E-Waste Limits Landfills May 15, 2009

Electronic waste (also known as e-waste) has been and continues to rapidly add to the stream of municipal solid waste from frequent purchases and upgrades of various products such as mobile phones, computers, televisions, audio equipment, and printers.  E-waste is very problematic because finding new methods and locations for disposal are lacking.  Furthermore, e-waste is laden with toxic heavy metals such as lead, mercury, and cadmium that can leach into water, soils, and the atmosphere, posing significant environmental and human health risks.

The high toxicity of electronic waste makes its safe disposal expensive, especially in countries with strict environmental regulations.  Industrialized countries often circumvent these high costs by selling electronic waste to developing countries where environmental standards are low or nonexistent and working conditions are poor.  However, most developing countries lack the waste removal infrastructure and technical capacities necessary to ensure the safe disposal of hazardous waste.  As a result, e-waste has been linked to a variety of health problems in developing countries, including cancer, neurological and respiratory disorders, and birth defects.

The 1992 Basel Convention is an international treaty signed by 169 countries to regulate the international trade of hazardous waste from its production to its storage, transport, reuse, recycling, and final disposal.  However, illegal trading is pervasive and those who benefit from the waste trading continue to strongly oppose a global ban.

E-waste can be disposed of by landfills, incineration, reuse, or recycling.  Landfills are problematic due to potential for toxic chemicals to leach into surrounding soils and water, which has caused many European countries to ban the practice as a precautionary measure.  Nevertheless, the problem exists in developing countries where many people live close to the boundaries of landfills.  Incineration release heavy metals and highly toxic fumes into the air, which cause respiratory and skin problems to those exposed.  In developing countries where organized trash collection is often absent, it is typical for people to burn garbage in their backyards or neighborhoods.  Reuse is common in developing countries where there is high demand for inexperience, second-hand electronics.  However, 25-75 percent of used electronics shipped to developing countries are obsolete.

To date, recycling electronics for valuable raw material is a profitable endeavor in developing countries where the costs of recycling are lowest.  Most recycling is done by hand in scrap yards, however, exposing workers and neighboring communities to significant health risks.

Recent reports suggest that the efforts of nonprofit groups and the media to expose the effects of e-waste dumping have influenced original equipment manufacturers and recyclers worldwide to make an effort to clean up their act.  Nevertheless, a major driver of the growing e-waste problem is the short lifespan of most electronics – less than two years for computers and cell phones. In addition, consumers have few incentives to reuse or recycle used electronics equipment.  In most countries, it is still too easy and relatively inexpensive to throw e-waste in the trash.  Inconsistent legislation, minimal controls on the recyclers, and little enforcement has also led to widespread and inappropriate dumping of e-waste in developing countries.

Be a responsible consumer and find out if you can recycle your e-waste from the company or place it was purchased.  For easier methods, search the internet for local/state recycling centers or check out the following web-site to guide you at Earth911 . The Basel Action Network also certifies responsible e-waste recyclers with their E-Stewards program, so when in doubt, ask the recycler whether they are part of the network!

Cost-Free Strategies to Becoming Greener May 9, 2009

There are many changes an individual can make to become more environmentally friendly.  However, changes like switching to solar panels or buying a hybrid car costs money and may not be momentarily feasible for some people.  Nevertheless, an individual can become more environmentally friendly just by making simple cost-free strategies through minor lifestyle alterations that will save money and offset carbon.  We’ve listed some of these in other blogs, but it’s always good to have a reminder. Also – let us know which ones you’re doing and which ones you’d like to try out next. It’s always great to hear everyone’s progress – we’re all still learning!

• Unplug electronics, such as PC’s, TV’s, DVD’s, stereos, etc.  These consumer electronics are responsible for approximately 15% of household electricity use, even when on “off” or “standby” mode.  If you unplug such devices, you may save up to $10 a month on your utility bill (Per DoE.)  This may also offset your carbon by about 1000lbs. per year (Per World Resources Institute.)
• Practice temperature control with your heating, ventilation, air-conditioning (HVAC) system, especially for periods away from home.  Programming your thermostat to certain levels can save you about $180 in energy costs every year (Per Energy Star.)  These combined efforts can reduce your carbon emissions by 20% to 50% (Per DoE.)
• Adjust your current water heater to no more than 120 degrees, which is sufficient for most households.  Each 10 degrees reduces about 500lbs. of carbon per year (Per World Resources Institute.)
• Most washers’ energy consumption goes to water heating.  Washing two loads a week in warm or cold water will reduce emissions by about 500lbs. per year (Per World Resources Institute.)  Also, air dry your clothes to save energy otherwise used during machine drying.
• Run your dishwasher with a full load of dishes. Most of the energy used by a dishwasher goes to heat water.  Avoid using the heat-dry, rinse-hold and pre-rinse features. Instead use your dishwasher’s air-dry option (Per Energy Star.)
• Reduce the amount of energy your refrigerator uses by setting the temperature between 35 and 40 degrees Fahrenheit, while positioning it away from a heat source such as an oven, a dishwasher, or direct sunlight from a window.  Make sure the door seals are airtight and minimize the amount of time the refrigerator door is open (Per Energy Star.)
• Recycle products from paper to electronics.  Products made from recycled paper, glass, metal, and plastic reduce carbon emissions because they use less energy to manufacture than products made from completely new materials.  For instance, you will save two pounds of carbon for every 20 glass bottles that you recycle (Per Nature Conservancy.)  You will also save 17 trees by using 1 ton of recycled paper (Per World Resources Institute.)
• Take fast showers and turn off the faucet when brushing your teeth, washing your hair, lathering your hands with soap, washing dishes, or washing food. This could save up to 25 gallons of water per month (Per National Conservation Campaign.)
• If you eat meat, add one meatless meal a week. Meat costs a lot at the store-and it’s even more expensive when you consider the related environmental and health costs.
• Walk or bike instead of driving to add to your health benefits.   The effort would save energy costs and save one pound of carbon for every mile travelled (Per Nature Conservancy.)

For additional information and references visit:

• Energy Star
• National Conservation Campaign
• Nature’s Conservancy
• U.S.  Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
• World Resources Institute

Federal Stimulus Takes Water Issues Seriously May 1, 2009

Green jobs and energy have been given new life by the stimulus bill. While environmental issues took a backseat at the beginning of the recession, the stimulus spending has reawakened the sense that green jobs can create a sustainable economy and slow the rapid pace of climate change. For a variety of reasons, energy has dominated the conversation, but there are other important environmental provisions in the bill. Principal among these is another, though not nearly as talked about, of the world’s other major resource problem we’re facing: water. The spending portion of the stimulus bill provides for a whole range of problems surrounding water on a regional scale:

• $290 million for watershed and flood prevention activities
• $50 million for watershed rehabilitation
• $1.38 billion for rural water and waste disposal loans and grants
• $1 billion for Bureau of Reclamation Water and Related Resources treatment facilities

These programs, among other water and environmental cleanup measures, are being administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of the Interior, and Department of Agriculture.

The severe weather resulting from climate change, increasing population, demographic shifts, and agricultural stresses are creating problems for water availability (see the 3^rd UN World Water Development Report for more info). These problems are manifest in the US too, and this is reflected in stimulus package spending. As one of the most basic of human needs and one of the most dangerous weather threats, it will create jobs to build, staff, and maintain water treatment plants, enact flood prevention measures, and clean up, replant, and landscape for the ecological restoration of watersheds. While these efforts don’t have the commercial appeal of renewable energy, they are nonetheless just as essential for the environment, economy, and long-range viability of our communities.

Federal Stimulus: Creating the New Economy April 23, 2009

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act has been hailed as an environmental triumph. Specifically, the stimulus package’s promise is in its potential to create green jobs, principally in the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries. And to most environmentalist’s joy, money for two hotly contested environmental issues, nuclear power and clean coal, were dropped from the final bill. Green jobs, in an energy industry which boasts more potential than IT, were going to simultaneously lift us out of an economic recession and fend off climate change. For the past month, however, the economy has shown signs of picking back up without the help of stimulus funds.

In the past month, the stock market has increased and the beginning of first quarter reports has been quite encouraging. A few days ago, Wells Fargo announced a big first quarter profit, an excellent sign from the troubled banking industry. The remainder of first quarter reports will have a big impact on whether investors think the market has bottomed out yet or not. This could very well be a short-term trend or perhaps an authentic road to recovery. At first blush it would seem the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act had started to make changes. However, as NY Times Columnist and Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman explained on NPR, the act was signed six weeks ago so only an insignificant amount of stimulus money is in the economy; the positive outlook is due much more to the Federal Reserve board’s robust interest rate cuts.

It seems that green jobs might not be an economic savior. After all, the current economic crisis was thought by some to be the inevitable result of a fossil-fueled, speculation-based, over-consuming economic system. Terrible as the direct impact of the recession has been on the average American, it could have been a correcting measure for the economy as a whole. Americans were driving less and growing more gardens. But if everything returns to normal, very few results have been gained.

The fact remains, however, that even if the economy can rebound to its old form, its lifespan is limited. And even if the economy recovers without the salvation of green jobs and the clean energy sector, it is difficult to think that the federal government’s investments and the current administration’s priorities will let things go on as normal. Consider the Washington Post’s breakdown of the $48.9 billion spent on energy and water:

- $8 billion in federal loan guarantees for renewable energy systems and electricity transmission

- $18.5 for energy efficiency and renewable energy programs

- $ Other, including modernizing the electricity grid

Additionally, Obama’s climate change stance, energy policy, and the upcoming climate meeting in Copenhagen all set the stage for an unprecedented next couple of years.

We could wish that green jobs will bring our economy back to what it was a year ago, but really we should wish that green jobs create a better economy altogether. The changes that the stimulus package implements must be independent of the current economic model if it is truly to be sustainable. An economy that matures, that experiences growth to a limit, is sustainable. One that uses energy endlessly and is based upon constant growth is not. An economy that builds durable houses for people, not just for a developer’s profits, is itself durable. That is part of the appeal of stimulus funds for creating green jobs – it is based on programs like weatherization for low income homeowners, improved energy efficiency and conservation, and local transit systems. These are programs which can change our economics.

The Triple Win: the Impact of Greening your Organization April 17, 2009

When your organization goes green, you win big. Your top and bottom lines win; you win by increasing your social and societal value; and your environment wins, through the reduction of water waste, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.  Remember when the press was touting the win-win situation?  Well, today it is even better, we are in a win–win-win situation, because the impact of greening affects the triple bottom line – profit, people and the planet.

Winning by Increasing both the Top and Bottom Lines

There are sensible monetary reasons to green, even if you think global warming or climate change are not important. The cost of home energy and water use is a big drain, so reducing them in this tight money time only makes sense.  After public scrutiny, corporations such as General Electric, Wal-Mart and Dow made drastic changes to their energy and recycling policies; later those policies remained because those changes ultimately saved them a lot of “green”.  Since 3M instituted water and energy efficiencies, they have saved over one billion dollars.  Yes, that’s “billion” with a “b”.

Small changes can make a big difference in saving money. By tinkering with its truck engines, Staples has bolstered fuel mileage, lowered maintenance costs and reduced greenhouse gas emissions.  Fleet efficiency has increased from approximately 8.5 to at least 10 miles per gallon, saving as much as 500,000 gallons of diesel per year due to this one uncomplicated change. With all the new tax incentives and credits, imagine what an investment in hybrid or plug-in vehicles could do for their bottom line or yours!  Eco-Coach can help you learn that the incentives there are in  your city, county and state, so you can install solar panels or a geo-thermal system, for example.

Going green can also fatten the top line. Grossman Marketing Group, a US$30-million (sales) maker of marketing, decided to spend up to US$4,000 every year to ease the strain on the nation’s energy grid by purchasing renewable-energy “credits” from two California wind farms. Adding 5% to its energy bill didn’t save Grossman money at the time, but it did attract eco-friendly customers like Google and Green Mountain Coffee. Envelope sales — which represent 45% of Grossman’s top line — grew 20% in 2007, which is a pretty good return on a $4,000 investment!

In response to a question about whether it makes financial sense for companies to embrace green initiatives, Jack Welch said, “The bus has left the station,” and that any company that doesn’t recognize this trend simply “doesn’t get it.”  And what makes sense for companies makes sense at home also.

Winning by Being Socially Responsible

The responsibility revolution is underway, argues Tim Sanders in “Saving the World at Work: What Companies and Individuals Can Do to Go Beyond Making a Profit to Making a Difference,” published in 2008. He points out that even small actions, whether of compassion or of leading by example, are vitally important for not only a business’s success but also for bettering the world. Both consumers and employers have turned away from price consciousness to demand that companies make a difference to society through their products, manufacturing methods, environmental efforts and community outreach. The new majority of mindful consumers have brought in a new value system, paying as much attention to a company’s environmental and social policies as to its pricing structures. Today, companies that do not transform will not be competitive losing customers who want their money to go toward good causes.

In a recent interview, Rupert Murdoch said that his decision to have his global media empire act on environmental issues was simply good business. The News Corp.’s environmental program would recoup costs many times, by creating efficiencies and because “[t]his program is a huge morale builder.” Ignoring green trends risks losing talented younger employees to companies with philosophies that are more in tune with their own: a third of Americans say that they would rather work for a green company over one that doesn’t promote environmentally friendly practices.  It makes a great difference that you buy, invest in and where you work.

Winning by Saving Your Environment

There’s no denying it any more: from climate change to fisheries crashing, the global environment is in crisis. Thanks to former Vice President Gore, the awareness of global environmental challenges has finally gone mainstream and responsible people everywhere are struggling for solutions. The magnitude of the problems can be overwhelming, yet the most exciting fact is that creating a healthy, profitable and sustainable world is possible. However, sustainability requires immediate attention in each workplace because we cannot afford to wait any longer.

Today there is considerable focus on how improved technology can solve those aspects of climate change associated with carbon emissions from fossil fuel sources. Yet by simply using less energy and using it more efficiently, businesses can have a major positive environmental impact.    Fossil fuel is at the root of much environmental degradation: the invisible collection of long lasting gases in the atmosphere that is caused by our burning of fossil fuel, is affecting all life on earth, causing everything from floods to fire and droughts.

So it comes down to how we use and produce energy at home and at work.  Technology can help, but relying on technology to save us is an expensive and insecure solution. Only by choosing to less energy and using it more efficiently, can businesses and homes have the major environmental impact that results in a triple win: for profit, people and the planet.

Eco-Assessor Certification Training in May! April 10, 2009

Become a Certified Eco-Assessor!

Eco-Coach has partnered with SB NOW, the Sustainable Business Network of Washington to develop a groundbreaking green business certification aimed at office-based and retail businesses. The certification is in Phase II of implementation and has received wide support in the DC Metro Area. There is currently a list of over 80 companies waiting to get certified in the Greater DC area.

As SBNOW’s for-profit partner, we are training and qualifying Eco-Assessors to review businesses and determine what steps they need to take in order to obtain the SB NOW ‘Certifiably Green’ Certification (to learn more about the certification, go to the SB NOW website ).

Course Objectives

This two-day in-person practical training, followed by an on-site shadowing session, will provide you with the experience and tools needed to successfully help clients through the ‘Certifiably Green’ certification process. By determining each client’s baseline and what changes are necessary in order to get certified, eco-assessors will help move businesses further down the path to environmental sustainability. Please note: Spaces are limited. We are only taking applications for 10 eco-assessors for this inaugural group.

During the training you will learn:

• •    In-depth information about the Certifiably Green certification and all the certification requirements;
• How to help business clients establish a baseline to determine where they stand in terms of sustainability using proprietary tools;
• To provide short-term and long-term recommendations that help business save money, save energy, and become more sustainable;
• Both quantitative and qualitative aspects of sustainability from green procurement to zero waste;
• About tools, including templates, questionnaires used during an eco-assessment;
• Methods to organizing and communicating change;
• Get access to results and information from participants in the program to date; and
• How to best position your client to obtain the certification as well as take steps towards real sustainability.

All individuals involved in eco-assessments must undergo and pass the training course and receive official certification and be re-certified each year.

Course Certificate

Once you become certified as an Eco-Assessor, you will become part of the network. You will be the first contacted when clients ask us to help them with the eco-assessment for the Certifiably Green certification.

Course Participants

The certification program is open to individuals who have some background in and knowledge of environmental matters and/or who have had experience in a consulting role. Individuals should have strong analytical as well as verbal and written communication skills. The program will be limited to participants in the Washington DC metro area for the time being. Participants must be available to work with Eco-Coach to conduct eco-assessments beginning in mid to late June.

Fees and Registration
We are offering special pricing for this inaugural group:

•    Dates: Tuesday and Wednesday, May 26th and 27th , plus a shadowing session at a later date TBD
•    Time: 8am to 5:30pm, both days
•    Cost: Introductory cost of $1,750
•    Location: Washington DC (TBD)

To secure your space in the course, register at www.eco-coach.com. If you have any questions, contact us at info@eco-coach.com.

Federal Stimulus Provides Green Energy Incentives April 3, 2009

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is a significant and historical spending bill that was recently passed by the 111th Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama.  This stimulus package is an aggressive and hopeful attempt to get the heartbeat of the American economy pumping again.  Among the various tax cuts, provisions, benefits, and programs are significant investments for renewable energy and energy efficiency that are meant to create a greener and more productive economy.
Of course, within the renewable energy sector, solar and wind power have much to offer for a cleaner future since they have the ability to produce electricity without pollution.  However, one of the great impediments that have limited the growth of these viable energy sources is the feasibility for system installation.  There were tax incentives in select states such as California to promote the growth of renewable energy, particularly for solar power that has helped the industry to expand, albeit in a limited fashion.  At the beginning of the year, the federal government changed the tax credit to 30% of the cost of the solar system, but capped it at $2000.  However, this measure made in the heat of the economic downturn has hardly advanced the solar industry.
Fortunately, the stimulus package brings various clean energy businesses to the forefront of the economy with additional tax incentives, bonds, grants, and loan guarantees.  For example, two measures that will help renewable energy, and solar in particular, are the grants and the loan guarantees.  The stimulus permits those installing solar systems to apply for a cash grant instead of a tax credit and receive the money back in 60 days.  These grants are meant to ensure industry growth by bringing investors back into solar and wind, whereas tax credits in the current economy would not allow for profit.
The stimulus package also makes more credit available by providing loan guarantees.  Solar energy is considered one of the safest and lowest risk investments, which should provide access to less stringent credit.  However, the recent credit crunch made if quite difficult for even safe investments like solar to obtain credit.  The government gets lenders to start lending again by backing up the loans, which should lead to the installation of more systems.
In addition, the stimulus package provides incentives for low-income families to make their homes more energy efficient through projects like adding insulation.
The benefits should percolate the economy.  The efforts that the government has put in place should provide green sector jobs and businesses with the means to operate, while creating a more sustainable economy.
The following link by the New York Times is a categorized breakdown of the 787 billion stimulus package. Following are additional web-sites provide more detailed information and other links:

• http://www.recovery.gov/
• http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=products.pr_tax_credits#s1

Water Definitions March 26, 2009

Among the many environmental challenges the world faces today are issues relating to water quality and quantity. Information on many of these water issues is available to the public through various resources. However, the water industry (like so many others) uses its own jargon, which may be confusing to the layman (ie most of us!). Nevertheless, we need to be educated about water in order to know how to deal with all kinds of water-related problems because this precious resource is central to any vision of sustainability. Below is a beginning list of common terminology and definitions associated with water resources to get you started:

• Brackish Water = Generally, water containing dissolved minerals in amounts that exceed normally acceptable standards for municipal, domestic, and irrigation uses. It has considerably less saline than sea water.
• Blue Water = Water in the open sea
• Freshwater = Desirable water for drinking and many industrial uses. It must have a salinity of less than 0.5% (parts per thousand) dissolved salts or anything less than 1 milligram per liter of dissolved solids of any type.
• Green water = The rainfall that infiltrates and remains in the soil is the largest freshwater resource and the basis for rain-fed agriculture.
• Grey water = (gray water) Wastewater from washing machines, showers, bathtubs, hand washing, lavatories, and sinks that are not used for disposal of chemicals or chemical-biological ingredients.
• Groundwater = Water that is part of the saturated zone of a defined aquifer. It moves slowly from places with high elevation and pressure to places of low elevation and pressure, such as rivers and lakes.
• Hydrologic cycle = The circuit of water movement from the atmosphere to the earth and return to the atmosphere through various stages or processes such as precipitation, interception, runoff, infiltration, percolation, storage, evaporation, and transportation.
• Non-point sources = Diffuse water pollution sources that are generally carried off by storm water without a specific point or origin, such as by agriculture or atmospheric disposal.
• 
• Point Sources = A stationary and identifiable location where pollutants are discharged, such as a pipeline or factory
• Potable water = Water is safe for human consumption.
• Run-off = The part of precipitation water the runs off the land into streams or other surface water.
• Storm water = The flow of water that results from precipitation and which occurs immediately following rainfall or as a result of snowmelt.
• Surface water = A source of drinking water and remains naturally exposed to the atmosphere such as rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.
• Wastewater = The spent or used water from a home, community, farm, or industry that contains dissolved or suspended matter.
• Watershed = An area that contributes water to a specified surface water drainage system because of a topographic slope, such as a stream or river.

Plight of the Placeless March 20, 2009

At a recent event I listened to noted environmentalist Wendell Berry, Bill McKibben, and Terry Tempest Williams and was struck by their mature sense of place. Their sense of place went beyond sentimental attachments, of which there were plenty. It was a commitment to environmental protection and restoration, economic reliance on their community members, and the heritage and health of their communities. As a child of the suburbs, this stood in stark contrast to my lack of place. But if these environmentalists have taught me anything, it is that loyalty to one’s place is a prerequisite for a healthy community.

Most of us are familiar with the markings of suburbia. Generally speaking, they lack a town center; if there is one it consists of the typical strip mall. Food comes from the grocery store, imported from South America or California. Anything else bought comes from even further away. As bedroom communities, they sponsor commutes that are commonly over an hour, disconnecting home from work. This story is played out all over the U.S., not just in the DC suburbs of Maryland and Virginia. The suburb I live in is no different than any other suburb; it is, in effect, placeless. It is our latest version of the American Dream, built on noble intentions. And while Americans love their suburbs, a new vision is needed. For sustainability is the story of limits – of scale and interdependent relationships.

If for no other reason, making the suburbs more sustainable is necessary for this simple fact: they aren’t going anywhere. As David Brooks notes about a new Pew Research Center study, Americans still want suburban living. Transforming the suburb into a healthy community will require intelligent planning and intentional individual action.

Creating a sense of place will take planning measures that reduce the use of cars and concentrate development. Most notably, it reduces greenhouse gases and gives a sense of neighborliness. Increasing public transit use in the suburbs is an essential step towards doing this. Regardless of the pros and cons of the proposed Purple Line (a suburban metro line in the northern portion of the Metro system) in the Washington DC metro area, for example, this type of thinking is what will transform our suburbs into distinct communities. Transit-oriented-development (TOD) is another planning strategy which concentrates mixed-use areas around transit, such as around a metro stop. It could be significant for creating town centers, and all their benefits, in and around suburban neighborhoods.

While citizen participation is an essential part of the planning process, there are individual actions which can create the relationships that characterize place-based living and healthy communities. One of the most important ways is to buy local food (see the blog posts ‘A Healthy DC part 1’ and ‘part 2‘). This builds relationships with producers in your foodshed, creating the space for improving the environmental, nutritional, and economic quality of the land and people involved in this food chain. Another economic approach, patronizing local, independent business, is vital for a thriving community identity which is absent in big box stores. These local, independent businesses are often run with more care, which equates into more quality for their customers. Beyond informed shopping, getting involved in a local environmental group goes a long way in learning the natural history and ecology of a place, as well as providing a way to get outdoors. It provides the opportunity to personally be involved in environmental factors that affect you, such as the water, air, and soil quality of your home.

Simply put, getting involved in your place makes you more aware of the details. Appreciating the details engenders care. We are encouraged to be mobile, zealous partakers of the globalized world – inundated with possibilities of where to shop, where to eat, and where to have fun. This is all well and good, but not at the environmental, economic, and social expense of our place.

The Forgotten Farmers March 13, 2009

We are now used to hearing about the greening of the economy. In principle, we would imagine green collar jobs would include local organic farmers, sustainable loggers, and others working closely with the land along with its cadre of workers in the green building and development, renewable energy, and transportation fields. But recently, these latter categories are dominating our sense of green collar jobs. They are the beneficiaries of venture investment and government subsidies. These are laudatory efforts, but we put ourselves and the planet in peril when we forget those who supply our basic needs in an ecological way.

This bifurcation in the green economy movement between technologists and land workers is both obvious and easily overlooked. Krupp and Horn’s “Earth: The Sequel” enumerates the millions of dollars Silicon Valley is pouring into its new favorite industry – renewable energy. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the stimulus bill) provides billions of dollars for renewable energy investment, rail and mass transit projects, weatherizing homes, and other energy and infrastructure projects. Meanwhile, farmers are losing their land or forced to become as industrialized as possible. Not surprisingly, the tailspin of rural communities, beginning decades before our current economic troubles, has not ceased. Indeed, many local organic farmers must find a niche or produce value-added products in order to survive.

We urban and suburban folks hear very little about who is investing in and helping those who work closely with the land. The fact is renewable energy has more market potential than tomatoes. Venture capitalists will never throw money at small organic farmers. Fine, but if we have learned nothing else, it is that normal market principles are not so compatible with healthy, local, organic food. Even if we are on our way to recognizing this, our attention to the glamour of technologists and large investments reinforces our tendency to overlook the essential services and land-based knowledge of country folks.

Renewable energy technology is undoubtedly essential, but most would agree food is important too. And since growing food will always be around, making it as sustainable as possible is also important. This is not just because we need to eat, but also because farms and forests are an intersection of many of our environmental problems. It is in these locales that we can begin to restore ecosystems. This should matter to anyone who is concerned about environmental degradation, thriving rural areas, and human health. Industrial organic agriculture, for all its merits, still falls short of our vision for a healthy and sustainable food supply. But local organic farmers improve soil, water, and air quality. They promote wildlife and ecosystem integrity, which is responsible for invaluable ecosystem services that we depend on. They help create and maintain local economies and communities. They provide scenic and recreational opportunities.

With benefits such as these, those who work close to the land deserve more of our attention and resources. There are economic and non-economic ways of correcting the focus of the green economy movement. Economically, we can use our buying power. It sounds sentimental to patronize sustainable agriculture and forestry. But the point is that we can choose the economics of care, which is healthier for everyone and everything involved, over the economics of growth. This would give much needed clout to the forgotten farmers. Beyond economics, there are conservation and planning measures that we, as citizens, can take to preserve our rural lands and promote healthy farming. The American Farmland Trust is a national non-profit dedicated to this cause, and in the DCmetro area, we have the Piedmont Environmental Council. There are also state conservation programs and county planning boards which need citizen response. By getting involved in these ways we can avoid the risk, so often taken in the past, to overlook the humble and irreplaceable sectors of our economy.