This is what I discovered while working for Malama Kaua`i, a non-profit dedicated to helping facilitate more sustainability on Kaua`i. After completing a research project on the difficulties facing North shore farmers, it became apparent that the number one barrier to successful agricultural operations was difficulty getting into new markets, self-promotion, and delivery. Even if the growers were talented in this field, many farm operations on island are limited in size and it was the restaurants that had difficulty in working between 8 different farmers to complete one days order. In actuality, they needed a middle man.

To help mold the solution, I was able to create Cultivate, a local-produce distribution service that markets, sells, and delivers local food to island establishments. The premise is very simple: Cultivate markets the produce each of its growers has available that week, buys the produce from the growers once it is spoken for by a client, and delivers the next day. By working with up to 12 growers, Cultivate can offer a wide variety of fruits, vegetables, and herbs every week, satisfying even the largest hotel, restaurant, and grocer clients that small local growers would otherwise be unable to sell to. And by working closely with growers, buyers can be proud that the prices they pay are “fair” prices decided upon by the farmers themselves.

One of the best things about Cultivate is that it’s an exportable model that can fit into any community. A local-produce distribution service helps grow your local farms, farmers, food, and local food movement. If you’re interested in starting your own Cultivate, please feel free to contact us and become part of the solution, one delivery at a time.

Photo credit: Salvatore Barbera

In light of recent reports that Apple refused to allow its iPhone to be included in the first green ranking scheme for mobile phones conducted by the U.K., some are wondering how far Apple really falls from the environmental tree.

Earlier this year, Apple refused to implement a board committee on sustainability and publish an annual sustainability report, which adds to the speculation over how green Apple really is.

Back in 2007, Greenpeace launched a successful nine-month “Green My Apple” campaign, after which Steve Jobs announced the company’s shift towards becoming greener. Among Apple’s green initiatives were increased recycling efforts and plans to phase out Brominated Fire Retardants (BFRs) and Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), the worst chemicals in its product range. While Apple has lived up to its promises and then some, the manufacturer scored a measly 4.9/10 on the May 2010 Greenpeace “Guide to Greener Electronics” scale. Greenpeace may have motivated Apple in 2007, but some say another campaign might be needed.

True, Apple still does not provide a traditional sustainability report, but it does relate its sustainability data (which can be found on its website) to the relevant Global Reporting Initiative indexes, which were also used in the development on the 2009 Facilities report.

Apple’s 2010 Supplier Responsibility Report highlights the manufacturer’s efforts to make sure that its vendors offer environmental sustainability and fair labor conditions. The report reveals that Apple is expanding its supplier efforts, with the number of vendor sites being audited growing from 37 in 2007 to 102 in 2009. And Apple also deserves kudos for its expanded take-back and recycling program. The program has been extended to the Asia-Pacific region and recycling rates have increased each year, from a mere 18% in 2007 to 41.9% in 2008.

Read more here.

Read more about Apple and the environment here.

www.triplepundit.com/2010/08/sustainability-mcdonalds-csr/

We all know that McDonalds has never been closely tied with corporate social responsibility… This is largely due to the health risks associated with the products this fast food giant peddles to us everyday. However, with this in mind McDonalds has taken huge steps in establishing itself as one of the most socially responsible companies out there today…

McDonalds has recently published a 71 page sustainability report on its website, which includes codes of conduct, standards with regards to fair labor, equitable working conditions, logistics, energy and sustainable feed. Lets also not forget the Ronald McDonald House Charities, which has donated millions of dollars over the years in order to help critically ill children.

Many of the worlds biggest companies are closely associated with negatively impacting issues such as oil production, fast food, mining, logging, fishing and travel. These are inevitable parts of life that even the most socially responsible people utilize on a daily basis. So instead of condemning all such companies lets get behind the ones that are making a huge effort to improve some of the environmentally devastating practices going on in the world.

These companies exist because there is a demand for them, and most likely there will continue to be a demand for a very long time. We as consumers of products, such as oil and fast food, need to put pressure on these companies to deliver a full fledged corporate social responsibility plan and keep a close eye on their execution. The world can be a batter place by taking many small steps and these companies (who currently have massive carbon footprints) have the power to ensure a prosperous future for all of us if they work towards it.

Read More…

Photo Credit: Dick Rochester

Are you getting ALL of your essential vitamins? If you spend most of your time indoors, chances are, you are missing out on your necessary vitamin D intake, which a new Oxford University study says can be linked to a variety of diseases. The main reason for Vitamin D deficiency is not enough time out in the sun, and for some, it’s poor diet choices.

The study addresses the fact that today people are spending more time indoors than ever before. Throughout history, people typically spent their days outdoors farming or working, as there was no major advantage to spending time inside. Today, however, we spend most of our days indoors with the advent of electricity, cars, and new categories of jobs. The evolutional decrease in our vitamin D levels has led to an increase in artificially fortifying foods with vitamin D. Although this may supply vitamin D in your diet, not all shoppers are keen on purchasing fortified foods.

So why is Vitamin D so important for your health? Without this essential nutrient, the body is unable to properly absorb calcium, which is required in keeping the bones strong and healthy. Therefore, it works as a protection against osteoporosis and rickets, both are conditions in which the bones within our body become weak and thin. Colon, prostrate and breast cancer are another concern for those missing out on UV rays. Vitamin D appears to have a protective characteristic in regards to these cancers.  Click here for more risks associated with vitamin D deficiency.

Studies say as little as 20 minutes per day will meet the body’s vitamin D needs. While excessive exposure to sun can be dangerous, and potentially cause skin caner, a little can actually be beneficial- but please be careful finding this balance!

To visit the original study, published article in Genome Research, click here.

Photo Credit: Tim Waterbook

Humans pride themselves on having superior intelligence and ability to reason in comparison to all other species of this planet. However, in recent years we have witnessed several errors in judgment, which lead us to question our natural propensity to make errors.

Take the collapse of our ‘infallible’ financial markets as a recent example. Are these bad decisions a result of not fully understanding external facilities and systems that we have created, or rather the result of a 35 million year old evolutionary malfunction?

Laurie Santos and a group of researchers have performed a study that placed monkeys in an artificial marketplace after teaching them how to use currency on a very basic level. Obviously, when first given money, our evolutionary relatives had no idea how to use it. Over time, the primates discovered that handing over tokens to a trainer would earn them an extra ration of food. This was not necessarily a breakthrough, as you have seen- even dogs can be taught to perform simple acts for rewards. However, this was only the first step.

A ‘monkey marketplace’ was set up, in which all goods cost one token, but the amount of food was varied. The monkeys always purchased goods from the salesperson that offered more food for one token.  While this is also not very surprising, it showed that monkeys understood the concept of value when dealing with currency. Also similar to humans, monkeys showed no evidence of saving, as they would spend every token they had in return for food. The subjects were also prone to larceny (stealing each others tokens), which we have seen all too much on Wall Street.

The study became more interesting when the reliability of the salesperson became inconsistent. Sometimes a trainer would display three items of food for sale, but only deliver two at the time of purchase. Other trainers would add extra food items after the sale was complete, almost as an added bonus. An interesting trend was recognized. Monkeys made the same economic decision when determining risk/reward.  The subjects would take a larger financial risk when they were faced with a loss, which is the same irrational behavior humans have demonstrated in recent times. Why would monkeys and humans both treat losses differently than gains? It appears that our greedy financial strategies could possibly be the result of an evolutionary malfunction.

As long as we perceive everything in old evolutionary terms we will continue to make unnecessary mistakes with money. However, this does not mean that our financial system is doomed. Another thing we pride ourselves on is our ability to overcome biological limitations. We couldn’t fly, so we invented airplanes. We couldn’t breathe underwater, so we invented SCUBA equipment. However, it is important that we recognize these biological limitations before we can overcome them. Perhaps our ability to make reasonable financial decisions is slightly skewed, but all is not lost. First we must recognize this fact, then we can go about fixing it.

To watch the video click here…

Photo: Peter Heilmann

The debate over wind energy has created a green-on-green dispute.  In one corner are proponents of the clean power produced by wind turbines that we so desperately need in a world trying to combat the effects of global-warming.  In the other are environmentalists and conservationists who argue that wind turbines threaten wildlife such as migratory birds and wild cats.  Thrown into the midst of these usual allies is the faction of people opposed on the basis of aesthetics.  Environmental lawyer Robert Kennedy Jr. is one such opponent who worries that windmills will be an eyesore for residents and tourists alike.

The project Kennedy opposes is called Cape Wind, and if it were to proceed it would become America’s first offshore wind park, capable of manufacturing 468 megawatts.  The U.S. is currently a global leader in land-based wind energy, but lags in comparison to China and Europe’s sea-based projects.  This proposed site off of the island of Nantucket would be larger in area than the island of Manhattan and taller (134 meters) than the statue of liberty.

There is also the proposed concern of turbines on humans.  In Australia residents have complained of headaches and earaches coming from the low-frequency noises generated.  Studies in the U.K. and Australia have fond these claims to be unfounded however; noting the rumble to be no worse than that of an office building.  In Germany, Spain, and Chine that technology is relatively controversy free.  Whether this is because they have accepted the circumstances or recognize the cost-benefit ratio, the rest of the world should follow suit.

Check out the August 21^st-27^th edition of The Economist to learn more

Photo Credit: Gideon Tsang

As an avid biker, I’ve always assumed that riding was a better option than driving for many reasons. I avoid the morning traffic, I don’t worry about finding a parking spot, and have the pleasure of getting my recommended thirty minutes of exercise a day. I also feel good about being green. However, a recent study by Hasselt University in Belgium has made me think twice.

It came as a bit of a surprise that cyclists are exposed to more pollutants than drivers on the same road. The study was conducted by equipping cyclists and drivers with devices that measured and compared the number of nanoparticles inhaled in the corresponding amount of time.

Using a pre-determined route, it was found that cyclists inhaled, on average, four to five times as many carcinogenic particles than drivers. Of course this number is expected, due to the fact that cyclists are directly exposed to the elements and  inhale more air at high levels of exertion, according to the study approximately 1000 cubic cm of air each breath. This translates into tens of millions of these nanoparticles, so small that wearing a mask would be futile, passing into a cyclists system with each breath.

The trouble is making a clear connection between these high nanoparticle exposure levels and their perceived effects, mainly heart disease and lung cancer. With the lack of studies concerning the connection between these inhalants and their effects, more must be done to establish a clear link between these nanoparticles and disease.

Though this news may be troubling for some, I still believe the benefits of biking outweigh the risks. This study, which focused on riding within an urban metropolis, fails to accurately depict and incorporate the various landscapes where cyclists may be found, specifically urban and rural areas.

When compared to a smaller town, the study showed that pollutants dropped from 5.58million particles inhaled per meter to 1.1 million particles per meter.

Of course it will be some time before scientists can prove a definitive link between increased exposure and disease. There are a lot of things in the environment that are hazardous to our health, but worrying about all of them will only make things worse.

But next time you ride, don’t forget to wear a helmet.

For the full article about this recent study see The Times.

Photo Credit: Piermario

It would be safe to say that most of us have never given much thought to the desert mountains east of San Diego, where over 300 members of an influential Indian tribe exist.  In fact, the Campo Kumeyaay Nation is one of its kind in terms of the environment: the reservation is home to the only large-scale renewable energy plant on Indian land in our country.

The wind farm (which went online back in 2005) provides electricity to up to 35,000 homes in San Diego country.  But why a wind farm on a tribal reservation?  The plant actually posed as an alternative to Golden Acorn Casino.  Yes, a casino- one that provided the economic support needed for the community educational programs, fire department, among other societal necessities.  However, the effects of a depressed economy and increased unemployment left the tribe with the need for an alternative- and an environmental one it was.

The Campo tribe is already in negotiations to build an even larger wind project that will be their own and not just the land.  But there is one obstacle that gets in the way of renewable energy option for tribes across the nation: taxes.  Because Indian tribes are semi-sovereign nations, they can’t collect federal tax credits (credits that can cut the price of a wind/solar project in half) for renewable energy.  While tribes are already eligible for some stimulus funding, it is now a matter of passing legislation to pass that will extend these credits to Indian tribes.  It would open another door for opportunity to contribute to the clean energy initiative that is greatly needed in the U.S.

For more information, click here.

Photo Credit: Tom Owen

Over the past decades, fisheries in general have been on the decline.  Modern technology helps increase total catch resulting in dwindling populations.  Authorities are forced to place quotas on species in hopes of preserving school size.  Though this is typically the case, Florida authorities are encouraging divers to capture and kill Lionfish!

Though a beautiful specimen, lionfish are a serious threat to the health of Florida’s reefs.   Native to the Indo-pacific waters, lionfish found there way to Florida during Hurricane Andrew (1992) when an aquarium broke allowing the fish to enter Biscayne Bay.  With no natural predators, Lionfish have been able to thrive in the Caribbean and Atlantic, heading as far north as the Carolinas.

The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission as well as nonprofit group REEF (Reef Environmental Education Foundation) both support the open hunting season.  Zachary Bamman of REEF explains that lionfish “pose a huge threat to the reef because they eat all the fish, and economically important marine species like grouper and snapper, lobster and shellfish.”

Divers who capture the lionfish are asked to freeze the animal in water and send them to wildlife authorities for further research.  But remember don’t touch the spines; though not fatal they have been known to cause severe pain, swelling, and even convulsions.

To read more about Lionfish

Photo Credit: GardenRow

On Monday, the city of Honolulu agreed to incinerate around 20,000 tons of trash, which had been sitting in Honolulu’s Industrial Park for 5 months waiting on orders to be shipped to Washington.  When an incomprehensible amount of trash has to be shipped somewhere else in order for Hawaii not to sink under its own weight in trash, you can see that there is a serious waste management problem.  Especially when a country is thinking of defaming land that sits near an Indian reservation.

The state does have some solutions to remedy the immediate problem:  the 21-year-old Waimanalo Gulch landfill, which will probably close in 2012, and Honolulu’s “H-Power” electricity generating system.  The landfill is filled with trash and trash can be burned in the H-Power machine and be used as fuel for electricity.  Hawaii is trying to take responsibility for its mess, but Waimanalo Gulch will be full by 2012 and the rest of it being used as fuel for the H-Power system will take at least 5 months to disposed of.  In other words, Hawaii is running out of places to put all of its waste.

Officials proposed to ship future waste over to the United States  in a landfill near the Columbia River in Washington’s Klickitat County, but this plan was stopped.  The Yakama Indian Reservation is near this landfill, and after fierce objections, a court ruling took their side.

It’s great that Hawaii is going to try and solve their trash solution themselves, even though it might have something to do with the sensitive nature of the land they are trying to bring the trash to.  But if one little state cannot solve their trash problem, can the world ever be rid of never-ending piles of trash?

Read more about Hawaii taking responsibility here.