ST January Meeting – Topics and Working Groups for 2012

at Joel D. Valdez Main Library
101 N. Stone, Downtown (free lower level parking off Alameda St)

ST December 2011 Meeting

How do we “green” our homes and neighborhoods?
How do we work together and contribute to each other?
How do we prepare for climate change?

Join us on January 9th to learn of some exciting efforts now underway in your home town to prepare for the challenges ahead.  A half-dozen of the most innovative and effective people in Tucson will distill their ideas for a sustainable Tucson into concise presentations to ignite your own ideas and enthusiasm…

» Karin Uhlich (Tucson City Council) – Re-establishing PRO Neighborhoods
» Bob Cook (NEST, Inc) – Green re-development initiative
» Dan Dorsey (Pima Community College) – Co-op Permaculture projects program
» Winona Smith (Tucson Time Traders) – Time Banking and local communities
» Tres English (Empowering Local Communities) – Secure food supply
» Ron Proctor (Sustainable Tucson) – Mobilizing for climate change

… and we’ll have a review of working group topics and project ideas from discussion tables in the ST December meeting, including

Recycling / Waste management
Composting toilets
Water use
Water harvesting
Solar Hot Water / Energy / Gas
Paradigm change
Land use planning (density, etc.)
Climate Change – Reducing greenhouse gases
Defining sustainability & adopting it legally
Food security

(This is not a complete list and can be added to… please use the comment form for this page!)

Sustainable Tucson is committed to engaging our audience in a participatory process. Following the presentations, we will ask everyone to engage in table discussions focusing on what actions we can take to make Tucson a more vibrant and sustainable community. Actions might be in the form of policy development, support of on-going projects, or the initiation of new projects.

The ideas generated will be used to develop topics and working groups for future Sustainable Tucson meetings, where in-depth presentations and audience discussions will continue. The goal is to create projects and initiatives that we believe will build our resilience as a Desert People.

also see recent 2011 Sustainable Tucson meetings,

ST December Meeting – The Politics of Sustainability
ST November Meeting – Food Security
ST October Meeting – Water Priorities
ST September Meeting – Non-GMO Food
ST August Meeting – Natural Building in the Desert
and an index of past ST Monthly / General Meetings

Doors open at 5:30 pm.
The meeting will begin promptly at 6:00 pm.

Greywater Systems – Watershed Technical Training – Feb 6-8

Early registration ends January 6!

Brad Lancaster, Senior Watershed Specialist with Watershed Management Group and author of Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands and Beyond, will lead this hands-on technical training covering advanced greywater systems.

Greywater use is not only allowed by an increasing number of municipalities, it’s actively encouraged by many authorities in efforts to preserve water, reduce energy and chemical use in treatment plants, and deliver nutrients to soils.

This three-day, hands-on training course is designed to give advanced technical knowledge in greywater systems to individuals who will implement these practices in their work. In particular, this course is relevant to architects, landscape architects, permaculture designers, plumbers, developers, irrigation specialists and other professionals in the building trades.

This course will build on knowledge of greywater systems gained through WMG’s Water Harvesting Certification. The focus of this course will be on gravity-fed kitchen sink, pumped greywater systems, integrated design, policy, and plumbing best practices.

For more information about our technical trainings and Water Harvesting Certification please visit our certification and technical trainings page http://www.watershedmg.org/tech-trainings, where you can apply for the Expanded Greywater Systems training online. Or contact Rhiwena Slack, rslack(at)watershedmg.org or 520.396.3266

Community-based Green Infrastructure – Watershed Technical Training – March 29-31

Introductory webinar: March 20th, 3-5pm (PDT).
Hands-on training: March 29-31, 2012, Tucson, Arizona.
 

Watershed Management Group has been working with community members to install neighborhood level Green Infrastructure (GI) projects in Tucson since 2008. Now WMG is offering an in-depth professional training covering the “how to” of organization and design for community led GI installations.

James MacAdam, Green Streets Program Manager at WMG, Catlow Shipek, Senior Program Manager at WMG, and landscape architect James DeRoussel also with WMG will lead this hands-on technical training in community based infrastructure best practices.

The training will draw on WMG’s experience working with neighborhoods and local governments to install GI in the Southwest, and will cover:

  • Integrated design for GI
  • Technical application of GI in a variety of urban environments
  • Maintenance and trouble shooting
  • Community engagement
  • Policy & permitting
  • Tools for overcoming municipal fears

WMG’s goal is to transfer this advanced technical knowledge to professionals, educators, and community activists who will implement these practices in their work and teach others. This course may be particularly appropriate for landscape architects, architects, permaculture designers, developers, engineers, policy makers, restoration ecologists and community activists. While WMG’s focus is on Southwestern neighborhoods, the intent is for the knowledge gained in this training to be transferable to other regions.

The focus of this technical training will be on retrofitting and redevelopment. Learning will be achieved through a blend of classroom lectures, site assessments and design exercises, hands on workshops and a tour of local GI sites.

The technical training will follow on directly from the conclusion of Arid LID 2012 conference on Green Infrastructure and Low Impact Development in Arid Environments. It will start at 2 pm on Thursday March 29 and will run through to 6 pm on Saturday March 31. An introductory webinar which is part of the course has been scheduled for Tuesday, March 20th, 3-5pm (PDT).

Snacks, water and one lunch are included in the course fee. On request an additional brown bag local food lunch option can be provided at $10 per day for the additional day.

WMG offers a limited number of scholarships of $50 to $200 to help defray the cost of the course. To be considered for a scholarship, please include an explanation of your financial need in your application.

Early Registration Deadline is Feb 17 2012 for the reduced rate of $400. Discounts of an additional $50 off both the early registration and regular rates, are available to alumni of previous WMG trainings and AridLID 2012 conference participants.

Visit http://watershedmg.org/tech-trainings for application details.

For more information, please email Rhiwena Slack rslack(at)watershedmg.org or call 520-396-3266

Tucson Time Traders – 2011 dec

Tucson Time Traders is a local Timebank for the Tucson region, and we’re hosting community potluck & orientation meetings on the 2nd Thursday evening every month at the Tucson Ward 3 Office, 1510 E Grant Road (southeast corner of Grant & Vine)

We’ll also be at Sustainable Tucson General Meetings (2nd Monday every month) to give information about timebanking and Tucson Time Traders.

If you’re interested in joining us, please sign up here, and come to an orientation meeting.  New members must attend an orientation meeting before using the online software and trading with our timebanking community.

If you’re already a member, you can login to your Tucson Time Traders account at tucson.timebanks.org, and the TTT Community Web Intercom at ttt.metasofa.org

[ This article is out of date.
For current information on Tucson Time Traders, please go to
www.sustainabletucson.org/tucson-time-traders ]

 

TUCSON TIME TRADERS

Building Tucson’s Empowerment Network 1 Hour at a Time

What Is A Time Bank?

TimeBank is a group of people who trade an hour of work for an hour of work. The time is banked so you can trade accumulated hours with anyone within the network.

TimeBanking is a rapidly growing movement that allows people to trade assistance, and helps build healthy communities.

Missions and Values

  • We are all assets.
  • Redefining work – to value whatever it takes to raise healthy children, build strong families, revitalize neighborhoods, make democracy work, advance social justice, make the planet sustainable.
  • Reciprocity – “How can I help you?” becomes “How can we help each other build the world we both will live in?”
  • We need each other – Networks are stronger than individuals. People help each other reweave communities of support, strength and trust.
  • Respect – Every human being matters.

Intrigued?

Come to a monthly potluck & orientation meeting, and
open an account with the new member sign-up form

New members must attend an orientation meeting before using the online software and trading with our timebanking community.  If you’re already a member, you can login to your Tucson Time Traders account at tucson.timebanks.org, and the TTT Community Web Intercom at ttt.metasofa.org

For assistance with joining or any questions, please contact
Kacie Johnson 520-203-6563 or email timetraders(at)sustainabletucson.org

 

Tucson Time Traders – Links and Contacts

Latest News and Calendar (you are here)
  http://www.sustainabletucson.org/tucson-time-traders/

New Member Sign-up Form
  http://www.sustainabletucson.org/tucson-time-traders-new-members/

TimeBanks USA website for the Tucson Region – members only
  http://tucson.timebanks.org/

Community Web Intercom – local network – members only
  http://ttt.metasofa.org/

Coordinators for Tucson Time Traders
  Kacie Johnson – phone 520-203-6563
  Kacie, Winona, Chris – email timetraders(at)sustainabletucson.org
  or post your questions, and find what you’re looking for on the TTT Web Intercom

Note regarding comments below –  As of February 19, 2012, due to a continuing (but hopefully temporary) problem with TimeBanks USA’s new software system, we’ve changed our New Member registration procedure back to a simple form here on the ST website.  For all current members, we’ve also set up a members-only community web intercom / blog for easy and open communications and networking within our local timebanking community.  Please see above list of all current links and contacts.

Tucson: Support a City Resolution to Curb Global Warming – Dec 20

at Tucson City Hall, 255 W. Alameda, Tucson, AZ 85701 – downtown, just east of Granada in the Presidio Park Plaza

From: Center for Biological Diversity
Subject: Tucson: Support a City Resolution to Curb Global Warming

Arizona state bird, the cactus wrenSeattle has just become the latest city to join the Center for Biological Diversity’s Clean Air Cities campaign; Tucson could be next.

On Tuesday the Tucson City Council may pass a resolution urging President Barack Obama to curb global warming now using the most effective tool we have: the Clean Air Act.

Please, attend the council meeting to support the resolution.

Some members of Congress are trying to gut the Act by preventing the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating emissions, not only of carbon dioxide but also of smog, soot, mercury and other toxic metals. We’re looking to our cities to stand up to big polluters and stand up for the Clean Air Act.

Come to the council meeting this Tuesday and voice your support for becoming a Clean Air City — and soon we may become a clean-air nation.

When: Tuesday, Dec. 20 at 5:30 p.m.

Where: Tucson City Hall, 255 W. Alameda, Tucson, AZ 85701 – downtown, just east of Granada in the Presidio Park Plaza

What: Council meeting to decide if Tucson will join Albany, N.Y.; Berkley, Santa Monica and Richmond, Calif.; Boone, N.C.; and Seattle, Wash. as a Clean Air City

RSVP to Rose Braz, climate campaign director – rbraz(at)biologicaldiversity.org

If you can’t come, please take a minute to email the mayor and city council to let them know you support this resolution.

Then tell your friends on Twitter and Facebook.

Click here to find out more and take action – http://action.biologicaldiversity.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9038

Sample letter content:

Subject: Support the Clean Air Act Climate-Change Resolution

To Mayor Rothschild and the Tucson City Council Members:

As a resident of Tucson I’m writing to express my full support for the resolution introduced by Council Member Romero urging the Environmental Protection Agency to use the Clean Air Act to curb global warming pollution now. This resolution will be considered on Tuesday, Dec. 20.

For 40 years the Clean Air Act has protected the air we breathe through a proven, comprehensive, successful system of pollution control that saves lives and creates economic benefits exceeding its costs many times over. The Act can just as successfully tackle the challenge of carbon dioxide pollution and global warming.

But the Act and the EPA are under heavy fire in Congress, even as we see more and more evidence that climate change is happening now, that we are causing it and that the longer we wait to act, the harder it will be to solve.

As a leader in the fight against climate change and for clean air, I trust that the city of Tucson will stand up to big polluters and stand up for the Clean Air Act by passing this resolution.

Thank you.

Please take action by December 20, 2012

Center for Biological Diversity
P.O. Box 710
Tucson, AZ 85702
1-866-357-3349
http://biologicaldiversity.org

The Center for Biological Diversity sends out newsletters and action alerts through DemocracyinAction.org.

Photo of cactus wren courtesy Flickr Createive Commons / AlanVernon

Dreaming New Mexico – Peter Warshall – TEDxABQ video

Dreaming New Mexico has built a map of pragmatic and visionary solutions to create a more localized and green economy with greater local self-reliance and enhanced prosperity.

Peter Warshall is Co-Director of the Bioneers’ Dreaming New Mexico Project, and a world-renowned water steward, biodiversity and wildlife specialist, research scientist, conservationist, and environmental activist.

from 2011 September TEDx in Albuquerque New Mexico, posted to YouTube Nov 22 by TEDx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbyIlbt5_3g

Rapid rise in Arctic methane shocks scientists

Rapid rise in Arctic methane shocks scientists
By Steve Connor
Wednesday Dec 14, 2011, New Zealand Herald

Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane – a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide – have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.

The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years.

In an exclusive interview with the Independent, Dr Igor Semiletov, of the Far Eastern branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that he had never before witnessed the scale and force of the methane being released from beneath the Arctic seabed.

“Earlier, we found torch-like structures like this but they were only tens of metres in diameter. This is the first time that we’ve found continuous, powerful and impressive seeping structures, more than 1000m in diameter. It’s amazing,” Semiletov said. “I was most impressed by the sheer scale and high density of the plumes. Over a relatively small area, we found more than 100 but, over a wider area, there should be thousands.”

Scientists estimate that there are hundreds of millions of tonnes of methane gas locked away beneath the Arctic permafrost, which extends from the mainland into the seabed of the relatively shallow sea of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf.

One of the greatest fears is that with the disappearance of the Arctic sea-ice in summer, and rapidly rising temperatures across the entire region, which are already melting the Siberian permafrost, the trapped methane could be suddenly released into the atmosphere, leading to rapid and severe climate change.

Semiletov’s team published a study last year estimating that the methane emissions from this region were about 8 million tonnes a year, but the latest expedition suggests this is a significant underestimate of the phenomenon.

In late northern summer, the Russian research vessel Academician Lavrentiev conducted an extensive survey of about 25,900sq km of sea off the East Siberian coast. Scientists deployed four highly sensitive instruments, seismic and acoustic, to monitor the “fountains” – or plumes – of methane bubbles rising to the sea surface from beneath the seabed.

“In a very small area, less than [25,900sq km], we have counted more than 100 fountains, or torch-like structures, bubbling through the water column and injected directly into the atmosphere from the seabed,” Semiletov said.

“We carried out checks at about 115 stationary points and discovered methane fields of a fantastic scale – I think on a scale not seen before. Some plumes were 1km or more wide and the emissions went directly into the atmosphere – the concentration was 100 times higher than normal.”

Semiletov released his findings for the first time last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.

Monthly Salon – Native Seeds / SEARCH

FREE at the Native Seeds/SEARCH Store, 3061 N. Campbell Ave. 85719

Bring your juiciest ideas and appetite for mind-watering conversations. The Salons are held every third Monday of the month, and have a little something for anyone who has ever wielded a fork or pitchfork.

Our Salon on January 16, 2012 will feature Carolyn Niethammer, author of several books including her newest Cooking The Wild Southwest, and Janet Taylor, author of The Healthy Southwest Table. There will be food to sample, they will autograph their books and talk about their recipe research and food writing.

http://www.nativeseeds.org/index.php/events/native-seedssearch-salons

The Great Bean Tasting – Native Seeds / SEARCH

THE GREAT BEAN TASTING – Bean Appétit!

Feel that rumbling? It’s your stomach reminding you that Native Seeds/SEARCH’s annual Great Bean Tasting is around the corner! Come out on Saturday, December 10 to the NS/S Retail Store for your holiday shopping and sample a smorgasbord of our delectable beans, prepared by Tucson’s finest chefs. So far we have chefs lined up from Janos, Feast and Pastiche, with more to come!

December 10 from 11 AM until the beans are gone! FREE At the Native Seeds/SEARCH Retail Store, 3061 N. Campbell Avenue.

$4B Public-private Program for Energy-efficiency planned

The following national plan for investing in the energy-efficiency of our buildings is a further evolution of  Ed Mazria’s 2009 Plan which Sustainable Tucson is suggesting as a model to develop a local green retrofit  stimulus program. See the Mazria Plan here:

 

$4B public-private program for energy efficiency planned

Jim Kuhnhenn The Associated Press , Arizona Daily Star, Friday, December 2, 2011

WASHINGTON – Enlisting former President Bill Clinton as a partner, President Obama is announcing a $4 billion effort to increase the energy efficiency of government and private-sector buildings, aiming for fuel savings and job creation at no cost to taxpayers.
The proposal, to be announced by Obama and Clinton today, would upgrade buildings over the next two years with a goal of improving energy performance by 20 percent by 2020. The federal government would commit $2 billion to the effort and a coalition of corporations, labor unions, universities and local governments would undertake the other half. The contractors who do the work would be paid with realized energy savings, thus requiring no up-front federal expenditure.”Upgrading the energy efficiency of America’s buildings is one of the fastest, easiest and cheapest ways to save money, cut down on harmful pollution and create good jobs right now,” Obama said in a prepared statement.
The president will make the announcement after touring a downtown Washington office building whose owners have agreed to make more energy efficient.The program, known as Energy Savings Performance Contracts, has been in place since the Clinton administration but has been little used. Obama’s announcement is yet another in a string of White House initiatives designed to address the weak economy without congressional approval.
Gene Sperling, director of the White House National Economic Council, said private economic analyses indicate that the $4 billion plan could generate about 50,000 jobs over two years.The program builds on an initiative that Obama launched in February and that Clinton led through his Clinton Foundation to get the private sector to invest in greater energy efficiency. Clinton announced commitments of $500 million in projects in June.Joining
Obama and Clinton will be Thomas Donohue, the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a longtime proponent of Energy Saving Performance Contracts.”We have been pushing the ESPC program for more than a decade because this holds tremendous potential,” Donohue said in a prepared statement. “The program has been grossly underutilized.”

 

Inside Tucson’s Civano Project

Inside the Civano Project: A Case Study of Large-Scale Sustainable Neighborhood Development (Mcgraw-Hill’s Greensource Series) 2009

By C. Alan Nichols and Jason A. Laros

Forward by Sustainable Tucson — Co-Founder Bob Cook

Forward

The following story is about a group of people who recognized a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and took it upon themselves to reinvent the future and work for its realization.  The great vision of this project was understood long before those still preoccupied with the status quo could accept its premise. Yet, the story unfolds despite all the resistance and pitfalls in its path.  While the final outcome was never assured, the dream and ultimate value of this opportunity would never be shaken.

 

And so this is the story of the Tucson Solar Village Project later to be renamed Civano.

 

The 1970s was a decade much like the present period – a protracted energy crisis, a long global recession, major changes in our monetary system, high unemployment, conflict and wars, heightened global competition for resources and markets, price inflation, and growing interest in solar energy and new, more efficient technologies. In short, the world was burdened with uncertainty but also drawn to the possibilities of great and needed change.

 

The key scientific finding during the seventies was that Planet Earth is a finite system and that unconstrained growth would lead to dangerous resource shortages and degradation  of natural systems. When the bad news would arrive in the future – when the limits to growth would be reached  — was debated endlessly among “experts.”  However, in everyday terms, these limits seemed so far off in time that more immediate, pressing issues absorbed most peoples’ attention. Except for a relatively small community of scientists and environmental thinkers, the value of alternatives to growth was very low. Why pursue sustainability when the presumed nature of the economy and the world’s capacities is to always grow.

 

In the United States, the seeds of the sustainable development movement germinated in the seventies in response to these scientific findings and the social and cultural fallout from economic instability. For those of us who came to see this coming paradigmatic change, many would have to carry this knowledge patiently into the eighties and nineties before the time was right to actually work on planning, engineering, and building a different world.

 

The story of Civano is a story of many diverse people and events coming together at different points in time to move forward the proposition that now is the time for a prototype sustainable community development. The designs changed and evolved, but the vision was always a comprehensive treatment of all functions of the human built environment in harmony with the natural cycles of energy, water, materials, and eco-systems.

 

When this opportunity appeared to the first wave of Tucson innovators in the 1980s, it was clear that the next evolutionary phase was beginning. We would lead the first major  experiment in the desert Southwest for learning how to create a community land development based on regenerative cycles and significantly reduced resource consumption.  The promise of wide-scale utilization of solar energy in the future would be furthered by this single venture in a new approach to development.

 

The chronology of  Civano spans three decades with important milestones achieved in each.  At many points, the realization of the dream stood in doubt as challenges overwhelmed the participants and the institutions backing its progress. But key actors always kept the effort moving forward up to its current state as a living, breathing place where people and families live their lives.

 

An experiment should never be labeled either a success or failure because the underlying purpose of an experiment is to test hypotheses and learn about something which often has never been attempted before. Civano provides us with a unique set of valuable lessons for designing ongoing responses to the intensifying sustainability crises unfolding all around us.

 

The story of Civano is ultimately a story of local heroes carrying forward a noble and important mission. In particular, I want to acknowledge Al Nichols, engineer extraordinaire, for his many roles throughout the past two decades in bringing Civano into being and making its beneficial lessons available to all those now and in the future who will take on the next critical sustainability challenges.

 

Robert Cook,

Former Chair, Tucson-Pima Metropolitan Energy Commission

Co-Founder, Sustainable Tucson

March 2009

Holiday Farmers’ Market

December 15th, 3-6 pm, at 100 S. Avenida del Convento, near the corner of Congress and Grande

This holiday season, Santa Cruz River Farmers’ Market shoppers will find a variety of distinctively southwest gifts to choose from at our weekly Thursday market.

Our healthy and locally made gifts include raw mesquite honey, prickly pear jams, mesquite flour mixes, Sonoran plants and more.

If market goers are looking for a more personal gift, on December 15th they will also have the opportunity to make holiday ornaments with their children at our arts and crafts table.  These family friendly craft activities are free of charge and will be located alongside our live music and comfortable grassy courtyard.

Those shoppers preparing for an upcoming holiday meal can also expect to find a great selection of sweet potatoes, green onions, apples, early citrus and a variety of leafy greens and winter squash.

For more information, please call 882-3304

Oppose the Rosemont Mine – public meetings Dec 1st, 7th, 8th, 10th

Thursday, Dec. 1, at Corona Foothills Middle School, 16705 S. Houghton Rd., from 5 to 9 PM (and see comments below for further meetings at other locations)

From: Keith Willmarth <canduthis(at)toast.net>
Subject: Oppose the Rosemont Mine

I am sending this message to mobilize informed opposition to the proposed Rosemont Mine. Several organizations, in particular Save the Scenic Santa Ritas, are doing yeoman work for the same purpose. I was only slightly acquainted with this issue until a few weeks ago. As I‘ve become more fully informed, I feel impelled to do what I can so that this mine will not become a reality.

The National Forest Service held its first public meeting, on November 12, to hear comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Rosemont copper mine. (View the DEIS at www.rosemonteis.us). The Arizona Daily Star reported that comments ran 50 to 6 in favor of the project. However, all major local news media completely ignored the second meeting, held a week later at Empire High School, at which a huge majority in the packed hall, at least 3 to 1, opposed the project.

Whatever their reasons for failing to cover the second meeting, it’s important to ensure that:

· There is an even greater turnout at the next meeting, on Thursday, Dec. 1, at Corona Foothills Middle School, 16705 S. Houghton Rd., from 5 to 9 PM.

· The media show up at subsequent public meetings on this issue

· Local residents express their opposition to Rosemont in other ways, through written statements, phone calls, networking, etc.

There are many good reasons to oppose the Rosemont Mine:

1. The sheer size of the tract of land within Coronado National Forest which would be obliterated: roughly seven square miles, including a vast pit half-a-mile deep and over a mile wide.

2. It would suck an enormous quantity of groundwater from the Earth — many times more than the annual usage of Nogales, for example — for the profit of a single company.

3. It will be across the road from one of the few protected and relatively undisturbed riparian areas left in the desert Southwest. A more incompatible land use than the mine is hard to imagine.

4. It would significantly reduce the night sky darkness, to the detriment of astronomical research in southern Arizona, and to the dismay of campers and nearby residents.

5. Rosemont has latched onto the premise that hybrid cars use three times as much copper as conventional cars, to greenwash the public. Considering the heavy machinery, small army of large trucks, plant-site emissions, electricity, de-vegetation, etc. that would be required, it is most doubtful that the mine would contribute to fighting climate change..

6. The scale of environmental degradation which would occur due to the Rosemont Mine runs contrary to the stated mission of the Forest Service to “sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands for present and future generations.” Rights granted by the Mining Act of 1872 do not pre-empt the provisions of the Forest Service Act.

7. Mitigation plans are not insurance against environmental damage. The largest EPA Superfund site is the result of copper mining (The Upper Clark Fork River Superfund Site in Montana). In 1990, at the Ray Mine near Kearny, AZ, rainwater washed 324,000 gallons of wastewater loaded with copper sulfates into the Gila River.

8. Rosemont’s boasts of long-term job creation are conjectural. Copper prices are currently at a peak; consequently there is a clamor of activity to develop new mines and expand production at existing ones. In Arizona alone, at least four other new copper mine proposals are seeking regulatory approval. Resolution Copper reports that their planned mine could supply 25% of expected US demand for decades. When prices drop with rising supply, or for any other reason, some mines can be expected to close.

9. The economic viability of the Rosemont Mine over its projected 20-year productive life is questionable, since it depends on the continued growth of the US and global economies. But we know that the perpetual growth paradigm is unrealistic on a finite planet. There are portents of a global ecological and economic crash, possibly in the near future. Projects like the Rosemont Mine are obsolescent.

There are numerous other reasons. Your reason here: info(at)rosemonteis.us

If your schedule allows, please come to the public meeting this Thursday evening, to
let your views be known. I’m supporting Project Alternative 1 – no action!!

Thanks,

Keith Willmarth
(520-661-0034)

P.S. — I welcome passengers in my car as long as there is room.

Pima County Food Systems Alliance – Meeting & Potluck – Nov 30

On November 30th (this Wednesday) from 6-8 pm, there will be a large group meeting of the Pima County Food Systems Alliance (PCFSA) with a potluck at the Sam Lena Library (1607 S. 6th Ave, Tucson; call 520.594.5265 for directions)

The Agenda is as follows:

  1. Welcome & Introduction (Nick) (5 min; 6:00-6:05)
  2. Presentation by PCFSA Consultants (Bryn/Lewis) (25 min; 6:05-6:30)
  3. Break & Get Food; Potluck (5 min; 6:30-6:35)
  4. Workgroup Activity (Bryn/Lewis) (1 hour; 6:35-7:35)
  5. Activity: Getting involved in the Policy Process (Jaime) (5 min; 7:35-7:45)
  6. Next Steps (Lewis) (15 min; 7:45-8:00)

Bring your friends & colleagues, plus a taste of your favorite or signature Thanksgiving dish.  And check out our Facebook page!

The Pima County Food Systems Alliance is an open membership network comprised of a variety of groups and individuals—including but not limited to farmers, chefs, restaurants, schools, educators, youth, gardeners, researchers, food banks, health professionals, attorneys, nonprofits, activists, and consumers.  The Alliance works in a collaborative manner to serve as a space to invite discussion and foster learning and education for those who are directly affected by food insecurity, as well as legislative decision makers about food policy.

ST December Meeting – The Politics of Sustainability

at Joel D. Valdez Main Library
101 N. Stone, Downtown (free lower level parking off Alameda St)

Activism, Advocacy, and Political Action are ramping up all over the world.  Tucson is no exception, and so Sustainable Tucson begins an exploration into the realm of political expression and action, and how we can use it to promote sustainability and resilience.

The December 12th Sustainable Tucson General Meeting promises to offer provocative ideas from three local experts…

  First, Dave Ewoldt, ecopsychologist and founder of Natural Systems Solutions, will speak on the importance of establishing a legally defensible definition of sustainability.

  Our second speaker is Margaret Wilder, an associate professor in Latin American studies and in the School of Geography and Development, and an associate research professor of environmental policy with the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at The University of Arizona.  Margaret will be speaking on the relationship between sustainability and social equity.

  Finally, Randy Serraglio from the Center for Biological Diversity, will talk about biodiversity and ecological rights.

Following the presentations, the speakers will engage in a lively panel discussion.

Sustainable Tucson is committed to the practice of engaging our audience in a participatory process.  Following the panel discussion we will ask participants to engage in lively table discussions focusing on what actions we can take to make Tucson a more vibrant and sustainable community.  Actions might be in the form of policy development, support of on-going projects, or the initiation of new projects.

The ideas generated will be used to develop the content for our January meeting, where presentations and audience discussions will continue.  The goal is to create a list of activities, projects and initiatives that we believe will build our resilience as a Desert People.

The ultimate goal for this process is to invite our public officials to a future meeting and ask them to share with us those projects/initiatives on our list with which they resonate.  Where can we partner with City or County initiatives that align with our philosophy?  Where can we find common ground, and how can we support each other’s common goals?

Doors open at 5:30 pm.
The meeting will begin promptly at 6:00 pm.

6 Burning Questions About the Violent Crackdowns on Occupations Around the Country

6 Burning Questions About the Violent Crackdowns on Occupations Around the Country

By Lynn Parramore, AlterNet
Posted on November 15, 2011
http://www.alternet.org/story/153083 /6_burning_questions_about_the_violent_crackdowns_ on_occupations_around_the_country

Occurring without provocation, the Occupy crackdown gives the appearance of an orchestrated effort to thwart an emerging protest movement. Early morning Tuesday, in New York City, hundreds of police officers, many in riot gear, swept down on Zuccotti Park, throwing away private property, restricting press and using aggressive tactics to remove protesters and supporters. Here are some things we’d really like to know.

1. Who convened the mayors call? In an interview with the BBC, Oakland Mayor Jean Quan alluded to her participation in a conference call with leaders of 18 US cities just prior to the raids on encampments across the country. Mayors’ associations do exist, but they do not typically organize police interventions or local decision-making in such detail. Given the abuses of the past, such as the notorious COINTELPRO and other intervention programs that the U.S. government organized during the Vietnam protests, the public has a right to know the details of who organized that call.

2. Was there an attempt to control press coverage? New Yorkers awoke to front-page stories and photographs in both the New York Post and the New York Daily News. Coverage by the two papers was supportive of the mayor and the police actions but disparaging toward the protesters. An AlterNet reporter, arriving on the scene at 1:30am, shortly after the raid began, could get nowhere near Zuccotti Park due to police barricades (and was subjected to pepper spray while attempting to report on events). How did the friendly reporters gain their access? Was there advance coordination to allow certain media outlets access and block the rest? Why was press access restricted? Were some reporters’ credentials confiscated? How will reports of unwarranted force on the part of police toward the press be addressed?

3. What, if any, was the role of the White House? Who was in charge of following the nationwide Occupy crackdown at the White House? What does President Obama, the man who celebrated the uprisings in Egypt (and who is currently out of the US, in Asia), think about the raids and the encroachments on the civil liberties of peacefully protesting Americans? As a constitutional scholar, what is his view of the restrictions of the press and the arrests of journalists?

4. Was the Department of Homeland Security involved in the raids? Filmmaker Michael Moore tweeted this question, asking if the Department may have given the green-light to the raid. The DHS has been reportedly following Occupy Wall Street Twitter feeds and other social media networks. Did it play any role in the crackdown?

5. What, if any, was the role of the FBI? Suggestions are circulating that the FBI and other federal agencies may have advised local law enforcement agencies on how to conduct the raids and even how to handle press relations. Did this happen? Was there any coordinating of arrests across the country on the part of the FBI?

6. Where are the libertarians? In the face of all the clamor about “states’ rights,” local government and the Constitution, we want to know where all the libertarians have suddenly gone. It’s enough to drive you to drink an emergency cup of tea.

Lynn Parramore is an AlterNet contributing editor.

© 2011 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/153083/

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/153083/

Local Gardening & Farming – Resources & Contacts

A Secure Food Supply for Tucson & Southern Arizona
Resources & Contacts: Gardening & Farming – Production, Distribution, Education
A sampling and an on-going growing list (see this page for updates)

Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona – communityfoodbank.com
Native Seeds/SEARCH – www.nativeseeds.org
Pima County Food Systems Alliance – go to Facebook page
Tucson Organic Gardeners – www.tucsonorganicgardeners.org
Community Gardens of Tucson – www.communitygardensoftucson.org
Tucson Village Farm – www.tucsonvillagefarm.org
Santa Cruz Heritage Alliance – www.santacruzheritage.org
Altar Valley Conservation Alliance – altarvalleyconservation.org
Desert Harvesters – www.desertharvesters.org
Somos la Semilla – www.somoslasemilla.org
Baja Arizona Sustainable Agriculture – www.bajaaz.org
Sonoran Permaculture Guild – www.sonoranpermaculture.org
Tohono O’odham Community Action – www.tocaonline.org
Slow Food Tucson – www.slowfoodtucson.org
Local Food Concepts – go to Facebook page
Iskashitaa Refugee Harvesting Network – www.fruitmappers.org
Arizona Native Plant Society – www.aznps.com
Food Conspiracy Coop – www.foodconspiracy.org
Local Harvest – www.localharvest.org
Tohono Chul Park – www.tohonochulpark.org
Arizona Sonora Desert Museum – www.desertmuseum.org
University of Arizona “Compost Cats” – compostgolive.blogspot.com
Vermillion Wormery – lindaleigh1.wordpress.com
Tucson AquaPonics Project – www.TucsonAP.org
Local Roots Aquaponics – www.localrootsaquaponics.com
Sabores sin Fronteras – saboresfronteras.com

Farmers Markets

There are lists with locations and times each week in the Tucson Weekly and in Caliente.  For locations of more farmers markets (and farmers/ranchers, CSAs, etc), see Local Harvest, above.

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)

Tucson CSA
Sleeping Frog Farms
Walking J Farm
River Road Gardens
Avalon Gardens
Agua Linda Farm
Down on the Farm CSA
Menlo Farms CSA

In addition, there are many, many farmers, ranchers, and gardeners around Southern Arizona, as well as artisan producers using local food, who supply our farmers markets, CSAs, some of the grocery stores and supermarkets, some of our local restaurants, and many homes.   Names and contact information will be added to this list on an on-going basis.

Food Film Festival featuring the Film “Greenhorns”

Food Film Festival featuring the Film “Greenhorns”
and a film short on the locally owned Sleeping Frog Farms
Happy Hour Party at Borderlands Brewery to follow

Date: Sunday, November 20
Time: 3:00 pm
Cost: $15 per person
Place: The Screening Room (127 E. Congress St.)
& Happy Hour at Borderlands Brewery (119 E. Toole Ave.)

It’s time for the second annual Taste Film, Talk Food, brought to you by the Food Conspiracy Co-op and Slow Food Tucson. The evening kicks off at The Screening Room with the Tucson premier of The Greenhorns, a documentary film that explores the lives of America’s young farming community – its spirit, practices, and needs.

Directed by farmer/activist Severine von Tscharner Fleming, The Greenhorns looks at young Americans who are learning to farm at a time when the average age of the American farmer is 57.  These greenhorns are working to reverse negative trends in favor of healthy food, local and regional food sheds, and the revitalization of rural economies, one farm at a time.

The Food Conspiracy will also screen a short film about the four young farmers who operate Sleeping Frog Farms in Cascabel, AZ.  Adam, Debbie, CJ and Clay will be on hand to introduce the short film and answer questions from the audience.

Following the movies, we’ll make our way to Borderlands Brewing Co., downtown’s newest brewery. There, attendees will be treated to:

  • Conspiracy Beer (brewed by Borderlands and available for purchase exclusively at the Food Conspiracy
  • Conspiracy Coffee (locally roasted by Exo Roasting Co. and also only sold at the co-op)
  • Warm food prepared by Conspiracy Kitchen with ingredients grown by the Sleeping Frog farmers.

In addition to the movies at The Screening Room, your ticket to Taste Film, Talk Food entitles you to a cold beer, a hot cup of coffee, and delicious Conspiracy Kitchen food.

Tickets available at The Food Conspiracy Co-op (412 N. 4th Ave.)

This food and film event is sponsored by Borderlands Brewing Co., Slow Food Tucson, The Screening Room and Food Conspiracy Co-op.

For more information, visit www.slowfoodtucson.org
E-mail: slowfoodtucson(at)yahoo.com

About Slow Food – Tucson Slow Food is a non-profit, eco-gastronomic organization that supports a biodiverse, sustainable food supply, local producers, heritage foodways and rediscovery of the pleasures of the table.  Slow Food Tucson is afilliated with Slow Food USA, which supports Slow Food International, a worldwide movement with more than 80,000 members in 100 countries. Visit www.slowfoodusa.org for more information.

Sustainable Tucson comments on proposed Rosemont Mine

Sustainable Tucson comments on proposed Rosemont Mine

Sustainable Tucson is a non-profit, grass-roots organization that builds regional resilience and sustainability through awareness raising, community engagement and public/private partnerships. We recognize the need to focus on sustainability within the Sonoran bioregion.

The proposal by the Augusta Resources Corporation to develop a copper mine in the Santa Rita mountains is troubling to us for many reasons.

One of our visions is that water sustainability be assured for future generations and the environment. The mine will be pumping precious groundwater for mining operations in an area surrounded by farming and ranching operations, already stretched beyond local carrying capacity. They will have an allotment of CAP water for recharge, which may or may not fully replace the pumped water and likely be of higher salinity. Climate research continues to reinforce the likelihood that Arizona faces a future that will become more arid and include multi-decadal droughts. Decreasing snowpack in the Colorado river watershed increases the likelihood that waters delivered as our CAP allotment is far from assured into the future. This leaves ground water and renewable harvested rainwater as our major water sources going forward. Sustainable Tucson believes this mine would be a serious threat to water security in the region and would harm nearby communities, farms, and ranches irreparably. On the issue of groundwater quality, all the activities associated with mining, e.g., tailings, leach pits, waste rock, etc., present an unacceptable risk of harm to the aquifer. Additionally, the secondary effects on riparian habitats and their plant and animal populations would most likely be devastating.

Another of our visions is that food be safe, healthy, and regionally produced. Our attempts to move toward regional food security would be threatened by the negative impact the mine would have on water resources available for growing food. We oppose any operation that would jeopardize the success and even the very existence of the small family farms in the area. We consider water for growing food to be a higher use for a precious and very limited resource.

Another vision is that life-affirming cultural and spiritual practices be honored. We believe the negative impacts on or actual destruction of the cultural resources of the area, such as historic properties, critical archaeological sites, tribal sacred sites and resource gathering sites are unacceptable.

Our vision that meaningful work be available to every person is not fulfilled by this mine. We believe that right livelihood does not undermine the natural world that supports us and that short term jobs are no compensation for a degraded future.

Considering the potentially negative economic impacts to our important recreational and tourist industry, degradation of roadways, harm to public health through reduced air quality, loss of the natural beauty of the area, and degradation of astronomical “night sky” quality, we conclude that any potential economic benefit that can be claimed by the developers of the mine is far outweighed by the harms and damages to people and nature that will likely result. It is very important to keep in mind that long after this mining operation ends, we will be left with the permanent damage to a vital area forever.

Ed Mazria’s Two-Year, Nine-Million-Jobs Investment Plan

By Caroline Dobuzinskis

 

(Ed Mazria’s  Revised One-Year, 4.5 Million-Jobs Investment Plan available here:)

 

With the job market crashing and a reported one in five mortgages underwater, the need for complex solutions to fix the US economy grows increasingly urgent. Ed Mazria, founder of the non-profit research and education organization Architecture 2030, has put forward a proposal to combat two urgent economic crises with one plan that will not only relieve financially strapped homeowners and generate job opportunities, but also leave us with a more resilient, more efficient built environment when this crisis is over.

Mazria believes the government should invest in the private building sector by giving developers and homeowners financial incentives to build (and retrofit) greener buildings – thus boosting jobs around construction and renovation. To outline his plan, Mazria and Architecture 2030 have developed the 2030 Challenge Stimulus Plan, a proposal that Mazria calls the “Two-Year, Nine-Million-Jobs Investment Plan. (Download details of the plan here.)

According to Mazria, the next energy bill to come through Congress is already likely to include a plan for making all buildings carbon neutral by the year 2030. President Obama made this promise during his campaign. The Architecture 2030 Challenge lays out a timeline: all new buildings and major renovations should should meet a 60 percent fossil fuel reduction standard by 2010; all buildings should be carbon neutral by 2030, and all state and federal buildings should follow suit. But Mazria and his team are making a case for implementing these goals in the private building sector now. And the way they see it, no start date is too soon.

I spoke with Mazria about his investment plan, and how he expects industry representatives, government officials and homeowners to react.

Caroline Dobuzinskis: When did the idea for the Two-Year, Nine-Million-Jobs Investment Plan come about?

Ed Mazria: We have a unique perspective because, as a research organization, our focus is the building sector, climate change, and the economy. At Architecture 2030 we were able to address the [economic] situation from that perspective, looking at the economy and the building sector that was dragging the whole economy down because of the mortgage prices. And, since we know the building industry really well having been in it for forty years, we know what it takes to bring it back, and we want to bring it back in an environmentally sound way. That was the reason why we investigated the economic crises in the building sector, and then how to create the jobs in the building sector to bring the US economy back.

CD: Tell me how your plan aims to help the private building sector and homeowners.

EM: We think now the federal government should step in and create an incentive for the private building sector to get back on its feet. Probably the largest segment of unemployment driven by the economic downturn is in the private building sector, both in construction and manufacturing of materials that go into the building sector and services that support the building industry. So in order to turn the economy around, you must address the building sector.

For every federal dollar that you put in, you want the private sector to add at least $2 to that, so that you can create at once as many jobs as possible. And the one way to do that is to tie federal money to energy reduction targets, so that the private sector has to then come in and fund energy upgrades in order to get the federal dollars.

Homeowners get greater incentives for the greater reductions that they can accomplish on their buildings. With a mortgage buydown tied to energy reduction, the homeowner saves on his monthly mortgage, and he also saves on his utility bills. He not only saves on mortgage interest, he also recaptures the money that’s [currently being] lost because most housing is leaking energy. [The money generated by creating] more jobs, and by the taxes from the folks paid to do the renovations, can go back to the federal government and the states to fund both infrastructure projects and to pay the government back for the outlay. It’s kind of a full circle proposal.

CD: How can homeowners receive lower mortgage rates to improve the energy efficiency of their homes?

EM: Homeowners can aim for 30, 40, 50 or 75 percent below the energy use target required by the IECC 2006 and ASHRAE 90.1-2004 code standards, or they can aim for carbon neutral, and each target is tied to different incentives. So one of the examples we give is, if you want to get 75 percent below code — basically saving 75 percent on your energy bills — we estimate that [the renovations] would cost about $51,000. So you add that amount into a new mortgage but as an incentive you receive a much, much lower interest rate so that your monthly outlay, even with $51,000 added to the amount of the mortgage, would be much, much less.

You would be investing that $51,000 in upgrades like replacing equipment that was outdated, not working properly or not really efficient. You might be adding insulation; you might be adding skylights and windows to let the sun in; you might be making windows operable so you have natural ventilation so you can look at passive solar heating/cooling strategies. You could take advantage of tax credits, for example, to install a solar voltaic system. There are almost an infinite number of ways you can make your home more efficient if you have an existing home.

CD: The federal government would be setting the mortgage rates?

EM: Right now the federal government is the only one that is buying mortgages. Banks that are lending mortgages are selling them to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We think that number is now 90 to 95 percent of all mortgages so [the federal government] can then set the targets.

CD: Is the average homeowner ready to make these changes?

EM: Absolutely, because everyone wants to save money and have more expendable income on a monthly basis. The reason the first stimulus last year didn’t work was because you gave everybody a check on a one-time basis. In our plan, you are talking about $300 to $500 a month in savings. That’s huge. We think people will be lining up at the doors to take advantage of this.

The one place we think people will invest is in their own house. The other thing we think is, by taking advantage of the lower rates, people would not only make the efficiency upgrades but they would probably spend some more to do some things that they had put off for awhile because the rates are fairly lucrative. Our analysis just took into account the spending on efficiency, but we think there would be a lot more spending as we go along.

CD: Do you see your plan as part of an upcoming bill?

  I think that the plan will come up when [legislators] talk about how we get the building sector back on track. Right now what they have been doing is focusing on the foreclosure crisis, not on the building sector as a whole. They haven’t yet focused on the private sector, but I think that is going to be coming up. I am not sure which committee is going to take the lead on that, but it has to be dealt with because it is a sector that is dragging the economy down. I think right now the administration is focused on putting out fires.

CD: At your presentation at the National Building Museum in February, you and John Podesta talked about the US serving as a model for other countries. Do you think that there needs to be international policy to follow?

EM: I certainly do. I think the US must take a leadership role when it comes to the environment, and climate change, and building efficiency. How we turn our economy around is going to influence how other entities and governments turn their economies around. If we just deal with the economic situation without dealing with the energy crisis and the climate change issue, we are not going to get very far, because those are coming right up and will drag us down again. And, we have a great opportunity to deal with all three issues at one time, and that will set the stage in terms of other governments.

Caroline Dobuzinskis is a freelance writer based in Washington, D.C.

Published by WorldChanging Team,   April 15, 2009

http://www.worldchanging.com

2012 Green Retrofit Stimulus Proposal for Tucson

With half of all mortgaged homes “underwater” and owing more than their market value, housing prices continue to decline even after four years of collapsing prices. The ongoing global credit and debt crisis combined with declining house prices spell disaster for the home-building industry for at least the next decade. The escalating climate crisis also requires that the built-environment be transformed to reduce its current and future impacts on rising climate-changing emissions. Politically, the most urgent issue on Americans’ minds is the growing employment crisis.

Is there a way forward that addresses all these challenges? And specifically, can we in Tucson address these issues and create a way to re-employ construction trades and train people for green retrofitting of our existing homes, businesses, and apartments?

Santa Fe, New Mexico architect, Ed Mazria has proposed a national version of this concept for both new and existing residences which could create 4.5 million jobs in one year and significantly reduce the country’s carbon footprint.

To review Ed Mazria’s plan click here:

To read an interview with Ed Mazria  click here:

If you are interested in forming a study group around this proposal contact Sustainable Tucson by clicking here:

Thank you for your interest.

2012 Green Retrofit Economic Stimulus Proposal for Tucson

2012 Green Retrofit Economic Stimulus Proposal for Tucson

With half of all mortgaged homes “underwater” and owing more than their market value, housing prices continue to decline even after four years of collapsing prices. The ongoing global credit and debt crisis combined with declining house prices spell disaster for the home-building industry for at least the next decade. The escalating climate crisis also requires that the built-environment be transformed to reduce its current and future impacts on rising climate-changing emissions. Politically, the most urgent issue on Americans’ minds is the growing employment crisis.

Is there a way forward that addresses all these challenges? And specifically, can we in Tucson address these issues and create a way to re-employ construction trades and train people for green retrofitting our existing homes, businesses, and apartments?  Read more…

 

Greenhouse emissions exceed worst case scenario

The global output of carbon dioxide jumped by the biggest amount on record, the US Department of Energy has calculated, a sign of how feeble the world’s efforts are at slowing man-made global warming.

The new figures for last year mean that levels of greenhouse gases are higher than the worst-case scenario outlined by climate experts four years ago.

”The more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing,” the co-director of the joint program on the science and policy of global change at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), John Reilly, said.

The world pumped about 512 million tonnes more of carbon into the air last year than it did in 2009, an increase of 6 per cent. That amount of extra pollution eclipses the individual emissions of all but three countries – China, the US and India, the world’s top producers of greenhouse gases.

It is a “monster” increase that is unheard of, said Gregg Marland, a professor of geology at Appalachian State University, who has helped calculate Department of Energy figures in the past.

Extra pollution in China and the U.S. account for more than half the increase in emissions last year, Marland said.

“It’s a big jump,” said Tom Boden, director of the Energy Department’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center at Oak Ridge National Lab. “From an emissions standpoint, the global financial crisis seems to be over.”

Boden said that in 2010 people were traveling, and manufacturing was back up worldwide, spurring the use of fossil fuels, the chief contributor of man-made climate change.

India and China are huge users of coal. Burning coal is the biggest carbon source worldwide and emissions from that jumped nearly 8 percent in 2010.

“The good news is that these economies are growing rapidly so everyone ought to be for that, right?” Reilly said Thursday. “Broader economic improvements in poor countries has been bringing living improvements to people. Doing it with increasing reliance on coal is imperiling the world.”

In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution. Boden said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst-case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 4 and 11 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century with the best estimate at 7.5 degrees.

Even though global warming skeptics have attacked the climate change panel as being too alarmist, scientists have generally found their predictions too conservative, Reilly said. He said his university worked on emissions scenarios, their likelihood, and what would happen. The IPCC’s worst case scenario was only about in the middle of what MIT calculated are likely scenarios.

But Reilly and University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver found something good in recent emissions figures. The developed countries that ratified the 1997 Kyoto Protocol treaty limiting greenhouse gases have reduced their emissions overall since then and have achieved their goals of cutting emissions to about 8 percent below 1990 levels. The U.S. did not ratify the agreement.

Associated Press    November 4, 2011

IEA: Time running out to limit earth’s warming

The International Energy Agency warned Wednesday that the world is hurtling toward irreversible climate change and will lose the chance to limit warming if it doesn’t take bold action in the next five years.

In its annual World Energy Outlook, the agency spelled out the consequences if those steps aren’t taken and what needs to be done to cap global temperature increases at 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels. That’s the threshold beyond which some scientists have said catastrophic changes could be triggered.

But the agency’s chief economist, Fatih Birol, said this week that he’s not optimistic that leaders are willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

“We are going in the wrong direction in terms of climate change,” he said in an interview Monday ahead of the report’s official release.

He noted, for instance, that governments around the world have put increasing energy efficiency at the top of their to-do lists, but efficiency has worsened for two years in a row now.

Birol said such backslides have real consequences.

“After 2017, we will lose the chance to limit the temperature increase to 2 degrees Celsius,” he said.

The report said that the current promises to reduce emissions, when taken together, will likely result in an increase of more than 3.5 degrees Celsius _ and there isn’t any guarantee those commitments will even be carried out. Without them, the picture is bleaker: an increase of 6 degrees Celsius or more.

Birol said the world doesn’t lack the technology to tackle the problem _ just the political will.

“Even with existing technologies, you can improve substantially, but to do that, you need some price incentives and these price incentives are not there,” he said.

In fact, there are incentives to consume more: The report said subsidies for fossil fuels have risen past $400 billion. Birol said those need to be cut and instead a price needs to be levied on carbon. Only when “dirty” fuels become more expensive, he said, will governments follow through on their commitments to increase energy efficiency.

The report pushes hard the need to increase efficiency, generally considered the easiest way to reduce consumption since it has a price-incentive built in. It has become even more important since Japan’s nuclear accident sparked a rethinking of the use of atomic technology previously seen as key to cutting emissions.

“The most important contribution to reaching energy security and climate goals comes form the energy that we do not consume,” the report said.

It also predicted that oil prices would rise over the long term, though a weak global economy and the return of Libyan oil to the market would ease short-term pressures.

How high the price goes will depend, in part, on whether investors are willing to cough up what the Middle East and North Africa needs to keep pumping. Birol said last month that unrest in the region has made investors reluctant to pour money in.

Associated Press    November 9, 2011

Obama Delays Tar Sands Pipeline, McKibben Responds

U.S. Delays Decision on Pipeline Until After Election

By JOHN M. BRODER and DAN FROSCH

published in New York Times 11/10/11

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration, under sharp pressure from officials in Nebraska and restive environmental activists, announced Thursday that it would review the route of the disputed Keystone XL oil pipeline, effectively delaying any decision about its fate until after the 2012 election.

The State Department said in a statement that it was ordering a review of alternate routes to avoid the environmentally sensitive Sand Hills region of Nebraska, which would have been put at risk by a rupture of the 1,700-mile pipeline carrying a heavy form of crude extracted from oil sands formations in Alberta to refineries in Oklahoma and the Gulf Coast.

The move is the latest in a series of administration decisions pushing back thorny environmental matters beyond next November’s presidential election to try to avoid the heat from opposing interests — business lobbies or environmental and health advocates — and to find a political middle ground. President Obama delayed a review of the nation’s smog standard until 2013, pushed back offshore oil lease sales in the Arctic until at least 2015 and blocked new regulations for coal ash from power plants.

The proposed project by a Canadian pipeline company, TransCanada, similarly put the president in a political vise, squeezed between the demand for a secure source of oil and the thousands of jobs the project will bring, and the loud agitation of environmental advocates who threatened to withhold electoral support next year if he approved it.

Mr. Obama said in an interview with an Omaha television station last week that he would make the ultimate decision about the pipeline, but sought to portray Thursday’s announcement as solely a State Department matter and not the result of political calculation.

“I support the State Department’s announcement today regarding the need to seek additional information about the Keystone XL pipeline proposal,” the president said in a statement. “Because this permit decision could affect the health and safety of the American people as well as the environment, and because a number of concerns have been raised through a public process, we should take the time to ensure that all questions are properly addressed and all the potential impacts are properly understood.”

He said he remained committed to a politically balanced diet of increased domestic oil and gas production combined with incentives for the development of carbon-free alternatives.

While environmental groups welcomed their temporary victory on the pipeline project, some expressed skepticism about the president’s motives. Glenn Hurowitz, an environmental activist and senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, said the delay could leave the final decision in the hands of Mr. Obama’s Republican successor.

“This decision just puts off a green light for the tar sands by a year,” Mr. Hurowitz said in an e-mailed statement. “That’s why I’m a little dismayed at suggestions that this kick-the-can decision means environmentalists will enthusiastically back President Obama in 2012. Is the price of an environmentalist’s vote a year’s delay on environmental catastrophe? Excuse me, no.”

Oil industry officials, some unions and the Canadian government said they were disappointed because the action delays what they call the economic benefits of the $7 billion project.

Jack N. Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, said of the president’s decision, “This is all about politics and keeping a radical constituency, opposed to any and all oil and gas development, in the president’s camp in 2012. Whether it will help the president retain his job is unclear but it will cost thousands of shovel-ready opportunities for American workers.”

Andrew MacDougall, a spokesman for Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, said, “While we are disappointed with the delay, we remain hopeful the project will be decided on its merits and eventually approved.”

TransCanada said that it would work with the State Department to find a new route, but warned that delay could kill the project, and with it tens of thousands of construction and related jobs and billions of dollars in tax revenues.

“If Keystone XL dies,” said Russell K. Girling, the company’s chief executive, “Americans will still wake up the next morning and continue to import 10 million barrels of oil from repressive nations without the benefit of thousands of jobs and long-term energy security.”

The Sand Hills region has a high concentration of wetlands, a sensitive ecosystem and extensive areas of very shallow groundwater that could be endangered by an oil spill. The State Department, which is responsible for approving transboundary pipelines, said that it expected that the review could be completed early in 2013.

Public officials and citizens in Nebraska have been vocal about the proposed pipeline route, not only because of fears about the Sand Hills region but because it will cross the Ogallala Aquifer, a critical source of drinking water for the Great Plains. Gov. Dave Heineman of Nebraska, a Republican, has been pushing for the pipeline to be rerouted and recently called a special legislative session to focus on Keystone XL.

“I am pleased that Nebraskans have been heard,” Mr. Heineman said in a telephone interview. “We’ve tried to make it very clear that we support the pipeline but oppose the route over the Ogallala Aquifer,” Mr. Heineman said, adding he was not expecting the State Department’s decision. “I hope we can find a common-sense solution, change the route and begin construction of the pipeline.”

The pipeline’s opponents in Nebraska hailed the decision as a pivotal victory, at least for now.

“This is a game changer for our state,” said Jane Kleeb, director of Bold Nebraska, a citizens’ advocacy group that has been leading efforts to block the pipeline. “We’ve been fighting this every day and night for almost two years.”

Kerri-Ann Jones in the State Department’s Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs said the agency’s decision to look for alternative routes was sparked by the significant outcry from Nebraska residents and officials.

“What we’re hearing from the public and from comments across the nation is the concerns about it going through this fragile landscape,” she said of the proposed pipeline. “We’ve heard this loud and clear.”

Ms. Jones said that the previous environmental review of Keystone XL had not considered routes around the Sand Hills region in Nebraska, but rather routes that circumvented the state completely. New alternative routes for Keystone XL would still pass through Nebraska, but would seek to avoid or minimize any effect on the Sand Hills, she said.

The State Department’s inspector general announced on Monday that he was looking into charges of a conflict of interest and improper political influence in the preparation of the project’s environmental impact statement. Some have faulted the department for assigning the study to a company with financial ties to TransCanada.

Opponents of the project have organized two large protests outside the White House, including one on Sunday in which several thousand protesters encircled the mansion demanding that the president kill the pipeline. Earlier this year more than a thousand protesters were arrested in large demonstrations across from the White House.

John M. Broder reported from Washington and Dan Frosch from Denver; Ian Austen contributed reporting from Ottawa.

 


Keystone XL pipeline dealy: We won, you won

Bill McKibben, Post Carbon Institute

Dear Friends,

The Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that we’ve been fighting for months has been effectively killed. The President didn’t outright reject the Keystone XL pipeline permit, but a few minutes ago he sent the pipeline back for a thorough re-review that will delay it til 2013. Most analysts agree: the pipeline will never get built.

The President explicitly noted climate change, along with the pipeline route, as one of the factors that a new review would need to assess. There’s no way, with an honest review, that a pipeline that helps speed the tapping of the world’s second-largest pool of carbon can pass environmental muster.

It’s important to understand how unlikely this victory is. A month ago, a secret poll of “energy insiders” by found that “virtually all” expected easy approval of the pipeline by year’s end. A done deal has come spectacularly undone. Our movement spoke loudly about climate change and President Obama responded. There have been few even partial victories about global warming in the United States in recent years, so that makes this an important day.

The President deserves thanks for making this call — it’s not easy in the face of the fossil fuel industry and its endless reserves of cash. The deepest thanks, however, go to the incredible, diverse movement that helped ramp up the pressure to give the President the room to make this call. And it means so much that this day is shared by our allies around the world — the people who have stood in solidarity, signed petitions, and organized actions to let us know that you’re fighting in this movement right along with us.

Our fight, of course, is barely begun. Some in our movement will say that this decision is just politics as usual: that the President wants us off the streets — and off his front lawn — until after the election, at which point the administration can approve the pipeline, alienating its supporters without electoral consequence. The President should know that if this pipeline proposal somehow reemerges from the review process we will use every tool at our disposal to keep it from ever being built.

If there’s a lesson of the last few months, both in our work and in the Occupy encampments around the world, it’s that sometimes we have to put our bodies on the line and take to the streets to make our voices heard.

We’ll be stepping up our efforts in the months ahead, expanding our work to take on all the forms of ‘extreme energy’ now coming to the fore around the world: mountaintop removal coal mining, deep sea oil drilling, “fracking” for gas and oil. We’ll keep sending you updates; you keep letting us know what we need to do next.

Last week, scientists announced that the planet had poured a record amount of CO2 into the atmosphere last year; that’s a sign of how desperate our battle is. But we take courage from today’s White House announcement; it gives us some clues about how to fight going forward — and not just in the US, but in every corner of the earth.

I’m going to bed tired tonight. But I’ll get up in the morning ready for the next battle, more confident because I know you’re part of this fight too.
(11 November 2011)

“The world is looking straight into the face of a great depression”.

New recession threatens the globe as debt crisis grows

by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard – Telegraph  (UK)  published 11/10/11

Europe’s escalating debt crisis has cast a black shadow over the world’s fragile recovery, threatening to tip large parts of the global economy into a deep downturn and even outright recession.

The OECD’s index of leading indicators for China, India, Brazil, Canada, Britain and the eurozone have all tipped below the warning line of 100, with the pace of the decline in Europe exceeding the onset of the Great Contraction in early 2008. Professor Simon Johnson, a former chief economist at the IMF, rattled nerves earlier this week by warning the world is “looking straight into the face of a great depression”.

The grim data is coming thick and fast. Japan’s machinery orders fell 8.2pc in September as the post-Fukushima rebound lost steam and the delayed effects of the super-strong yen began to bite. Export orders have been declining for eight months. “Outright contraction is possible in the quarters ahead,” said Mark Cliffe from ING.

Exports in the Philippines dropped 27pc in September, the sharpest fall in two years. Korea’s exports have showed sharply, caused by a 20pc slide in shipments to Europe. Manufacturing has been contracting for the past three months.

Christine Lagarde, the IMF’s chief, warned in Asia that “there are dark clouds gathering in the global economy. Countries need to prepare for any storm that might reach their shores”. She said “adverse feedback loops” are at work as financial stress and economic woes feed on each other.

China’s carefully managed soft landing has turned uncomfortably hard, with ripple effects through the commodity markets. Spot iron-ore prices have dropped 30pc since July to $126 a tonne. Copper prices have fallen 20pc since August. Barclays Capital said the risk of contagion to China has become serious. The bank is monitoring the country’s “key high frequency data” for early warning signs of the sort of sudden crash in metals demand seen during the Lehman crisis.

China had the firepower to respond to the 2008 crisis with blitz of credit that helped lift the whole world out of slump, a feat that cannot easily be repeated if there is a second shock. The IMF said loans have doubled to almost 200pc of GDP, including off-books lending. This is an unprecedented level of credit growth, twice the intensity of the Japanese bubble in the late 1980s.

The authorities are trying to deflate the excesses slowly with higher interest rates and reserve ratios. This is proving painful. Yao Wei from Societe Generale said prices of new residential property fell 14% in October. Railway investment collapsed by 40% as the insolvent railway ministry struggled to cope with $300 billion of debt. Highway construction dropped 2pc.

Europe is in a deeper, more intractable crisis. Industrial output buckled in September with falls of 4.8pc in Italy, 2.7pc in Germany, and 1.7pc in France from a month earlier as the effects of the debt crisis – as well as fiscal contraction and prior monetary tightening – finally hit with a vengeance.

EU commissioner Olli Rehn slashed growth forecasts from 1.6pc to 0.5pc next year, warning “that recovery has now come to a standstill and there’s the risk of a new recession unless determined action is taken”. This did not stop Brussels sending a letter to Italy calling for yet more fiscal cuts to meet it is balanced budget target by 2013.

“It is imposing pain for pain’s sake, and it is going to cause creditors to collect even less on their Club Med debts than if austerity were abandoned. Even in the early 1930s they weren’t as bad as this,” said Charles Dumas from Lombard Street Research.

Humayun Shahryar from the hedge fund Auvest said the eurozone faces a “major economic collapse”, perhaps with double-dgit falls in GDP. “European banks are massively over-leveraged and almost every one is worthless if you mark to market. This is going to be worse than 2008 because they have run out of bullets. The sovereign states are not strong enough to stand behind the banks,” he said.

Professor Johnson said the EU authorities had made a serious mistake by raising capital ratios for banks to 9pc rather than forcing them to raise fresh capital. “That will lead to a further contraction of credit.”

Banks have already taken drastic steps to cut their loan books rather than raise money in a hostile market, earmarking over €700bn for the next year. There will be knock-on effects for the rest of the world. European banks account €2.5 trillion cross-border loans to emerging markets.

In the US, the economy has held up better than feared so far but faces a fiscal shock early next year. Tax write-offs have pulled capital expenditure forward into late 2011, flattering the picture. Payroll taxes will rise automatically from 4.2pc to 6.2pc in January. Dumas said the combined fiscal squeeze could be as much as 2pc of GDP, heavily “front-loaded” in the early months. “Sharp recession is likely,” he said.

“The credit spigot has been turned off in the US,” said Chris Whalen from Institutional Risk Analytics. “Almost every bank is still running down its loan book, so we are facing a slow motion credit-crunch.”

Fiscal and monetary stimulus has disguised the underlying sickness in the debt-laden economies of the West over the past two years. This heavy make-up has at last faded away, exposing the awful visage beneath.

It is a delicate moment. The risk of a synchronised slump in Europe, the US and East Asia is bad enough. What is chilling is to face such a possibility with the monetary pedal already pushed to the floor in the US, UK and Japan.

Worse yet is to do so with Europe spiralling into institutional self-destruction, allowing its debt crisis to metastasize because EMU has no lender of last resort. That is an unforced error we could do without.

 

Move Your Money: Campaign grows to divest from “Too Big to Fail” banks to local banks, credit unions

 

ST’s Tom Greco Gives Economics Talk at International Conference

Sustainable Tucson founding coalition member, Tom Greco gives a presentation on his transformational model of economic change to the International Conference on Sustainability, Transition and Culture Change: Vision, Action, Leadership. This TED-like talk is video-streamed from the conference and is viewable here:

 

http://www.livestream.com/localfuture/video?clipId=pla_ade24121-d46d-4448-863c-babe129a604f

UA Professor Walks Away From Empire

UA Natural Resources Professor Emeritus Guy McPherson and Sustainable Tucson founding coalition member addresses the International Conference on Sustainability, Transition and Culture Change: Vision, Action, Leadership recounting his journey to personal accountability in the current crisis of civilization. Taking material from his latest book, “Walking Away From Empire” , Guy demonstrates Gandhi’s  recommendation: “Become the change you want to see in the world.” This TED-like talk is video-streamed from the conference and is viewable here:

 

http://www.livestream.com/localfuture/video?clipId=pla_91f8a1ea-47fd-42b7-a983-e9bd2cd9d76d

 

 

 

Saying No to WalMart, A Town Builds its Own Store

Buying Underwear, Along With the Whole Store

By AMY CORTESE

 

SARANAC LAKE, N.Y.

 

THE residents of Saranac Lake, a picturesque town in the Adirondacks, are a hardy lot — they have to be to withstand winter temperatures that can drop to 30 below zero. But since the local Ames department store went out of business in 2002 — a victim of its corporate parent’s bankruptcy — residents have had to drive to Plattsburgh, 50 miles away, to buy basics like underwear or bed linens. And that was simply too much.

 

So when Wal-Mart Stores came knocking, some here welcomed it. Others felt that the company’s plan to build a 120,000-square-foot supercenter would overwhelm their village, with its year-round population of 5,000, and put local merchants out of business.

 

It’s a situation familiar to many communities these days. But rather than accept their fate, residents of Saranac Lake did something unusual: they decided to raise capital to open their own department store. Shares in the store, priced at $100 each, were marketed to local residents as a way to “take control of our future and help our community,” said Melinda Little, a Saranac Lake resident who has been involved in the effort from the start. “The idea was, this is an investment in the community as well as the store.”

 

It took nearly five years — the recession added to the challenge — but the organizers reached their $500,000 goal last spring. By then, some 600 people had chipped in an average of $800 each. And so, on Oct. 29, as an early winter storm threatened the region, the Saranac Lake Community Store opened its doors to the public for the first time. By 9:30 in the morning, the store, in a former restaurant space on Main Street opposite the Hotel Saranac, was packed with shoppers, well-wishers and the curious.

 

The 4,000-square-foot space was not completely renovated — a home goods section will be ready for the grand opening on Nov. 19 — but shoppers seemed pleased with the mix of apparel, bedding and craft supplies for sale.

 

“Ooh, that’s nice,” said Pat Brown, as she held up a slim black skirt (price: $29.99). She and her husband, Bob, a former professor of sociology at a local community college, live in town in an early 1900s home furnished with deer heads and other mementos from Bob’s hunting trips. The couple — who were voted king and queen of the village’s annual Winter Carnival in 1999 — bought $2,000 worth of shares in the store early on, and later bought a few more during a fund-raising drive.

 

“It’s been a long process for all of us. We’re very proud to have it finally become a reality,” Ms. Brown said. Her husband, a vigorous-looking man who had a neatly trimmed white beard and was wearing a cowboy hat, added, “This is a small town trying to help itself.”

 

Think of it as the retail equivalent of the Green Bay Packers — a department store owned by its customers that will not pick up and leave when a better opportunity comes along or a corporate parent takes on too much debt.

 

Community-owned stores are fairly common in Britain, and not unfamiliar in the American West, where remote towns with dwindling populations find it hard to attract or keep businesses. But such stores are almost unknown on the densely populated East Coast. The Saranac Lake Community Store is the first in New York State, its organizers say, and communities in states from Maine to Vermont are watching it closely.

 

Indeed, community ownership seems to resonate in these days of protest and unrest, when frustration with Wall Street, corporate America and a system seemingly rigged against the little guy is running high. But rather than simply grouse, some people are creating alternatives.

 

“It drives me crazy when people criticize how our system works, but they don’t actually go out and try anything,” says Ed Pitts, a lawyer from Syracuse who along with his wife, Meredith Leonard, is a frequent visitor to the area and has invested in the store. “This is more authentic capitalism.”

 

SARANAC LAKE is known more for its natural beauty and clean air than for experimenting with new forms of commerce. Nine miles from the Olympic town of Lake Placid, it is surrounded by lakes and mountains. In the past, it drew summer residents including Albert Einstein and Theodore Roosevelt, as well as tuberculosis patients who came to the village to take “the cure” of fresh air. Today, many of the village’s onetime “cure cottages” are filled with tourists who come in the summer months to hike, canoe and unwind, swelling the population threefold.

 

Come winter, though, the town’s Main Street quiets down and local residents reclaim places like the Blue Moon Café, which dishes up food and gossip. So when the local Ames store closed, few major retailers were interested in taking its place, despite the town’s efforts to woo them.

 

Wal-Mart was the exception. But its interest in building a supercenter larger than two football fields sharply divided villagers. Signs for and against Wal-Mart sprouted on front yards. At heated town meetings, people would shout: “You can’t buy underwear in Saranac Lake!”

 

In the end, Wal-Mart decided not to pursue the store; a spokesman said that “no single factor” contributed to the decision. But the tensions the debate stirred up only made the lack of shopping options more glaring.

 

That’s when a group of residents exploring retail alternatives heard about the Powell Mercantile, a community-owned store in Powell, Wyo., that was born of a similar dilemma. The Merc, as it is known, was established in 2002 after the town’s only department store, part of a chain called Stage, shut down.

 

“There was a great concern that Main Street would fail if we didn’t have a store to replace the Stage,” said Sharon Earhart, who was director of the Powell chamber of commerce at the time. Ms. Earhart and a few other residents raised more than $400,000 from local residents in three months by selling $500 shares, and opened the Merc.

 

The Merc prospered from the start, with fashion brands sharing space with rancher-appropriate Wranglers. When space in an adjacent storefront opened up, it expanded to 14,000 square feet. Now coming up on its 10th anniversary, the Merc does about $600,000 in annual sales and has turned a profit most years, even paying investors a $75 per share dividend in one particularly good year.

 

Powell’s Main Street is now thriving, with a wide range of retail outlets. The store “created a very positive domino effect,” Ms. Earhart said, to the extent that it can be hard to find parking space.

 

When she came to speak at a town hall meeting in Saranac Lake in 2006, nearly 200 people showed up. Following the Powell model, the Saranac Lake organizers put together a business plan and assembled a volunteer board of directors made up of local professionals.

 

The board then approached a local lawyer, Charles Noth, who created a prospectus and filed it with New York State authorities. By limiting the offering to residents of New York, in what is called an intrastate offering, the organizers were able to avoid more complex and costly federal securities regulations. (The Powell Merc also raised money through an intrastate offering.)

 

“I had done a lot of investment proposals but nothing quite like this,” said Mr. Noth, whose family has roots in the area and had recently moved here full time. “The idea of a community store is pretty unique.” He became an investor, as did his brother, the actor Chris Noth (best known for his role as Mr. Big in “Sex and the City”).

 

“We didn’t want it to be a cooperative or nonprofit,” explained Alan Brown, a former banker and the board’s treasurer (and no relation to Pat and Bob Brown). “We wanted it to be just another business on Main Street.”

 

It was also important that it be widely owned, so the shares were priced at $100 and the amount any one person could buy was capped at $10,000. Shares can be bought and sold or willed to future generations. The store’s projected near-term annual revenues of $350,000 to $400,000 will most likely be eaten up by operating expenses, said Melinda Little, the store’s interim board president, but in the future, investors could receive dividends.

 

Getting the first $80,000 was easy, but the board found it hard to keep people’s interest and raise new funds, especially as the recession hit. Board members organized fund-raisers to keep the project in front of people. One year, the board had a float in the Winter Carnival, featuring a clothesline with underwear hanging on it. The share offering will close in December.

 

Many residents, and even board members, were skeptical that the store would ever open. “We had our dark hours,” said Mr. Brown, the treasurer.

 

THOSE have been dispelled, for now. The first day, the store rang up $7,000 in receipts. Not surprisingly, underwear was a big seller.

 

“This is cool,” said Diane Kelting, who was waiting in line to buy a gray poly-rayon cardigan ($36.99) and a “hard to find” bra. “I have two young daughters and I can bring them in here now rather than shopping online,” added Ms. Kelting, who is not an investor in the store.

 

Heidi Kretser, who also attended the opening and is an investor, said online shopping had drawbacks. “Nowadays you don’t even know if the reviews are genuine. If I can actually see it and feel it and talk to someone about it, it just makes for a nicer shopping experience.”

 

For Ms. Kretser, a coordinator with the Wildlife Conservation Society who grew up in the area, the store is about more than convenience: “I’ve always loved the idea of thriving hamlets throughout the Adirondacks, and part of that is healthy downtowns.” Like other residents, she would sometimes drive the 50 miles to shop at the big box stores in Plattsburgh, “which could be Anywhere, America.”

 

Big boxes may offer a wide variety, she said, as her daughter Leena selected some pink yarn and buttons and her son Owen ran over clutching a knit animal hat. But “the size is not compatible with communities like ours,” she said. “And money does not stay local.”

 

And profit? “If we end up with a profit that’s another perk, but we’re in it for the community,” Ms. Kretser said. The Saranac Lake Community Store and others like it reflect a growing shift among some communities to lessen their dependence on global businesses and invest their resources in homegrown enterprises that contribute to the welfare of the community. These efforts flow from studies showing that, dollar for dollar, locally owned companies contribute more to local economies than corporate chains. That is because more money stays local rather than leaking out to a distant headquarters.

 

In a recent analysis of nearly 3,000 rural and urban areas across the United States, a pair of Pennsylvania State University economists found that the areas with more small, locally owned businesses (with fewer than 100 employees) had greater per capita income growth over the period from 2000 to 2007, while the presence of larger, nonlocal firms depressed economic growth.

 

“There is definitely a trend towards community-rooted alternatives,” said Stacy Mitchell, a senior researcher at the Institute for Local Self Reliance, a nonprofit research and educational organization. Citing the Occupy Wall Street protests and Move Your Money campaigns, she said, “More people are interested in taking the economy back.”

 

Cooperatives — nonprofit businesses like food stores and credit unions owned by and run on behalf of their members — are one common manifestation of the trend. In a co-op, each member gets one vote, and excess revenue not reinvested in the business is distributed among members either as rebates or, in the case of credit unions, lower fees and better interest rates. In the United States, a University of Wisconsin study estimated, there are more than 29,000 co-ops generating $654 billion in revenue, and the number is growing.

 

Community-owned stores are not as well known and are structured as profit-making corporations, but the aim is the same: to keep ownership and control in the community, and to share the prosperity.

 

The Saranac Lake Community Store is a C corporation, the typical big business form, but the resemblance ends there. If and when there are profits that are not plowed back into the store, they will be distributed to investors — many of whom are also the store’s customers. The store’s three employees are paid a modest salary, but one that is above average for the area, and receive health benefits and paid sick days. “That was very important to us,” said Ms. Little, the board president.

 

THE store’s planners sought advice from residents and merchants to determine what was most needed — an effort that continues. Under the title “product offering suggestions,” on a notebook placed near the store’s checkout counter, shoppers had scrawled “larger hats and gloves,” “watchbands” and “women’s flannel-lined jeans.”

 

The planners also tried to avoid competing directly against local merchants, who mainly line half a dozen blocks along Main Street and Broadway. For example, the store offers a limited shoe line, since there are shoe stores in town, and sticks to brands like Minnetonka moccasins, once made in nearby Malone and not carried elsewhere in town. The strategy appears to have won over local merchants. The Coakley Ace hardware down the street offered the store discounted paint and supplies, while the nearby Rice Furniture provided carpet at cost.

 

“I’m of the belief that if you have more offerings in the community, more people will view it as a place to shop,” said Pete Wilson, owner of Major Plowshares, an Army-Navy store in town. “It’s giving people more reason to stay downtown, and that should benefit other retailers.” He bought a share, along with one for each of his two daughters.

 

But community stores are not for everyone. Even with the backing of a local bank and economic development corporation, organizers of a proposed community store in Greenfield, Mass., returned $60,000 to investors this year after concluding that it would be difficult to raise the remaining money needed.

 

And there is no denying the challenges of competing with mega-retailers whose scale and clout give them enormous cost advantages. Craig Waters, Saranac Lake Community Store’s general manager, has had to be creative, stocking American-made products as much as possible and paying reduced prices for merchandise that has not sold at brand-name stores. Mr. Waters, who lives in Lake Placid, also relies on longstanding connections with suppliers. He worked for decades as a buyer and manager for May Department Stores, which merged with Federated Department Stores, now Macy’s Inc., in 2005.

 

The prices appeared reasonable. Brightly colored rubber rain boots for children were $16.99; women’s all-cotton sleep pants and tank top (in a moose print) were $19.99 and $12.99. A waffle-knit, fleece-lined men’s hoodie was $59.99.

 

The Saranac Lake store is off to a strong start, although the trick will be to keep people coming back after the holiday season — and the novelty — have worn off. “We had a lot of people saying it wouldn’t work — and it might not,” said Mr. Wilson, the owner of Major Plowshares. But its existence could set an example for other disenfranchised communities and perhaps prompt shoppers and residents to think about where their dollars go.

 

“Most people are coming in to pick up some thread or clothing. They’re not coming in to get a political lesson,” said Mr. Pitts, the Syracuse lawyer. “But it’s nice to have a place that you can point to as an alternative.”

 

Published by New York Times, 11/13/11

Tucson Time Traders – 2011 Nov

We’re starting a local Timebank for the Tucson region.  If you’re interested in joining, please sign up at tucson.timebanks.org/user/register, and/or contact us by email – timetraders(at)sustainabletucson.org

We’ll be at the Sustainable Tucson General Meeting on Food Security on November 14 to give information about time banking and our local timebank, and help you sign up online.

We’re also hosting a Timebank community potluck & orientation meeting on Tuesday November 22 at the Tucson Ward 3 Office (Grant & Vine).  Please join us!

 

[ This article is out of date.
For current information on Tucson Time Traders, please go to
www.sustainabletucson.org/tucson-time-traders ]

 

TUCSON TIME TRADERS

Building Tucson’s Empowerment Network 1 Hour at a Time

 

What Is A Time Bank?

A TimeBank is a group of people who trade an hour of work for an hour of work. The time is banked so you can trade accumulated hours with anyone within the network.

TimeBanking is a rapidly growing movement that allows people to trade assistance, and builds healthy communities.

 

Missions and Values

  • We are all assets.
  • Redefining work – to value whatever it takes to raise healthy children, build strong families, revitalize neighborhoods, make democracy work, advance social justice, make the planet sustainable.
  • Reciprocity – “How can I help you?” becomes “How can we help each other build the world we both will live in?”
  • We need each other – Networks are stronger than individuals. People help each other reweave communities of support, strength and trust.
  • Respect – Every human being matters.

 

Intrigued?

Go to http://tucson.timebanks.org/ for more information,
Open an account – tucson.timebanks.org/user/register,
Contact us by email – timetraders(at)sustainabletucson.org

GMO Free Project Pure Food Happy Hour 11.11.11

GMO Free Project of Tucson presents Pure Food Happy Hour 11.11.11

Tasty Gluten-Free/Non-GMO/Organic Food

that’s good for you – at happy hour prices.

Gluten-free/non-GMO info, prizes,

mixing & meeting like-minded people.

Learn about your gluten free and non-GMO choices in Tucson.

Friday, November 11, 2011

3:00 to 6:00 pm
Picazzo’s Organic Italian Kitchen

7850 N. Oracle Road (south of Magee, near Trader Joe’s)

Cost:  Whatever you purchase

Please RSVP to 481-1128 or info@gmofreeprojectoftucson.org


GMO Free Project of Tucson
www.gmofreeprojectoftucson.org
Live GMO Free!
Pick up a copy of the non-GMO shopping guide at New Life Health Center
– Speedway or New Life Health Center – Ajo.
Download one at www.gmofreeprojectoftucson.org or responsibletechnology.org

The Dark Side of the ‘Green’ City

The Dark Side of the ‘Green’ City
By Andrew Ross

PHOENIX

The struggle to slow global warming will be won or lost in cities, which emit 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases. So “greening” the city is all the rage now. But if policy makers end up focusing only on those who can afford the low-carbon technologies associated with the new environmental conscientiousness, the movement for sustainability may end up exacerbating climate change rather than ameliorating it.

While cities like Portland, Seattle and San Francisco are lauded for sustainability, the challenges faced by Phoenix, a poster child of Sunbelt sprawl, are more typical and more revealing. In 2009, Mayor Phil Gordon announced plans to make Phoenix the “greenest city” in the United States. Eyebrows were raised, and rightly so. According to the state’s leading climatologist, central Arizona is in the “bull’s eye” of climate change, warming up and drying out faster than any other region in the Northern Hemisphere. The Southwest has been on a drought watch 12 years and counting, despite outsized runoff last winter to the upper Colorado River, a major water supply for the subdivisions of the Valley of the Sun.

Across that valley lies 1,000 square miles of low-density tract housing, where few signs of greening are evident. That’s no surprise, given the economic free fall of a region that had been wholly dependent on the homebuilding industry. Property values in parts of metro Phoenix have dropped by 80 percent, and some neighborhoods are close to being declared “beyond recovery.”

In the Arizona Legislature, talk of global warming is verboten and Republican lawmakers can be heard arguing for the positive qualities of greenhouse gases. Most politicians are still praying for another housing boom on the urban fringe; they have no Plan B, least of all a low-carbon one. Mr. Gordon, a Democrat who took office in 2004, has risen to the challenge. But the vast inequalities of the metro area could blunt the impact of his sustainability plans.

Those looking for ecotopia can find pockets of it in the prosperous upland enclaves of Scottsdale, Paradise Valley and North Phoenix. Hybrid vehicles, LEED-certified custom homes with solar roofs and xeriscaped yards, which do not require irrigation, are popular here, and voter support for the preservation of open space runs high. By contrast, South Phoenix is home to 40 percent of the city’s hazardous industrial emissions and America’s dirtiest ZIP code, while the inner-ring Phoenix suburbs, as a legacy of cold-war era industries, suffer from some of the worst groundwater contamination in the nation.

Whereas uptown populations are increasingly sequestered in green showpiece zones, residents in low-lying areas who cannot afford the low-carbon lifestyle are struggling to breathe fresh air or are even trapped in cancer clusters. You can find this pattern in many American cities. The problem is that the carbon savings to be gotten out of this upscale demographic — which represents one in five American adults and is known as Lohas, an acronym for “lifestyles of health and sustainability” — can’t outweigh the commercial neglect of the other 80 percent. If we are to moderate climate change, the green wave has to lift all vessels.

Solar chargers and energy-efficient appliances are fine, but unless technological fixes take into account the needs of low-income residents, they will end up as lifestyle add-ons for the affluent. Phoenix’s fledgling light-rail system should be expanded to serve more diverse neighborhoods, and green jobs should be created in the central city, not the sprawling suburbs. Arizona has some of the best solar exposure in the world, but it allows monopolistic utilities to impose a regressive surcharge on all customers to subsidize roof-panel installation by the well-heeled ones. Instead of green modifications to master-planned communities at the urban fringe, there should be concerted “infill” investment in central city areas now dotted with vacant lots.

In a desert metropolis, the choice between hoarding and sharing has consequences for all residents. Their predecessors — the Hohokam people, irrigation farmers who subsisted for over a thousand years around a vast canal network in the Phoenix Basin — faced a similar test, and ultimately failed. The remnants of Hohokam canals and pit houses are a potent reminder of ecological collapse; no other American city sits atop such an eloquent allegory.

Published 11-6-2011, The New York Times

Andrew Ross is a professor of social and cultural analysis at New York University and author of Bird on Fire: Lessons From the World’s Least Sustainable City.

Adapting to Our New Economic Reality

Welcome to the Post-Growth Economy

“As humanity has chewed through the low-hanging fruit of our natural resources and has turned to lower-grade and more expensive ores and fuels, managers of the economy have attempted to keep growth going by piling up debt in the mistaken belief that it is money that makes the economy run rather than energy and raw materials. Now we’ve reached limits to government and consumer debt, and the realization of that fact is sending financial markets into fibrillation. If energy supplies and debt are both stretched tight, that means more economic growth isn’t possible. Worse, if policy makers fail to realize this and continue assuming that the current crisis is merely another turning of the business cycle, then we lose whatever opportunity still remains to avert a crash that could bring civilization to its knees.”  Read more….

Don’t let Arizona regulators pull the plug on solar

(from The Vote Solar Initiative www.votesolar.org)

Friends,

Your elected utility regulators at the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) are considering cutting funding for the state’s solar programs. Can you help us urge the ACC to keep Arizona’s solar growth and job creation on track?

The ACC is currently reviewing the 2012 Renewable Energy Implementation Plans for three major Arizona electric utilities – Arizona Public Service, Tucson Electric Power, and UNS Electric. The ACC’s decision on what these 2012 plans look like will have a big impact on how many more solar rooftops we see in Arizona for years to come.

Now the bad news: The Commission just published a report revealing that they are considering decreasing the amount of funding available for residential and commercial solar programs as part of these 2012 plans, compared with levels of support in recent years. Going that route will derail Arizona solar adoption, slow business growth, and represent a giant step backward for the state’s solar leadership.

Arizona energy consumers have demonstrated over and over that they strongly support the development of solar and other renewables – even if it costs a few extra dollars in the near term. So why would the ACC choose to go the other way?

Please help us encourage the ACC to represent their constituents’ interest, make the right choice, and maintain or increase support for Arizona’s growing residential and commercial solar markets.

Click here to send a note to your five Commissioners asking for their continued solar support.

Onwards,
Susannah + team

The Vote Solar Initiative
300 Brannan Street, Suite 609
San Francisco, CA 94107
www.votesolar.org

http://twitter.com/votesolar

Introduction to Growing Food at Home – Sonoran Permaculture Guild

The future of sustainable agriculture will be in small to medium scale organic food gardens grown right in our cities.  In this workshop that includes hands-on work, you will learn how to set up a complete garden system.

We will show you how to increase your garden’s health, production, and nutrient value, using an integrated system of compost mulch, and organic soil amendments to improve fertility, structure, and life in your soil.  As a bonus you will see how chickens and earthworms can be integrated into your home food garden system also.

Time: November 12th, Saturday 9 AM to 1 PM

Cost: $39 – includes all course materials.  Taught by Rudy Poe and Leona Davis.  Contact Leona Davis at (520) 205-0067 or leonafdavis(at)gmail.com for registration. Class limit is 15 participants.

Website: www.sonoranpermaculture.org

Mesquite Milling at Santa Cruz River Farmers’ Market

Many in Tucson are familiar with the shady mesquite trees that fill our neighborhoods, but few may know that these native trees also provide us with an excellent source of food. Mesquite pods are a versatile food that may be ground up into a nutritious flour or processed to make sweeteners. Unfortunately, mesquite seeds are difficult to open using home methods.  On Nov. 17th, the Santa Cruz River Farmers’ Market will partner with Desert Harvesters to provide an easier way to process these abundant seeds.  For 5$, those wishing to grind their clean and dry mesquite pods, can bring them to the Santa Cruz River Farmers’ Market to be milled into flour they can take home and bake with.

The mesquite milling is open to the public and runs from 3:00 PM to 6:00 PM. Shoppers will also be able to enjoy children’s activities, free bike tune ups and live music.   All of the Community Food Bank farmers’ markets accept SNAP (food stamps), WIC checks, Arizona Farmers Market Nutrition vouchers, cash, credit and debit cards.  Santa Cruz River Farmers’ Market runs every Thursday from 3:00 PM – 6:00 PM at El Mercado San Agustin, located at 100. S. Avenida del Convento, west of 1-10, near the corner of Congress and Grande. For more information call: 520-882-3304.

Occupy Tucson Event: Tar Sands Keystone XL Pipeline Protest

Event: Occupy Tucson: Tar Sands Keystone XL Pipeline: Decision by Obama on behalf of the American People
Sunday, November 6, 11:30–12:30, followed by General Assembly meeting.
Amory Park, 221 S. 6th Ave. ??? moved to Veinte de Agosto Park at Church & Congress ???

This Sunday, exactly one year before the next presidential election, protesters plan to encircle the White House in the hope of convincing President Obama to reject the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

In solidarity and support, Tucsonans concerned about climate change, other environmental threats and overdependence on fossil fuels will gather at Armory Park. Together with Occupy Tucson, they will echo the White House action with a circling of the park, invited speakers, and an open mike for public comments.

11:30 a.m.: Open mike for XL Pipeline comments
12:00–12:20: Formal speakers addressing the impact of the XL Pipeline on the Environment, Economy, Equity.
12:20–12:30: Ceremonial circling of the White House (cake) in solidarity with same-day Washington DC action.
12:30:  “Have your cake and eat it too”: cake cutting and eating. Beginning of Occupy Tucson General Assembly meeting.

President Obama has the executive decision-making power to stop or allow a pipeline from Canada to transport tar sands oil to refineries in Texas. He must determine whether the pipeline is in our national interest.

Aside from the risks of tragic damage to farmland, soil, and the groundwater sources that supply the midsection of our country, the release of carbon emissions from this very dirty fuel source could mean “game over” in the fight against global warming, overwhelming other efforts to keep climate change within a range to which humans can adapt.

Clean and renewable energy sources are the logical and economical alternative if fossil fuel subsidies, environmental destruction, and health costs are taken into account. Americans must direct their energies towards restoring the environment upon which we depend and to transition our cultural goals away from quantity consumption and towards quality of life.

Garden Mentor Program – Community Food Bank

Do you grow your own vegetables? Become a Garden Mentor with the Community Food Bank of Southern Arizona and help others learn!

Garden Mentors work with a new home or school gardener for two growing seasons, supporting them as they gain the tools to produce their own food.

For more information or to sign up as a Garden Mentor, contact Brook Bernini at 882-3273 or bbernini(at)communityfoodbank.org

Move Your Money: Campaign grows to divest from “Too Big to Fail” banks to local banks, credit unions

Published by Democracy Now! on Wed, 11/02/2011
by Amy Goodman

As participants in the Occupy Wall Street movement continue protesting the record profits made by banks bailed out by taxpayer money, a group of grassroots activists are hitting America’s largest banks—including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo—where it hurts most: the wallet. Dubbing this Saturday, Nov. 5 as “Bank Transfer Day,” activists are urging people to move their money out of the banks deemed “too big to fail” into local community banks and credit unions. Bank Transfer Day draws on an idea popularized by filmmaker Eugene Jarecki, economist Rob Johnson and columnist Arianna Huffington, among others. In 2010, they created the short film called “Move Your Money,” which became a viral sensation. We speak with filmmaker Eugene Jarecki.

AMY GOODMAN: We turn here to New York and the Occupy movement. As participants in Occupy Wall Street continue protesting the record profits made by banks bailed out by taxpayer money, a group of grassroots activists are hitting JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo where it hurts most: the wallet. Dubbing this Saturday as “Bank Transfer Day,” activists are urging people to move their money out of the largest banks in the country into local community banks and credit unions.

Bank Transfer Day draws on an idea popularized by filmmaker Eugene Jarecki, economist Rob Johnson, and columnist Arianna Huffington, among others. In 2010, they created the short film Move Your Money, which became a viral sensation.

For more on the Move Your Money proposal, I’m joined here in New York by filmmaker Eugene Jarecki. His works include Why We Fight, which won the 2005 Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival, and The Trials of Henry Kissinger, among others.

Eugene, welcome to Democracy Now!

EUGENE JARECKI: Thank you.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about how this movement began.

EUGENE JARECKI: Well, it’s a wonderful story. Really, it was an idea among some friends. I mean, I had a lucky chance to have a Christmas dinner with Arianna Huffington. Everybody should be so lucky. It was very interesting. And a few people sat around, and we talked about, where is the outrage? All this is going on with these “too big to fail” banks. Banks fail, and they get bailed out. We people, when we fail, nobody bails us out. Where’s the outrage? And this “where is the outrage” question drove us, at the table, to come up with this idea of, well, what if we told people to just move their money? Why don’t people just move their money? And that became a bit of a slogan, literally during dinner.

And I went off, and I made a short film, which is a three-minute film that did go viral and was this film called Move Your Money. And what it did was it took the movie It’s a Wonderful Life, and it said to people, if you’ve ever watched It’s a Wonderful Life, and you know all the points you usually get choked up and you cry for George Bailey, because you love George Bailey—you love George Bailey because he’s a small community banker, and you don’t like Mr. Potter, because he’s a rapacious, predatory large banker. And if you don’t like Mr. Potter, you should get your money away from Mr. Potter and get it with George Bailey. Seems sort of obvious that people should just do what they most idealize. So that’s where it started. Now it has a life of its own.

AMY GOODMAN: Last month, about two dozen people were arrested at a Citibank branch here in Manhattan when they attempted to move their money out of the bank. The protesters were reportedly locked into the bank, then detained. Bank officials accused the protesters of being disruptive. Video shot outside the bank shows an undercover police officer dragging one woman into the bank and then arresting her.

EUGENE JARECKI: Well, we’re in a wonderful new world. I mean, there is a lot of stuff happening around this country. For example, this Saturday, November 5, is the Bank Transfer Day. That’s a—I woke up one morning, read the paper that people were doing something called Bank Transfer Day. What is it? It’s a day where you move your money. You take your money out of the “too big to fail” banks that have so damaged the American people and so benefited at our expense, and you move it into small community banks, credit unions.

And there’s a way to do that. You can go to moveyourmoney.info, and you can type in your zip code, and you can learn about banks in your area that are good, that are sound, that are small, that are, you know, in the interest of your community.

But what’s amazing is, things like Bank Transfer Day, these activities that are happening, they’re happening with a life of their own. You asked me when I came on the program, am I sort of involved or responsible? No. This is happening all over the country. It’s happening in a viral kind of way, in a way that’s very hard to stop. And I think it’s because people find the idea exciting. They find it morally right. And they know it’s in the interest of the future. And they’re doing it. And I think everybody should come out on Saturday and move their money, absolutely. It’s a big deal.

AMY GOODMAN: Eugene Jarecki created the short film Move Your Money in 2010 that went viral. And now that’s what a lot of people are going to be doing this Saturday, November 5th.

 

Local Foods Event at Antigone Books

We have an upcoming local foods event at Antigone Books (411 N. 4th Avenue) that we thought you might enjoy.

Friday, November 18, 7 PM: Join us for a lively discussion with two experts in local, seasonal and sustainable food, each of whom has a new cookbook: Cooking the Wild Southwest by Carolyn Niethammer & Southwest Comfort Food by Marilyn Noble. Discussion will be moderated by local foodie, Linda McKittrick.

Niethammer’s book opens a window on the edible bounty of the southwestern desert, offering recipes to help bring these plants to your table. She includes basic information, harvesting techniques and recipes utilizing 23 different desert plants. Noble’s book includes over 100 recipes for Southwest-influenced and slow-cooked dishes such as southwest chicken served with chorizo-stuffed artichokes.

This event is free to the public, and samples will be served!

http://antigonebooks.com/event/southwest-cookbook-event

Photovoltaics Class at Bean Tree – Nov 7-11

Understanding PV (photovoltaics) with Ed Eaton, guest instructor

November 7-11 at Bean Tree Farm

Registration & info about this class: http://solarenergyclasses.com/workshops

Ed Eaton an ISP certified Master Trainer of Photovoltaics, has taught 3000+ students, and founded the Tucson Solar Potluck & Exhibition, now in it’s 30th year. Ed’s educational demonstrations and events for the general public, schools, environmental groups and energy professionals have led to installations of photovoltaics in school camps, state parks, and environmental learning centers. Lodging for this week-long class is available on site by reservation.

More info: www.beantreefarm.com or beantreefarm(at)gmail.com

Eco-Sanitation Course with David Omick & Brad Lancaster – Dec 5-7

Eco-Sanitation Course with David Omick & Brad Lancaster

December 5 – 7 in Tucson

Note: Dates have changed from those previously advertized. Early registration extended to Oct 30. Early registration cost is $250. Scholarships are available.

Learn cutting-edge principles in simple living technology in a hands-on setting – join WMG for a Watershed Technical Training in Eco-Sanitation!

Expert instructors David Omick and Brad Lancaster will provide an introduction to the concept of eco-sanitation, an overview and tour of various types of composting toilets, and information on human and environmental health considerations and social acceptability challenges. Students will participate in the design and hands-on construction of a composting toilet.

This training is open to professionals, educators, and activists from a wide variety of backgrounds who have the capacity to implement the principles of eco-sanitation presented in the course, either professionally or personally.

Apply by October 30 for the reduced course fee! For more information and to apply, download the full course announcement and application, available at http://www.watershedmg.org/node/268 or contact Rhiwena Slack at rslack(at)watershedmg.org or 520-396-3266.

Fall Harvest Fest at Santa Cruz River Farmers’ Market

Join us on Thursday Oct. 27th (3pm- 6pm) for family fun at Santa Cruz River Farmers’ Market with a veggie scavenger hunt and pumpkin decorating!

When you come to the market you can also expect to find a colorful variety of locally grown organic foods including fresh fruits and veggies, eggs, honey and baked goods.

We are located at Mercado San Agustin, on 100 S. Avenida del Convento, just west of 1-10 off of Congress. We accept foods stamps, WIC checks, cash, credit and debit.  For more information, please contact Monica at 882-3304 or mgarcia(at)communityfoodbank.org.

Hope to see you there!

Sustainability Lessons for the United States


How Germany became Europe’s green leader: A look at four decades of sustainable policymaking

by Ralph Buehler, Arne Jungjohann, Melissa Keeley, Michael Mehling

In Brief

Over the last 40 years, all levels of government in Germany have retooled policies to promote growth that is more environmentally sustainable. Germany’s experiences can provide useful lessons for the United States (and other nations) as policymakers consider options for “green” economic transformation. Our analysis focuses on four case studies from Germany in the areas of energy, urban infrastructure, and transportation. We show how political challenges to the implementation of green policies were overcome and how sustainability programs were made politically acceptable at the local, state, and federal levels of government. Within the three highlighted sectors, we identify potential opportunities and barriers to policy transfer from Germany to the United States, concluding with specific lessons for policy development and implementation.

Key Concepts

  • Germany’s experience with policies aimed at “greening” the economy provides several lessons for the United States about how to make sustainability politically acceptable in a federal system of government:
  • Start small and implement policies in stages. Many sustainability policies in Germany were first implemented at a small geographic scale or with a small scope. Successful pilot projects were expanded in stages over time.
  • There is no silver bullet. Policies have to be coordinated and integrated across sectors and levels of government to achieve maximum effectiveness.
  • Foster citizen participation and communicate policies effectively. Citizen input reduces potential legal challenges, increases public acceptance, and has the potential to improve projects and outcomes.
  • Find innovative solutions and embrace bipartisanship. Successful green policies in Germany were designed to meet the needs of multiple constituents.

How does one “green” an economy? For governments seeking a cleaner, more efficient, and ultimately more sustainable pathway to economic prosperity, this question entails both promise and great challenges. For one, the scale of transformation it requires is exceptionally daunting: in his 2011 State of the Union speech, for instance, President Barack Obama called on the United States to generate 80 percent of its electricity from clean energy sources and to give 80 percent of Americans access to high-speed rail, both within 25 years.1 Compared to where the country stands now, these objectives presuppose unprecedented levels of investment in new infrastructure, new technologies, and relevant skills and education; yet at the same time, they also hold the prospect of new opportunities for job growth, innovation, industrial efficiency, and energy independence. With that in mind, one will invariably wonder, is such a transformation feasible at a time of constrained public budgets and slowly recovering economies? And perhaps more importantly, are the expected benefits of such a green transformation compelling enough to persuade a public that is exposed to conflicting messages about the underlying rationale, is critical of new regulation and expenditure, and generally is disillusioned with political authority?

Fortunately, the green transformation of economies is no longer a theoretical concept. Several nations have put the green economy to the test. While far from being the only country to venture down this path, Germany has earned wide recognition for its successful alignment of prosperous and sustainable growth. Unlike many of its European neighbors, Germany has emerged from the recent recession with a robust economy, thanks in large part to flourishing exports. Germany has a dominant market share in various green technologies as well as a substantial part of its workforce employed in the environmental sector.2 Meanwhile, greenhouse gas emissions have fallen in absolute terms, effectively decoupling economic growth from Germany’s environmental footprint.

Admittedly, not all factors contributing to this success story can be replicated in other countries and regions: challenged with scarce natural resources and a high population density, Germans have traditionally been forced to embrace sustainability in virtually all facets of economic activity, from land use to transportation. Historical transition processes, such as postwar reconstruction and, more recently, the reunification of East and West Germany, also resulted in the renewal of infrastructure and replacement of outdated industrial facilities.

Still, the greening of the German economy is also unmistakably the product of several decades of targeted policy design and implementation, particularly in the past decade. Policies related to environmental protection and resource conservation have been mainstreamed in all areas of economic activity and have been described by a former government minister as central to Germany’s recent success: “green policy is merely good industrial policy.”3 Drawing on a series of relevant case studies, this article shows that the transformation witnessed in Germany would not have been conceivable without the policy decisions that preceded it. Each case study—energy taxation, renewable-energy promotion, green infrastructure, and sustainable transportation—offers valuable insights into how to design and implement green policies.

Photo: Green roofs like this one in Berlin, Germany, support specialized, hearty vegetation and provide environmental services such as stormwater retention, urban heat island effect amelioration, habitat for urban wildlife, and energy savings resulting from better thermal insulation.

Pricing Energy for Jobs and Resource Conservation: Germany’s Energy Tax Reform

After months of heated political debate, especially regarding the role of nuclear power in Germany’s energy mix, the federal government adopted its new Energy Concept document in September 2010, setting out a broad framework for German energy policy until 2050. Developed by the ruling center-right coalition, this document aims at turning Germany into one of the “most energy efficient and greenest economies in the world, while enjoying competitive energy prices and a high level of prosperity.”4 In line with a campaign pledge set out in the government’s coalition agreement, the new energy policy defines ambitious targets for the medium and longer term: primary energy consumption is to fall by 20 percent from 2008 levels by 2020, and at least 50 percent by 2050; renewable energy is to account for 18 percent of final energy consumption in 2020, and at least 80 percent of electricity consumption in 2050; and greenhouse gas emissions are to see cuts of 40 percent by 2020 and at least 80 percent by 2050, both relative to 1990 levels.

Energy pricing through taxes and other fiscal instruments has traditionally held a prominent position in the German energy policy mix. As any visitor to Germany will be quick to notice, gasoline prices are significantly higher than in most other regions: in early 2011, a gallon of regular gasoline cost over U.S.$7, more than double the average price in the United States. The price difference is almost entirely due to higher tax rates on oil and other fuels, a system of excise taxes that dates back to prewar Germany and has since been harmonized at the European level. It was not until the late 1990s, however, that energy taxation also became a vehicle for Germany’s green agenda. In 1998, a center-left coalition of Social Democrats and Green Party members pledged to introduce new fiscal instruments to reduce the tax burden on labor and shift part of it to energy consumption. This campaign promise sought to harness the multiple dividends invoked by advocates of environmental taxes, including greater flexibility and cost efficiency than traditional regulation, incentives to develop innovative clean technologies, and the ability to raise revenues for public investments or tax cuts in other areas, such as labor costs.5

In 1999, the German legislature passed the Ecological Tax Reform Act, which mandated gradual increases in the tax rates on oil and gas and introduced a new levy on electricity.6 This initiative was by no means uncontroversial. From the outset, it encountered public opposition triggered by rising prices for crude oil and concerns over industrial competitiveness. Resistance to this measure was, in fact, so great that many observers expected the energy tax project to be a casualty of partisan politics. And yet, in 2006, new legislation by the European Union and a change of government in Germany, coupled with a yawning gap in the federal budget, heralded a new chapter in German energy taxation. That year, the legislature adopted a comprehensive Energy Tax Act, setting up a common fiscal framework for energy products through harmonized definitions, taxation rules, and exemptions.7 This important step led to a complete revision of the framework for energy taxation in Germany, effectively ending years of deadlock in Parliament; but critics were also quick to say it would do little to help transform the German economy. Nearly half a decade later, what has the German energy tax reform achieved?

A Positive Macroeconomic Balance

Between 1999 and 2003, Germany’s energy tax reform resulted in a gradual increase in energy costs. A number of exceptions motivated by social and economic considerations were initially included to safeguard the competitiveness of the manufacturing, agricultural, and forestry sectors and to avoid undue hardship for lower-income households. Overall, however, the fiscal burden resulting from the energy tax reform has been moderate compared to already existing taxes: for instance, only €0.15 of the €0.66 currently charged as taxes on every liter of gasoline is a result of the tax reform, with the far greater share originating in the excise taxes already imposed prior to 1999. Altogether, the share of environmentally motivated taxes in the overall tax revenue only rose from 5.2 percent in 1998 to 6.5 percent in 2003 and has since declined again to 5.3 percent in 2008, nearly the level where it started in 1999.8 Not only does this reflect the fact that other tax categories—notably value-added taxation—have seen greater increases in recent years, but it also is a direct consequence of changing energy consumption patterns.

Fossil fuel consumption has continually declined in Germany since the introduction of the energy tax reform. According to the German Federal Statistical Office, gasoline consumption in 2000 decreased by 4.5 percent compared to the previous year, and it continued to decrease in 2001 and 2002 by 3 and 3.3 percent, respectively, exceeding the previous average reduction of 2 percent due to general improvements in vehicle technology and transportation planning. The targeted increase in energy costs has also created an identifiable incentive for behavioral change in other sectors, encouraging deployment of energy-efficient technologies and processes, including alternative energy sources. Reductions of CO2 emissions are estimated to have reached 3 percent annually, equivalent to 24 million metric tons of CO2.9 At the same time, revenues of the energy tax reform have been almost fully returned to taxpayers, with the largest share used for a gradual reduction of social security contributions. In 2003, for instance, roughly €16.1 billion raised through the tax reform was used to reduce and stabilize nonwage labor costs, allowing pension contributions to be lowered by 1.7 percent.10 With hiring rendered less expensive, the energy tax reform has helped promote employment and has contributed to the creation of an estimated 250,000 new jobs. A smaller fraction of proceeds has been used to subsidize the deployment of renewable-energy projects and the modernization of buildings.

Lessons from Energy Pricing in Germany

Like everywhere else, taxes are a politically sensitive issue in Germany. Unsurprisingly, opponents of the energy tax reform—including the current ruling coalition—were quick to launch a determined media campaign against the proposed legislation. Given the complexities of its design, it was easy for critics to portray the tax reform as a mere increase in the fiscal burden, while downplaying or disputing the accompanying reduction in labor costs and expected employment benefits. Germany’s parliamentary system and its strict party discipline allowed the governing coalition at the time to pass the tax reform against partisan resistance. In countries with different legislative processes, that option may not be available. Ironically, the need to close a growing budget deficit has made the current conservative government, previously an ardent adversary of environmentally motivated taxes, now dependent on the revenue created by the energy tax. As the rationale and benefits of the tax reform have become more widely known, there has been greater public acceptance of the incremental increase in energy cost.

Fea_Germany_Figure2.jpg
Photo credit: Ralph Buehler. The light rail system in the car-free city center of Freiburg, Germany. In the mid-1970s Freiburg was the first German city to ban cars from a network of streets in its city center.

It stands to reason that better communication in the initial stages of the tax reform could have alleviated some of the early concerns. Also, its portrayal as an environmentally motivated tax may have incurred avoidable partisan strife; focusing on the innovation and employment benefits of the proposed tax may have been strategically preferable. And clearly, a gradual and transparent trajectory of rate hikes was of central importance in making the tax reform acceptable in the first place. Ultimately, however, the positive outcome of the tax reform is the most compelling lesson from the German experience: contrary to the early fears, behavioral change and innovation prompted by the rising energy prices have actually strengthened the German economy. Energy-efficient technologies are now among the fastest-growing export products, and the incentive to reduce energy use has helped the German economy become more resilient to fluctuations in global oil and gas prices. Overall, greater efficiency throughout the economy has translated into lower energy costs for households and industry. Despite significantly higher energy tax rates, average German utility bills and fuel expenditures tend to match or lie below those seen in the United States. As the Federal Environmental Agency has concluded, the Ecological Tax Reform Act delivered on its promise of improved labor conditions and greater sustainability, resulting in what the agency describes—in a typically German understatement—as a “positive macroeconomic balance.”11

Promoting Renewable Energy

As a member state of the European Union (EU), Germany’s energy policies are driven by a mix of national and European legislation. Formally, the 27 EU member states regulate energy policies within their own national borders. However, EU treaty provisions concerning the European internal market, free competition, and environmental protection have created a European energy policy.12

In 2009, a major piece of renewable-energy legislation was passed as part of an overall climate and energy package. The European Union’s Renewable Energy Directive13 requires each member state to increase its share of renewable energy—such as solar, wind power, biomass, or hydroelectric—to raise the overall share from 8.5 percent in 2010 to 20 percent by 2020 across all sectors (e.g., power generation, heating and cooling, and transportation fuels).

Achievements in Renewable Energy

Germany has seen a remarkable expansion of renewable energy in the last decade. The share of renewable energy in electricity generation rose from 6 percent in 2000 to 16 percent in 2009.14 Over this time, the German government revised its own targets twice, given that previous targets had been exceeded ahead of schedule. The German government is expecting a share of 38 percent renewable power by 2020 and continues to drive the transformation “towards an energy system based completely on renewable energies.”15,16

The economic benefits of this development are impressive. By 2010, the field of renewable-energy-related jobs employed around 340,000 people, most of them in biomass, wind power, and solar.17 In comparison, the German lignite industry employs only 50,000 people—from mining to the power plant.18 The key policy responsible for this success is the Renewable Energy Sources Act, first enacted in April 2000.19 This feed-in tariff policy is embedded in a climate and energy policy framework that promotes renewable energy and efficiency technologies, including laws to encourage combined-heat-and-power plants, a cap and trade system, the energy tax reform described earlier in the article, and several additional measures. The next planned revision to the law will aim to incentivize grid access and grid improvement, offshore wind power, and technologies for peak management and power storage.20

Comparison with Renewable-Energy Practice in the United States

The United States currently employs a mix of short-term tax credits, loan guarantees, state-level renewable portfolio standards, and limited feed-in tariffs. In contrast to Germany, the U.S. policy framework has evolved less quickly at the federal level, where time horizons have been shorter-term. The uncertainty engendered by this short-term policy framework has led to repeated falloffs in renewable-energy capacity additions in the United States as support measures have neared expiration.21 For example, in contrast to Germany, new wind turbine construction in America has fluctuated greatly from year to year, because incentives have repeatedly expired.22 Even with this policy uncertainty, however, the United States in 2008 still led the world in total installed wind-power capacity, with 20.8 percent.23 In 2008, renewable energy provided 9 percent of electricity production in the United States, with large-scale hydropower being the largest source.24

Fea_Germany_Figure3.jpg
Photo credit: Ralph Buehler. Cyclists on Freiburg’s car-free Wiwili bridge. The bridge was closed to cars in the early 2000s and is now open only to cyclists and pedestrians.

In many ways, the United States relies more on a state-level approach through renewable portfolio standards to increase renewable-energy capacity. These standards require power companies to provide a certain proportion of electricity from renewable-energy sources. Currently, renewable portfolio standards regulations apply in 29 states and in the District of Columbia; five additional states have established targets for renewable expansion.25 In many cases, long-term supply contracts for green power have been signed. Typical target percentages for green power are 15 percent for 2015, 20 percent for 2020, and 25 percent for 2025. These figures are significantly lower than the target set in Europe (21 percent for 2010).26

Feed-in tariff policies, the most common renewable-energy policy in the world,27 are slowly spreading in the United States. In most cases, these policies guarantee grid access and a 20-year premium contract for renewable energy technologies. As of January 2011, Gainesville Regional Utilities, Hawaii, and Vermont have adopted feed-in tariff policies based on the cost of generation. Maine and California have also adopted a light version of a feed-in tariff, though in California legal struggles are being fought. In addition, representatives in ten different state legislatures have proposed different feed-in tariff models.28

Transferable Lessons for Renewable Energy in the United States

The German success in rapid renewable-energy deployment relies on a robust feed-in tariff law and an overall comprehensive climate and energy framework with a long-term perspective. This policy environment comes with streamlined administrative procedures that help shorten lead times and bureaucratic overhead and that minimize project costs. All of the above create a high investment certainty that the United States overall and most of its states independently currently lack.

Given the abundance of natural resources (e.g., wind, biomass, solar) in the United States, the deployment of renewable energy should be cheaper than in Germany, which has an average solar input close to that of Alaska (and Iowa’s cornfields alone, which could be used for biogas production, are double the size of Germany’s agricultural land).29

Across the political spectrum, all major German parties support an industrial transformation toward a low-carbon economy, and there is a strong consensus concerning the need to address climate change. Constituent groups from both the progressive (e.g., renewable-energy industry) and conservative side (e.g., farm community) benefit from this approach. The understanding is that strong environmental policies drive ecological modernization and create new market opportunities. Germany as an export-oriented country aims to sell the solutions to a carbon-constrained and high-energy-price world.30 By contrast, the United States lags behind, where political debates over climate-change-related policy actions are hindering opportunities and leadership in this arena. As long as the public perceives a trade-off between environmental regulation and industrial competitiveness, it will be extremely difficult for the United States to fundamentally turn toward a low-carbon economy. U.S. policymakers should adjust elements of a feed-in tariff policy to regional contexts to drive rapid growth in renewable-electricity markets, to promote strong manufacturing industries, and to create new jobs in a cost-effective manner.

Encouraging Green Infrastructure

Over the past 40 years, northern Europe, and Germany in particular, has been a hotbed for the innovation and application of green technologies to enhance the urban environment.31 These technologies, sometimes referred to as green infrastructure or low-impact development, include such innovations as green roofs, green facades, and permeable pavements. They mimic the natural processes of soils and vegetation to provide “environmental services” such as stormwater management, urban heat island amelioration, and habitat, even in dense urban areas.32–38 What is clear is that the proliferation of green roofs and other green infrastructure in Germany has been supported by a complex assortment of incentives and requirements at multiple levels of government.31 Significantly, federal nature-protection laws and building codes require “compensation,” or restoration, for human impairment of natural landscapes and of environmental services in greenfield developments (development on previously undeveloped land).39 In many cases, green infrastructure techniques can be used to fulfill these requirements. Federal laws also require that German states create landscape plans.40 As a result, German states have innovated a variety of approaches to environmental protection, many of which have involved elements that first incentivized and later required the creation and maintenance of green infrastructure.

Fea_Germany_Figure4.jpg
Photo credit: Melissa Keeley. Potsdamer Plaz is an office, entertainment, and retail center at the heart of Berlin, raised during World War II and then redeveloped after the reunification of east and west Berlin in 1990. This mixed-use site features an elaborate, naturalistic stormwater retention system designed to minimize the burden on the city’s existing water infrastructure. The system incorporates green roofs (seen here) on most buildings in the complex to reduce stormwater runoff.

In addition to this, a series of German federal and state court rulings beginning in the 1970s have required increased transparency and equitable rate structures for stormwater services.41 As a result, the majority of German households are charged for stormwater services based on an estimate of the stormwater burden generated from their properties. This approach of individual parcel assessments (IPAs) differs from the approach used in the United States, where the same charges are levied on all parcels or all parcels of the same class (such as residential). Since IPAs in Germany are used to assess fees that relate directly to conditions present on specific parcels, and because land-use decisions (like paving a driveway or installing a green roof) have major impacts on the amount of stormwater leaving a property, this approach creates incentives for individuals to incorporate green infrastructure on their properties.41

Comparison with Green Infrastructure Practice in the United States

While there is interest in the multiple benefits of green infrastructure in the United States, green infrastructure techniques have gained recent attention in relation to stormwater management. Federal Clean Water Act programs require that local governments overhaul stormwater-management strategies to protect and improve surface-water quality.42 The Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, for instance, has already invested U.S.$3.1 billion in a multiphase tunnel and reservoir plan to improve stormwater management.43 To raise needed funds, the creation of stormwater utilities and the assessment of stormwater fees are becoming increasingly widespread. To date, however, the vast majority of U.S. cities have chosen to assess stormwater fees on a class basis; they assess the same fee to all parcels within a given class based on the average stormwater burden their property type contributes.44 This methodology is used almost exclusively for residential parcels and greatly simplifies billing.

Transferable Lessons for Green Infrastructure in the United States

While the United States has focused attention on green infrastructure in relation to stormwater, most U.S. municipalities currently lack the kind of overlapping, reinforcing incentives and requirements that have led to the prominence of these techniques in Germany. This is particularly important given the multiple benefits provided by green infrastructure—such as stormwater management, air-quality improvements, and enhancement of urban quality of life.

Focusing on stormwater management specifically, however, there are further lessons that the United States could draw from German experience with parcel-level assessments, or IPAs. Specifically, this approach might improve watershed planning and stormwater management and address the public relations needs of cash-strapped water-management authorities in three ways: (1) data from IPAs could increase public awareness of human impacts on watersheds; (2) this detailed information could inform watershed planning; and (3) this data could be the basis of fee systems designed to create incentives for on-site stormwater management where cost effective.41

In Berlin, public participation in assessing IPAs is credited with helping the public understand the connections between land-use decisions on their own property and environmental problems in local lakes and rivers. IPAs also provide detailed spatial information about impervious surfaces and their connectedness to the storm sewer system. The latter can only be assessed through on-site surveys, and thus it is otherwise rarely available to engineers and planners. Since connected impervious surface coverage is such a key variable in estimating stormwater burden, this information could enhance watershed planning and the development of stormwater models designed to optimize the efficiency of existing systems.41,45

Fea_Germany_Figure5.jpg
Photo credit: Melissa Keeley. Stormwater runoff in Potsdamer Plaz is collected in this pond. Vegetation on the banks of the pond and other treatments are used to purify and remove nutrients from the water, which is then reused in a grey water system for toilet flushing, irrigation, and fire systems within the complex.

Ascertaining each property’s share of the stormwater burden effectively turns what is a diffuse, nonpoint pollution source into a point-source problem. Such a fee-assessment system makes it possible to reduce fees for parcels that manage stormwater with green infrastructure or other best practices. IPAs could, therefore, create a foundation for economic incentives, such as a fee-and-subsidy system or emissions trading, to encourage green infrastructure where it can cost-effectively manage stormwater.46 A significant obstacle to this in the United States is the low rate currently charged for stormwater removal.47 It could prove politically and legally difficult for U.S. stormwater utilities to charge fees high enough to serve as incentives for on-site stormwater management.48

Implementing Sustainable Transportation

Governments at federal, state, and local levels in Germany determine the sustainability of the transportation system. Federal gasoline taxes, sales taxes, and regulations make automobile use and ownership expensive and encourage demand for less polluting and smaller cars. In 2008, sales taxes on automobiles in Germany were three times higher than in the United States, and gasoline taxes were nine times higher.49–53 However, higher gasoline taxes do not translate to higher household expenditures for transportation in Germany compared to the United States. Germans own fewer and more energy efficient cars and drive fewer miles than Americans. Thus, in 2008 transportation accounted for roughly 14 percent of household expenditures in Germany, compared to about 19 percent in the United States. The German federal government provides dedicated matching funds for investments in local public transportation. Flexible federal matching funds for local transportation improvements can also be used for local public transportation, walking, and cycling projects.54 German states distribute federal funds for regional rail systems and coordinate public transportation services statewide.55 Many German states set minimum parking requirements for local developments. Federal and state governments provide the framework for more-sustainable transportation, but cities have played a crucial role in developing and implementing innovative policies (see Box).

The Freiburg Model of Transport Sustainability

Since the late 1960s, the city of Freiburg (population 220,000) has been at the forefront of promoting sustainable transport.1,2 Since then, the number of trips by bicycle has tripled, transit ridership has doubled, and the share of trips by car has fallen from 38 to 32 percent. Since the early 1990s, the level of motorization has stagnated and per capita CO2 emissions from transportation have fallen, in spite of strong economic and population growth. Up to the late 1960s, Freiburg promoted greenfield development, widened streets, abandoned trolley lines, and built car parking lots. Motorization increased rapidly, transit ridership plummeted, and the city was sprawling. Air pollution, traffic fatalities, and traffic congestion caused by cars and other environmental concerns shifted public opinion away from automobile-centered growth.2 Freiburg achieved a more sustainable transportation system by (1) successfully integrating land-use and transportation planning, (2) coordinating and integrating public transportation regionally, (3) promoting bicycling, (4) restricting automobile use, and (5) encouraging citizen participation throughout the process.2,3

Integrating Transportation and Land-Use Planning

Even though Freiburg started implementing sustainable transportation policies in the early 1970s—such as creating pedestrian zones in the downtown area—there was no formal link between land use and transportation planning. The two have become more formally coordinated since then. The comprehensive transportation plan of 1979 called for explicit integration of both planning sectors. The land-use plan of 1981 prescribed that new development was to be concentrated along public transportation corridors. In 2006, two-thirds of Freiburg’s residents’ jobs were located within a quarter mile of a light-rail stop.2

Freiburg’s most recent land-use and transportation plans in 2008 were developed simultaneously and are fully integrated. Both reiterate the goals of reducing car use and favor central mixed-use development over settlements on the suburban fringe. Vauban and Rieselfeld, two new inner suburbs built around light-rail line extensions, are good examples for today’s complete integration of transportation and land-use planning. Both communities are compactly laid out and mix residential, commercial, educational, and recreational land uses. Car access and parking are limited, and streets are traffic-calmed with speed limits of 30 kilometers per hour, or even 7 kilometers per hour, to give priority to pedestrians, cyclists, and playing children.2

Expanding and Coordinating Public Transportation Services

In the early 1970s, the city decided to expand its public transportation network, but it took until 1983 before the first new light-rail line was added to the existing 14 kilometers of track. Since then, Freiburg has opened four new lines for a total of 36.4 kilometers in 2008, and the amount of light-rail service has tripled. In 1984, Freiburg’s public transportation system offered Germany’s first monthly ticket—transferable to other users.4 In 1991, the geographic coverage of the ticket was expanded to include the city and two adjacent counties. Services, fares, subsidies, and timetables for bus and rail operators are coordinated regionally. The monthly ticket offers unlimited public transportation travel within the entire region for about U.S.$60. Over 90 percent of passengers have monthly or annual tickets.2,3 Due to the high demand, Freiburg’s transit system has become one of the most financially efficient in Germany—requiring operating subsidies of only 10 percent (compared to 65 percent for public transit systems in the United States).4

Making Cycling a Viable Transportation Alternative for All Trips

Separate bike infrastructure and cyclist-friendly streets make the bicycle a feasible option for all trips and all destinations in Freiburg. Since the early 1970s, Freiburg has expanded its network of separate bike paths and lanes fivefold to 160 kilometers in 2007. This network is complemented by bike routes through forests, traffic-calmed roads, and bicycle streets. Additionally, the city has traffic-calmed almost all residential streets. In 2008, nine out of ten Freiburgers lived on streets with speed limits of 30 kilometers per hour or less. Slow automobile speeds encourage more cycling and make it safer. The total number of bike trips in Freiburg has nearly tripled since 1976—amounting to almost one bike trip per inhabitant per day in 2007.2

The city requires bike parking in all new buildings with two or more apartments, as well as in schools, universities, and businesses. Between 1987 and 2009, the number of bike parking spaces in downtown and at transit stops increased significantly—including a major bike parking garage at the main train station, with space for 1,000 bikes.2

Restricting Automobile Use

Many of the policies that promote public transportation, bicycling, and walking involve restrictions on car use—such as car-free zones and traffic-calmed neighborhoods.2,5 Freiburg’s official goal is to reduce car use wherever practical and to accommodate automobile trips that cannot be made by any other mode. Thus, the city combines disincentives to use cars in the town center and residential neighborhoods with improvement of arterials in various ways (such as widening) to increase their carrying capacity. Freiburg’s parking policy is designed to make car use less convenient and more expensive. Parking garages are relegated to the periphery of the city center, which was converted to pedestrian use in the early 1970s. In many residential neighborhoods, parking is reserved for residents only and requires a special permit. On-street parking in commercial areas of the city becomes more expensive with proximity to the center.2,5

Citizen Involvement

Since the 1970s, citizen participation has been a key aspect of transportation and land-use planning in Freiburg. For example, citizen groups worked with the city administration to redevelop Vauban into an environmentally friendly car-free neighborhood.2 Moreover, Freiburg’s latest land-use plan has been developed with sustained input from 900 citizens, 19 neighboring municipalities, and 12 special-purpose governments in the region. Citizen involvement and public discourse has kept the environmental benefits and sustainability of the transportation system in the news for decades in Freiburg. Over time, public opinion has become more and more supportive of sustainable environmental policies. Even politicians from the conservative party have accepted restrictions on car use and have promoted public transportation, bicycling, and walking as alternatives.

Lessons Learned from Freiburg

It is inappropriate to assume that Freiburg’s experience can be copied wholesale in the U.S. However, there are many lessons from Freiburg for U.S. cities that intend to become more sustainable.2,5

First, Freiburg implemented most of its policies in stages, often choosing projects everybody agreed upon first. Residential traffic calming was initially implemented in neighborhoods whose residents complained most about the negative impacts of car travel. Successful implementation in one neighborhood encouraged other areas of the city to request traffic calming as well.

Second, Freiburg phased in and adjusted its policies and goals gradually. The initial decision to stop tearing out the trolley tracks was made in the late 1960s. In the early 1970s, the city council approved the extension of the light-rail system, which finally opened in 1983. Once the expansion proved successful, more light-rail lines followed.

Third, Freiburg has simultaneously made public transportation, cycling, and walking viable alternatives to the automobile, while increasing the cost of car travel. Improving quality and level of service for alternative modes of transportation made car-restrictive measures politically acceptable.

Fourth, citizen participation has been a key aspect of transportation and land-use planning in Freiburg. For example, citizen groups worked with the city administration to redevelop Vauban into an environmentally friendly car-free neighborhood.

Lastly, changing transportation, land-use systems, and travel behavior in Freiburg took almost 40 years. Planners in the United States should curb their expectations for quick success. Clearly, some policies can be implemented quickly, but changes in travel behavior and the development of a more sustainable transportation system take much longer.

References

  1. Please see the sources cited in the four publications listed below for more detailed references and additional information for this case study.
  2. Buehler, R & Pucher, J. Sustainable transport in Freiburg: lessons from Germany’s environmental capital. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 5, 43–70 (2011).
  3. Buehler, R. Transport policies, automobile use, and sustainable transportation: a comparison of Germany and the USA. Journal of Planning Education and Research 30, 76–93 (2010).
  4. Buehler, R & Pucher, J. Making public transport financially sustainable. Transport Policy 18(1), 128-136 (2011).
  5. Buehler, R, Pucher, J & Kunert, U. Making transportation sustainable: insights from Germany (The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 2009). www.brookings.edu/reports/2009/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2009/0416_german….

Sustainability Lessons for the United States

Implementing German-style policies in the United States requires careful consideration of the political, cultural, and institutional context. For example, legal and political barriers could hamper a transfer of German policies to the United States. Nevertheless, our case studies of energy, urban infrastructure, and transportation provide some overall lessons that could help encourage development of sustainability policies in the United States.

First, start small and implement policies in stages. Many sustainability policies in Germany were first implemented at a small geographic scale or with a small scope and were expanded in stages over time. Small-scale pilot projects allow policymakers to experiment and the public to experience a real-life example of the proposed program. Unsuccessful projects can be discontinued and successful programs can be expanded. For example, many German cities initially implemented traffic-calming technologies in those neighborhoods where residents complained most about traffic safety, noise, and air pollution from car travel. Successful implementation of a pilot project in one neighborhood led other neighborhoods to demand traffic calming as well. This approach can also work at other scales and in other sectors. For example, the German Renewable Energy Sources Act initially covered only very basic technologies, but it was extended over time and rewarded innovations and new approaches. To some extent the United States is using this approach already, as witnessed by the creation of pedestrian zones in New York City’s Times Square or the new bike lanes on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC. On the federal level, however, the U.S. Congress does not have a consistent history of passing incremental improvements to energy policy or climate legislation.

Another aspect of staged implementation is political acceptability. For example, the German Ecological Tax Reform Act, which increased taxation on energy to reduce social security taxes, was implemented in stages, with taxes increasing annually over a period of five years. Consolidating the staged tax increases into one large tax hike would not have been politically feasible. Staged implementation, the five-year time horizon, and lower social security taxes enabled citizens to adjust to the new taxes. Similarly, many policies encouraging green infrastructure on private properties began as financial incentives and only later were replaced by requirements, once there was greater acceptance and experience with these techniques.

Fea_Germany_Figure6.jpg
Photo credit: Ralph Buehler. Pedestrians and light rail in Freiburg’s car-free zone in the city center.

Second, there are no silver bullets. Policies should be coordinated across sectors and levels of government to achieve maximum effectiveness. Despite the high public visibility of flagship projects like the Ecological Tax Reform Act, no silver bullet has proven to be the single factor for successful results. The case studies show that individual policies were integrated into a larger policy framework. At its best, this framework is comprehensive and long-term oriented. For example, in transportation, the German federal government increased taxation on gasoline, while local governments improved conditions for walking, cycling, and public transportation—thus offering a viable alternative to the car. This approach increased political acceptability with the public, since drivers had a choice to continue driving at higher cost or to shift modes of transportation.

In Germany, green infrastructure has been incentivized and in some cases required by a suite of overlapping programs. Significantly, these initiatives come from various governmental levels and sectors and were created because of different benefits provided by green infrastructure—such as stormwater management, air-quality improvements, and urban quality of life. It is this suite of policies as a whole that has moved green infrastructure into the German mainstream. Energy policy is another good example of coordinated decision making and planning: Germany’s policy portfolio comprises more than 30 legislative measures that address all aspects of energy sustainability, with binding long-term targets guiding implementation efforts and the necessary review of policies at regular intervals. In the United States, by contrast, short-term incentives, fragmented regulations, and a lack of planning certainty—in the absence of a binding policy framework—have dampened private-sector investment and technology deployment.

Third, foster citizen participation and communicate policies effectively. Policies that affect people’s everyday lives have to be developed with active citizen participation. Citizen input reduces potential legal challenges, increases public acceptance, and has the potential to improve projects and outcomes. Public participation in assessing parcel-level charges and new stormwater fees in Berlin helped the public to understand how their properties contribute to environmental problems. Further, individuals can take steps to reduce fees by integrating green infrastructure techniques on their properties. The initial draft of the city of Freiburg’s land-use plan was rejected by the citizens as not being progressive enough (see Box). The second draft was developed with the ongoing participation of 900 residents. The public sector has to effectively communicate the intentions of policy. This often involves political trade-offs. For example, Germany’s Ecological Tax Reform Act increased the cost of energy but at the same time reduced social security taxes. While many citizens agreed to increase taxation on energy, the reduction in social security taxes was also very important.

Fourth, find innovative solutions and embrace bipartisanship. The implementation of several of the highlighted policies came with strong political controversy in Germany. However, the policies survived because, over time, parties across the political spectrum benefited from them or could not afford reversing them. For example, the Renewable Energy Sources Act was supported by both the political left and right because both the progressive renewable-energy industry and the conservative German farm community benefited from its implementation. Before and during the introduction of the Ecological Tax Reform Act, Germany’s center-right parties opposed the reform and promised to roll it back once they were in power again. However, after winning elections in 2005, the conservatives found it impossible to forfeit the robust tax revenue generated by the reform.

References

  1. The White House. Remarks by the president in State of Union Address [online] (2011). www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-u….
  2. Henzelmann, T. Weltmarktführer beim Umweltschutz. Harvard Business Manager 30(12), 44–49 (2010).
  3. Theil, S. No country is more ‘green by design.’ Newsweek [online] (2008). www.newsweek.com/id/143679.
  4. Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology & Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety. Energy Concept for an Environmentally Sound, Reliable and Affordable Energy Supply [online] (2010). www.bmu.de/files/english/pdf/application/pdf/energiekonzept_bundesregier….
  5. Määttä, K & Mehling, M in Realising the Paradigm Shift towards Energy Sustainability: Climate Change, Technological Innovation, and the Challenge of an Optimal Instrument Mix (Rodi, M, ed), 49–64 (Lexxion, Berlin, 2010).
  6. Mehling, M. The ecological tax reform in Germany. Tax Notes International 26, 871–878 (2000).
  7. Mehling, M in Energy: A Tax Analysts Special Supplement (Almeras, J, ed), 132–135 (Tax Analysts, Arlington, VA, 2006).
  8. Ludewig, D et al. Greening the Budget: Pricing Carbon and Cutting Energy Subsidies to Reduce the Financial Deficit in Germany, 15 (Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Washington, DC, 2010).
  9. Kohlhaas, M. Gesamtwirtschaftliche Effekte der ökologischen Steuerreform, 14 (DIW, Berlin, 2005).
  10. Knigge, M & Görlach, B. Die Ökologische Steuerreform—Auswirkungen auf Umwelt, Beschäftigung und Innovation, 5 (Ecologic, Berlin, 2005).
  11. Umweltbundesamt. Quantifizierung der Effekte der Ökologischen Steuerreform auf Umwelt, Beschäftigung und Innovation, 2 (UBA, Berlin, 2004).
  12. Vedder, H. The Treaty of Lisbon and European environmental law and policy. Journal of Environmental Law 22(2), 285–299 (2010).
  13. Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council [online] (April 23, 2009). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016….
  14. German Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety. Development of Renewable Energy Sources in Germany 2009 [online] (March 2010). www.erneuerbare-energien.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/ee_in_d….
  15. German Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety. Press release no. 116/10 [online] (August 4, 2010). www.bmu.de/english/current_press_releases/pm/46293.php.
  16. German Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety. Nationaler Aktionsplan fuer Erneuerbare Energien [online] (August 4, 2010). www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/nationaler_aktionsplan_e…. English summary at www.bmu.de/english/renewable_energy/downloads/doc/46291.php.
  17. Edler, D & O’Sullivan, M. Erneuerbare Energien—ein Wachstumsmarkt schafft Beschäftigung in Deutschland. Wochenbericht des DIW Berlin, 41/2010 [online] (2010). www.diw.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=diw_01.c.362416.de.
  18. DEBRIV. Der Wirtschaftsfaktor Braunkohle. Ausgabe 04/2010 [online] (2010). www.braunkohle-wissen.de/#arbeitspl%20.
  19. German Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety. Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) 2009 [online] (2010). www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/42934/20026.
  20. German Federal Ministry of the Environment, Nature Conservation, and Nuclear Safety. Nationaler Aktionsplan für Erneuerbare Energien [online] (August 4, 2010). www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/nationaler_aktionsplan_e…. English summary at www.bmu.de/english/renewable_energy/downloads/doc/46291.php.
  21. Deutsche Bank Climate Change Advisors (DBCCA). Creating Jobs and Growth: The German Green Experience [online] (September 14, 2009). www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/_media/DBCCA_Creating_Jobs_and_Growth_The_German_….
  22. Wolf-Peter Schill, W-P, Diekmann, J & Kemfert, C. Energy and climate policy: USA continues to trail behind, despite positive change. DIW Berlin Weekly Report, 5/2010 [online] (January 21, 2010). www.diw.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=diw_01.c.346123.de.
  23. Global Wind Energy Council. Wind is a global power source [online] (2010). www.gwec.net/index.php?id=13&L=0.
  24. U.S. Energy Information Agency. Annual Energy Review 2009, table 1.3 (U.S. Energy Information Agency, Washington, DC, 2009).
  25. U.S. Department of Energy. Database of State Incentives for Renewable and Efficiency [online]. www.dsireusa.org.
  26. Diekmann, J. Renewable energy in Europe: strong political will required for ambitious goals. DIW Berlin Weekly Report, 36/2009 (December 18, 2009).
  27. Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century (REN21). Renewables 2010 Global Status Report, 11 (REN21 Secretariat, Paris, 2010). www.ren21.net/Portals/97/documents/GSR/REN21_GSR_2010_full_revised%20Sep….
  28. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Renewable Energy Prices in State-Level Feed-In Tariffs: Federal Law Constraints and Possible Solutions, NREL Report TP-6A2-47408 [online] (2010). www.nrel.gov/analysis/pdfs/47408.pdf.
  29. Woerlen, C. Clean Energy Jobs for the U.S. Midwest: Lessons Learned from the German Success Story of Low Carbon Growth [online] (Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Washington, DC, 2010). http://boell.org/web/139-658.html.
  30. Hey, C in The New Climate Policies of the European Union (Oberthur, S & Pallemaerts, M, eds), The German paradox: climate leader and green car laggard, 211 (Institute for European Studies, Brussels, 2010).
  31. Köhler, M & Keeley, M in Green Roofs: Ecological Design and Construction (EarthPledge Foundation, ed), The green roof tradition in Germany: the example of Berlin (Schiffer, New York, 2005).
  32. Watchel, J. Take it from the top: storm water management, green roof style. BioCycle, 42–46 (2007).
  33. Mentens, J, Raes, D & Hermy, M. Green roofs as a tool for solving the rainwater runoff problem in the urbanized 21st century. Landscape and Urban Planning 77, 217–226 (2006).
  34. Teemusk, A & Mander, U. Temperature regime of planted roofs compared with conventional roofing systems. Ecological Engineering 36, 91–95 (2010).
  35. Saiz, S, Kennedy, C, Bass, B & Pressnail, K. Comparative life cycle assessment of standard and green roofs. Environmental Science and Technology 40(13), 4312–4316 (2006).
  36. Lükenga, W & Wessels, K. Oberflächentemperaturen von Dachflächen. Stadt + Grün 6/2001, 399–403 (2001).
  37. Currie, B & Bass, B. Estimates of air pollution mitigation with green plants and green roofs using the UFORE model. Urban Ecosystems 11, 409–422 (2008).
  38. Oberndorfer, E et al. Green roofs as urban ecosystems: ecological structures, functions, and services. Bioscience 57, 823–833 (2007).
  39. Keeley, M. Green Roofs Incentives: Tried and True Techniques from Europe. Proceedings from the 2nd Annual Green Roofs for Healthy Cities Conference [online] (2004). www.greenroofs.ca/grhcc.
  40. Keeley, M. The green area ratio: site-scale urban environmental planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management (forthcoming).
  41. Keeley, M. Using individual parcel assessments to improve stormwater management. Journal of the American Planning Association 73(2), 149–160 (2007).
  42. National Research Council. Urban Stormwater Management in the United States (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2008) www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/nrc_stormwaterreport.pdf.
  43. Garcia, MA & Schmidt, AR. Applied research: tunnel and reservoir plan [online] (n.d.). http://vtchl.uiuc.edu/applied-research/environmental-hydraulics/tarp.
  44. Busco, D & Lindsey, G. Designing stormwater user fees: issues and options. Stormwater 2(7), 42–44 (November/December 2001).
  45. Perez-Pedini, C, Linbrunner, JF & Vogel, RM. Optimal location of infiltration-based best management practices for storm water management. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 131(6), 441–448 (November/December 2005).
  46. Thurston, HW, Goddard, HC, Szlag, D & Lemberg, B. Controlling storm-water runoff with tradable allowances for impervious surfaces. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 129(5), 409–418 (September/October 2003).
  47. Kaspersen, J. The stormwater utility, will it work for your community? Stormwater 1(1), 22–28 [online] (November/December 2000). www.forester.net/sw_0011_utility.html.
  48. Parikh, P, Taylor, MA, Hoagland, T, Thurston, H & Shuster, W. Application of market mechanisms and incentives to reduce stormwater runoff: an integrated hydrologic, economic and legal approach. Environmental Science and Policy 8(2), 133–144 (2005).
  49. International Energy Agency (IEA). Energy Prices and Taxes (IEA, New York, 2008).
  50. Bundesministerium der Finanzen [German Federal Ministry of Finance] (BMF). Mehrwertsteuer [Value-added tax] (BMF, Berlin, 2008).
  51. Buehler, R & Pucher, J. Sustainable transport in Freiburg: lessons from Germany’s environmental capital. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation 5, 43–70 (2011).
  52. Buehler, R. Transport policies, automobile use, and sustainable transportation: a comparison of Germany and the USA. Journal of Planning Education and Research 30, 76–93 (2010).
  53. Federation of Tax Administrators. State Sales Taxes on Vehicle Purchases [online] (2006). www.taxadmin.org.
  54. BMVBS. Bericht fuer das Jahr 2005 ueber die Finanzhilfen des Bundes zur Verbesserung der Verkehrsverhaeltnisse der Gemeinden nach dem Gemeindeverkehrsfinanzierungsgesetz [Federal Subsidies for Local Transportation Projects] (German Federal Ministry of Transportation and Urban Development, Berlin, 2005).
  55. Buehler, R, Pucher, J & Kunert, U. Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany (The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 2009). www.brookings.edu/reports/2009/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2009/0416_german….

Ralph Buehler: Assistant Professor in urban affairs and planning at Virginia Tech
Arne Jungjohann: Director for the Environment and Global Dialogue Program of the Heinrich Böll Foundation in Washington, DC
Melissa Keeley: Assistant Professor in geography and public policy and public administration at George Washington University
Michael Mehling: President of the Ecologic Institute; Adjunct Professor at Georgetown University

 

Published on Energy Bulletin (http://www.energybulletin.net)

Published by Solutions on Mon, 10/10/2011 – 08:00

Original article: http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/981

Energy Bulletin is a program of Post Carbon Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping the world transition away from fossil fuels and build sustainable, resilient communities.


Links:
[1] http://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/node/981
[2] http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2009/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2009/0416_germany_transportation_buehler/0416_germany_transportation_report.pdf
[3] http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/01/25/remarks-president-state-union-address
[4] http://www.newsweek.com/id/143679
[5] http://www.bmu.de/files/english/pdf/application/pdf/energiekonzept_bundesregierung_en.pdf
[6] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:140:0016:0062:EN:PDF
[7] http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/ee_in_deutschland_graf_tab_2009_en.pdf
[8] http://www.bmu.de/english/current_press_releases/pm/46293.php
[9] http://www.bmu.de/files/pdfs/allgemein/application/pdf/nationaler_aktionsplan_ee.pdf
[10] http://www.bmu.de/english/renewable_energy/downloads/doc/46291.php
[11] http://www.diw.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=diw_01.c.362416.de
[12] http://www.braunkohle-wissen.de/#arbeitspl%20
[13] http://www.erneuerbare-energien.de/inhalt/42934/20026
[14] http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/_media/DBCCA_Creating_Jobs_and_Growth_The_German_Green_Exp.pdf
[15] http://www.diw.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=diw_01.c.346123.de
[16] http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=13&amp;L=0
[17] http://www.dsireusa.org
[18] http://www.ren21.net/Portals/97/documents/GSR/REN21_GSR_2010_full_revised%20Sept2010.pdf
[19] http://www.nrel.gov/analysis/pdfs/47408.pdf
[20] http://boell.org/web/139-658.html
[21] http://www.greenroofs.ca/grhcc
[22] http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/nrc_stormwaterreport.pdf
[23] http://vtchl.uiuc.edu/applied-research/environmental-hydraulics/tarp
[24] http://www.forester.net/sw_0011_utility.html
[25] http://www.taxadmin.org

ST November General Meeting – Food Security

at  Joel D. Valdez Main Library
101 N. Stone, Downtown (free lower level parking off Alameda St)

FOOD SECURITY

What is it? … Do we have it? … What can we do about it?

Please join us for the next Sustainable Tucson General Meeting, where we will begin to tackle the issue of creating a secure food supply for Tucson.

We have about three days of fresh food in the region.  The average bit of food travels at least 1500 miles to get to our table, and often it comes from around the world.  Is this acceptable, and what can we do about it?

Come and be part of the dialog. Speakers for the evening are:

Jaime de Zubeldia, Community Food Bank & Pima County Food Systems Alliance
Bill McDorman, Native Seeds/SEARCH
Beth Sanders, Pima County Food Systems Alliance

Their presentations will address these key questions:

What IS a secure food supply for our community and our region?
What factors might make us FOOD INSECURE?
What can we do now to achieve Food Security?

Before and after the presentations, there will also be a Resource Center, with tabling and displays from local gardening, farming, and food organizations with expertise to share.  In addition, the presentations will be followed by hands-on activities:  Sprouting: The Art of  Gardening in a Jar, and a local Seed and Plant Exchange.

To participate in the Seed and Plant Exchange, please bring seeds, plant starts, pups, and cuttings of your favorite successful Tucson produce and food plants to share with others.  Also, bring bags, pencils, and envelopes for taking home shared seeds and starts.

Doors – and the Resource Center – open at 5:30 pm – so come early!
The meeting will begin promptly at 6:00 pm.

Also see Sustainability Food Sketch Plan and Local Gardening & Farming Resources

Sprouting: The Art of Gardening in a Jar

Sprouting: The Art of Gardening in a Jar

We are all trying to eat healthier, right? Growing organic sprouts in our own kitchen is an easy, cheap way to improve nutrition. You can quickly grow organic food in your own home by sprouting seeds, beans, grains, or nuts.

Easy to learn—In one hour, you will be ready to sprout
Economical—Two spoons of seeds grow a quart of sprouts. Low-cost way to improve your diet
Fast—Sprouts are ready to eat in 3-5 days
Uses little water and space
Nutritious: vitamins, protein, minerals, builds good health
Great family activity–Children love to sprout
Pets can benefit from eating sprouts

AND IT’S FUN!!

Handouts and materials provided. You go home with all you need to begin sprouting. (please bring 2 glass jars)

Techniques demonstrated. All questions answered.
$10 per person, Discounts for families and groups of any size.

Sprouting Class Coupon – December Only – Because we are in the season of gratitude, I’m offering this coupon for the Wednesday 14 December class so you can enjoy an oasis of calm learning during the busy holiday season. This is a half-price offer to learn The Art of Gardening in a Jar. Bring one or more friends or family members and you each pay half price – $5. Includes demonstrations, handouts, materials & supplies.

Contact: Wanda Poindexter SproutSolutions(at)yahoo.com

Fall classes at The Tasteful Kitchen, 722 N. Stone Ave. (parking behind the restaurant, enter from the front on Stone)

Wednesdays, 19 October, 16 November, 14 December, at 6 p.m. (please arrive by 5:45)

(other times and locations can be arranged)

ST Water – resource links

RAINWATER & GREYWATER USE RESOURCE LIST

Hands-On/Workshops

http://www.sonoranpermaculture.org/courses-and-workshops/ (Sonoran Permaculture Guild workshops – gray water use; rainwater harvesting; and more)

http://www.watershedmg.org/calendar-tucson (Watershed Management Group calendar of events & workshops – hands-on work with gray water systems, rainwater harvesting systems, earthworks, etc.)

http://communityfoodbank.com/2011/08/10/gardenworkshops/ (Food Bank garden workshops – gray water use; self-watering containers; and more)

Websites for More Information

http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/water/greywater (City of Tucson guidelines for grey water use)

http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/water/harvesting (City of Tucson info on rainwater harvesting)
Conservation Alliance of Southern Arizona)

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/download/graybro.pdf (AZ DEQ brochure)

http://www.harvestingrainwater.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/rain-gray-resources.pdf (Comprehensive resource list–may be slightly outdated.)

http://www.harvestingrainwater.com/ (Brad Lancaster’s website)

http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/default.aspx (AZ Dept of Water Resources)

http://ag.arizona.edu/azwater/ (University of AZ Water Resources Research Center)

http://www.waterfootprint.org/?page=cal/WaterFootprintCalculator (Calculate your total water footprint.)

Videos

http://ondemand.azpm.org/videoshorts/watch/2011/8/4/1830-conserving-water-by-planting-rain/ (Interview with Brad Lancaster)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBMpaWq4EKE (Creating a Home Graywater System)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1DfNlxlk-A (How to Implement a Greywater System for your Garden)

Books/Documents

Rainwater Harvesting for Drylands and Beyond, Vol 1 & 2 ,by Brad Lancaster (Can order from his website, listed above.)

Harvesting Rainwater for Landscape Use by Patricia H. Waterfall. Available for free download at http://ag.arizona.edu/pubs/water/az1344.pdf or for purchase at Amazon.com

The Desert Smells Like Rain A Naturalist in O’odham Country by Gary Paul Nabhan. Available at http://www.amazon.com/ and http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/Books/bid1418.htm

Tucson Active Management Area Water Atlas – http://www.azwater.gov/azdwr/StatewidePlanning/WaterAtlas/ActiveManagementAreas/documents/Volume_8_TUC_final.pdf

The New Create an Oasis with Greywater: Choosing, Building and Using Greywater Systems – Includes Branched Drains by Art Ludwig. Available for purchase at http://www.oasisdesign.net/greywater/createanoasis/index.htm

Gaia’s Garden: A Guide to Home-Scale Permaculture by Toby Hemenway. Available for purchase at multiple online sites.

Water in the West: a High Country News reader; Miller, Char [Editors].. Available at the Pima County Public Library.

Programs

Tucson Water Zanjero Program – In-home water audit and recommendations…Call 791-3242 or look at website: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/water/zanjero_program

Water-harvesting Co-Op Program – Developed by Watershed Management Group to promote communities helping each other to design and install water-harvesting features: http://www.watershedmg.org/co-op/tucson

URBAN CHICKS – Native Seeds/SEARCH

December 19, 5:30-7:30 P.M. Native Seed/SEARCH Retail Store, 3061 N. Campbell Ave., Tucson

Join us at our monthly SALON for a discussion with Pat Foreman, internationally renowned chicken expert and author of CITY CHICKS. Pat will talk about how to employ your family flock’s skill sets for insect and rodent control, as weed eaters, fertilizer & compost creators, and biomass-recycles helping to divert “trash” from the solid waste management system.

http://www.nativeseeds.org/index.php/events/native-seedssearch-salons

Bean Tree Farm Workshops – Fall 2011

Here are Bean Tree Farm’s workshop listings for fall, 2011, plus a special solar energy class we’re excited to be hosting.  For more info and any questions, check out www.beantreefarm.com, or email beantreefarm(at)gmail.com

October 8 ~ Earth Plasters, Paints and Pigments ~ 8am-12noon:
Art, mudslinging and a feast of harvested native foods and garden bounty

The morning will include:
~ harvesting and preparation of native clays (that are most likely right in your back yard);
~ natural additives for durability and workability (also likely in your back yard or kitchen);
~ a tour of existing plaster examples on Bean Tree Farm buildings, local plants used in plasters for their gels and fibers, and their importance in rewilding and regenerating urban landscapes for wildlife, beauty, green building and health;
~ several hands-on projects to explore and develop your skills, both on the wall (or board) and in the round;
~ and complete the workshop with a feast of delicious local food and drink.

November 5: Cob Building and Sculpting more mudslinging, cob building tricks and fall feast

December 3: Making Tinctures and Cold Season Teas – Hot tonics, warm food, good company
Bean Tree Farm workshop facilitators: Barbara Rose, Jill Lorenzini, Julie Newcombe, Sonoran Permaculture Guild team and guests

Workshop schedule: Saturdays 8am-12pm, subject to change with cooler weather.  Each workshop is $50 including native and heritage foods lunch (see registration form for specials and early-bird discount)

Also see Understanding PV (photovoltaics) with Ed Eaton, November 7-11 at Bean Tree Farm.

More info: www.beantreefarm.com or beantreefarm(at)gmail.com

Let us know if you’d like to be on Bean Tree Farm email lists for classes, workshops, or our weekly farm stand.

For more great classes and workshops check out: www.sonoranpermaculture.org

Thanks!

Barbara Rose
Bean Tree Farm
Tucson, Arizona
www.beantreefarm.com