In some ways, the more urbanized an area is the greater potential it has to be sustainable. Public transport becomes readily available, reducing the need for individually owned cars, and the closer together things are the easier it is to walk from place to place. However, while grocery stores and restaurants may be close by to customers, more often than not the food that sustains them comes from outside of the community, sometimes from hundreds of miles away.

When calculating the carbon footprint of a suburb or a city, it’s important to keep in mind that the distance food delivery trucks travel to keep an area well-fed can be a serious obstacle to any community’s sustainability. This problem gave birth to the locavore movement, which has been steadily growing in popularity throughout America. Locavores attempt to get their food as close as possible to where they live, which has the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions, supporting local farmers, and ensuring that one’s food hasn’t been treated with pesticides or raised with hormones.

One result of locavorism is the urban agriculture movement, which strives to utilize local property for small scale farming. Urban agriculture can manifest in a variety of ways in both suburban and city environments but it has been vehemently opposed in many areas throughout the country. However, the movement has serious potential to help increase sustainability in communities around the country.

“Roof allotment III” courtesy of David Barrie via Flickr

Suburban Lawn Farms

The modern American suburban home typically has a small front lawn, which is kept mowed and watered for aesthetic purposes. However, added up throughout the nation, these lawns make up a huge amount of underutilized, farmable land. Homeowners in states all over the country are starting to realize the potential of this land, and are growing edible gardens in their front yards. The average suburban property won’t generate a yield that’ll provide for an entire family’s calorie requirements, however, they can dramatically contribute to a household’s vegetable needs. This has the environmental benefit of reducing a family’s dependence on produce that comes through long supply chains and also encourages a healthy diet.

Edible gardens actually require about half as much water to maintain as a traditional lawn and prevent the exhaust fumes from lawnmowers, which are exceptionally polluting machines due to their unregulated and highly hazardous fuel contents. Furthermore, if you cultivate your edible garden without pesticides and fertilizers (which would generally be unnecessary in small scale agriculture) then you prevent a host of chemicals from being picked up by rainwater and delivered into local water sources. Depending on the amount of space in your lawn, it may also be possible to raise smaller livestock animals, such as chickens and rabbits, which generally don’t require very much space to take care of. If an entire community bands together and adopts this model of living, it can dramatically reduce the area’s carbon footprint, conserve water, and strengthen community bonds.

Urban Agriculture: Rooftops, Windows, and Empty Lots

In an urban setting, there’s no such potential for lawns to be directly repurposed into gardens, so city dwellers have to pursue more creative pathways. While the average person who lives in an apartment doesn’t own that property, anyone with a window facing steady sunlight can grow small scale produce hanging out of their windows. This is the premise behind the idea of vertical gardening, which seeks to make use of all the surface area we have built vertically as a source of nutrition and as a sink for carbon.

Theoretically, high-rise apartment buildings have created an abundance of additional land by building walls that take up more surface area than the original width and length of the plot of land they were built upon. This increases the potential for food development, although produce that requires high sun exposure can only be grown near windows and may require heavy watering. However, it’s just as possible to grow produce on vertically stacked beds in any apartment and in any house, though it may require additional light to grow healthily if plants can’t be exposed to a natural light source. Growing mushrooms may also be a good choice for indoor gardening because they require little to no light and provide strong sources of protein.

Rooftop gardens are another way to produce a significant agricultural yield since the area of a building’s roof is generally the same as the land taken away on the ground by its construction. While you can easily cover a roof with potted plants, it’s also possible to actually build a garden directly on a rooftop, equipped with soil layers, and drainage and irrigation systems. One of the major obstacles to these “intensive” rooftop gardens is that architecturally, there are limits to what a roof can hold. Soil, especially when saturated with water, can be extremely heavy and can be a serious burden on what a building can hold. When designing a rooftop garden it’s important to take into account the exact weight that your building can handle and not to exceed that. Other concerns include the potential safety risks involved in rooftop gardening.

The top of urban buildings are almost always built of impervious surfaces that cause rainwater to rapidly pour off, which can also lead to flooding and may carry contaminants into water sources. When rainwater encounters vegetation, it dramatically decreases the speed of runoff and risk of flooding, and may even filter water as it moves downward. Rooftop gardens also have the benefit of blocking roofs from sun exposure. Black asphalt absorbs heat, creating the Urban Heat Island Effect, which causes cities to reach uncomfortably warm temperatures, especially in the top floors of apartments. The canopy offered by rooftop gardens has a cooling effect that can both increase comfort and decrease air conditioning expenses.

Empty lots also provide ample space with which to grow gardens and to aesthetically improve an area. Empty lots have the unique feature of being non-exclusive gardens, unlike window or rooftop agriculture. A local community can cooperatively participate in a lot garden, which can strengthen community bonds as well as provide local produce.

“Urban Agriculture at Erdos Eco-City” courtesy of SuSanA Secretariat via Flickr

Victory Gardens

While the concept of edible gardens may sound strange and novel, it’s not a completely new concept. In World War II the lack of labor and transportation difficulties severely cut off food supply chains, so the government proposed the idea of “Victory Gardens.” Victory gardens encouraged citizens to raise as much produce and livestock as they could as part of their patriotic duty as Americans. Backyards and empty lots were converted into small farms and even city rooftops were covered with whatever could be grown on them. A huge number of Americans banded together and an estimated 20 million victory gardens were created. Altogether these gardens produced between 9 to 10 million tons of produce, equivalent to the amount of commercially produced vegetables at the time. This impressive yield serves as a powerful example of the impact the same practices could have today. So what’s stopping America from achieving the same results again?

Obstacles to Urban Agriculture

Many states have laws against owning livestock such as chickens, goats, and beehives on private property. Suburban communities across America also have made objections to edible gardens, claiming that they hurt the aesthetics of a neighborhood. Farmland can be considered unclean and a symbol of lower class status. Many believe that suburban gardening will decrease the property value of surrounding houses. States like Iowa, Florida, and Louisiana have written laws banning backyard gardening and require lawns to be regularly maintained; countless city and town governments have made similar mandates.

Apartment building owners may have objections to vertical gardening for similar aesthetic reasons. Rooftop gardens are one of the most significant ways to impact urban agriculture, but their existence also largely depends on the wishes of the building owners. Rooftop gardens are highly complex and require large amounts of maintenance. Many people may not want to invest the time and resources into actualizing their existence. There’s also an ongoing debate on whether rooftop space would be better utilized with solar panels since the tops of tall buildings provide some of the best access to solar energy. As for empty lot gardens, it’s often the case that just because an area is abandoned, that doesn’t mean it’s publicly accessible. Many open city lots may be boarded or fenced up to prevent people from interfering with the area. In some places this has led to movement of “guerilla gardening,” that is, throwing projectiles made of seeds wrapped in clay over fences. These vegetable “bombs” protect the seed long enough for it to sprout and draw nutrients, encouraging vegetation growth in otherwise inaccessible areas.

Beyond community opposition and technical difficulties, it’s also just true that only a small percentage of people are interested in urban agriculture. America is a very different place now than it was during World War II and we have nowhere near the food insecurity we previously did. The ethos of patriotism that inspired American citizens to grow food for the sake of the country’s stability is no longer in effect, and many people simply don’t see the benefits of urban agriculture. Ideally, Americans could regain the desire to grow their own food now in the interest of environmentalism. However, as large as our grocery stores are fully stocked, it is fairly unlikely that the urban agriculture movement will truly grow huge.

“New crops” courtesy of Linda N. via Flickr

Resources

About News: Origin of the Word Locavore

Chicago Department of Environment: A Guide to Rooftop Gardening

EarthEasy: Lawn Care Chemicals: How Toxic Are They?

Guardian Liberty Voice: Personal Gardening and Farming are Becoming Illegal

Hofstra University: Transport and Sustainability

Living History: Farming in the 1940s

Mother Earth News: Grow Your Own Mushrooms

Oregon Public Broadcasting: Rethinking Your Front Yard: Cities Make Room for Urban Farms

People Powered Machines: Cleaner Air: Gas Mower Pollution Facts

Resilience: Why Our Food is so Dependent on Oil

Seattle Urban Farm Company: Suburban Front Yard Farm

TakePart: Leave Your Lawn for Life on the Urban Farm

Urban Gardens Web: Growing Free Food and Community in Front Yard Farms

The Washington Post: “Guerilla Gardeners” Spread Seeds of Social Change

Kyle Downey

Kyle Downey is an Environmental Issues Specialist for Law Street Media. He graduated from Skidmore College with a Bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies. His main passions are environmentalism and social justice. Contact Kyle at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Promise of Urban Agriculture appeared first on Law Street.

“Natural” and “organic” labels on food have become a tremendously popular–and tremendously profitable–means of discussing, buying, and selling food.

But what do we really know about what it means when those $4.99 cherry tomatoes are labeled as “organic,” or when that chicken is marketed as “all natural”? And who are we really concerned about when we talk about food labels–only consumers, or the people who produce our food, as well?

 What’s so natural about “natural”?

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn’t seem to have a clear answer to this question. In regards to the definition of “natural” food, the FDA’s website states that it:

Has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.

Without any legally binding regulations to mark which foods can be sold as “natural” and which cannot, the meaning of the label is ambiguous at best. Since “natural” foods are defined inconsistently–perhaps in whatever way sells best–the label is often criticized as being both misleading and meaningless.

The definition of “natural” is, however, regulated for meat and poultry. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Safety Inspection Service requires that, in the case of meat and poultry labeling, “natural” must mean:

A product containing no artificial ingredient or added color and is only minimally processed. Minimal processing means that the product was processed in a manner that does not fundamentally alter the product. The label must include a statement explaining the meaning of the term natural (such as ‘no artificial ingredients; minimally processed’).

This emphasis on fundamentally altering the product means that the natural label is determined not by the process of raising the animals involved, but in their preparation for being sent to grocery stores after death. This means that what is fed to animals before their death is not regulated by a “natural” label. As a Take Action petition for banning “natural” labels that confuse customers reminds us, this means that:

Meat labeled as ‘natural’ can come from animals that were raised with daily doses of antibiotics and other drugs, given artificial growth hormones, fed genetically engineered soy and corn feed and other artificial ingredients and continually confined indoors.

 How organic is “organic”?

The definitions of “organic” are more legally binding than those of “natural.” According to the U.S. Environmental Agency (EPA), there are standards of “organic farming” that determine whether or not a food item can be labeled and sold as organic. This emphasis on organic as a farming process means that organic definitions are less about ingredients and more about the process of growing and considering the treatment of the plants that were harvested for food.

However, this also means that–especially due to the many kinds of organic labels–foods marketed as “organic” can still be full of chemicals. An informal investigation of Whole Foods organic products by Duke University senior Emma Loewe revealed many additives that are permissible under organic labeling. She writes,

Over the course of my search, I came across organic trail mix that featured Silicon Dioxide, Cirtric Acids and Maltodextrin. Try saying that five times fast. The canned goods aisle brought me to organic soup made up of sodium citrate and a dash of ‘cheese flavor’ for good measure. The organic cereal I picked up was made with vegetable glycerin—a common additive in cosmetics and soaps because of its cooling effect on the skin.

These additives are permitted under “organic” labels largely because there are different kinds of organic. According to the National Science Foundation, the different means of organic phrasing–100 percent organic, organic, made with organic ingredients, and others–are held to a diversity of legal standards. In order to use the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Organic Seal, foods claiming to be 100 percent organic must be made with 100 percent organic ingredients, excluding water and salt. Foods using the label “organic” must have 95-99 percent organic ingredients. Foods can still call themselves organic by saying they are “made with organic ingredients” if between 70 and 84 percent of the ingredients are organic.

This brings us back to the question: what does it mean to be an “organic ingredient”? According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service, the regulations for crops and animals are as follows:

Organic crops. The USDA organic seal verifies that irradiation, sewage sludge, synthetic fertilizers, prohibited pesticides, and genetically modified organisms were not used.

Organic livestock. The USDA organic seal verifies that producers met animal health and welfare standards, did not use antibiotics or growth hormones, used 100% organic feed, and provided animals with access to the outdoors.

Vague statements like “access to the outdoors” and “prohibited pesticides” raise a great number of questions and criticisms regarding loopholes in the standards of organic labeling.

 From the Farm: Labor and Labels

Discussions about food labels so often focus exclusively on the health of people consuming the food. However, these conversations generally erase a bigger conversation about health, that is, the health of the farm workers who are the human backbone of agriculture in this country.

Advocates hope that efforts like these and others, such as emphases on broader immigration reform and health care, can bring a more total picture of health into the conversation about the health issues surrounding “organic” farming and “natural” foods.

So Are “Natural” and “Organic” Foods Actually Healthier?

It is important to determine whose health we are asking about when we discuss the healthiness of “organic” and “natural” foods. Those who consider the health of farm workers that produce foods labeled “organic” and “natural,” worry that the production of these foods can generate horrible health consequences for the humans involved in the process.

As to the question of “is it healthier to consume these foods?”, the answer is perhaps not. It’s important to remember that many large corporations, such as Coca-Cola, own organic brands, which links organic brands to larger environmental devastation and labor exploitation that negatively impact global health.

Given the legal impotence and inconsistency of the label “natural” advocates against the labels argue that foods with this label have anything in common other than their respective corporations’ attempt to tap into a market that wants to eat “natural” foods. Regarding the consumption of “organic” foods, the Mayo Clinic states that while the jury is technically still out, studies conducted over the past fifty years do not make a convincing argument that there are any significant differences in nutritional content between “organic” and non-organic foods. So, next time you go to your grocery store, you may want to keep a close eye on more than just the labels on your food.

Resources

Primary

Food and Drug Administration: What is the Meaning of ‘Natural’ on the Label of Food?

U.S. Department of Agriculture: Meat and Poultry Labeling Terms

U.S. Department of Agriculture: National Organic Program

Environmental Protection Agency: Organic Farming

Additional

Farmworker Justice: Home

Agricultural Justice Project: Home

Grist: Workers on Organic Farms are Treated as Poorly as Their Conventional Counterparts

TakeAction: Stop Confusing Consumers: Ban the ‘Natural’ Label

EcoWatch: Organic Labeling: What You Need to Know

NaturallySavvy: The USDA Organic Program Faces Criticism

EarthJustice: Pesticides: The Workplace Hazard the EPA is Ignoring

Salon: California’s Rampant Farm-Labor Abuse

Jennifer Polish

Jennifer Polish is an English PhD student at the CUNY Graduate Center in NYC, where she studies non/human animals and the racialization of dis/ability in young adult literature. When she’s not yelling at the computer because Netflix is loading too slowly, she is editing her novel, doing activist-y things, running, or giving the computer a break and yelling at books instead. Contact Jennifer at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Natural or Organic: Not Just the Labels on Our Food appeared first on Law Street.

On January 8, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s administration finished the work started by previous Mayor Michael Bloomberg by announcing that styrofoam containers will go by the wayside. This includes to-go boxes from the city’s many food trucks as well as coffee cups and packing peanuts. This is a purely environmental move, which might end up costing consumers more money and inconveniencing vendors. Though it has been met with some controversy, most people agree that ultimately it is a good decision.

Expanded Polystyrene Foam, or styrofoam, is one of mankind’s worst inventions. While it’s buoyant properties are desirable for flotation devices and its insulating properties are handy in construction projects, it is non-biodegradable. Thus it sits in landfills forever, never decomposing into the soil. Furthermore, the Department of Sanitation recently determined that it is not recyclable, which played a substantial part in deciding to ban the product. Finally, since most people’s exposure to styrofoam comes in the form of food or beverage containers, it is worth noting that some studies by the EPA suggest a possible mild carcinogenicity.

Courtesy of Jon Hayes via Flickr.

The New York City ban goes into effect on July 1, 2015; however, there will be a six-month grace period before the city begins enforcement so that vendors can seek alternatives. Furthermore, nonprofits and businesses with less than $500,000 in annual income may qualify for an exemption. Finally, while packing peanuts will no longer be sold within the city, packages containing them can still be shipped in. Nonetheless, this determination represents a great step forward in eradicating the material.

Those who support styrofoam do so because it is cheap to acquire and convenient to use; however, there are plenty of alternatives. For example, the city’s Department of Education plans to serve children their food on compostable plates instead. Starbucks and some other coffee companies hand out their products in paper cups with a cardboard ring around them; these are recyclable products that also do a sufficient job of keeping the customer’s hands from being burned. This is a poignant example, because styrofoam is a part of the fashion employed by Dunkin Donuts. In New York, they will have to find a slightly new appearance to compliment the regulations. Customers might worry that their coffee will not stay as hot for as long or will be inconvenienced in other ways.

Courtesy of Erik Sagen via Flickr.

Smaller businesses and vendors are most concerned about the ban because they will likely have to buy more expensive containers. Assuming they can find effective replacements for styrofoam, they will probably have to charge more for what is famously cheap food in order to make up their losses. Up until now it has cost $86 per ton to landfill foam, and $160 to reuse it in some form. These expenses come out of taxpayers’ pockets. Therefore consumers should be okay with paying a slightly higher price for environmentally friendly containers, because it would likely be to their financial benefit in the long run.

Just as with attempting to live off of alternative energy sources, making the transition to environmentally sustainable items and lifestyles is a difficult one. There are likely to be some monetary losses at the outset, but in the long run these things tend to prove to be more financially viable. Environmental sustainability often goes hand in hand with economic sustainability. We should not be afraid to venture outside of our comfort zones and established ways of life in quest of something new and better. Styrofoam is something we take for granted; our morning cup of coffee seems an insignificant thing, but it ends up having a massive impact as it is on a scale of hundreds of millions and of a daily occurrence.

Courtesy of Jonno Witts via Flickr.

These measures will not simply open up space in landfills; an unfortunately large amount of garbage ends up in the water. Especially considering New York City’s geographic orientation, many feel that the styrofoam ban will benefit the local aquatic biodiversity as well as the urban water supply itself. Styrofoam will not yet disappear altogether, but this is a substantial step in the right direction.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Wave Goodbye to Your Takeout Containers: NYC Bans Styrofoam appeared first on Law Street.

The Appalachians, one of the world’s oldest mountain ranges, might be gone forever sooner than we expect. It is not erosion or tectonic activity that will be the culprit, but human action.

Mountain Top Removal (MTR) is a mining process wherein literally the top of a mountain is blasted apart so as to access the coal that resides within. This is a more efficient process than the older underground mining style, requiring fewer men, less time, and resulting in higher yields. However, it inflicts catastrophic damage to the surrounding ecosystems as well as the people who live in the region. Whether it be for human health, biological diversity, or aesthetics, MTR has been the subject of an intensifying debate over the last few decades.

One of the most immediate problems caused by Mountain Top Removal is damage to rivers and contamination of water supplies. When the peaks are blown apart, many tons of rock, minerals, and sediment packed with metal materials fall into the water. In some cases, this has buried streams entirely. Often it chokes the flow of the waterway, and as journalist Eric Reece detailed, changes the chemistry of the water. This causes many fish, larvae, and other aquatic life to die. Furthermore, these contaminants find their way into the human water supply. There have been reports of contaminated wells and illnesses attributed to drinking fouled water.

Companies have sought to promote feigned silver linings in their actions. One corporation operating in Eastern Kentucky asserted that its actions, which cleared the landscape and opened up space, were in fact beneficial to the elk population there. It claims that it is an ideal habitat for “free ranging elk” whose grazing keep deer in check and maintain a balance of biodiversity in the ecosystem. This is an intentional misinformation campaign. Conservation biologists have argued to the contrary, detailing the requirements for a healthy elk population and the complicating factors of a healthy ecosystem, the vital interconnected set of relationships of which have been removed by clear cutting and a landscape thrown out of balance.

A pair of elk forage in the early morning. Courtesy of Franklin R. Halprin.

In addition to these micro-environmental concerns, there may be macro ones as well. Mountain ranges have substantial influence over weather patterns. The air barriers created by the Himalayas and Andes are vital to the thriving diversity of the rainforests in Indochina and the Amazon, respectively. Although the Appalachians do not reach such soaring heights, there is no reason to doubt that their presence as a substantial topographic feature plays into the interconnectedness and complexity of the environments there.

Most of the issues elucidated so far deal with scientifically motivated concerns; there are sociological ones as well. Many local proponents of MTR cite the Bible, wherein God said to subdue the Earth. God put the mountains there for us to mine, they argue. It is a fulfillment of our place as the favored species and rulers of the planet to do so. On the contrary, others assume a stance that God put the mountains there for us to admire. They serve a purpose of spiritual fulfillment and self betterment, and to destroy them is sacrilegious. Reece, who spent a long time in Kentucky delving into this issue referenced a local clergyman who took a middle ground on this debate. He suggested that these passages intend to promote “stewardship.” Human-environmental interactions should be balanced and reciprocal; each needs the other. Clearly, discourses of this nature can be recast so as to be appropriated toward any camp’s objectives.

Religion aside, many proponents of the practice reference the practical benefits of mountain top removal. It provides many jobs and figures substantially into the export economy of a region with a relatively low standard of living and median income. These arguments do not hold water when held under scrutiny. The towns themselves do not see much financial benefit, as profits go to the companies and the wealthy elite. Furthermore, reminiscent of fracking, the process of mountain top removal requires specialized training that is carried out by company employees brought in from the outside. The industry does not provide many jobs for local residents. In fact, there have been cases of companies buying up locals’ land, inflicting damage, then going bankrupt before distributing compensation. In this sense they impart direct harm on the people’s livelihoods.

Why is there such willingness to throw a large group of people under the bus? The term “sacrifice zone” refers to a geographic region that is used as either a physical dumping ground or a section that is allowed to degenerate in consequence of industrial and developmental activity intended for the benefit of other regions. The environment and people who live in a sacrifice zone suffer greatly. In her insightful book Removing Mountains: Extracting Nature and Identity in the Appalachian Coalfields, sociologist Rebecca R. Scott addresses shifting and contradictory ideas about the people of Appalachia in history and modernity, and their relationship to the physical environment. In some cases the people are portrayed as descendants of the British; they are an idealization of rural, innocent, white Americanness. More commonly, she argues, they are portrayed as backwards, uneducated, vile, violent, white trash. These two divergent concepts are appropriated depending on the agenda at hand. Scott provides as an example the efforts to bring home prisoner of war Jessica Lynch from Iraq. Here, the former dialogue was brought into play. It evoked sympathy and aroused humanizing emotion in favor of her return. Scott provides many perceptive revelations, but suffice it to say that the latter discourse is more common and convenient when promoting the actions of mountain top removers. It establishes all of Appalachia as a sacrifice zone for the coal industry.

Ultimately, massive human and environmental damage is being inflicted in quest of a fuel source that is less and less preferable anyway. Although it has been around since the 1960s, mountain top removal has been on the rise in the last twenty years. Resulting problems are increasing, while the benefits are short lived and the consequences are long term. The quality of our bodies and ideas about our identities are just as tightly intertwined with our environments are are wildlife and waterways. Alternatives to the process, and alternatives to the coal, are vital.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mountain Top Removal Threatens Environmental and Human Welfare appeared first on Law Street.

As a world, we’re constantly on the lookout for new ways to obtain our non-renewable resources. Some of the new areas that have been discussed as possible drilling areas include the Arctic and Antarctic. Read on to learn about what drilling in those regions would mean, and the arguments for and the against expanding drilling to the Arctic and Antarctic.

Why would we want to drill in the Arctic and Antarctic?

The Earth’s poles, comprised of the Arctic at its northern pole and the Antarctic in the south, are held in a precarious geopolitical and environmental situation as melting ice at the fringes of the poles reveals reservoirs of valuable resources that are easier to extract than ever before. In September 2012, it was found that arctic ice levels were at their lowest on record, dating back to 1979. Aside from a myriad of environmental effects, these lower ice levels have also revealed the treasures they have held for millions of years: vital natural resources, and plenty of them.

Some have estimated that the Arctic holds roughly 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and 15 percent of its oil, while others have quantified the amount at around 40 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and 200 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. In addition to natural gas and oil, the Arctic and Antarctic contain large deposits of coal, lead, iron, chromium, copper, gold, nickel, platinum, uranium, and silver, which become increasingly valuable in an industrialized world. Figures such as these have many eager to begin extracting these materials for market, but they are held in restraint by grave environmental concerns over the economic and environmental future of the Arctic and Antarctic, and by international organizations that attempt to balance these concerns with the global need for fuel.

The Arctic is governed by the Arctic Council, a collection of eight countries whose international borders lie directly within the Arctic Circle. The Antarctic, on the other hand, has no territorial claims and is therefore governed by an international council of countries that conduct scientific experiments on the continent and who have a vested interests in its security and/or resources. As these resources grow steadily within our grasp during a time of economic stagnation, these groups must decide whether to make the Arctic and Antarctic off limits to resource exploration and exploitation, or to begin devising plans for environmentally sound exploitation of these regions.

Resource extraction in the Arctic has occurred since the 1970s, with both the US and Russia successfully drilling for oil north of the Arctic Circle. Since then, technological innovation has made oil drilling more profitable and environmentally sound than it has been in the past, which has advocates calling for an expansion of drilling projects currently occurring in the Arctic. Resource extraction, many argue, is currently ideal due a number of factors.

1. The melting pack ice surrounding both the Arctic and Antarctic is gradually melting, making it easier to reach natural resources with less environmental impact.
2. While the Arctic has territorial claims on its southern fringes, the majority of the Arctic and the entirety of the Antarctic have no political ownership and have no indigenous populations to stand in the way of these natural resources. Extraction would not displace or steal land away from any native population, and no one country or group of countries can monopolize the reserves of carbon-based and mineral resources there, making the polar regions a vital economic opportunity for all nations. Drilling has been taking place in Russia, Norway, and parts of Greenland and Canada with few negative environmental repercussions while providing these countries with vital natural resources, and advocates argue that as technology progresses, the positive potential for resource exploitation in the Arctic only increases. Oil drilling efforts have, in fact, brought economic prosperity to several northern towns and cities that would otherwise have been remote, forgotten villages on the political as well as geographical fringes of their respective countries. During the current economic recession, advocates argue, an influx of natural resources and raw materials would help to kick start manufacturing and consumption that would benefit the economy on a global scale.
3. As climate change progresses, it will be come even easier and more cost effective to access these areas to drill.

What’s the argument against drilling in the Arctic and the Antarctic?

Opponents, led by environmental groups, argue that resource extraction in the Arctic and Antarctic will only exacerbate the current rate of global warming, strengthen our addiction to fossil fuels, and risk destroying one of the last untouched wildernesses on Earth. While melting pack ice on the fringes of the Arctic and Antarctic helps to uncover these stored resources, opponents of oil drilling and resource extraction point out that the reason why the pack ice is melting in the first place is because of global warming due to irreversible exploitation of resources and the burning of fossil fuels.

The “opportunity” that tantalizes advocates of exploitation, opponents argue, is merely an unfortunate side effect of that same opportunity. Achim Steiner, the United Nations Environmental Program’s Executive Director, said, “What we are seeing is that the melting of the ice is prompting a rush for exactly the fossil fuel resources that caused the melt in the first place.” The polar caps of the Earth are, in fact, a vast wilderness teeming with biodiversity and an area yet to be fully understood by scientists and naturalists. Because of its remote location and harsh environment, it has remained largely unchanged throughout the course of human industrialization. As technological innovation provides greater access to these regions and makes the exploitation of its resources easier, environmentalists are worried that the relentless search for energy will permanently ruin one of the last pristine wild areas on the planet.

Allowing resources such as oil, natural gas, and minerals to be extracted from the Arctic and Antarctic increases the risk of oil spills, Arctic pollution, and the destruction of natural habitats. While the Arctic and Antarctic may contain vast reservoirs of fossil fuels and natural resources and the combination of current technology and melting pack ice is making these resources easier to reach, many are fighting to keep the Arctic and the Antarctic the way they are: untouched by man.

Case Study: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) was established in 1960 for the purpose of preserving a 19.6 million acre area of wilderness and the accompanying wildlife in northeastern Alaska bordering northern coastline. ANWR, operated by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, is home to a variety of ecosystems as well as a variety of wildlife such as caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, and muskoxen. The rest of Alaska’s northern coast, including Prudhoe Bay and much of the North Slope, have been opened to oil exploration and drilling, has delivered billions of barrels of oil to American markets since the 1970s. Since its formation there has been debate on whether to allow oil exploration and drilling to take place in ANWR. It is well known that Alaska sits on large oil reserves.

Advocates claim that oil drilling in ANWR would benefit the American economy with minimal environmental impact. Through land leasing, bids, and taxation the oil in Alaska’s wilderness is estimated to add billions of dollars in revenue to state and federal treasuries. The oil found here would be an alternative to costly imported oil, and the extraction of oil in ANWR is also estimated to create 250-735 thousand new jobs, further stimulating the economy. Advocates of drilling also argue that the environmental impact of oil exploration and drilling would be minimal, citing advanced drilling technology and the fact that only eight percent of the wildlife refuge would be used for exploration and drilling. Additionally, supporters cite polls that show a majority of Alaskan citizens favor drilling for oil in the refuge. Proponents of oil drilling say that the economic benefits would far outweigh the minimal environmental impact in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Opponents argue that the proposed economic benefits of oil drilling in the Arctic are minimal, and that the drilling severely harms local ecosystems and species. Given that oil prices are based upon world supply and are largely dictated by OPEC, drilling at ANWR would have little impact on oil prices for everyday consumers. This oil reserve would only account for one to four percent of daily consumption in the U.S., and if approved the oil would not reach markets for another ten years due to the exploration, construction, and production involved in creating a new oil field. Opponents cite a report written by the Environmental Information Agency claiming that at peak production in 2030 ANWR oil would only reduce foreign oil imports by three percent. Opponents of drilling also questions oil companies’ desire to find oil in ANWR when it was reported in 2010 by the Bureau of Land Management that oil companies were developing less than 30 percent of the federal land they had already leased or owned for the purpose of oil drilling. Citing these figures, opponents argue that access to oil inside ANWR would have little economic benefit to the United States.

Opponents also dispute the drilling advocates’ claim that the environmental impact of drilling would be much greater than proponents estimate. They disagree on the claim that exploration and drilling would use only eight percent of ANWR land. The oil in this area is scattered in several small pockets instead of one large reservoir, requiring much more land to explore and access these oil reserves. These lands would include birthing areas, migratory routes, and natural habitats of numerous wild species and a variety of ecosystems. Many opponents accept that advanced technology reduces the risk of oil spills and other disasters, but they argue that even the presence of heavy machinery and human interference will have adverse effects on these ecosystems and on the flora and fauna that live there. Environmentalists are also worried that allowing oil drilling in ANWR would open the floodgates to more corporate control over federally protected wildlife areas, thus nullifying the point of creating national parks and wildlife refuges in the first place.

Conclusion

It’s clear that there’s pressure to find new and reliable sources of natural gas and oil, but many opponents pose the important question: at what cost? There are both incentives and huge downsides to drilling the Arctic and Antarctic poles. As the options for where to get non-renewable resources continue to narrow, it’s an important debate to keep an eye on.

 Resources

Primary 

Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty: The Antarctic Treaty

Additional

Moscow Times: Russia Pushes For Further Arctic Exploitation

CNN: It’s Time to Develop Our Arctic Resources

Earth Sky: Robert Blaauw on Oil Exploration and Development in the Arctic

Arctic: Towards An Agenda For Arctic Sustainable Development

Minnesota Daily: ANWR Drilling Benefits Americans

Committee on Natural Resources: ANWR: Producing American Energy and Creating American Jobs

CNSnews.com: ANWR Drilling Would Ease Energy Crisis, Create Economic Boon, Supporters Say

Cool Antarctica: Human Impacts on Antarctica and Threats to the Environment– Mining and Oil

Climate Science Watch: U.S. Arctic Strategy Aims to Exploit Oil and Gas For ‘National Security’

Reuters: Arctic Needs Protection From Resource Rush as Ice Melts

Grid Arendal: The Arctic–A New Victim of Global Development?

National Wildlife Refuge Association: Protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Record: Oil is the New Gold in Arctic ‘Cold Rush’

Globe and Mail: The North’s Resource Boom: Is it Prosperity or Exploitation?

SciDev: Developing Nations Seek a Share of Antarctica’s Spoils

CBN News: The ANWR Debate: To Drill or Not to Drill

National Geographic: Arctic Oil Drilling Debate Escalates

Heritage Foundation: Opening ANWR: Long Overdue

Alaska Dispatch News: Drilling ANWR is Not the Answer to U.S. Energy Challenges

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Debating Resource Exploitation in the Arctic and Antarctic appeared first on Law Street.

While venturing out toward the stars may be the final frontier, the vast depths of the Earth’s oceans remain largely hidden from view and knowledge. The incredible diversity and sheer volume of life in the seas is staggering to the human mind, and consequently we have developed certain egregious impressions about the oceans and what they may provide for the needs of modern civilization. Some seem to feel that the oceans are sources of infinite resources for global fisheries. They are so big and teeming with life; surely there is more than we could possibly consume. This misnomer is compounded by increases in the technological efficiency of fishing, as well as the fact that oceans serve as common pool resources; many nations and parties may share, or compete for, their portion of fish yields.

Global wild fish stocks have been declining for a long time. In his seminal paper The Tragedy of the Commons, Garrett Hardin argued that the economic forces that define our approaches to use of common pool resources are not sustainable in the long run. Namely, an individual acting in the logical manner so as to maximize his share of the resources is acting against the better interest of the whole group, because every individual is doing this and ultimately everyone will suffer. This concern has plagued high seas fishing for centuries, and continues to worsen as the efficiency and rate of fishing increases. Perhaps one of the most tangible and unsettling consequences of these dynamics is the collapse of the Northwest Atlantic cod fishery in 1992, after an epic 500-year run that shaped the economic, social, and cultural development of Europe’s early North American colonies.

The cod fishing town of Portugal Cove in Newfoundland, 1908, courtesy of Musee McCord Museum via Flickr

That is to say, there are consequences other than economics and conservation when dealing with unsustainable fishing. After so many hundreds of years, the Newfoundland locals had developed cultural identities around fishing. From fishermen to transporters, to salesmen in the markets, fishing played a substantial role in their ways of life and manners of self identification. How do the residents think of themselves, their place in society, and what do they actually do with themselves now that the fishery has collapsed? These are concerns that can crop up anywhere that natural resources are strained.

Another incorrect assumption about fishing and the oceans is that anything that might go wrong there or, our actions there in general, bear no consequences to ourselves and society. This might stem from the simple fact that we do not live in the oceans, and so we do not often see with our own eyes ecological collapse there. However it is clear, as exemplified by the Newfoundland cod fishery, that the fate of the seas and their biodiversity is tightly tied to our own state of affairs.

In light of these problematic developments, a new practice has been gaining ground. Aquaculture is the process of raising fish or shrimp in tanks on land. The most important result of supplying seafood in this manner is that it takes pressure off wildlife. There are many other advantages too, as Hiroko Tabuchi explains in a New York Times article. Fish farmers tend to already have environmentally and socially conscious motivations for doing what they do, and so it is uncommon that one’s plate of farm-raised fish will contain harmful chemicals. Furthermore, it reduces the need to import certain fish species, which may be caught by way of slave labor on fishing boats in the South Pacific. Finally, it produces local jobs while promoting economic self sufficiency.

A fish farm tank, courtesy of Bytemarks via Flickr

The Atlantic cod fishery is not the only one to have failed. Eighty-five percent of marine fish stocks are considered either fully exploited or overfished, and more than one in five fisheries has collapsed. In addition to the environmental consequences herein, it is becoming more and more difficult for fishermen to make ends meet. As their daily catches go down in volume, they yield declining pay, endangering their jobs and the financial stability of their families. As the national economy and job markets of Chile waver, for example, they have been turning to large-scale aquaculture. Having safeguarded existing jobs, produced over 100,000 more, and served as a major source of exportation, AquaChile is setting an example that is sure to be followed around the world.

How do consumer behaviors and cultural identities figure into this system? Tabuchi suggests that some people might have an aversion to eating fish raised on a farm. Somehow, it does not seem natural; real fish must be wild and from the oceans in order to be fresh and appetizing. This is a simple mental barrier that can be overcome in time. Fishing is one of civilization’s oldest practices; it will require patience and continued exposure to this new system. In addition, fish farming provides new opportunities with regard to cultural development. Just as the Newfoundland fishermen produced an identity and way of life around their jobs, so too can fish farmers. Therefore, a larger embrace of aquaculture would yield more than just the jobs themselves. Even before the days of Westward expansion Americans have taken pride in farmers. This action carries cultural baggage, tying itself to wholesome values, hard work, and individual enterprise. Thus there is something appealing to consumers in purchasing locally farmed products, and supporting the hardworking farmers. This set of relationships can certainly apply to seafood farmers in time as well.

Aquaculture also benefits other marine wildlife. World Wildlife writer Julian Smith explains that “Healthy ocean ecosystems are more resilient to emerging threats such as warming water temperatures and ocean acidification.” In addition, it has a “ripple effect,” benefiting other marine life such as sea birds, sea turtles, dolphins, and seals. This raises another point of interest: salmon populations in Oregon had been declining for years as a result of dam construction on the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Recently, they have been rebounding, drawing tens of thousands of birds who intend to feed on them. Local officials feel threatened by the competition for salmon, and have considered shooting the birds. The National Audubon Society cried out in protest, suggesting measures such as shooing the birds or drawing them elsewhere. Felicity Barringer of The New York Times suggested that this situation is different from people’s fights with wolves and coyotes, who raided their chicken farms, for example. While that series of episodes was still shameful, as those predators were endangered by human defensive hunting, this situation involves killing a wild predator that is competing with humans for a wild prey. Aquaculture could alleviate this competition, as humans consume more farm-raised fish, leaving the wild salmon for the birds and removing the presumed necessity of shooting them.

Cormorants of the Pacific Northwest, courtesy of Brocken Inaglory via Wikipedia

If we continue on our current course, the future of fish and the oceans themselves will be further jeopardized. In our ongoing quest for sustainable societies, aquaculture provides a partial answer and opens many new doors.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image couresty of [CAUT via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Aquaculture: Farm the Fish to Save the Seas appeared first on Law Street.

Environmental policy is a hollow shell if it lacks the crucial component that is the interest and engagement of the people. An Ossining, New York-based conservation organization called Riverkeeper seeks to merge these arenas by sparking communal engagement and care for their surrounding ecosystems, in particular the Hudson River, so as to more effectively pursue regulations and values that are conducive to a healthy environment and lifestyle. As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated in Riverkeeper’s eponymously titled biography, “…environment is not something distant and inaccessible to most Americans. It is not an issue that can be separated out and dealt with on its own. The environment is our neighborhood, our community. It is our quality of life.”

In the 1960s, a group of fishermen banded together to patrol the Hudson in search of environmental law violators. As the strength and breadth of the coalition that would become Riverkeeper grew, they became increasingly effective at pinpointing and prosecuting individuals and corporations who polluted the waters of the Hudson. After a half century, Riverkeeper is now a respected organization with various departments and manifestations throughout the country. Its founding principle of a “neighborhood watch,” which sparked its initial coalescence, remains a treasured and vital practice.

I recently joined my fellow Riverkeeper interns aboard the patrol boat, Fletcher, for an abridged estuary survey. Now in his fourteenth year at the post, Captain John Lipscomb detailed that a full patrol requires thirteen days, from New York City up to the mouth of the Mohawk River, the largest tributary of the Hudson. The key to a successful patrol, he explained, is to “…look, but also be seen looking.” Having people on the shores see the vessel and “Riverkeeper” emblazoned on the side of the hull is a deterrent; this is a powerful and often more preferable means of keeping the Hudson clean than catching violators red handed. Furthermore, it is advertising as well as policing. The boat’s presence and visibility raises environmental awareness; it gets the concepts into people’s heads and hopefully influences their behavior.

The Fletcher on patrol

Riverkeeper’s patrol has many other functions that tie into this philosophy of engaging the community. The organization seeks to empower the community with data, primarily with water quality sampling and subsequent output of its findings in reports. The EPA’s recommendations for testing in recreational waterways occasionally meets opposition on the basis that it is unnecessary because nobody swims at particular points on the river; however, designated beaches are not the only points at which people partake in river activities. During our patrol, as it was a hot and sunny day, we encountered a group of kids jumping from a low rocky precipice into the water and swimming about. The captain drew the boat near, and acquired their permission to snap a few photos. He intends to present this evidence of countless examples that clearly the people are partaking in recreational activity all along the water. This raises several points. First is that water sampling is undoubtedly warranted. Second, it speaks to the role of community members in environmental policy formulation, as well as the fact that such responsible policies are in the best interest not just of nature but the people as well.

Scenic Surprises on the Hudson

Riverkeeper has been passionately engaging the problems raised by the Tappan Zee Bridge construction project. In addition to outrage over the discovery that Albany was using clean water funds to finance the endeavor, the actual work is being done in a somewhat careless and haphazard fashion with regard to the delicate ecosystem by which it is surrounded. Captain Lipscomb has been documenting the number of dead fish discoveries, particularly the species as some teeter on the endangered list, in an effort to raise public awareness and induce a more responsible approach to the project with regard to the Hudson River’s biodiversity.

It goes without saying that an additional responsibility of the Hudson patrol involves active, first-hand clean up. Unfortunately, I was not surprised to see a substantial amount of trash choking the waterway. In fact, at one point we slowed the boat so as to draw out a fully intact television bobbing at the surface. Hopefully in time, through the work of Riverkeeper and other like-minded organizations and citizens, the amount of garbage that finds its way into the water will diminish to a negligible amount.

Captain Lipscomb wants to extend the range of the patrol into the Mohawk. If this is to be accomplished, Riverkeeper will need to cultivate relationships with other organizations in that area so as to effectively take on a mission of such large scope. This is already a philosophy of the organization. “We promote positive sustainable relationships; it is not in our best interest to sue everybody” clarified Dana Gulley, manager of the Community Outreach & Volunteer Programs at Riverkeeper. Rather, she added, it is important to communicate. Riverkeeper seeks to open dialogue and educate; if they encounter a violator, they approach them and ask if they knew they were polluting.

Beneath the Bear Mountain Bridge

These activities are not just for aesthetic conservation. More than nine million people in New York City and the surrounding area drink from the Hudson watershed. Human health and human culture are at stake in environment-society relationships. As Robert Kennedy Jr. and the first Hudson Riverkeeper John Cronin put it: “As Riverkeepers we protect nature, not so much for nature’s sake, but for the sake of humanity. Nature enriches us economically, but we have other appetites besides money. These hungers — spiritual, cultural, and aesthetic — must be fed if we want to grow as we are meant to — if we are to fulfill ourselves.”

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Franklin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

All images courtesy of [Franklin R. Halprin]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Riverkeeper: Patrolling the Hudson to Keep NYC’s Water Clean appeared first on Law Street.