Eco-Chick · The modern girl's guide to living green & fabulous.

Soy's Eco Creds

Last month, when Starre asked us all for our New Year’s resolutions, I didn’t have to think twice about them because I’ve been thinking so much about these goals over the last year. But I just put all my eco goals for the year out there for the world to see without elucidating and that raised this question:

Why is soy considered “not necessarily doing better for the environment”? I thought that tofu was a good nonmeat protein alternative.

Here’s my attempt at answering that question, but bear with me: there’s a big debate about soy so there’s a lot of nonsense out there and I don’t want to rumor-monger. And along those lines, I won’t get into the health issue regarding soy (I know one dietitian who says it’s good for you and another who says only in moderation and though I trust both of them, the truth seems to be a few years away yet).

So the closest thing I have for an answer is to say, as I said in that previous New Year’s post, that I try to lead a one-earth life as it is so the things that I’m working on are pretty specific to me and what I think I can handle doing. I mean, it would be silly for me to say I’ll cut back on driving when the only time I get in a car is when I visit my ‘rents in the US which doesn’t happen all that many days in the year. And so, for me, the next step my vegan lifestyle has to take is less processed food and that means removing soy from my diet and eating more veggies and beans. Of course, eating tofu is not as much of an eco-sin as eating meat. As Starre said in her recent post to the new Pres:

Meat production is the most energy- and water-intensive food you can eat. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Department reports that 18% of greenhouse gases come from meat and dairy production. Go veg at least half-time Mr. President, and you will save your heart, your colon, and the planet.

Going local while veg is the next best thing you can do for you and the planet. Soy, however, doesn’t grow here in Germany and it’s not always easy in the US, either, to get locally-grown and processed tofu (especially that made from soy that hasn’t been genetically engineered, which is a huge enviro no-no in my book, and which accounts for 85% of US grown soy). In some of the countries that export soy to the US, it has become such a viable crop due to biofuels and its use as a cattlefeed that eco havoc is being wreaked in some places, and I don’t want to get behind that anymore by buying beans from Brazil. Or from anywhere else. So if I can swap a mushroom burger for a tofu burger, I will. At least, that’s what I’m resolving to do. But for everyone else, well, that’s up to you.

350: Global Warming. Global Action. Global Future.

Last night I was reading my favorite magazine, Orion. Bill McKibben was discussing the campaign 350. From the website:

350 is the red line for human beings, the most important number on the planet. The most recent science tells us that unless we can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million, we will cause huge and irreversible damage to the earth.

But solutions exist. All around the world, a movement is building to take on the climate crisis, to get humanity out of the danger zone and below 350. This movement is massive, it is diverse, and it is visionary. We are activists, scholars, and scientists. We are leaders in our businesses, our churches, our governments, and our schools. We are clean energy advocates, forward-thinking politicians, and fearless revolutionaries. And we are united around the world, driven to make our planet livable for all who come after us.

We are everywhere, and together we are unstoppable.

We are currently living at 387ppm. Scientists claim numbers could reach 450-550ppm which would mean disaster for life as we know it. Every time we turn on a car, a light, the heat, the stove, the television, the computer; we partake. Unless we are receiving our power solely from renewables, then we are using coal and oil. The 350 campaign is hoping to influence lawmakers, political leaders, and individuals to take action. One view has perpetuated the notion that climate change, such as what we are experiencing now, is normal, just as ice ages come and go. However, the real science is in and it is time to listen, regardless of partisan politics.

Last week my extended family gathered. A discussion arose, among friends and family, about the fictionalized nature of global warming and how it is simply a marketing campaign so people can sell “green” products. Greenwashing exists. We know this. But this conversation, dominated by one in particular, was reiterating a denial about what is happening. My young cousin, who is twenty and overheard the discussion, told me she wasn’t sure. We had a decent conversation about some examples of climate change, what greenwashing means, and environmentalism in general. The information is out there. Bill McKibben, Michael Pollan, Terry Tempest Williams, Treehugger, Grist, Adbusters, Huffington Post, ENN – just to name a few sources.

Adding Sulfur To The Atmosphere's Diet

It seems as though anyone with any sort of science background is scurrying around trying to solve the problem of global warming. Recently some geoengineers proposed a “solution” that would just make matters worse. It’s an idea that really makes me think that real and professional scientists shouldn’t be left to solving global warming. Their idea? Clouding the atmosphere up with man made aerosol particles. This would deplete the ozone in “some” regions, mostly the North and South poles, making those regions colder, yes, but also creating irradiated dead zones. But to them it seems like a pretty fair trade off.

These aerosol particles that would be added to our atmosphere would in theory reflect sunlight away from the earth thus cooling the planet. But consider that for a second. Instead of investing money into long term life changing solutions to global warming, we’re going to add more chemicals to our atmosphere so we can shift weather patters, and deplete our ozone to the point where areas of our Earth would be considered “dead zones”. Save one part of the earth by destroying another? It seems like such a scheme would cost a gigantic amount of money and would be a huge logistical challenge.

Playing with the Earth like this is just crazy. We’ve seen time and time again (with trying to move waterways and using chemicals to grow food) that playing around with nature is rarely, if ever, a good thing. When it comes to our atmosphere, there is so much that we don’t understand and so much that we’re still discovering. Where would geoengineers even get an idea like this? In 1991 when Mt. Pinatubo erupted and it released sulfur into the atmosphere. There was a direct correlation with the temperature decreasing.

All of these newfangled attempts at cooling the planet are getting out of control.

There’s the man-made volcano that shoots gigatons of sulfur high into the air. The space “sun shade” made of trillions of little reflectors between Earth and sun, slightly lowering the planet’s temperature. The forest of ugly artificial “trees” that suck carbon dioxide out of the air. And the “Geritol solution,” named after a multi-vitamin and mineral supplement with extra iron — in which iron dust is dumped into the ocean.

All of this time, energy and money is being poured into these ridiculous attempts at using science to cool the planet, when really humanity would be better of pursuing changes within their industrial, economic and home lifestyles. All of these crazy ideas could lead to disastrous weather patterns, cloudy skies through which we’d never see the sun again, droughts and famine. We have no idea. Changes on Earth take millions of years for a reason, we can’t just start dumping tonnes of sulfur on the planet and expect everything to be okay. The Earth’s systems are just not that simple.

Compost Modern 08 Wrap-up

Sustainability promises to be one of the defining issues of our time, one with profound affects on our personal and professional lives.

For designers, it represents unique challenges as well as tremendous potential — nothing less than an opportunity to redesign how the world works.

Compost Modern 2008, a joint production of the AIGA San Francisco chapter and the AIGA Center for Sustainable Design was once again a huge success this year. Geared towards a wide variety of designers, Compost Modern was

“a day of brilliant ideas, practical solutions, drama, inspiration, eye candy and some tough questions as we explore design’s role in transitioning to a sustainable society.”

Held at the Academy of Art University Morgan Auditorium in San Francisco, the conference featured an impressive variety of speakers.

Although I was volunteering for most of the event and could only catch a few of the lectures, a great round up of the event can be found here.

What is the Price of OUR Stuff?

Ever wonder about the complete picture of consumption in our uber-consumer society and how it ties in with our global environment? Well I was recently turned onto the website for The Story of Stuff, which features a fantastic and informative story (with animation!) about our stuff-driven economy.The presentation is long, but if you’ve patience with it and ride it out, even the most informed of us can learn something new or at least feel inspired to pass the word along. There are also chapters to skip around if you’ve one particular section of the “stuff” driven storyline.The site offers solutions as well as the story of stuff, so it doesn’t leave you feeling helpless and hopeless against the system. Key message here? Social responsibility: consume less, consume more responsibly, spread the word, and take action against the exploitation of the earth and its people!