This morning's blogger tour of South Africa included a stop off at the Capetown headquarters of startup electric car maker Optimal Energy.

The three-year old company is developing the Joule, a six-passenger all electric car that is scheduled to begin low-volume production at the end of 2010. CEO Kobus Meiring said the vehicle will have a maximum range of about 200 km, but the trunk has space for a second battery pack to double the range. The top speed for the car, aimed at city drivers, will be 130 km/hr.

The Joule is designed to compete with mainstream vehicles, not electric cars, Meiring said. He didn't give specifics about the price, but said that without the batteries (which will be leased separately), the price will be in the range of 220 Rand (or around $25,000). The batteries will have a useful driving life of around 200,000 km.

The cost of the batteries is uncertain as the company has not selected a lithium ion battery partner yet, and Optimal Energy may lease batteries at multiple price points. (This is consistent with EV and plug-in hybrid makers in the U.S., who are similarly scrambling to identify batteries that meet their performance requirements). For EVs, batteries are a considerable amount of the cost, and the technology is still being tested and developed.

(For me it's a little unsettling for car companies such as GM and Optimal Energy to be touting the wonders of a car when the major driving force--the batteries -- are an unknown quantity. It's like HP promising a wonderful new computer without knowing which CPU they'd use.)

Executive Marketing Manager Diana Blake said the company is considering batteries from 20 companies including those from China, the U.S. and Japan, and is also looking at ultracapacitors -- the costly but durable solid state devices that can supplement batteries. Third-party battery companies, such as Better Place, which is setting up operations in Israel and the U.S., would be welcome to compete in battery leasing, according to Meiring.

Optimal Energy is targeting South Africa's 700,000 units per year vehicle market. The Joule is designed to meet European safety regulations so that exporting to the north can also be an option.

The motivation to start the company included issues familiar to Americans -- energy security (Meiring claimed 90 percent of all wars in the past 50 years were over energy), reducing carbon emissions, and increasing local jobs. However, the company has not yet studied the carbon impact in switching from South Africa's diesel fuel derived from coal (nearly the entire market) to electricity from coal. Meiring said that electric batteries are five times more energy efficient than internal combustion engines, but transmission and energy losses in transferring energy to and from the batteries will lower the relative benefit. Since coal-to-liquids is about as carbon and energy intensive transportation around, the bar is pretty low for the vehicles to have a positive carbon impact.

While South Africa is currently under producing electricity to meet demand (and is therefore building more coal power plants), Meiring says the power grid has more than adequate power to accommodate overnight recharging even if the entire 7 million vehicle fleet switched to electrics.

Optimal Energy has several advantages in launching an electric fleet without impacting the grid over U.S. auto companies. First, the South African government's Department of Science and Technology is a shareholder. Also, the state utility Eskom provides 90 percent of the electricity for the country, so introducing the vehicles requires dealing with a single entity, as compared to the U.S.' mishmash of local private and public power providers.

Also, the country is on a single time zone, so night time recharging administration could be consistent through the nation. Meiring says introductory talks have begun with Eskom (which "has bigger fish to fry" because of insufficient power generating capacity), but they haven't done demonstrations like are being done in the U.S. to test the impact of the vehicles on the grid. Meiring said the company plans on having the vehicles automatically recharge only at night, but an override would allow daytime charging.

Optimal Energy's management include several engineers who developed helicopters for the government. Meiring said the company has outsourced much of the research and development to universities. He said that South Africa had been a leader in lithium battery technology until 1994 (when the government changed), and he believes that they could return to prominence in that area. Availability of lithium should not be an issue as nearby Zimbabwe has considerable untapped resources, according to Meiring.

The field for a full-time electric vehicle remains wide open as much-hyped Tesla Motors continues to have problems. While Optimal Energy did not mention selling the U.S. market, if the company can provide a hit in South Africa with locally-produced vehicles, the world may come calling.

(The blogger tour and meeting with Optimal Energy is being sponsored by the South African International Marketing Council).

Big public works projects can lead to big hassles. And one of the largest highway projects in recent memory—Boston's Big Dig, which buried a major interstate below a major city—created more than its fair share. But recent criticisms of the project, saying suburban traffic congestion has essentially made the project a gigantic failure are way off the mark.

The history of the Big Dig began in the post-WWII Interstate Highway boom. Boston, then a decaying industrial and shipping center, was searching for ways from becoming a regional backwater. Aside from bulldozing an entire neighborhood to make way for modern high-rise towers and government offices, the notorious Boston Redevelopment Authority also decided the city needed direct Interstate access to keep downtown commerce vital.

The solution was an elevated, double-decker, three-lane highway called the Central Artery; an ugly, loud, exhaust-spewing eyesore that was congested almost from the day it opened. The highway, and neighborhood-splitting clearances in other parts of Boston proved so unpopular that a second urban highway that might have alleviated some of the congestion by providing a circumferential route around downtown was cancelled due to community protests. This left Boston with only two interstates: East/West Interstate 90 and North/South Interstate 93, with the closest beltway some 10 miles out, along the Route 128 corridor.

While this resulted in some legendary traffic snarls, it also brought—by necessity—some tremendous sustainability improvements to the Boston area. Areas that had been cleared for cancelled freeways were used for a realigned and improved mass transit line and massive park-and-ride lots, allowing low-carbon commutes from Boston's Northern suburbs. In the city itself, the new transit line allowed a dilapidated elevated railway to be demolished, providing faster, more reliable service, and clearing the way for the final leg of Amtrak's Northeast Corridor to be electrified. In Cambridge, Brookline, Jamaica Plain, and other municipalities along the cancelled Inner Belt route, a prominent bicycle-commuting culture arose.

After the Big Dig finally uncorked the infuriating downtown bottleneck, the elevated artery was replaced with the Rose Kennedy Greenway, a linear park through Boston's urban core that has furthered its reputation as the country's most walkable city. Much of the city's car related air pollution left with the congestion, while vast stretches of Boston's historic North End and Waterfront were open to the sky once more, enticing more pedestrians to the regions, and resulting in an economic boom.

Though congestion and commute times along I-93 outside the city have increased, it's hardly the fault of the Big Dig. Historically low gas prices and a complete lack of tolls on the highway gave decades of commuters no economic incentive to avoid the crowded commute. By comparison, toll-heavy I-90 suffers far fewer congestion problems at peak hours, despite reaping similar benefits from the Big Dig's improved traffic flow. Underinvestment in mass transit during the 1990s has also fueled the problem, as late trains and unreliable track conditions pushed more commuters onto the highways.

The Big Dig has had a few undesirable environmental consequences, but most of that burden has been borne by communities just outside of Boston, which now carry the bulk of the circumferential traffic from the newly improved Big Dig on parkways and surface streets, resulting in elevated levels of noise, air pollution and lung cancer. But with an upcoming extension of the urban subway line, many of these environmental problems will be substantially mitigated. If anything, America needs more projects like the Big Dig to secure a sustainable future.

By Ben Block

An Israeli water engineer was sitting under a tree one day when he noticed a leaking faucet slowly drip water to the tree's roots, a nearly 50-year-old irrigation tale says.

The idea inspired the invention of modern drip irrigation, also known as micro-irrigation. The method runs water through plastic tubes that release the flow through small holes directly to crop roots or stems.

The precise application allows drip-irrigated crops to be watered more frequently than with traditional sprinkler methods. Yet farmers waste fewer resources because most water is absorbed through transpiration. As a result, many governments have encouraged drip irrigation as a water-conserving technology that can boost crop yields.

But drip irrigation may have a downside, according to a study published in last week's Proceedings of the National Academies of Science. In traditional flood or sprinkler irrigation, "wasted" water - the water not absorbed by crops - seeps into the ground and recharges the below-surface aquifers used by area farmers. As drip irrigation becomes more common, recharge of groundwater may be less frequent, the study said.

"I think it's very true that drip irrigation and drip irrigation subsidies definitely contribute to food security and increased farm income," said Frank Ward, the study's co-author and a professor of water resource economics at New Mexico State University. "The only downside...is that drip irrigation could be using more water."

If Ward's study is true for areas beyond the study's focus area - the U.S. Rio Grande Basin - agricultural development organizations may need to evaluate whether costly drip irrigation is truly an efficient technique, the study said. This is of particular concern as global food crises and water shortages force many regions to decide between growing food or conserving water.

The Stockholm International Water Institute estimates that feeding the world's undernourished population and the additional 3 billion people expected by 2050 will require 50 percent more water resources than today.

The vast majority of the world's available fresh water - some 70 percent, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) - is withdrawn for agricultural usage. Most crops are not irrigated with the drip method due to higher costs. In the United States and Spain, where the technology is used most, it comprises 6.75 and 2.75 percent of the total irrigated area, respectively, according to the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage.

But drip irrigation is becoming more popular. More farmers in the United States, the Middle East, and North Africa are turning to the technology, especially to grow permanent tree and orchard crops.

Ward first became aware of drip irrigation's potential to diminish water reserves when several irrigation engineers, farming consultants, and water agency administrators in the Rio Grande Basin informed him of the problem. They told Ward that farmers who adopted the technology were using a larger portion of the region's groundwater. "They worried [that] farmers would conserve themselves right out of an aquifer," he said.

After initially dismissing the concerns, Ward and Spanish researcher Manuel Pulido-Velazquez created a model of the basin's hydrology. The model included the total water diverted from streams, applied to crops, evaporated into the air, and returned to the ground.

At maximum levels of drip irrigation subsidies (the U.S. government offers subsidies to offset the technology's higher cost), the analysis concluded that farmers in the irrigation district would apply 40,000 acre-feet (49.3 million cubic meters) less of water per year. Yet due to the loss of "wasted water" and the additional water demands associated with the higher yields of drip irrigation, the entire district would face a deficit of 36,700 acre-feet (45.3 million cubic meters) of water per year.

"Farmers themselves believe they are using less water," Ward said. "They apply less, but because plants unknowingly may use more, they deplete more."

Not all researchers are convinced. "It's an absurd proposition," said Mahbub Alam, an irrigation specialist at Kansas State University. "Drip is the answer to be able to manage water much better and still have good production and do more with less."

In addition to questioning the study's model, Alam said that irrigation water obtained directly from a stream is more valuable than any runoff harnessed downstream, due to the mix of chemicals applied to most farmland. "Assumption that degraded water from return flow has the same value as the pristine water left in the stream by [increased use of drip irrigation] cannot be correct," he said.

But the efficiency of drip irrigation varies considerably by region and crop. In some Great Plains states, for instance, farmers who use a spray irrigation method known as central pivot often lose much of their water to evaporation. In contrast, if drip irrigation is used, the application often occurs below the surface and very little water evaporates, said Charles Burt, chairman of the Irrigated Training and Research Center at California Polytechnic State University.

"In Kansas and Texas, it is entirely possible, but not guaranteed ...that evapotranspiration under drip is less than with pivot because it depends on the management and design of the sprinklers," Burt said. With less water vanishing into the air, he explained, crops would lose less water than Ward estimated in his study of New Mexico.

In California, however, Burt supports the study's findings. "Let's face it. You don't irrigate to save water," he said. "[With drip irrigation], overall there is higher consumption."

Yet drip irrigation's significant boost for crop yields cannot be ignored. California has become the world's No. 1 producer of almonds over the past 30 years, due in part to the  increased reliance on drip irrigation. Almond farmers have required some 15-20 percent more water, but average yields nearly doubled, said Blake Sanden, an irrigation farm advisor with the University of California Cooperative Extension.

"You cannot produce high-yield crops without a fairly significant input of water," Sanden said. "In the end of the day, hungry people will win the game."

In addition to irrigation technologies, farmers' crop decisions play a significant role in water conservation outcomes. Rice, for example, uses about twice as much water per hectare as wheat, according to the FAO.

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org.

From the first trans-Atlantic flight to the first privately funded space exploration, a high profile cash prize has long been an effective motivator for advancing technology. Even if the prize money cannot possibly recoup the expense of preparing a competition entry, the publicity and increased funding it brings a technology sector is well-worth the expenditure. Nowhere is this more evident than in the buzz surrounding next year's Automotive X-Prize. The problem is, the ambitious competition may simply not be a far-enough reaching solution.

There's no question that the technical requirements of the competition will lead to significant automotive innovations. The competition's requirement that vehicles be capable of carrying four adults for ranges of 200 miles at a stretch while getting the equivalent of 100 miles per gallon is a difficult technical hurdle to clear. But because all teams must also complete a business plan to create 10,000 unit production runs of their vehicle, the transition of these technologies to the consumer market should be easier than the standard technology trickle-down.

The mission of the X Prize, which has received financial backing from sources as varied as software marker Adobe to the Union of Concerned Scientists, is solid, and its shortcomings are certainly not technical.

Perhaps the sentiment that best sums up my misgivings about the race comes from the X Prize's promotional material: "People love their cars. They are vital links to our jobs, our community, ourselves. For everything we love about them, cars are chained to the most severe global crises of our time: oil dependence and climate change."

While a consumer market of super-clean, super-efficient cars will make a tremendous dent in humanities' contribution to climate change, the fact remains that direct emissions and oil consumption are only part of the problem caused by a world ever-more reliant on the automobile. While many of the entries primarily rely on petroleum, even if future vehicles switch to get some or all of their energy from an emissions-free source—say, electricity— the massive energy demand that brings billions of people to work each day would, in the course of a few years, be transferred to an aging and frequently unstable power grid.

Further compounding the problem, many skeptics have raised concerns that existing renewable energy technologies may not be able to meet present power consumption levels. Adding some 590 million vehicles worldwide to that power demand may force municipalities to rely on the ease and relative inexpensiveness of coal power, effectively setting back many of the gains the X Prize will have made.

Even without considering the continued economic and environmental impacts of near-constant road construction and congestion, it's clear to see that the X Prize alone is not a cure-all solution to the transportation challenges currently facing the world. Efficient, carbon-friendly vehicles are an important step in the right direction, and will reap immediate, noticeable returns. But at the end of the day, fewer car trips and more reliance of alternate forms of transportation will need to be part of any effective climate solution.

Producing ethanol fuel from non-food sources remains largely a dream deferred. The federal government has mandated 2 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol production by 2012, but meeting that deadline may be a challenge as large-scale plants are just entering the planning stage.

Research on cellulosic ethanol from biomass continues to show progress, as evidenced by work from Sweden which shows a 40 percent increase in yield based on a new process of using yeast.

However, advances in the lab have not translated to full-blown production. Last week Coskata signed a deal to explore a 100 million gallon per year ethanol plant, but that would likely only becoming online when the deadline hits. Even small-scale production facilities have been slow to take off, according to the Wichita Eagle.

The federal government continues to throw research dollars -- albeit small when considering the potential market and benefits -- at the technical challenges. At a meeting in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the National Renewable Energy Lab promised to collaborate closely with Brazil's leading research center and to make technology available to five developing nations.

The current economic environment could make getting the financing for these types of high-risk projects even more challenging. The incoming Obama administration promises to fully support cellulosic ethanol research, but it may not be fast enough to meet the 2012 deadline.

Not too long ago -- about one decade -- it was easy to get rid of a CRT monitor. Just like an old TV, you could schlep it on down to the dump, throw it in and forget about it. In high school, I worked as a student worker in the IT department at the local college, and I remember feeling quite environmentally conscious because we compacted old CRTs in a hydraulic press before throwing them into a dumpster. But with up to five pounds of lead per display, it wasn't long before state governments wisely started banning the practice.

To fill the waste disposal void, a number of computer recycling firms sprang up—and not just out of a concern for the planet, either. From processors to motherboards to monitors, computers contain fairly large and fairly easily accessible amounts of precious materials such as gold, platinum, and silver, along with other useful metals like aluminum and copper. Once extracted, these materials are resold to computer manufacturers and other electronics companies, reducing the need for some additional materials to be mined and processed, and netting a tidy profit for recyclers.

However, as a recent 60 Minutes expose pointed out, not all computer recyclers are created equal. Along with all that valuable material, modern PCs also contain a rogue's gallery of toxic, carcinogenic, volatile or otherwise dangerous chemicals. As National Resource Defense Council scientist Allen Hershkowitz explained to 60 Minutes' Scott Pelley, the list includes "Lead, cadmium, mercury, chromium, polyvinyl chlorides. All of these materials have known toxicological effects that range from brain damage to kidney disease to mutations [and] cancers."

With all these toxic chemicals, many American-based recyclers find it cheaper to simply export wholesale to China, allowing the recycling to take place in disturbing conditions, with some parts reprocessed by prison labor [pdf], and the toxics simply dumped in nearby landfills. Fortunately, concern over the conditions has led a number of American organizations to plot out with abundant clarity how they recycle machines, and news sites from Salon to Treehugger gather links and basic information on how to make sure your old machine is disposed of sustainably.

But with some 130,000 computers thrown out each day in America alone, I think the best course of action is to keep your old machine running as long as possible, especially if it's an energy-efficient laptop. While the latest version of Windows or OS X might not run on your machine, many software companies and third-party sites like versiontracker have older copies of software that will sap up fewer resources on an old computer.

Hardware upgrades like more RAM or a larger hard drive are generally cheaper for older models, giving you a performance bump for far less cash than a new machine. And for the truly geeky, Linux, the quirky, free operating system, has been re-written to work on machines well in excess of a decade old. And don't forget about donating your old PC as a way to really feel good about filling a need.

So don't let style drive you into a new computer purchase; the longer you keep your old machine running, the better it is for the planet.

Image: 60 Minutes

 

South Africa's growing economy may be slowing, but its appetite for energy is not. The nation has struggled to keep pace with its need for fuel and power and continues to expand its use of coal –- and therefore its carbon emissions.

According to a new government report, South Africa is now ramping up efforts to at least account for and disclose its CO2 emissions without promising reductions. The country's leading private coal producer also says emissions are on the rise, and is hoping for new technology to offset the continued expansion of coal used for electricity and transportation.

The government of South Africa just released its second Carbon Disclosure Report, which included more than double the amount of participating companies from the prior year. While more companies are beginning to track their carbon emissions and set goals, the data is far from complete, according to the report:

Relatively few companies (23 percent) have disclosed specific, company-wide GHG emissions reduction targets; and most of those companies that have emissions targets have focused on reducing their emissions-intensity, rather than striving for a reduction in absolute emissions. Other South African companies that are expecting an associated cost for carbon emissions to be added in the coming years are starting to track their emissions internally.

South Africa has been slower to address climate change than other nations because of a lack of international obligations to do so, according to the report. While South Africa, signed onto the Kyoto Protocol, as a developing nation, it is not required to set or meet emissions reductions targets.

Energy company Sasol, which participated in the report, issued its own sustainability report this week that stated that greenhouse gas emissions grew from 69.8 to 72.7 million tons during the past year. Sasol is the nation's leading producer of transportation fuel derived from coal (coal to liquids, or CTL). CTL fuel requires three times as much energy to produce than gasoline, losing 40 percent of the energy during the conversion process.

Sasol, one of the world's top emitters of greenhouse gases, is pursuing a new coal to liquids plant, saying it would create jobs and help to ease the country's energy crunch.

Sasol hopes that new technologies will someday help to green its business. The company does not have wind, wave or solar power generation facilities because according to CEO Pat Davies, they are not part of its core competencies.

Coal provides 90 percent of the electricity and one-third of the transportation fuel in South Africa, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

State-run utility Eskom hasn't been able to keep pace with electricity and has resorted to rolling blackouts while it ramps up the construction of new coal plants. South Africa's growing economy has been slowed by the international financial crisis, but the power demand is growing as the nation modernizes.

In addition to its 13 coal plants, Eskom operates two hydropower plants, one nuclear power plant, and a small pilot wind farm.

Image courtesy of Flickr, DanielDVM.

(Matter Network's John Gartner will be touring South Africa and blogging about sustainability initiatives starting on November 29 as part of the Blogging South Africa program. Sign up for the RSS feed here.}

Throughout the election season of 2008, one of the few things both sides of the aisle could agree on was the importance of clean coal in balancing our need for energy with the desire to address climate change.  While the coal industry's definition of "clean" seems to be anything that doesn't create massive plumes of soot during combustion, I think it's fairly safe to say that in the public consciousness, and in the mind of many politicians, clean coal means sequestering emissions; that is, coal power that won't result in serious net carbon emissions.

 

And while many significant problems still exist surrounding the technology for capturing and storing CO2, new advances and existing research programs bring the sought-after technology closer to reality each day.

At first blush, the idea of carbon sequestration seems childishly absurd. It shouldn't be possible to simply pump carbon dioxide back underground to prevent it from reaching the atmosphere, and yet tests are revealing the practice is strikingly effective. From its origins a method of temporarily rejuvenating depleted oil fields, the technology has undergone significant advances, including efforts that have now identified rocks that can successfully sequester tons of carbon dioxide, and that have determined that extremely hot sequestered CO2 can in some cases seal itself into the Earth's crust.

Indeed, the major challenges posed by carbon sequestration now are not technical but economic. While coal plants have already been put into operation using some of the newest technologies, the price tag is extremely high, and there remains some question as to whether even the most sustainability-aware public would be willing—or even able—to foot the bill. Echoing this sentiment, researchers at MIT have suggested that sequestering the majority but not all CO2 emissions is the most financially viable answer.

Indeed, the International Energy Agency has said that governments world wide need to pony up some $20 billion dollars in funding immediately, if carbon sequestering technology is going to play a significant role in meeting the G8's carbon reduction guidelines.

While awards, grants, and other money sources aren't exactly hard to come by for carbon capture and storage research and development projects, other means of keeping carbon out of the atmosphere are gaining traction. While consensus seems to be the once popular idea of ocean sequestration will inevitably create an environmental disaster of similar scale to global warming by acidifying the world's oceans, some aquatic solutions have sprung up. Preliminary studies indicate that Salps, a plankton eating jellyfish in the southern oceans, may help sequester carbon naturally, by absorbing atmospheric carbon and transferring it to the ocean floor through its feces and carcasses.

Still, with an ever-growing global demand for power and abundant coal stocks, it is clear that carbon sequestration will be a major player as humanity struggles to overcome the climate change problem. While other technologies are constantly emerging that offer improved sustainability over capturing CO2 -- , especially when the environmental damage caused by mining coal is taken into consideration -- grants, subsidies and other economic considerations that reduce the cost of recapturing carbon may have the greatest net effect on halting climate change.

 

Read more from Cosmo Catalano:
China's Car Regulations Could Set Model For World
Nanotube Benefits Must Trump the Risks
Big Trucks Offer Bigger Carbon Savings

All eyes will be on Washington DC Tuesday as the big 3 automakers, the United Auto Workers union, and the mayors of towns with auto plants plead their case for a federal bailout of the auto industry.

Whether or not the government should grant additional loans depends on answering three questions:

– How important is the auto industry and its millions of jobs to sustaining the American economy?
– Will these new loans result in a tangible shift in the auto industry's perspective and impact on climate change?
– Will additional government oversight result in a more sustainable future?

The auto industry is getting attention from legislators during this financial crisis well beyond impact of the 2.5 million affected jobs. Democratic senators are lining up in support of an auto bailout because the UAW is staunchly democratic. In a perfect world the senators would not let that fact outweigh a rational decision, but that's not the political world we live in.

Letting Ford, Chrysler and GM fall into bankruptcy would however, have a huge impact on the collective American psyche well beyond the layoffs. Foreign investors could become even more nervous, and markets around the world could accelerate their downward spiral. However, former GE boss and now business pundit Jack Welch reasonably argues that bankruptcy aimed at reorganization would be the best thing for the auto industry:

But reorganization would open the doors to meaningful structural change through the renegotiation of contracts with creditors, dealers, and unions. And it would offer better odds of paying back taxpayers.

This leads to the second question: Would transportation's impact on climate change be better served by government intervention that seeks to steer the auto industry towards more fuel efficient vehicles, or would a further battered auto industry (likely selling fewer cars) become greener out of the desperation of being on the brink of collapse?

The first thing that the auto industry must do when addressing Congress if it wants a bailout is to contritely and unequivocally admit that it was wrong for business and environmental reasons to continue to push large SUVs and ignore the market for fuel efficient vehicles when the science of climate change as well as consumers were moving in another direction. It is difficult to sympathize with GM's financial plight when Bob "the denier" Lutz continues to deride humanity's contribution to climate change. The auto industry must wholeheartedly acknowledge that their future depends on a radical shift towards competing with international competitors with fuel efficient vehicles, plug-in and electric vehicles, and leaner operations. With or without a bailout, this is their only hope.

The final question goes well beyond the scope of the auto industry and is far from being answered. What is government's role in fostering a sustainable future? Do we hope that capitalism continues to move towards sustainable principles and allow the federal government to act only to level the playing field by assigning the appropriate costs to emissions and other environmental impacts? Or, does it take a more active role in guiding individual industries on how they should meet sustainable goals?

The Democratic Congress and the White House are of opposing opinions on this question, according to the LA Times:

To get loans, companies would have to submit detailed plans on how they would use the money to ensure "long-term financial viability," stimulate U.S. production and "pursue the timely and aggressive production of energy-efficient advanced technology vehicles." The money would also come with limits on executive pay and a ban on stock dividends until the loans were repaid....

Instead of using the $700-billion financial rescue fund to help automakers, the White House has proposed easing rules on a $25-billion loan program approved by Congress last year to help Detroit retool factories so they can produce more fuel-efficient and environmentally friendly vehicles. Congressional Democrats say diverting that money would hurt U.S. automakers' efforts to become more competitive.

This final question will continue to be debated for many years as we grapple with how to coax the free market into making sustainable decisions.

( Image: Harry_nl, Flickr)

It is funny how the human mind works. While researching biodynamic farming, I had a continuous loop of Sam Cooke’s song Wonderful World playing in my head. We haven’t recently watched Animal House or Hitch nor did we hear this tune on the radio, so I do not know how I tapped into this particular song. All that I do know is that the trademark lyric of “Don’t know much about” is embedded in my psyche somewhere and became background music while we sifted through the world of biodynamics.

It is true that we know very little about biodynamic agriculture. Our only discussions about biodynamic practices came during a visit to Erda Gardens—a local farm—sometime ago and the occasional wine tasting chat with a certified winery. But the more we looked into an organic certification the more we asked ourselves, “Is this really sustainable?” If following organic practices is good, is there something else out there that is great? Biodynamics may be that “great” and we needed to investigate.

Don’t Know Much About Rudolf Steiner

In the days of yore—prior to television—some folks distracted themselves with a lot of activities. Our move from urban life to rural living seems silly compared to the accomplishments of these people past. (Those familiar with Bill Bryson’s Short History of Nearly Everything will recognize my appreciation of his work in this section.)

Imagine the time it took to learn to be a physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist, theologian, and the first to describe gravitation and motion—as Isaac Newton did during his days of the late 17^th and early 18^th centuries. He also created calculus in frustration to the limitations of his time—and then he didn’t tell anyone about this new form of math for almost 27 years. Now that is holding a secret very well. Similarly John Dalton, who ran a Quaker school at 12 and later laid the foundation for atomic theory, and Albert Einstein, who ironically, paved the way for television with his theories of light, had mind blowing achievements by taking the time to explore the depths of their minds.  (If you feel down comparing your accomplishments to these folks, also consider Thomas Midgley, Jr. Outcomes are not always rosy when gifted folks pursue the meaning of life and how to make living better for the world. Brilliant, but unfortunate, while on a noble quest for quieter cars and safe refrigeration he developed the lead additive for gas and chlorinated fluorocarbons.)

This brief history of accomplishment leads to Rudolf Steiner, the founder of biodynamic farming. In his days (1861-1925), Mr. Steiner dabbled in philosophy, wrote mystery dramas, and designed buildings (the first and second Goetheanums) as well as promoted the separation of culture, politics, and economics as a balance for healthy societies (a notion we should all listen to in these times of economic woe).

In 1924 a group of concerned farmers in the Germany/Poland area—worried that modern agricultural practice would destroy soils, crop health, and biodiversity—asked Rudolf Steiner for help in redefining sustainable farming practices. Does this dilemma sound familiar to you? In turn, Rudolf Steiner provided a series of lectures and follow-up lessons that became the foundation of biodynamic farming practices. Few have matched the vibrant purity—with a spiritual bent—of Steiner’s wisdom regarding farming practices. Unfortunately for humanity, Rudolf Steiner died the next year.

Rudolf Steiner’s lectures and lessons were published in a book called Spiritual Foundations for the Renewal of Agriculture (the first English title An Agriculture Course was too boring to be successful). We are in the process of obtaining this book as well as supplemental pieces to help us understand biodynamic agriculture practices. The people at the Natural Sustainable Agriculture Information Service (ATTRA) provide a good overview—complete with resources—of biodynamic farming.

How did biodynamics cross the pond to America? In the 1930’s, Ehrenfried Pfeiffer—who worked closely with Rudolf Steiner—brought the biodynamic principles to the United States. With his help, The Biodynamic Farming and Gardening Association (its shortened acronym is BDA as the full BDFGA might be confused with the Beer Drinkers Frisbee Golf Association) formed in 1938.

Don’t Know Much About Biodynamics
 
What we do know about biodynamics is that it is not organic farming. It is more like organic farming on sustainability steroids—very natural indigenousness steroids. While many procedures are integrated in each practice (cover crops, composting, crop rotation, and more), biodynamic agriculture concepts upgrade your relationship with the land. In biodynamic farming, you protect the soil not because of obligation—you protect the soil because it is the same as you.

Even more, you are a participant in the organism known as your land which is part of the greater organism known as the earth. Your particular organism includes everything that walks, grows, eats, and dies—a circle of life package—on your section of this earth.

There are specific principles in practice—a few Alan York of Benziger Winery explains in these short videos—but understanding the self-contained living organism and the search for balance are very important concepts in biodynamics.

The farmer or gardener also consults a prepared calendar that identifies optimum times to work the soil, tend to the plant, or harvest. This biodynamic guide follows stellar influences to determine the moments of concentrated intake or output in your soil, vegetation, and compost. Many farmers follow a similar guide in the Old Farmers Almanac as it also follows solar and lunar phases.

There is a twist to biodynamics. Biodynamics also includes anthroposophy—with a dash of alchemy—in its practice. Anthroposophy—a philosophy developed by Steiner himself—basically centers on a journey to lucid thought and observation beyond the reach of our senses. This “supersensory consciousness” is achieved through discipline and learning (inner and outer). Alchemy also pursues a similar type of supreme wisdom, only it often searches for transformation with the aid of elements and/or ingredients.

The mysticism in biodynamics often frightens people away from its practice. We share these concerns of the spirituality aspect of biodynamics, but still have much to learn before we can make final decisions (I had a hard enough time trying to decipher anthroposophy and alchemy). I know that my third eye needs a little exercise these days or maybe even a monocle. We can see what the anthroposophy practice is doing for biodynamics as the discipline requires intense focus in the participant’s activities or intense focus on the land. This focus is what every farmer should do all of the time.

 

The alchemy part of biodynamics includes nine special preparations for field and compost applications. While we are hesitant to acquire animal innards and horns for assistance in fermenting ingredients—these are some of the aids from the original Steiner prescriptions—there seems to be practical uses for ingredients such as Yarrow and other plants to both attract beneficial insects and repel the bad insects.

Don’t Know Much About Biodynamic Certification

And then there is biodynamic certification. In the macro-world we live in, certifications are the warm handshakes of days past. Certifications are marketing and connection tools. Farms achieve certifications to help the consumer decide on what to buy without having to actually meet the farmer. It is scary to admit—for me at least—that certifications are pieces of papers or authenticating stamps of trust.

In biodynamic agriculture, certification is granted through the non-profit Demeter organization. The process for biodynamic certification is the same as the organic certification process. For more details, please scroll to the bottom of this Demeter page to view the process document.

The certification baseline for biodynamic agriculture is compliance with the USDA National Organic Program (NOP), which we somewhat covered in our previous installment. This is a bit puzzling for us due to the “self-contained organism” concept of biodynamic practices. With organic certification, you can bring in truckloads of approved material. Again, we have a lot to learn before making any conclusions. We reached out to Demeter for their Grower and/or Processor Guidelines and Standards for Certification packet and look forward to continued reading—with coffee in hand.

In theory, we would love to have a mix of both organic and biodynamic practices—maybe in the form of a Sustainable Organic Certification. But before we can take up that cause, we must learn the basics of farming. Until we know the language of nature we should stay away from appropriate barriers or farms as individuals. We are determined that our practices will follow natural soil nourishment and well-being for those that eat our produce—with or without a certification.

(Image courtesy of Krinklewood Biodynamic Winery

More of our continuing series about the greening of a farm in Bosque Farms, New Mexico:

To Organic or Not To Organic, That Is the Certification

A Sustainable Farm Prepares for Winter