Green Vacations!

As we all get set to travel across the country (and the world) for spring break, I thought I'd investigate the idea of ecotourism, which is defined by the The International Ecotourism Society as "responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people." To that end, I've encountered a list compiled by Forbes of the World's Best Green Vacations. (http://tinyurl.com/6jexs7q) 

Criteria used to evaluate the sites included tourism providers or locations respecting local wildlife; employing local staff; and focusing on the outdoors with minimal impact to the natural environment. In order to stay within the theme of my blog, I'll bear in mind that the sites may not be as green as they seem. After all, vacationing itself isn't always a green act, considering the amount of fuel it takes to fling oneself to a new place. But, I'll take a look at five options they offer:

Compass Cay, Bahamas

What's Good: According to Forbes, the island supports friendly schools of sharks and does not allow fishing or taking anything. The site also encourages visitors to come prepared with food and sustain a pretty typical lifestyle. Air conditioning is provided, but not usually needed.

What's Bad: Getting there. The island's pretty isolated, so you usually need to take a small plane to get there. Also, while you're there, you access everything via boats, which are provided to each party. The website indicates that there are restaurants available five miles south of the island by boat. Also, I was a little confused by the fact that Forbes said they didn't allow fishing, but the site says they do. It seems as though getting back to nature is still pretty inefficient. 

Alsek River, Alaska

What's Good: Getting in touch with nature! The trip Forbes discusses (Mountain Travel Sobek), emphasizes the amount of diverse wildlife and glacial formations you'll encounter. And it's leaving a relatively small environmental footprint. Rafting is powered by man, as is hiking, another frequent activity on the trip. It also appears that the majority of the lodging is camping, which doesn't require a lot of resources either.

What's Bad: Not a whole lot. Again, getting there is hard. Most people will have to fly to Alaska and then drive to the start of the trip. There's the potential of humans having a negative impact on the nature they're supposed to be admiring, whether they pollute or tamper with a specie in some way. The trip's not accessible to everyone looking for a green vacation. It's a moderate to difficult rafting trip, which requires a great deal of experience. Not for the faint of heart.

Santa Cruz Island, California

What's Good: Owned by the Nature Conservancy and the National Park Service, Santa Cruz Island offers a great deal to explore, from mountain peaks to deep canyons to 77 miles of coast. The island was brought back from a state of ecological collapse and now offers a variety of unique plants and animals, including the bald eagle, which was reintroduced to the island. The island allows limited visitors and does not appear to accommodate lodging, so people can include a day-trip visit as part of a larger vacation.

What's Bad: Looking at a location like this, which offers so few negatives, forces me to pick on little problematic details. As it's not a destination, Santa Cruz Island doesn't do much to encourage green vacations, as a whole.  Rather, it's a chance to visit nature's bounty as a part of another vacation/lifestyle. There's a number of chances for visitors to pollute the island. Nevertheless, it's a little oasis off the coast of LA, a notoriously smog-filled city.

Campi Ya Kanzi, Kenya

What's Good: Offering a safari experience unlike any other, Campi ya Kanzi is owned and operated by the Maasai people, making the business part of a local economy. The number of sustainable options the camp provides are endless. Water collected in PVC bladders. Renewable energy sources. Conservation of the land and culture. The creation of the Maasai Wilderness Conservation Trust, which enables the development of the Maasai community through consistent investment and education. 

What's Bad: Despite all of their efforts to create and sustain a close community, which is encouraged by Deep Economy, I can't help but feel awkward about this place. By offering a 5-star experience, they're inviting a very select group of individuals with a great deal of money to spend. I'm wondering whether people choose Campi ya Kanzi because they truly support its values or because they're looking for a trip that's hip and trendy. It seems to invite cultural imperialism. But, perhaps I'm being judgmental. Maybe it was the first image I found on the site, which was a group of tourists enjoying champagne while sitting on the plain. Also, traveling halfway across the world to find sustainable communities seems sort of silly. True, you will have a unique experience, but efforts to create sustainable communities are happening in your backyard.

Hotel Paraiso Cano Hondo, Dominican Republic

What's Good: Claiming eco-friendly lodging, this hotel (whose name is too long for me to type over and over) offers a variety of options to get in touch with nature, including bird-watching, hiking, touring caves, swimming, camping, and horseback riding. The location of the hotel, smack-dab in the middle of the forest, provides a unique experience of returning to a simpler way of life. The hotel also incorporates elements of the native people of the area, such as local food. 

What's Bad: Perhaps it was because the website was in Spanish and I lazily used Google Translate (though I do speak Spanish). But I couldn't figure out exactly how this hotel is eco-friendly. Other than its location and the fact that it supports local traditions, the hotel seemed to be just as potentially harmful as any other. Accommodations include hot water, electricity and room service, which could garner a lot of waste. 

The way Forbes compiled this list meant that sometimes their definition of green and my definition got a little twisted. Neither is better than the other. But some of these sites were intriguing to me, and I encourage anyone who's looking to learn about a different aspect of the green movement to check out eco-tourism. 

Greenwashing Index

First of all, apologies for being a bit late on the posts. It's been a rather hectic week!

In my search for guides to green fashion at the beginning of the week, I stumbled across a site called the Greenwashing Index:

http://www.greenwashingindex.com/index.php

Sponsored by EnviroMedia Social Marketing and the University of Oregon, Greenwashing Index allows consumers of green marketing to view and post ads that claim the environmental friendliness of a company, as well as rate the ads on the relevance of their claims. On a scale of 1-5, if your ad gets a 1, you're seen as "authentic", but if you receive a 5, your claims are deemed "bogus".

Whenever someone evaluates an ad, the site generates a score based on responses to the following five statements:

1. The ad misleads with words. The company misleads the consumer on the true nature of their environmental impact.

2. The ad misleads with visuals and/or graphics. The image that comes to my mind is that of a hybrid SUV in a forest. The images lead you to believe that the car is green, when SUVs are pretty detrimental to the environment.

3. The ad makes a green claim that is vague or seemingly unprovable. A company's claims to being green either lack substance or don't have anything to back them up. If something claims to be made from 100% recycled materials, it's difficult to determine such an exact percentage.

4. The ad overstates or exaggerates how green the product/company/service actually is.  For instance, a water bottle company can claim they're green because they used recycled plastic, but the process of making and refurbishing plastic isn't terribly environmentally-friendly. 

5. The ad leaves out or masks information, making the green claim sound better than it is. This can often happen in the green clothing industry. Technically, using materials such as bamboo, which waste less water and renew more quickly, is an environmentally-friendly move, but companies don't often mention the chemicals needed to soften bamboo fibers, which contribute to pollution. 

Let's look at some ads that received low scores (authentic environmental claims) and those that scored higher (bogus claims).

The Best

Black Cloud

Average Rating: 1.0 (5 ratings)

In response to the massive growth of cars and exhaust emissions in China, WWF took a step to educate others. To kick off their "20 Tips for Sustainable Development" campaign and bring people to their site, WWF attached a giant black balloon to a car for a day with a slogan indicating how much carbon monoxide you could keep out of the atmosphere if you drove one less day. The goals of WWF are straightforward and their mission to reduce pollution is genuine. 

Sun Chips Green Energy Credits

Average Rating: 1.7 (4 ratings)

Sun Chips asserts that baby steps can change the world. 18 grams of whole grains per serving can lead to a healthier lifestyle. And their attempts to become more sustainable will contribute to a better planet. Where does this ad go right? They acknowledge that what they're doing isn't going to save anything; rather, it'll help out. Honestly like that helps the viewer believe in their mission. Where does it go wrong? Their claims of "green energy" aren't substantiated with evidence. It's likely that you can find out more on their website, but stating they're green without providing anything to back themselves up within the ad makes the viewer question whether they're really environmentally conscious. 

The Worst

Fiji Water

Average Rating: 4.7 (11 ratings)

Oh, Fiji. Where do I even begin? First of all, they mislead the consumer with words and images. There's very little about the water bottling process that's environmentally-friendly, yet they've attempted to convince the viewer that their product is "green". Secondly, they make a vague claim that's difficult to prove. It's unlikely that "every" drop is green, and even if it is, by what standard are they evaluating "green"? Fiji is clearly over-exaggerating their environmental impact. They've likely taken steps to become more sustainable, but their industry is anything but and ads such as these distract from their non-green practices.

Wal Mart: Reducing Prices and More...

Average Rating: 4.5 (2 ratings)

I'll admit that after reading Nickel and Dimed, I tend to pick on Wal-Mart a fair amount, so this selection is a bit motivated by my personal views, but I will say that this ad serves as an excellent example of misleading consumers and overstating environmental impact. By placing their ad on a background of an open field with a tree, Wal-Mart visually misleads its consumers into believing their green efforts are bigger than they are. This isn't to say that Wal-Mart hasn't attempted to become greener in the last several years. But, in a number of ways, Wal-Mart is inherently unfriendly to the environment. Their stores take up acres of land and require an enormous amount of energy to run. And, in order to maintain the lowest prices, they manufacture many of their products in factories overseas that both lack certain environmental standards and have been known to mistreat their workers. Wal-Mart has a lot to prove to the sustainable consumer, and it's likely that ads such as these will ring untrue. 

Want to rate an ad? Or maybe post one yourself? Visit the Greenwashing Index! And keep an eye out for "green" ads. You now have some tools to determine whether a product is really as green as it claims to be. 

Sins of Greenwashing 2010

As I explained in a previous post, Terra Choice supports the growth of sustainable companies while serving as a watchdog against greenwashing, or misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company and/or its products. Over the last several years, they have conducted research entitled "Sins of Greenwashing" that determines the prevalence of green products on the market and investigates "green" claims, determining whether a product is in violation of one of the seven sins of greenwashing. 

The 2010 study visited 34 stores in the US and Canada and examined 5,296 products making some sort of "green" claims. When I first read a summary of the 2010 report, I was pessimistic. The study found that 95% of "green" products were in violation of one or more of the 7 sins of greenwashing. That being said, green consumerism is improving from year to year. Since 2009, the number of "green" products offered for sale has increased by 73%,  and the proportion of sin-free products has doubled in the last year. Greenwashing is still a significant issue, but it's declining and changing. Less often are products committing the Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off (claiming a product is green based on a narrow set of attributes, ignoring other non-green attributes). The Sin of No Proof (claiming green without evidence) is on the rise, thanks mainly to BPA-free claims, as well as the Sin of Worshipping False Labels ("certified green"). It appears that companies with more experience in "greening" become better with time, reducing their greenwashing, obtaining more reliable "green" certification, and continuing "green" growth. Whether a product has good eco-labeling had a significant impact on whether it committed a sin: more than 30% of products with legitimate labels had no sins, while only 4.4% of the products across the study were sin-free. And it may be interesting for Robert to know that BPA-free claims have increased by 577%. Hooray for non-toxic water bottles!

The study then broke down their investigation by categories of products, including Toys and Baby Products; Household Cleaning Products; DIY Building and Construction Products; and Consumer Electronics. 

Toys/Baby Products: Claims of BPA and Phthalate-Free are skyrocketing, and 2/3 of "free" claims come on these products. More "green" products are offered in this area in comparison to last year, but less than 1% of them are free of greenwashing sins. The Sin of No Proof is most common in this category.

Household Cleaning Products: Different products within the category had varying rates of growth (for instance, green chemicals increased by more than 100%, but tissue products maintained a typical growth of 77%). Greenwashing varies significantly by category. The Sin of Vagueness is most common in this category and includes claims such as "Eco-Friendly," "Environmentally-Friendly," "Earth-Friendly," "Environment-Safe," "Harnessing Nature," and "Eco-Chemistry." This category makes good use of legitimate certification, likely because of the importance of eco-labeling in the chemical industry.

DIY-Building/Construction Products: This category is being "greened" more quickly than the other categories of the study and has less greenwashing than the study average (6% vs. 4.4%). The Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off is very common in this category and includes single-benefit claims such as "air quality," "energy," and "recycled content." More than 30% of the products surveyed had legitimate eco-labels, including ENERGY STAR and GREENGUARD. 

Consumer Electronics: This category is growing relatively slowly in the "green" sector in comparison with the study average (13% vs. 73% average). Not a single "green" electronics product was found to be sin-free. More than half of the products committed the Sin of Worshiping False Labels. Many of the products carried self-generated labels that created the appearance of 3rd-party endorsement. 

This is a lot of information. What does it all mean? On a basic level, consumers should be aware that just because something has a "green" label or makes a claim to be "green" doesn't mean it's actually environmentally-friendly. There are any number of reasons why a company releases a product that isn't as green as they claim it is. Perhaps they're trying to capitalize on the green trend, or perhaps they don't have a clear concept of what green means for their company. It's impossible to know for sure. 

That being said, if you want to buy "green," by no means should you be completely discouraged by this study. Greenwashing is very prevalent, but it's getting better. The proportion of sinless products is rising every year and more green products are being offered overall. Basically, it seems that the more time that passes, the more various industries will develop products that are truly environmentally-conscious. Like anything, creating "green" products comes with a learning curve. One point the study made was that the majority of products are sort of green, but not completely so. So, by investing in green consumerism, you're making a step in the right direction by purchasing something that is more environmentally-friendly than the original product and indicating to a company that you want them to continue making green products. Whether green consumerism is truly an answer to climate change is yet to be determined, but so long as it's around, it's encouraging to know that companies are making a concerted effort to offer truly environmentally-conscious products. 

I'm curious to take a look at green products and try to determine for myself what sins they could be committing. For instance, apparently Robert's shower head doesn't save as much water as it claims it should...

If you'd like to look at the study summary, here's the link:

http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/findings/greenwashing-report-2010/

This Blog Lacks Pictures

So I thought I'd add a few pictures from my Eastern Market experience this summer!

Grown in Detroit brings together the crops of several urban farming initiatives in Detroit and sells them at different farmers' markets around the city. This sign was from a Saturday in June; the majority of the crops are greens, which are in season earlier in the summer.

It's worth mentioning that at it's current size, Detroit can't sustain a recycling program because it isn't cost-effective. So, drop-off programs like this one provide a place for people to bring recyclable materials.

From field to table!

Believe it or not, that's garlic! It's not always the dried bulbs you buy at the grocery store. These were sold by Grown in Detroit and can be used from the bulb part up to the part where the leaves start splitting off.

A family enjoys a two-man band.

A sign from Eastern Market's very successful bridge card program.

This suits our class so well :)

Eastern Market Corporation's raised bed garden. A system like this reduces the amount of invasive plants/pests and allows for rotating plants throughout the growing season.

And finally, an example of the hustle and bustle of a typical Saturday in Shed 3.

Put Your Hands Up for Detroit!

Thanks to Brian and Ashley for their discussion on urban farming and solutions for Detroit today! I tend to get a little excited when it comes to talking about Detroit' future. Well, a lot excited. I know I bring up Eastern Market a lot in class, but being so involved with Detroit this summer taught me a great deal about the city's culture. Very quietly, like the tiny seedlings that begin urban farming projects, ideas are sprouting all over the city that will inevitably bring positive change. It's almost a well-kept secret that Detroit's on the rise again. It is important to acknowledge that Detroit has a lot of problems and a lot of work to do. It is likely that change will come slowly, in fits and starts, and the process will not always be a happy one. It will never be the city it once was. But, it's hard to witness the passion people have for the city and not become excited that it's headed in the right direction.

To that end, I thought it would be valuable to post some of the little things that make Detroit an intriguing place to be. Model D is a web magazine that highlights Detroit's vibrant neighborhoods, creative people, developing projects, and interesting places to go. I'd recommend checking out the sidebars on the site. They sort their information by news, subject area, development projects, and neighborhoods. Prior to working in Detroit, I never realized the number of diverse neighborhoods they have:

http://www.modeldmedia.com/

Model D also has a Youtube channel, which gathers all the videos they produce on Detroit and the surrounding areas. Each video is relatively short and covers a unique subject, such as Restaurant Week in Detroit or the singing hot dog guy (if you've been to a Tigers game, you know what I'm talking about):

http://www.youtube.com/user/modeldmedia

Finally, Model D picked 5 projects that have "changed the game" for the city of Detroit. The second project should sound familiar at this point...But each brings something unique to revitalizing the city's infrastructure. The foodies of the class will especially appreciate Honey Bee, a grocery store in Southwest Detroit that simultaneously caters to the tastes of Mexicantown residents, provides quality produce and meat, and offers locally produced specialty foods. As a side note, I thought Honey Bee sounded very familiar, and after checking it on Google Maps, I realized it was about 4 blocks from Matrix Theatre, the community theater I volunteered with last semester. I can't believe I never stopped by!

http://www.modeldmedia.com/features/5greatprojects062910.aspx

Also, in case you were wondering where the title of this post came from, or perhaps are searching for Detroit-related music that has nothing to do with Eminem, I'll leave you the link to the music video for "Put Your Hands Up for Detroit", an electronica song by Fedde Le Grand that's often used at Detroit sporting events and for promotional purposes. Actually, I'm not sure if you should watch the video; it's a little strange, and completely unrelated to Detroit. But, if you're looking for something catchy, you can play it in the background:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYs2HHYqmxw

Banning Bottled Water...And Checking Labeled Bottles

This morning, I received an email urging me to sign a petition to eliminate bottled water. In a slightly tired state, I immediately deleted the message. As a student, I get a number of "support this cause" requests via email and I kind of need to eliminate most of the messages in order to keep on top of my correspondence. As a Community Action & Social Change minor, I realize this makes seem uninterested in social change. Fortunately, today, this was not the case...

I had forgotten about the petition until later that day, when my brother posted a status on Facebook mocking the people who had sent out the petition. I answered that the petition was one step towards reducing our carbon footprint and making water accessible to everyone. His response: Water is accessible to everyone and always has been. Ordinarily, I'm not good at arguing with him because he's able to think on the fly in a way that I struggle with. But, this time, I had ample evidence to back my claims, thanks to Flow and our class discussion.

I told him that water is NOT accessible to every person. In a world of water privatization, those who cannot afford clean water are forced to consume water that is unclean and unsafe. Thousands of people die yearly from water-borne diseases that would not occur in such large numbers if everyone had the same access to clean water. "So what?" he asked. "How does the plight of third world nations have anything to do with bottled water here?" I mulled over my options. I could argue that making a gesture here would send a message to water companies that we will not tolerate water privatization, but that seemed too idealistic. Then, it hit me: Coca Cola in India. Bottling water for a first-world nation was making water supplies unsafe for a developing nation. I, along with a few of his friends, managed to demonstrate that bottling water is not only wasteful, but affects the lives of people far beyond our borders. We live in an era of globalization. I returned to my email, found the petition, and signed it. One signature may not say much, but as I told him, you never know what small action will cause a person to become motivated to contribute to social change.

I suppose the first part of this post is to thank the water privatization team for bringing this subject forth. I must admit, I was a little wary after I got through the readings. I was overwhelmed by much of the economic jargon; I wish I had taken an econ class while in college, since it informs a great deal of what I'm learning about now. But, Flow really left an impression on me. When Robert asked for initial responses to the film, I was speechless. I couldn't believe the amount of injustice that existed around accessing water. There were too many problems to be confronted at once. The world will continue to work on water-related policy with no concrete solution in sight. Still, I'm inspired to learn more about this issue and am considering conducting a project on water privatization for my community action and social change class.

The second part of this post is meant to introduce a subject that will inform a blog post later this week. As part of my final project, I'm looking for examples of products that have been labeled as green, but that aren't actually environmentally conscious. In the midst of green consumerism, there are companies that are making legitimate attempts to promote environmental sustainability, and there are companies that are jumping onto a profitable trend. I've come across a group called Terra Choice, an environmental marketing and consulting firm that helps "genuine environmental leaders" build their market share and make progress towards sustainability. Part of their work is to serve as a watchdog of companies that are labeling their products as "green," whether or not they contribute to environmental sustainability. Essentially, they look for companies that engage in "greenwashing":

Green∙wash (grēn’wŏsh’, -wôsh’) – verb: the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.” (from sinsofgreenwashing.org)


As part of their search for "greenwashing," they have developed "The Seven Sins," which are seven common practices used by companies that claim their products support sustainability. You can find them here, but I'll also summarize each one briefly:

http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/findings/the-seven-sins/

Sin of the Hidden Trade-off: Claiming that a product is green based on a narrow set of attributes, ignoring other important environmental issues. The example they give relates to paper: buying paper from a sustainably-harvested forest may not be completely environmentally friendly, considering the non-green processing it takes to make paper.
Sin of No Proof: Claiming that a product is green without reliable evidence. Imagine a coffee sleeve that claims it's made of 65% recycled materials. Is it really? Where's the proof?
Sin of Vagueness: A poorly defined claim that is likely to be misunderstood by the consumer. For instance, calling something "all-natural" may sound nice, but there are lots of things that occur naturally that may not be good for you.
Sin of Worshiping False Labels: Claiming third-party endorsement when no such endorsement exists.
Sin of Irrelevance: Claiming something that is truthful, but that is unimportant or unhelpful for consumers trying to find environmentally-friendly products. Products will often claim to be free of a substance that has already been deemed illegal.
Sin of Lesser of Two Evils: Claiming something that may be true, but that may distract the consumer from the greater environmental impact of the product category. For instance (in a slightly unrelated example), egg producers often label their eggs as "cage-free." While it may be true that the chickens are not kept in cages, they are often kept in housing that isn't necessarily more humane than cages. The consumer is distracted from the fact that egg production is often unfriendly to chickens.
Sin of Fibbing: Making claims that are false. Saying you're Energy-Star certified doesn't mean that you are!

These seven sins are used by Terra Choice to evaluate a number of products and determine the prevalence of "greenwashing." Later this week, I will evaluate one of their recent reports, which claims 95% of products labeled green aren't actually green, as they have committed one or more of the sins.

Green Consumerism and Some Initial Musings

So, this is what it feels like to be at the beginning.

Topic: Green Consumption

Questions: What are we really buying? How much is useful and how much is hype? And are we really helping the planet by buying green?

I wasn’t really sure how to deal with such a monstrous topic. So, I Googled it. And while that didn’t help me narrow my focus much, I did come across this article that perfectly articulated the theme of my final project, which I figured would be helpful as a starting point:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/fashion/01green.html

Simply put, being green is trendy. Before Al Gore released “An Inconvenient Truth,” global warming was a stereotypically far-left liberal issue. In a nation staunchly committed to capitalism, nobody wanted to change their daily consumption habits for a much-debated theory. “An Inconvenient Truth” not only brought environmentalism to a massive audience; it popularized the movement in a manner that many industries could adapt. Toyota could release hybrid cars. Starbucks could create cups from recyclable materials. American Apparel could manufacture t-shirts made from American cotton. Suddenly, the green movement wasn’t asking anyone to make great sacrifices to save the world; it was asking them to maintain their consumption habits with slightly different products.

It is here that I, and many others, come into conflict with green consumerism. Green consumerism, as a term, is a sort of oxymoron. Consuming at as high of a level as we do rapidly depletes the world of resources and continues adding more carbon dioxide to the air. The United States currently consumes about twice as much electricity and oil as any other country in the world. We’re making a big contribution to global warming. We aren’t going to fix it by consuming the same amount of stuff, but in a more environmentally-friendly format. The current green movement is too easy. In order to slow the impacts of global warming and resource-depletion, we would have to consume less, as a whole. Drive less. Weather-proof our homes. Detach ourselves from our electronic devices.

Granted, I realize that saying “consume less” is providing a simplistic answer to a complex problem. It’s early in this project and I’m still trying to figure out where my research is going to take me. I will say that I was intrigued by the article’s idea that green consumerism is the entry point to a more sustainable lifestyle. I think the green movement has struggled in the past because it has provided catastrophic possibilities that could only be resolved by a complete change in lifestyle. As I’ve learned in social psychology, confronting someone with a fear appeal alone won’t get them to change their behavior. But, if you provide an action plan to initiate behavior change, people are more likely to make the effort. So, you can present a million disgusting pictures of tobacco-related cancer, but no one will stop smoking unless you give them the resources and steps to do so. Green consumerism is a step in the action plan of the global warming fear appeal. People don’t tend to like dramatic change. But, they’re willing to support a cause if it doesn’t ask much of them. We can begin saving the planet by purchasing green products. Perhaps this will be the sparking point that interests someone in environmentalism. They could conduct more research and figure out other ways to become more sustainable. Suddenly, the person driving a Hummer could have a windmill in their backyard. Education is a powerful thing. And though it may be counterintuitive, green consumerism can bring about societal change. There will always be a need to consume, and there will always be a need for industries to produce the items we consume. So long as they’re producing items that are friendlier to the environment, we’re starting somewhere productive. 

Bridge Cards Motivating the Local Food Movement?

Apologies: this was actually written for Monday's class, but I just decided today to do this in blog form, so it's a little late:

As I’m contemplating what to include in my journal entry this week, it occurs to me how a seemingly unrelated topic actually informs the discussion of bridge cards and their relation to local food. In my Spanish class on urban issues in Latin America, we’ve been discussing the plight of the cartoneros, a group of individuals in Argentina who make their living by collecting cardboard and other reusable materials from garbage and sell it to private recycling plants. Over time, the cartoneros and the government of Buenos Aires have fought for control of these materials and the cartoneros have gradually obtained rights and fair wages, organizing into cooperatives to increase their rate of success. However, after nearly a decade of struggle, the recycling system of Buenos Aires doesn’t seem much better off. The cartoneros are only able to gather about 5% of the recyclable materials from the city’s garbage, and the rest are burned off, sending pollutants into the air at an alarming rate. Reading about this situation, I wondered why the Buenos Aires government couldn’t take the initiative and start a public recycling program that resembles what we have. I realize this is easier said than done, but it seems we have a model that can be applied to a multitude of situations. I looked at the work of the cartoneros and determined how they had obtained success, and I was most intrigued by their idea of each cooperative going house-to-house, informing citizens of the importance of recycling, and gathering the materials from a much more willing public. In some ways, it seems as though our recycling program also emphasized the importance of educating our citizens. There existed a time when we didn’t understand the importance of recycling either; but, with consistent education, it became incorporated into our lives to the point that, at least for me, not recycling a reusable material seems unnatural. It seems as though Bridge Card programs in farmers’ markets have the potential to inform their customers in a similar manner. Though there isn’t someone present to say, “It is important to buy locally,” programs such as Double Up the Food Bucks imply to bridge card users that local food is more worth their while than non-local food. Essentially, I wonder whether offering local food at a cheaper rate will not only cause shoppers to make it a bigger part of their diet, but also encourage them to learn more about the local food movement and determine why it should be a priority in their lives. Inevitably, I also wonder whether it matters if people know a lot about local food if they’re going to buy it with or without knowledge or passion for the movement. A great deal of research is being done to determine whether people are motivated to help others because they possess true altruism or because it benefits them in some way. However, the importance of this research is often questioned; does it really matter if the guy serving soup to the homeless does it selflessly or not? Inevitably, there will always be people that need help, and as long as they’re receiving that help, it doesn’t necessarily matter what motivates that help. Popularizing the local food movement may not work in the same way. Even if a larger portion of individuals buy food from members of their community, scattered local food projects will never come together in a manner that will cause the local food movement to spread nationwide. It seems that knowledge is the fire that will drive the process forward. The potential to spread that through bridge card programs is intriguing.