Month: December 2018

Food systems are responsible for a large portion of global carbon emissions. From production and processing, to shipping, storing and cooking, this aspect of human activity accounts for some 19-29% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but there are some very small lifestyle changes one can make to heavily reduce this carbon footprint.

The obvious first step might be to go vegetarian or vegan. Since the livestock sector is a major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions – with some sources saying it accounts for up to 14.5% globally – diets that limit the consumption of animal products have the lowest impact. But I think that for many people, food is a big part of their culture and identity, which can make the idea of switching to a vegetarian or vegan diet all at once a bit intimidating. Is there a smaller first step? What are the smallest diet changes one could make that would have the largest impact?

1. Eat less beef

An assessment by the Environmental Working Group found that of the most common foods, beef and lamb products cause the most CO2 emissions over their lifecycle, by a huge margin. One kilogram of lamb produces 39.2kg of CO2, and a kilogram of beef produces 27.0kg. To put this in perspective, since a gallon of gasoline creates around 9.2kg of CO2, each quarter-pound beef burger you eat is equivalent to burning a third of a gallon of fuel. And a 4oz serving of lamb is equivalent to a half-gallon. Clearly, this is not good. As far as meats go, chicken is the best alternative, with nearly four times less of an impact than beef. Pork and turkey are also significant improvements. But if you are worried that you’ll begin to miss the unique taste of beef, fear not: plant-based substitutes are making rapid progress as we speak (look up “The Impossible Burger”).

2. Don’t waste food

It seems obvious to most people why they shouldn’t waste food: wasted food is wasted money. But few people know that food waste is a serious contributor to climate change. According to the Washington Post, “30 percent of food is wasted globally across the supply chain, contributing 8 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions.” If global food waste were a country, it would be the third largest contributor behind China and the US. While much of this waste comes from the supply chain, consumers can still make a difference with their choices: wasting less food causes one to purchase less food, and thereby this drop in demand ripples down the chain.

I think that these small lifestyle changes are more accessible to people who are concerned about their impact, but who are hesitant to make radical changes. It is far easier to convince somebody just to eat less beef, or to explain the importance of limiting food waste, than it is to have them reshape their entire diet. Often it’s the first step that is the hardest to overcome, and by emphasizing the most simple and impactful diet changes, we can begin to move toward more sustainable food systems one baby step at a time.

– Ethan Kohrt

Sources:

http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/methodology_ewg_meat_eaters_guide_to_health_and_climate_2011.pdf

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608

http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/methodology_ewg_meat_eaters_guide_to_health_and_climate_2011.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#agriculture

https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/livestock-climate-change-forgotten-sector-global-public-opinion-meat-and-dairy

In today’s consumer culture, we have witnessed a shift where consumers no longer only consider their goods and services when choosing a brand; they are beginning to prioritize the ideologies of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). This means that consumers have begun holding companies accountable for their ability to adapt to social (and environmental) change by reforming their business beliefs, practices and profits to fit societal ethics (3).

Statistically speaking, a study by Cone Communications in 2017, “Found that more than 60% of Americans hope businesses will drive social and environmental change in the absence of Government Regulation,”, 87%  would purchase a product because a company supported something they cared about and 76% said they would refuse to buy products from companies that support issues contrary to their beliefs (1,3). CSR has even bled into the Labor Markets, influencing where today’s top talents choose to work because realistically the only constant is change. Some businesses heavily committed to CSR use it as a creative opportunity to fundamentally strengthen their businesses while contributing to society at the same time, though sometimes the execution (balance) or the ethics behind it are skewed. Starbucks along with many other companies have made a serious effort towards bettering their CSR; for an additional list of companies check out; https://www.smartrecruiters.com/blog/top-20-corporate-social-responsibility-initiatives-for-2017/

The other side of CSR is the sad reality of money making because some companies see the push of CSR as a fad or source of outside pressure and change their company simply to make money in the changing world of consumerism. Some companies claim to be environmentally and ethically responsible, but actually, contain disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image; this is considered to be the idea of Greenwashing (2). Here is an article talking a little bit about some of the larger corporations accused of Greenwashing: https://www.truthinadvertising.org/six-companies-accused-greenwashing/

However, Businesses have increasingly begun to perceive sustainability as an opportunity because as s sustainability moves up on the boardroom agenda, we can expect the increased integration of sustainability functions into all facets of the business and away from ‘CSR’. Multinationals rewired for sustainability Companies such as GE, Unilever, Nike, IKEA, Toyota and Natura are already reaping the benefits of offering ‘green’ products and services – a market which has grown to over $100 billion.

The idea of CSR ties in closely with Ecocritical Literature such as Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic and Rob Nixon’s Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. For example, Nixon argues that the imperialism of developed countries leads to an awareness gap where “it is a pervasive condition of empires that they affect great swathes of the planet without the empire’s populace being aware of that impact”. This addresses the extent to which empires use and abuse Nature and “disposable peoples” of non-first world countries. Yet to be duly noted, developing countries are in a position where they do not have the ability or pleasure to view nature simply as an awe to be looked at. They must use the land to live off of, but not in the same sense as developed empires ‘use’ land (such as Big Oil and Big Tobacco).

This brings me to Aldo Leopold’s work in regards to the value we place on land and Nature. Being apart of a developed society, we are inclined to only see value in “a system of conservation based solely on economic self-interest [which] is hopelessly lopsided,” rather than culturally, ethic based or communally. Rachel Carson in her academic crossover touches more abstractly on the idea of land value and ethics. Where we are only capable of understanding the long-term effects of our disinterest in the environment if the consequences are laid out in front of us. These artists work to show us, through literature, what needs to happen in order to alter humanities perspective of their relationship and value of the land they use and too often abuse.

-Makenna M. Christensen

1. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corp-social-responsibility.asp
2. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/greenwashing.asp
3. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/leadership/making-the-most-of-corporate-social-responsibility

The Dangers of Polystyrene

What is it?

Often we hear about and discuss the dangers of plastic both in our communities and on a global level within our society, but less talked about is the equally dangerous and widespread usage of polystyrene foam or “styrofoam.” Polystyrene foam is easily accessible to the public and comes in many different forms made for quick and convenient use such as lunch trays, to-go cups, food containers, and other forms of packaging. This type of foam is made by processing chemicals like benzene and ethylene into polymer chains that are combined with a hydrocarbon gas added in the binding process to form the type of foam packaging we are used to seeing on a daily basis.

Why is it dangerous?: The Human Body and The Environment

The Body

    The chemicals listed above, benzene and ethylene, are both listed on the 14th Report on Carcinogens as scientifically understood to be a cancer-causing substance. Although the risk of developing cancer involves many factors, exposure to these carcinogens can prove to be dangerous especially when considering the exposure amounts. Many of these commonly used containers containing these harmful chemicals are responsible for carrying items that we directly ingest into our bodies. They prove especially harmful when these containers are heated, possibly releasing more amounts of harmful chemicals directly into our food for our consumption.

 

The Environment

    Like exposure to carcinogenic chemicals from styrofoam isn’t worrisome enough, it also has detrimental effects on our environment. Because of its chemical composition, polystyrene is not biodegradable- meaning it will not naturally break down once it enters the environment. Because it is so lightweight, it is virtually worthless in terms of recycling which is why many recycling centers do not accept styrofoam. This combined with the fact that collecting these containers proves difficult as they are easily windblown means that most of the styrofoam produced ends up in our environment either in landfills, oceans or as litter along the roadside. Styrofoam can take up large amounts of space in landfills and can be found in “dead zones” in the ocean which are places where nothing other than plankton is able to survive. Even if all recycling centers did accept styrofoam, the method and consequences of this process of disposal is challenging. Because of it’s lightweight yet bulky properties, it requires a large expense of energy to transfer large quantities to recycling centers that have virtually no weight or value. Because it contains many chemicals, it often cannot be directly recycled upon arrival and requires methods of sterilization to remove contaminants. Also, when disposed of improperly, toxic chemicals that are devastating to humans, wildlife, and the ozone layer can be released into the environment.

Alternatives

To avoid the consequences associated with using polystyrene foam, it is important to find alternative products to assume it’s place. Many companies are turning to eco-friendly resources that are either compostable or multi-use products instead. Advancements such as reusable plastic to-go containers and coffee cups are being implemented in schools and homes. Others are turning to the use of paper products that are fiber or plant based so they are eco-friendly, recyclable, and quick to naturally degrade. Some are even taking the leap to make their packaging edible to eliminate the need for it to be recycled or thrown away as waste. Innovative ways of repurposing already existing polystyrene are sprouting to try and solve these issues such as using it for insulation or building.

 

Kam JaCoby

 

Sources:

https://www.triplepundit.com/2015/04/polystyrene-containers-stamped-sustainable-alter

natives/

https://greenpassivesolar.com/2012/10/what-is-styrofoam/

http://www.yourgreen2go.com/why-go-green.html

http://epsa.org.au/about-eps/what-is-eps/how-is-eps-made/

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/carcinogens

https://wmich.edu/mfe/mrc/greenmanufacturing/pdf/Polystyrene%20Recycling.pdf