So, I've noticed that the two major assembly line style Fresh Mex restaurant chains here have adopted positive business principals. One, Chipotle, has focused itself on being enviro-friendly, while the other, Zaba's, has focused on healthy eating choices. This is my plug for both and my plea for organizations to adopt similar business outlooks.
Chipotle appears to have made it their mission to show that they care about doing business good instead of doing good business. By this I mean that they are working to reduce the impact of their corporation on the environment and to be vocal in their support of certain causes. For example, they use naturally raised, and thus injected hormone and steroid-free, meat. While I understand that the ends of an animal being killed is the same, I also appreciate the fact that the meat Chipotle uses actually had a fairly normal farmlike life prior to slaughter, unlike this sickening downer cow mess that has made press recently. I'd rather my food be treated with respect before slaughter, thank you very much. Chipotle's gift cards are made out of plastic, but the plastic is made out of corn! I don't know how that works, but it's awesome. Chipotle's bowls are made from post-consumer fiber as are its napkins. I also just read that the buildings have energy efficient architecture and water-saving techniques.
Zabas, offering a very similar menu, differs in its approach. While they use plastic bowls and have no enviro-policy that I've noticed, they have implemented health options that Chipotle has not. First, they offer brown rice for their dishes at not additional cost. Second, they have the option of whole wheat tortilla instead of four ones for no additional cost. Third, they offer fish tacos, which have fish, which have Omega-3 fatty acids, which is supposed to be healthy and is by the sound of it.
I wish these two companies would merge their ideas. In the mean time, I favor Chipotle for looking at the big picture. But, the point I'm trying to get at is that businesses are not inherently evil. Capitalism isn't always the spawner of conflict and degradation. More businesses need to be adventurous in their approaches and make sure that they doing what they can to help others. This should not be an effort to throw money at organizations while acting with reckless abandon; rather, it should be a paradigm shift to represent the changing times and attitudes in the world and to further clever solutions to looming problems.
"Capitalism isn't always the spawner of conflict and degradation."
Sure, if you believe that espousing greener business strategies with the knowledge that they will bring the business more profit isn't inherently evil. And if you do, that's swell; i won't hold it against you.
But if you encourage the local Mexican shop down the street that has always practiced business sustainably and become a patron of that tortilla, i think you'll be serving a better future.
Check out my musings on the subject and tell me what you think @ http://www.progressiveu.org/165720-green-v-prosperity-total-falsity
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
I love Chipotle, if for no other reason than the food tastes good (which generally comes from well-grown and raised stock, go figure). I like reading the stories on their cups, too. :)
As for the corn-based plastic... you can get oil from vegetables and other plant material (check out Ethanol and Biodiesel fuels if you haven't done so already), so it makes a good way to recycle unused plant parts.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
One of the problems we need to address soon is how to cut down on how much oil we use, be it for fuel or pesticides or plastics. People tend to jump on biofuels as our savior, but the land it would take to create the biomass to fuel our current needs...well, doesn't exist. Even if we stopped farming for food, we wouldn't have enough land. I think that bio-oil is a lot more sustainable than prehistoric fossil fuel, but something that us disgusting consumers must face very soon is that our lifestyles are exceeding the carrying capacity of the world, and we need to start cutting back.
-----------------------------------------------------
My Project
"Endure. In Enduring, Grow Strong."--Dak'kon, Planescape Torment
I see your point, however, there are two flaws with that argument.
1. People assume farms are operating at max capacity. They aren't. The government actually pays them to produce less to try to keep the produce prices up. The bane of farmers is not lack of supply to meet demand, but lack of demand to meet supply. Using things we already grow, such as corn and soy, would raise prices enough on its own that the government would no longer have to supplement farmers. Also, bio-oils don't necessarily need the edible parts of the plants and the production of bio-oil creates a nutrient-rich by-product that can be fed to animals or used as fertilizer. Straight (clean) and waste (used) vegetable oil can also be used. The key with bio-oil is that it can't just come from one source. I don't think any alternative fuel (or any fuel, period) should ever come from just one source, you see where that's gotten us.
2. People assume crop plants (soy, corn, etc) are the only source of bio-oil. Again, not true. In fact, corn is one of the worst sources of bio-oil. Sugar cane is better for oil than corn, that's how bad corn is. I can't find the chart I found when I was researching biodiesel, but if I remember right, algae produces about 400 times the oil corn or soy can produce. New Zealand recently was able to use the excess algae found in sewage treatment plants to create fuel. Wood and used vegetable oil can also be used.
Also, not everyone thinks bio oil will be our "saving grace," at least not for vehicles. President Bush seems to be stuck on hydrogen fuel cells, despite the fact that it's still ages behind.
The thing about bio oil, though, at least for cars (haven't studied other uses for it), is that vehicles require little to no alterations to be able to use bio oil. Diesel engines were originally designed to run on vegetable-based fuel (Rudolph Diesel used peanut oil to run the engines), so only the natural rubber parts need changed in old diesel trucks to make them biodiesel ready. I also found this article about how flex fuel hybrids can get as much as 190 miles to a gallon with Ethanol (now if only Ford and Toyota would actually take their prototypes to the production line).
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
You brought a couple of things to mind that I find very helpful. However, there is the problem with ethanol in that a vehicle that is not flex-fuel cannot run on it, and I'm pretty sure most of the cars on the road are not flex-fuel. I know that diesel vehicles are essentially ready to run on biodiesel any day, and I think it would be a good idea to start producing more of that. But how do we get the millions of older cars on the road to switch to ethanol, when it would involve costly upgrade work?
-----------------------------------------------------
My Project
"Endure. In Enduring, Grow Strong."--Dak'kon, Planescape Torment
According to the article, standard vehicles can be flex-fuel ready with a "few inexpensive changes at production." I don't know much about cars, so I'd have to research more to find out the differences between standard and flex-fuel cars and what, exactly, it would take to upgrade current cars. If the car manufacturers would get off their asses and put more flex-fuel cars into production now, instead of waiting until the day where we have to change immediately, changing would be as simple as phasing out the older style cars (which I'm guessing is what they did when going to internal combustion and what they appear to have done with standard vs automatic transmissions). And it seems the combination of flex fuel and oil-electric hybrids is greater than the sum of it's parts, if the finding the article cites is true.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Yeah people assume, and so do their representatives. The Montana state legislature passed significant subsidies (i can't remember whether they were direct or indirect) for corn ethanol, instead of funding biofuels like switchgrass. darn it!
Every organism's heartbeat holds a universe of beauty at http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/green-underbelly
"the land it would take to create the biomass to fuel our current needs...well, doesn't exist."
Yes it does, and it doesn't have to be land. As pointed out later in this thread Kelp and algae are also good for bio fuel use and require no land. The vast deserts of the world are the land that could help produce the fuels.
Solving the problems of our fossil fuel economy by conservation is cruel, to the 5 billion impoverished people on this planet. It is also unrealistic. Global atmospheric carbon levels will not sink by reducing emissions alone, even if that was possible. Carbon must be sequestered to achieve a sustainable balance. Plants do this exceptionally well. If the plants grown can also be sold as oils, food and fuels the necessary economic sustainability is served also.
Turning deserts green would require nuclear water desalination plants, which would also help relieve the need for more coal and natural gas fired electric plants. Technology is the way to progress and sustainable economic growth, not just conservation.
"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets."
-Arthur C. Clarke
Could you show me the research that shows how we could have enough land (and water) to create enough fuel to meet current needs and future needs without harming the environment (perhaps through overfarming land), while still having land for development as the population increases, and without hurting the agricultural needs of the world, specifically without raising the price of basic foods like grain so that the poor have even less opportunity to obtain food than they already do? It may seem like I'm trying to attack you, but I'm not; I'd really like to see someone who's done research and found how to make it work, not just now, but for the future.
I shudder at the thought of ramping up use of nuclear technology while we still have no idea on how to deal with the extremely toxic byproducts, other than trying to seal them up in a lot of concrete. A facility malfunction or an attack could result in major environmental damage. Also, how would a desalination plant reduce the need for more fossil fuel plants? Would the nuclear plant be producing excess energy than that required for desalination?
Now, I have a feeling that I've overstated my issues with biofuel just as I feel you've overstated your issues with conservation. I think our viewpoints may align more than our previous writing leads on. I think biofuels are a great idea, but I think that there has been an overhype of a specific source of biofuel, corn ethanol, and a lack of a comprehensive energy plan. I believe that alternative fuels and energy sources are necessary and that we need cleaner and renewable fuels. I also believe that addressing conservation is key. The population is growing, and more people demand things that require oil. We need to rethink certain ideas about the way we live. We should re-imagine transportation and the production of certain goods. I believe that conservation will make our transition easier, not harder, and that we could benefit by re-evaluating the way we live.
Why do you say that conservation is cruel to the impoverished people of the planet? I agree that technology is needed in addition to conservation, and in fact technology plays a major part in conservation. Developing more efficient engines and generators, lighter car frames, and energy efficient devices are all great examples of the crossroads of technology and conservation.
I am well aware of the need to change the atmosphere in a more drastic way than simply reducing emissions. Indeed, plants would be a good idea and one way to help with that, in addition to developing land for biofuels, would be for us to conserve on paper and recycle, and in so doing work to regrow the forests we've destroyed.
Conservation and efficiency are not necessarily negative or zero sum games as you seem to be claiming. By training and employing people to retrofit houses to be energy efficient, we could add jobs and save consumers money on utilities bills which could be invested in goods and services. These jobs stack with those created by the development and implementation of new energy resources.
Thanks for the post!
-----------------------------------------------------
My Project
"Endure. In Enduring, Grow Strong."--Dak'kon, Planescape Torment
The problems to be solved are energy and management (political) ones. Conservation is a wise thing to do, and a cruel thing to force someone else to do.
Here is a good starting point in answer to your questions:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
World poverty is being solved at the fastest pace in history. The poorest ecconomies are growing at 7 to 10% per year. Restricting development by forced conservation, and limits on CO2 emmissions is more punitive to poor nations that have low present levels of consumption and emmission than it is to wealthy ones that are allowed to maintain already high outputs.
Government efforts should be geared toward encouraging development and implementation of cleaner technology, as well as education and training of the people to do it. Forced conservation is inherently negative. The right approach is to empower people to do more, not to restrict what they are allowed to do.
nuclear desalination = clean power+clean water:
http://www.simon-nisan.com/2008/03/14/seawater-desalination-by-nuclear-r...
"A faith that cannot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets."
-Arthur C. Clarke