Can a $40 Washing Machine Really Bring Families Out of Poverty?

Yes, yes it can.

GiraDora is a blue bucket that conceals a spinning mechanism that washes clothes and then partially dries them. It’s operated by a foot pedal, while the user sits on the lid to stabilize the rapidly churning contents. Sitting alleviates lower-back pain associated with hand-washing clothes, and frees up the washer to pursue other tasks. It’s portable, so it can be placed nearby a water source, or even inside on a rainy day. It reduces health risks like joint problems, skin irritation, and mold inhalation. Most importantly, it uses far less water and cleans clothes faster than conventional hand-washing. This equates to more free time…and the opportunity to break the cycle of poverty.

What will they do with that time? Who knows. Possibilities include receiving microloans to buy one and provide laundry service to your neighbors who will then compensate you. When we trade we no longer have to do lots of tasks to keep going, we can trade our labor in one thing for others’ labors in other thing. It is trade that makes us richer. Self-sufficiency is poverty.

Time: that is the true measure of something’s worth. If you have to acquire it for yourself, it usually takes longer than if you get it ready-made by other people. And if you can get it made efficiently by others, then you can afford more of it. This is what prosperity is: the increase in the amount of goods or services you can earn with the same amount of work. – Matt Ridley, The Rational Optimist, How Prosperity Evolves

The longer version:

Related articles

Genetically engineering microbes to work for us

Interesting video from the Open University.

Genetically engineered (GE) E. coli bacteria produce much of today’s insulin supply. By using GE, we are turning microbes into “tiny factories” that happily churn out what they get re-programmed to do.

Weekend Postcard: Gads Zeus…Hops

In the middle of the month of May I posted a weekend postcard of my Zeus hop bines in a half barrel container. The juvenile growth looked more like blackberry (Rubus spp.) vines than hops, which are a cousin of nettles and hemp (now you have an idea of why hops smell as they do).

Now, two months later the hops have grown 10 or 12 feet and are winding around our deck railings. They have begun flowering, so hop cones may not be far behind.

“Hey, I care about the planet—can I go to Rio?”

English: Aerial view of Rio de Janeiro city ce...

My latest Green Chain column for the Lake County Record-Bee.

 

Last month the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) marked its 20th anniversary of the “Earth Summit,” meeting once again in Rio de Janeiro. In 1992, Earth Summiteers envisioned the future they wanted, which included uplifting the “social and economic development” status of the world’s poorest people and protecting the environment all the while using sustainable development. And, much of what they then hoped for has begun: The numbers in heart-breaking poverty are down for the first time in history, the rate of hunger is down, infant mortality is down, illiteracy is down–the list of achievements continues. In short, we are healthier, wealthier and better educated now than in any time in our world’s history. Much work remains to be done, but the numbers show that the problems are not intractable.
After making progress on the social and economic front for the past 20 to 30 years many in the environmentalists worry that those achievements happened because we allowed evil corporations to unsustainably use our earth’s resources, and we must stop corporations from massively gouging, plowing, polluting, and consuming too much. We need to rein in our appetites and think smaller, dimmer, and slower.

Or, put another way, if you liked the ‘Great Recession’ you will love your ‘green’ future.

Your lifestyle is the problem, according to many greens, but the answer is easy, explained Ronald Bailey in an article on the 1992 Earth Summit. “Let the government divest you of your excess goods, such as your carbon-dioxide-emitting automobile; your alienating, too big house or apartment; and foods imported from outside your bioregion.” Wahoo! Haven’t you always wanted to live the life of a 12th century serf? Hello grinding poverty and dysentery!

So, last month some 50,000 people including world leaders, government functionaries, private sector people, non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and others converged on sybaritic and raucous Rio for a week in June to consider how to “reduce poverty, advance social equity and ensure environmental protection on an ever more crowded planet to get to the future we want.”**

The crowning achievement of this latest Earth Summit was, not surprisingly, a document: “The Future We Want.”

Obviously, the “future we want” must be done sustainably which means, according to the U.N. website, using resources to meet “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Of course we know what those future resources will be, right?*

The final document displeased most of the NGOs, because, those charged with finalizing it did so by cutting any quantifiable commitments from any nations and not really defining “sustainable (but salting the word throughout the document).”***

“It is nothing less than a disaster for the planet,” said Nnimmo Bassey, chair of Friends of the Earth International, in their press release. “This is a hollow deal and a gift to corporate polluters that hold UN decision-making hostage to further their economic interests.”

The Greens need not worry. As Ronald Bailey notes, “The Future We Want” launches “a process to define a set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” with the “newly created Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)” to list and define the SDGs. The IPBES will be similar to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It bears noting the IPCC started out cautious in its assessment of the state of knowledge of climate change and became increasingly strident when it learned that money flowed to it when its predictions became ever more catastrophic.

I fully expect the IPBES to follow the IPCC’s lead and make increasingly gloomier predictions periodically. I just wish they could have these meetings in some way that didn’t result in thousands of people flying thousands of miles to wring their hands about other people’s pollution. Minding other people’s business seems to be the only sustainable activity they can all agree on.

* Aren’t you glad our Neolithic-age ancestors saved rocks; otherwise we might have run out by now.

** It’s amazing how these conferences often happen in places with sun-soaked beaches (such as Rio and Cancun). I am sure that the UNCSD planners picked Rio de Janeiro because it showcases the economical use of resources, especially on the famous beaches. After all, as P.J. O’Rourke has noted, Rio’s beachgoers use “very few of the Earth’s precious resources on clothes.”

*** You can drive an oversized truck and trailer through the current definition–one research paper noted it could mean anything from “exploit as much as you wish as long as you do not infringe on the ability for people in the future to exploit as much as they wish” to use “as little as necessary to maintain a meaningful life.”

Sources:

Bailey, Ronald. What I Did on my Summer Vacation. Reason magazine, 1992. pp46-48  http://reason.com/assets/db/13396383287448.pdf

Bailey, Ronald. Sustainability Semantics. Reason magazine, July 2010.   http://reason.com/archives/2010/07/06/sustainability-semantics accessed 5 July 2012

Bailey, Ronald. Rio +20 Earth Summit: Greens Fail to Get The Future They Want. Reason.com. http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/21/rio-20-earth-summit-greens-fail-to-get-t accessed 2 July 2012

Rio+20 – United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development. http://www.uncsd2012.org/rio20/about.html accessed 4 July 2012

Friends of the Earth International. Rio+20 Declaration: A Gift to Corporate Polluters. http://www.foei.org/en/what-we-do/rio-20/blog-posts/rio-20-declaration-a-gift-to-corporate-polluters accessed 5 July 2012

Poverty in Numbers: The Changing State of Global Poverty from 2005 to 2015. Brookings Institute. http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/01_global_poverty_chandy.aspx accessed January 27, 2011

Opening Gambit: Best. Decade. Ever. Charles Kenny. Foreign Policy magazine. http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/16/best_decade_ever?page=full accessed: January 13, 2011

Related articles

Sites Complex Buildup to Quiescence July 9

These pictures show the increase and decrease in energy on at least one of the fires at the Sites Complex Incident from 2:15pm to 5:50pm. The photos were taken at ~10 minute intervals. Below those is the California Fire Situation Report which features footage from the Sites Complex.

Weekend postcard: Manzanita skeleton

This is a common scene in the Mediterranean climate of California: dry grass, some shrubs and pines, and an oak.

We pulled off onto the shoulder of a road and lying on its side was this skeleton of a manzanita amid the dry grass. Its cause of death remains unknown. Perhaps it died from its lack of light with the oak overshadowing it and slowly robbing it of its ability to feed itself.

The word ‘manzanita’ means ‘little apple’ in Spanish; and, indeed the manzanita’s fruit resembles an apple, if you squint…from a distance…in the twilight.

Dead manzanita skeleton

Organic can be the right choice for fruit, sometimes

This “Green Chain”column will be published in the Lake County Record-Bee on Tuesday.

The National Organic Program administers the O...
The National Organic Program administers the Organic Seal to products that meet the requirements. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” – John Maynard Keynes.

Forgive me please for starting this month’s column with the same John Maynard Keynes’ quote as last month’s. But new facts have been brought to light.

I have long maintained that it is wrong-headed to always choose organically-produced foods over foods produced using synthetic chemicals and fossil fuels. I have previously pointed out the use of fossil fuels to produce pesticides and fertilizers and run machinery allows conventional farming to use less land than organic methods. And, when taken in aggregate worldwide, we spare wetlands, grasslands, forests, and sundry open spaces from being cleared for agriculture. Had farmers continued to use organic farming methods, they would have needed to exponentially increase the acreage under cultivation in order to increase production to meet demand. And since agriculture is the number one cause of deforestation, more acres under cultivation means a loss of biodiversity, which is the last thing proponents of organic agriculture want.

A newly published report in the journal Nature shows that I am incorrect, if only slightly. This new paper forces me to revise my statement. The new statement: it is generally wrong-headed to always choose organically-produced foods over foods produced using synthetic chemicals and fossil fuels.

The report is titled, “Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture.” While I have admittedly only been able to access the abstract, the authors find that organic farming methods are indeed less efficient than conventional ones: anywhere from 5 percent to 34 percent less efficient. But they also state, “Under certain conditions—that is, with good management practices, particular crop types and growing conditions—organic systems can thus nearly match conventional yields.”

Those “nearly match” crop types they refer to are not, sadly, vegetable and grain crops, which provide most of the calories for the world’s populations. Organic yields for vegetable and grains generally fall one-third below the yields of conventionally grown crops. On the Nature website Melissa Gilbert paraphrases lead author Verena Seufert, “Cereals and vegetables need lots of nitrogen to grow, suggesting that the yield differences are in large part attributable to nitrogen deficiencies in organic systems.”

Some fruits, on the other hand, under ideal circumstances can produce up to 97 percent of the amount of conventional yields if they are planted in rotation with nitrogen-fixing legumes to replace the critical nitrogen in the soil. Still, this 97 percent only counts the yield of the fruit crop. It ignores the need to harvest a legume instead of fruit every other rotation. There is no such need with conventional methods, which can bring double the yield since farmers would not necessarily need to rotate to a legume.

We often wax nostalgic for the good old days. Somehow, those days were better and technology, on the whole, has been bad. We downplay the benefits. Stephen Budiansky, a former editor of Nature, writes that due to the use of technology “…the total land area of American farms remains almost unchanged from a century ago, at a little under a billion acres, even though those farms now feed three times as many Americans and export more than 10 times as much as they did in 1910.”

So, if you are concerned about preserving forests, wetlands, and open space, it is usually, but not always, wrong-headed to always choose organically produced foods over foods produced using synthetic chemicals and fossil fuels—if we’re talking about certain fruits, that is.

Sources:
Biello, David. ”Will Organic Food Fail to Feed the World?” Scientific American. April 25, 2012. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=organic-farming-yields-and-feeding-the-world-under-climate-change accessed 04/25/2012)

Budiansky, Stephen. “Math Lessons for Locavores.” NYTimes.com. Published: August 19, 2010. (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/20/opinion/20budiansky.html?_r=2 accessed 07/31/2011)

Gilbert, Melissa. “Organic farming is rarely enough: Conventional agriculture gives higher yields under most conditions.” Nature News & Comment. (http://www.nature.com/news/organic-farming-is-rarely-enough-1.10519 accessed 06/13/2012)

Seufert, Verena, Navin Ramankutty, and Jonathan A. Foley. abstract for “Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture.” Nature (2012) doi:10.1038/nature11069 (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature11069.html accessed 06/13/2012)

Related articles

Weekend Postcard: A Green Car Grows in Berkeley

I saw this car-shaped hedge growing in a Berkeley neighbor hood and knew that it had to be a weekend postcard. Berkeley must have more Toyota Prius‘s per capita than anywhere else on earth. And, just down the street sits an all-electric car made by a company I have never heard of. But this car beats all those others. Not only is this car Zero-Emissions green, it absorbs CO2 rather than emitting it. I dub thee the Topiary DL.

Berkeley is, well, different:

A car grows in Berkeley

“Let it be said that, on balance, I would like the world to look someday, much like Alice [Waters] probably wanted to look. A city on a hill—or many cities on hills—surrounded by unbroken vistas of beautiful countryside; seasonal, and sustainable fruits and vegetables specific to the region. Healthy, happy, antibiotic-free animals would graze freely over the land, depositing their perfectly odorless, organic shit back into the food chain so other wonderful things might grow…The schoolchildren of the inner cities would sit down each day to healthy, balanced, and entirely organic meals cooked—by happy, self actualized, and enlightened workers—to crispy perfection. Evil lawyers and stockbrokers and Vice Presidents of Development for Bruckheimer Productions would leave their professions and return in great numbers to work the fields of this new agrarian wonderland, becoming better people in the process. In this New Age of Enlightenment the Dark Forces of Fast Food would wither and die—as the working poor abandoned them to rush home between jobs and cook wild-nettle risotto for their kids. It would all be clean and safe and nobody would get hurt. And it would all look…Kind of like Berkeley.” – Anthony Bourdain, Medium Raw.

Related articles