere.

It would be a shame if your aren't familiar with the term blogger by now! The term Green needs a bit of an explanation here. I have no special attraction to that color (or any other color for that matter). I am in no way affiliated to political parties named after this color or religious groups symbolized by the color. It just so happens that vegetation (meaning trees, shrubs, bushes and such) which is (and hopefully will be) widely prevalent on this here earth, comes mainly in motley shades of green. It turns out that such vegetation is a VERY important link in the web maintaining all the other life forms.

Therefore Green is the epithet applied to all things (even remotely) associated with the protection/preservation of the natural environment. Ergo the following hodge podge definition:

Green blogger (noun adjective combo!) Homo sapien privileged enough to access the world wide web, using their spare time to write about environmental issues, sustainability, green lifestyle, environmental activism, sustainable energy etc.

Not surprisingly, I found out that the crop of bloggers writing about all things related to the natural environment also come in all shades of green.

I am just starting out as a blogger and wanted to find out other blogs related to topics of interest to me. In my search for green bloggers, I first came across GreenThinkers [GT]. I liked their idea that their blog is a place or forum to think is discuss "all things green". Next I came across Sustainablog, by Jeff. It is a nice blog that has links to many other green bloggers. While posts on GT tend to be small interesting bits pointing out to green events happening around the world or in the green blogosphere, Jeff's post on Sustainablog are more involved and detailed. Jeff posts on many aspects of the environmental movement. For a while I was just following the posts on these two blogs.

Then one day, I came across a post on Sustainablog about the Starbucks challenge, presented jointly by greenLA girl[GLG] and city hippy. So I visited these blogs to find out more. GLG's blog is mostly about fair trade & organic movement and ethical consumerism. City Hippy describes his blog as "The diary of our struggle to live a green and fair life." I found these blogs to be really interesting. Inspired by them I took the Starbucks challenge myself. I found that collaborative efforts like the challenge, promoted through blogs to be really effective. The Starbucks challenge generated a substantial response from bloggers all over. Eventually Starbucks also took notice of it. You can read the details on GLG's blog post.

Ethical consumerism is a new term that I encountered on these blogs. Some blogs post regularly on "ethical consumerism" basically about 'how you can make choices as a consumer which will be consistent with the objective of preserving the natural environment'. City Hippy's posts are many times related to this. Another blog TreeHugger that I now follow fairly regularly also posts on this. LazyEnvironmentalist is a blog that is dedicated solely to ethical consumerism.

There are many more green blogs out there focused specifically on specific issues. Like the alternative energy blog or the Greenpeace blog (which has really amazing posts from their ongoing campaigns). I plan to follow some of them (depending on how much time I can spend).

But overall, I think my first foray in the green blogosphere has been really productive. I have learned a lot and found out that the world "live" web has a lot more to offer than simply hot air from a bunch of people working their keyboards.

Technorati Tags: Green, Sustainable, Environment, Starbucks Challenge, Green blogs, Green bloggers

Miniature Earth

Thanks to Steve for this link.

Miniature earth tries to answer the question "What would the world look like if the human population were to be turned into a small community of 100 people?". The online presentation created by Allyson Lucca is very thought provoking.

Those more interested should also take a look at the text transcript of the CD version of the presentation. It has a little bit more information that the online version. Went ahead and checked out Allyson Lucca's website

We Were Humans is another great presenation compiled by her.

Really creative work and especially powerful when put online because of the huge audience it can get.

Technorati Tags: Earth, War, Arms Race