The Tuesday Toxin Talk

I'm currently reading Slow Death by Rubber Duck, by Rick Smith (Executive Director of Environmental Defence) and Bruce Lourie (President of the Ivey Foundation). The book examines the toxins that leach out of commonplace items in our homes and workplaces and wind up in our bodies. Smith and Lourie experiment on themselves, purposely exposing themselves to everyday products over a four-day period, and use the results to raise awareness about the dangers that surround us. I'd like to use this space every few Tuesdays to share some of this vital information with you. For more in-depth coverage, please buy the book!

--------------------

Let's talk about pesticides.

I might as well begin with a fact: every year in the US, lawns are sprayed with 90 million pounds of pesticides and herbicides. I don't need to tell you that this is a serious problem - and that's before I reveal the kinds of health problems associated with 2,4-D, the most widely used herbicide in the world. 2,4-D is a "weed and feed" product, which does exactly that: it simultaneously fertilizes lawns while controlling the weeds that try to take hold there. 2,4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid is a synthetic chemical "hormone herbicide", meaning it messes with plants' hormone systems in order to kill them by causing them first to grow uncontrollably, then suddenly die. This unique strategy is not the only attractive feature of 2,4-D: the herbicide also selectively targets weeds like dandelions without harming grass. No wonder it is considered to be the perfect remedy for unwanted plants not only on residential lawns but also in fields of corn, grains, and rice, all of which are in the grass family.

So, what makes 2,4-D such a bad product? Consider these short-term effects of exposure:

• nausea
• headaches
• vomiting
• eye irritation
• difficulty breathing
• lack of coordination

Would you want to experience any of that just because you happened to walk past a lawn while 2,4-D was being sprayed? Much more harrowing are the long-term consequences of getting this stuff in your system:

• non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (a blood cancer)
• neurological impairment
• asthma
• immune system suppression
• reproductive problems
• miscarriage
• birth defects

The good news is that the City of Toronto banned the cosmetic use of pesticides way back in 2004, which means eight summers have already gone by during which, presumably, only very little 2,4-D has come anywhere near me and those I hold dear in this city. Hundreds of other municipalities in Canada have passed similar bylaws, and to date there are province-wide bans (some looser, some stricter) in Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and PEI, as well as restrictions on the use of "weed and feed" products specifically in Alberta. The province of British Columbia is working on a ban, too.

There are, of course, still many areas in which there are no regulations on the use of pesticides. But I am hopeful because concerned members of those communities can and will organize movements to achieve this goal - that's exactly how the first municipal bylaw banning pesticides was passed in Canada! There are a growing number of us who care, who are worried, who want the government to take action to protect us. After all, this is a no-brainer of an issue. Weed-free lawns are not only unnecessary, they're making us sick!


Image of chemical structure of 2, 4-D sourced from Wikimedia Commons.
Photo of grass lawn used under Creative Commons from AdamKR (flickr).
Photo of pesticide sign used under Creative Commons from Michelle Tribe (Greencolander/flickr).

How to Be Wasteful: Grow a Grass Lawn

It was a few weeks ago, over the holiday long weekend at the start of the month, when I started thinking about writing a post on the topic of grass lawns. My mother told me she had heard that we have President Roosevelt to thank for introducing British style lawns to the US. He was apparently very impressed with how neat and tidy English golf lawns looked. However...

... this is what lawns look like in my neck of the woods these days (and I've seen much worse). After an unseasonably rainy spring, we've had an unseasonably dry summer. Not only have we received very little precipitation, but I haven't seen a cloud in so long that I forget what they look like. Grass suffers in these conditions while it thrives in the damp of the British countryside. If only President Roosevelt had been surrounded by advisers with expertise in botany and climatology. Perhaps he could have been swayed to rethink the landscaping around the White House and grow lawns with grass alternatives and other types of ground cover more suitable for hot, dry conditions - homeowners would be mimicking a more sustainable landscaping strategy. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Briefly, let's think about what makes grass lawns a bad idea. A lot of this will sound familiar to you if you read my post on golf courses last year. As I mentioned above, hot and dry weather stunts grass growth while promoting the proliferation of unwanted plants that think sunshine and dry soil are lovely. The common reaction is to kill weeds with pesticides and boost grass growth with fertilizer. Both are toxic, both are dependent on fossil fuels: that's a 1-2 punch to the environment's gut and our health. It gets worse when you factor in gas-powered mowers, some of which emit more pollution than cars. Weed whackers and leaf blowers are similarly hazardous. But my favourite lawn-related environmental no-no is the intensive use of water. When grass turns brown it's not dead, it's reducing its need for water! In the end, watering a brown lawn only makes matters worse by signalling the grass that it can return to its green, water-thirsty growth mode! My ultimate pet peeve is...

... lawns being watered at midday, when the sun is at its peak and evaporating mist and droplets before they even fall on the grass. I took this photo yesterday, on the hottest day of the summer. We actually broke a record for July with 37.5 C (100 F), which felt like the upper 40s (115-120 F) with humidity factored in. Note the wet stones and pavement, and how the grass is only receiving half of the water coming out of the sprinkler. I suspect the photo looks dark because my camera couldn't handle the brightness. I took this shot at 1 pm when the sun was directly overhead - everything but the porch was in full sun, at a UV level of 11, no less.

What are our options? With more hot and dry weather on the way for the foreseeable future (global climate change, anyone?), we are forced to focus on adapting. While some non-toxic pesticides and fertilizers do exist, including products you can put together at home, you'll still have to mow and water like everybody else. Switch to an electric mower and set its blade height to leave the grass longer. Be efficient with your sprinkler! Make sure the spray only reaches as far as the edge of your lawn (not the pavement beyond), water only in the early morning when the sun is low on the horizon and the air is somewhat cool, and keep the sprinkler going only as long as necessary.

For those of you who can make a bigger commitment, consider planting hardier varieties of grass that are suited to your region's climate. Add more trees to your property that keep your lawn in the shade. Experiment with drought-tolerant grass alternatives and extend your flower beds farther into your lawn to reduce the overall amount of grass on your property. Your local garden centre staff can tell you about ground cover alternatives, and if you can afford it, why not hire a landscaping company to do a complete makeover of your front yard and turn that lawn into a native plant habitat garden? Here's what that looks like in my neighbourhood:

My favourite solution is...

... putting that soil to good use and growing veggies, like in this front yard a few blocks from where I live. If the image looks fuzzy it's because my camera caught the high evening humidity from a few nights ago. Remember, every little bit counts. Choose the options that work for you and your living situation and run with them. We don't need award-winning botanical gardens in every yard!

Do you have any tips for sustainable landscaping?

Eric Schlosser explains why being a foodie isn't "elitist"

I'm out of town for part of this week, so instead of writing I thought I might share a great article from the Washington Post with you. It's long compared to my usual posts but well worth the read. It touches on so many issues within our broken food system that have caused me to put food and agricultural issues at the top of my list of environmental concerns.

Why being a foodie isn't 'elitist'

 

By Eric Schlosser, Friday, April 29, 3:59 PM

At the American Farm Bureau Federation's annual meeting this year, Bob Stallman, the group's president, lashed out at "self-appointed food elitists" who are "hell-bent on misleading consumers." His target was the growing movement that calls for sustainable farming practices and questions the basic tenets of large-scale industrial agriculture in America.

The "elitist" epithet is a familiar line of attack. In the decade since my book "Fast Food Nation" was published, I've been called not only an elitist, but also a socialist, a communist and un-American. In 2009, the documentary "Food, Inc.," directed by Robby Kenner, was described as "elitist foodie propaganda" by a prominent corporate lobbyist. Nutritionist Marion Nestle has been called a "food fascist," while an attempt was recently made to cancel a university appearance by Michael Pollan, author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," who was accused of being an "anti-agricultural" elitist by a wealthy donor.

This name-calling is a form of misdirection, an attempt to evade a serious debate about U.S. agricultural policies. And it gets the elitism charge precisely backward. America's current system of food production - overly centralized and industrialized, overly controlled by a handful of companies, overly reliant on monocultures, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, chemical additives, genetically modified organisms, factory farms, government subsidies and fossil fuels - is profoundly undemocratic. It is one more sign of how the few now rule the many. And it's inflicting tremendous harm on American farmers, workers and consumers.

During the past 40 years, our food system has changed more than in the previous 40,000 years. Genetically modified corn and soybeans, cloned animals, McNuggets - none of these technological marvels existed in 1970. The concentrated economic power now prevalent in U.S. agriculture didn't exist, either. For example, in 1970 the four largest meatpacking companies slaughtered about 21 percent of America's cattle; today the four largest companies slaughter about 85 percent. The beef industry is more concentrated now than it was in 1906, when Upton Sinclair published "The Jungle" and criticized the unchecked power of the "Beef Trust." The markets for pork, poultry, grain, farm chemicals and seeds have also become highly concentrated.

America's ranchers and farmers are suffering from this lack of competition for their goods. In 1970, farmers received about 32 cents for every consumer dollar spent on food; today they get about 16 cents. The average farm household now earns about 87 percent of its income from non-farm sources.

While small farmers and their families have been forced to take second jobs just to stay on their land, wealthy farmers have received substantial help from the federal government. Between 1995 and 2009, about $250 billion in federal subsidies was given directly to American farmers - and about three-quarters of that money was given to the wealthiest 10 percent. Those are the farmers whom the Farm Bureau represents, the ones attacking "big government" and calling the sustainability movement elitist.

Food industry workers are also bearing the brunt of the system's recent changes. During the 1970s, meatpackers were among America's highest-paid industrial workers; today they are among the lowest paid. Thanks to the growth of fast-food chains, the wages of restaurant workers have fallen, too. The restaurant industry has long been the largest employer of minimum-wage workers. Since 1968, thanks in part to the industry's lobbying efforts, the real value of the minimum wage has dropped by 29 percent.

Migrant farmworkers have been hit especially hard. They pick the fresh fruits and vegetables considered the foundation of a healthy diet, but they are hardly well-rewarded for their back-breaking labor. The wages of some migrants, adjusted for inflation, have dropped by more than 50 percent since the late 1970s. Many grape-pickers in California now earn less than their counterparts did a generation ago, when misery in the fields inspired Cesar Chavez to start the United Farm Workers Union.

While workers are earning less, consumers are paying for this industrial food system with their health. Young children, the poor and people of color are being harmed the most. During the past 40 years, the obesity rate among American preschoolers has doubled. Among children ages 6 to 11, it has tripled. Obesity has been linked to asthma, cancer, heart disease and diabetes, among other ailments. Two-thirds of American adults are obese or overweight, and economists from Cornell and Lehigh universities have estimated that obesity is now responsible for 17 percent of the nation's annual medical costs, or roughly $168 billion.

African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to be obese than non-Hispanic whites, and more likely to be poor. As upper-middle-class consumers increasingly seek out healthier foods, fast-food chains are targeting low-income minority communities - much like tobacco companies did when wealthy and well-educated people began to quit smoking.

Some aspects of today's food movement do smack of elitism, and if left unchecked they could sideline the movement or make it irrelevant. Consider the expensive meals and obscure ingredients favored by a number of celebrity chefs, the snobbery that often oozes from restaurant connoisseurs, and the obsessive interest in exotic cooking techniques among a certain type of gourmand.

Those things may be irritating. But they generally don't sicken or kill people. And our current industrial food system does.

Just last month, a study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that nearly half of the beef, chicken, pork and turkey at supermarkets nationwide may be contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. About 80 percent of the antibiotics in the United States are currently given to livestock, simply to make the animals grow faster or to prevent them from becoming sick amid the terribly overcrowded conditions at factory farms. In addition to antibiotic-resistant germs, a wide variety of other pathogens are being spread by this centralized and industrialized system for producing meat.

Children under age 4 are the most vulnerable to food-borne pathogens and to pesticide residues in food. According to a report by Georgetown University and the Pew Charitable Trusts, the annual cost of food-borne illness in the United States is about $152 billion. That figure does not include the cost of the roughly 20,000 annual deaths from antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

One of the goals of the Farm Bureau Federation is to influence public opinion. In addition to denying the threat of global warming and attacking the legitimacy of federal environmental laws, the Farm Bureau recently created an entity called the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance to "enhance public trust in our food supply." Backed by a long list of powerful trade groups, the alliance also plans to "serve as a resource to food companies" seeking to defend current agricultural practices.

But despite their talk of openness and trust, the giants of the food industry rarely engage in public debate with their critics. Instead they rely on well-paid surrogates - or they file lawsuits. In 1990, McDonald's sued a small group called London Greenpeace for criticizing the chain's food, starting a legal battle that lasted 15 years. In 1996, Texas cattlemen sued Oprah Winfrey for her assertion that mad cow disease might have come to the United States, and kept her in court for six years. Thirteen states passed "veggie libel laws" during the 1990s to facilitate similar lawsuits. Although the laws are unconstitutional, they remain on the books and serve their real purpose: to intimidate critics of industrial food.

In the same spirit of limiting public awareness, companies such as Monsanto and Dow Chemical have blocked the labeling of genetically modified foods, while the meatpacking industry has prevented the labeling of milk and meat from cloned animals. If genetic modification and cloning are such wonderful things, why aren't companies eager to advertise the use of these revolutionary techniques?

The answer is that they don't want people to think about what they're eating. The survival of the current food system depends upon widespread ignorance of how it really operates. A Florida state senator recently introduced a bill making it a first-degree felony to take a photograph of any farm or processing plant - even from a public road - without the owner's permission. Similar bills have been introduced in Minnesota and Iowa, with support from Monsanto.

The cheapness of today's industrial food is an illusion, and the real cost is too high to pay. While the Farm Bureau Federation clings to an outdated mind-set, companies such as Wal-Mart, Danone, Kellogg's, General Mills and Compass have invested in organic, sustainable production. Insurance companies such as Kaiser Permanente are opening farmers markets in low-income communities. Whole Foods is demanding fair labor practices, while Chipotle promotes the humane treatment of farm animals. Urban farms are being planted by visionaries such as Milwaukee's Will Allen; the Coalition of Immokalee Workers is defending the rights of poor migrants; Restaurant Opportunities Centers United is fighting to improve the lives of food-service workers; and Alice Waters, Jamie Oliver and first lady Michelle Obama are pushing for healthier food in schools.

Calling these efforts elitist renders the word meaningless. The wealthy will always eat well. It is the poor and working people who need a new, sustainable food system more than anyone else. They live in the most polluted neighborhoods. They are exposed to the worst toxic chemicals on the job. They are sold the unhealthiest foods and can least afford the medical problems that result.

A food system based on poverty and exploitation will never be sustainable.

Eric Schlosser is the author of "Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal" and a co-producer of the Oscar-nominated documentary "Food, Inc."


© 2011 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-being-a-foodie-isnt-elitist/2011/04/27/AFeWsnFF_story.html

--------------------


Thoughts? Reactions? Do you feel passionate or apathetic about this?

King Corn: growing trash for 28 dollars' worth of government subsidies per acre

On Thursday I attended a free screening of King Corn, hosted by Young Urban Farmers CSA as part of their 2011 workshop and event series. Released in 2007, this film - at times quite funny and overall much more lighthearted than other documentaries, like Food Inc - follows the adventures of college buddies Ian and Curt as they move from the East Coast of the US to rural Iowa to the small town where as luck would have it, both of their great-grandfathers grew up. Their goal: to grow an acre of corn and follow it from field to end product.

Although King Corn didn't teach me much I didn't already know about the food system and corn's role in it, I experienced my fair share of moments of shock and disbelief. The funny thing is, if I hadn't spent a lot of time this spring helping Young Urban Farmers CSA (YUF CSA) turn back yard lawns into vegetable gardens, I may have had very different reactions. Take for instance the fertilizer Ian and Curt buy for their corn: anhydrous ammonia, or pure ammonia gas, which is highly toxic and very dangerous if not handled correctly. A specialized machine injects it into the ground where it will wait to be sucked up by the corn. What does YUF CSA do? We keep the soil healthy, which in turn keeps the veggies healthy, by adding compost and other organic matter. We feed the soil rather than forcing chemicals to sit in it.

Another real kicker was watching Ian and Curt plant their acre of corn. It took all of 18 minutes, and they didn't get their hands dirty. In fact, the only indication they may have done work in the field is visible in grease stains from operating yet another industrial farming machine. The only oil-dependent equipment YUF CSA uses is a rototiller, once per yard when it is first turned from sod to veggie. Elaine, our Head of Operations, shows us how it's done:

The variety of corn Ian and Curt planted has been genetically modified to generate a huge yield, tolerate growing in very dense rows, and resist the pesticide that is used with it. In other words, this corn tastes like chalk. Because most of it is used to make animal feed and high fructose corn syrup, the flavour has literally been bred out to make room for more starch (more calories). It's a raw material and definitely not destined for the grill in cob format. Again, the contrast to YUF CSA's approach is startling: we choose plant varieties that grow well in our climate and taste good... and that's it!

There's much more I could say... about how little Ian and Curt actually did in terms of farming; about how creepy a field of corn looks at ground level because absolutely nothing else is growing there; about how wrong it is to force cows to eat so much corn that they develop ulcers and would actually die of illness if we didn't take them to slaughter as early as we do. But what I really want to highlight is the irony of modern farming: people who grow corn can't feed themselves. Farmers can't feed themselves. As one farmer put it, "[we're] growing trash, the best trash in the world, because the government pays us for it". Ian and Curt received $28 in federal subsidies for that one acre they grew. Never mind the surplus corn sitting in giant piles outside of the already full grain elevator. Never mind the obesity and diabetes caused by everything we turn corn into. Never mind the toxins we put into the ground that eventually end up in our drinking water. It's a sad picture, one that farmers from as recently as two generations ago couldn't have imagined. I for one am happy to support an alternative food system that allows me to eat food straight out of the ground, grown 2 km from my home with no chemical inputs. There's nothing healthier than that.

Have any of you seen this documentary? How did you feel when you watched it?

Organic Tobacco... What Will They Think Of Next?

Tonight I'm expecting three dinner guests, so I'm going to take a really quick break from cleaning and cooking to get something off my mind: organic tobacco doesn't make sense.

Apparently a growing (ha! pun!) number of American farmers are beginning to cultivate organic tobacco, since the increased costs and slightly lower yield are offset by a much higher selling price once harvest time comes around. The cigarettes made out of this tobacco are then marketed as being "natural" due to their lighter environmental footprint as compared to the conventional ones.

But... who buys these? There are people who worry about environmental degradation, and they might approve of the fact that no synthetic fertilizers or pesticides were used, protecting the soil and nearby streams, but what about the amount of waste generated by the production, consumption, and disposal of the cigarettes in question? Then there are people who worry about their health, and they may take comfort in the fact that they aren't being exposed to residual toxins from the nasty chemicals used to grow tobacco using conventional methods, but what does that matter if they're still inhaling tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide, benzene, formaldehyde, and hydrogen cyanide?

Folks, I'm stumped. Is this just another example of "make it, and they will buy it"? Do any of you smoke, and if so, would you pay more to buy "natural" cigarettes?

Levi's New Jeans Line Misses the Point

Apparently Levi's has developed a new line of jeans that uses 28% less water during its manufacturing. Specifically, the amount of washing needed to soften the denim has been reduced, and while I'm happy that 16 million litres of water will be saved, I'm left wondering just how much we should be congratulating the company.

I know, I know, I'm an idealist, and it gets in the way of my optimism such that every step in the right direction only serves to highlight everything else that isn't being done. It's hard for me to sit idly by while the general public applauds small efforts like this but remains ignorant of other issues that remain unaddressed. What can I say, calling this new line of jeans Water<Less reminds me of greenwashing. Growing cotton, producing denim, and manufacturing jeans is hugely water-intensive even if you don't bother to stone-wash the pants! Hiding this fact by tricking consumers into believing the jeans were made using waterless manufacturing techniques is... well, I guess it's the norm these days.

So what's all the fuss about?

• Growing cotton involves a great deal of water, fertilizer, and pesticides:  just ask the people living around the Aral Sea how the cotton industry, using unsustainable agricultural practices, has caused an environmental, economic, and human health disaster that is not going away any time soon.

• Processing cotton to make denim requires more water, but also paraffin and synthetic indigo, which present a double whammy of environmental degradation because (1) they are petroleum products and (2) they're probably dumped directly into surface water adjacent to the plant.

• Weathering the denim to give it that worn look (I've never understood this), while often still called stone-washing, is more likely to make use of water and toxic chemicals than good, old-fashioned rocks. It's funny how the energy that goes into stone-washing, fabric softening, and sandblasting the jeans actually serves to shorten their lifespan and increase consumer demand. No, wait... that's not funny.

See what I mean, about how slightly reducing the amount of water used to soften the jeans is only great if you remain ignorant of the rest of the steps involved from field to closet? Well, I'm still trying to be a more optimistic person, so I'll work on feeling grateful that Levi's has taken a step in the right direction. Meanwhile, I'll buy my next pair in a thrift shop, donate them or find an alternate use for them once I'm done with them, and keep you apprised of any other environmentally friendly solutions that Levi's and their competitors come up with!

How about you? What's your closet filled with? Have you discovered brands or local artisans that are trying to do good by the environment when they make clothing?

Photo credits: close-up of jeans; cotton field.

Eco-Friendly Golf Courses... Oxymoron?

Milly doesn't care about golf courses but is a model to us all for growing her own cat nip without the use of synthetic fertilizers or toxic pesticides.

I know I have the tendency to come down pretty harshly on green technology that allows people to feel good about their purchases while maintaining the same level of unnecessary consumption (see my early, pessimistic posts on recycling bottles of water and using biodegradable coffee cups). I also know that it can be hard for me to value tiny positive change because I automatically think about the bigger picture and the overwhelming amount of work yet to be done. I've been adopting a more optimistic attitude day by day, but this week I had to bang my head against the wall when I read someone's online statements about a golf course being sustainable because of the use of organic fertilizer on the grass. Actually, I kind of want to bang my head against the wall right now, just thinking about it...

A few members of the LinkedIn Green Group started discussing the concept of "organic golf courses" when someone posted an article about a course on Martha's Vineyard that stopped using pesticides in favour of non-toxic alternatives such as using beneficial bugs to eat the insects that feast on grass. With my new-found optimism about every green action making a difference, I applauded this initial effort... then pointed out that it's probably impossible to make the entire golf course sustainable. The truth hurts, I know. But so far so good, people were sharing educated opinions, there was some consensus on better vs. worse ways to promote healthier forms of pest and weed control, etc. Then, tragically, someone mentioned a company that has been supplying organic fertilizer to golf courses for a few years now, "so there are golf courses that are "green sustainable" already".

Please excuse me while I bang my head against the wall, again.

To be absolutely clear, I wholeheartedly support the use of fertilizer that is not hazardous to plants, animals, the soil, the water, the air, and us. I'm actually willing (just like Local Food Plus is) to accept the limited use of minimally harmful fertilizer if it's absolutely necessary to maintain the overall sustainability of an agricultural endeavour. However, to claim that a golf course is green because one single element has been switched from conventional to organic is at best, ignorant, and at worst, threatens to misinform a large audience. Granted, I'm hoping most Green Group members won't take that member's comment literally, and I'm betting neither will you. However, this is a great opportunity to explore some of the basic concerns I have with golf courses.

After switching to a healthier fertilizer option, the next problem to tackle is pest control. Both fertilizers and pesticides have the nasty habit of dirtying the soil and groundwater, and in turn, the plants we eat and the water we drink. Pesticides in particular have far-reaching side-effects due to their indiscriminate killing of most insects (both unwanted and beneficial ones) and their tendency to promote resistance in the ones that survive.

If the fertilizers and pesticides have been taken care of, what do we do about the massive amounts of water necessary to keep the grass green? This is tricky because golf courses cluster in areas that see lots of heat and sun and very little rain. Automatic sprinkler systems abound. One option is to choose hardier varieties of grass, the camels of the plant world, if you will. There's this stuff called Eco-Lawn that claims to be drought-resistant. Let's hope golf balls roll the same way on Fescues and Ryegrass as well as on standard turf!

Now that we've taken care of what lets the grass grow, let's move on to what cuts it down. Is there such thing as an industrial mower that runs on electricity instead of gas? Even if there were, the electricity would have to be bullfrogpowered to be sure the sustainability label can still be applied to this element of the golf course. Also, used engine oil must be properly disposed of. Maybe they can charge golf courses the same environmental fee they charge car owners for oil changes? Or they could use push mowers, or scythes.

See, this is getting out of hand. This is what happens when I start with one good idea and then think up all of the other problems that need solving. Add a dose of perfectionism, and you get one cynical environmentalist. I haven't even gotten started on the energy use of the golf course club house, the source of the ingredients in the kitchen, the nature of the synthetic materials that form the golf balls, or the likelihood that the owners would take a pay cut to implement green technology.

Here is what needs to be said: cutting down big patches of forests is bad. Cutting them down to grow food to sustain the population is acceptable. Cutting them down to build a golf course wastes energy and water, pollutes the soil, the water, and the air, and destroys the natural habitat of diverse lifeforms. At the risk of upsetting each golf-playing member of my immediate family, this game is yet another example of a human luxury that nature has to pay for. And, as part of nature, we suffer, too.

Can we agree to be more conscious in our recreational choices? As Mark Twain once said, "golf is a good walk spoiled". So next time you feel the urge to spend all day outside, spend it on a hiking path instead of a golf cart.