Simply in Season

In 2005, Mennonite Central Committee published a cook book called, “Simply in Season.” It is a delightful work that gently invites us to eat fresh, seasonal foods instead of relying on the mono-culture of produce found in supermarkets year-round.

Here in Southeastern Manitoba, we have four very distinct seasons. I lived in a tropical climate for a number of years where temperatures and daylight hours varied only slightly throughout the year. After a few years I found this quite monotonous. When I came back home I gained a renewed appreciation for the ever-changing seasons in this part of the world.

As I reflect on the many tidbits of writing scattered throughout, “Simply in Season,” I am reminded that a sustainable lifestyle requires two things of us all – living more simply and making the most of each season.

Living more simply is not as simple as it sounds. Every day we are bombarded with messages telling us that in order to be happier and more fulfilled we need to buy more stuff, travel more widely, participate in more activities and eat “fast” and “processed” food. Mostly we believe these lies.  

Yet, if we are to survive as a human race with any degree of social justice, we will need to move toward simplified lifestyles. Our earth simply does not provide enough resources for all of its citizens to live the consumptive lifestyles we have become used to in the western world.

Living more simply will mean different things for different people. For my Ruth and me, it means walking or biking more, down-sizing to become a one-vehicle family, growing most of our own vegetables and, if at all possible, purchasing whatever else we need locally. That may not seem like much, but we are in transition. 

And that brings me to the idea of making the most of each season. Supermarkets and shopping malls have pretty much obliterated seasons for most of us. Apart from seasonal changes in the clothing stores, most everything remains the same all year round. We can buy California lettuce and “notional” tomatoes any day of the year, plus fruit from the farthest corners of the world. And no matter what the weather, we are accustomed to climbing into our climate-controlled vehicles and burning precious fuel to get ourselves around.

So the lifestyles we have adopted have gradually removed us from living well “in season.” A simpler lifestyle re-connects us with the diverse challenges and delights that each season brings. My favorite season is autumn. It is the time of the year when we eat mostly from our garden. All year I look forward to biting into that first vine-ripened tomato as well as other organically grown vegetables fresh from the garden. And the colors of autumn never cease to amaze me.

I am convinced that the more we simplify our lives the more we will get in touch with our four distinct seasons – a blessing we cannot really afford to miss.

Jack Heppner

It Is Time to “Raid” Manitoba Hydro

Manitoba Hydro is important to Manitobans. It has allowed us to harness the vast energy potential of our rivers, so is a so it is not surprising that the routing of the BiPole III and talk of privatizing Hydro are already significant election issues. The PCs speak to inefficiencies at Manitoba Hydro. Jon Girrard blogs that Manitoba Hydro should not be treated as a “milk cow”.

Unfortunately, what is missing is any discussion as to what role energy, or more precisely cheap energy should have in the development of Manitoba. Because of its many rivers, and because of the infrastructure developed by Manitoba Hydro, Manitobans have access to an incredible amount of electric energy. The question is what how should that energy be used.

Unfortunately, we have all come to believe that we are entitled to cheap energy – yes, cheap gasoline, but also cheap electricity. Note the size of the homes and public edifices we are building, the exorbitant lighting we all take for granted, and our passion for perfect temperature control, both summer and winter. We have come to believe we are entitled to all of this, and that it will be there for us – always.

So we have a cheap energy policy. That is, because the production of hydro electricity is cheap in Manitoba, we believe we should also have low electricity rates. I believe this is unfortunate because it results in an unnecessary, potentially harmful dependency on cheap electricity. Cheap energy encourages the consumption of energy, and then, inadvertently, the wastage of energy.

Manitoba Hydro advocates for more efficient light bulbs, better insulation, and promotes energy efficient appliances, but the economic incentive to follow these recommendations is weak – because of our cheap energy policy.

If we believe that using more efficient light bulbs and more insulation is good, Manitoba needs to change its policy with respect to energy pricing.

Consider that most of us have become quite comfortable with a consumption tax on alcohol and tobacco. We have accepted that income taxes and property taxes are necessary. However, we resist a tax on energy. This makes no sense.

Consider a hypothetical firm paying $1,000 tax on profit and $1,000 for electricity. Now, because of a policy change, the tax on profits becomes $1,500 and the cost of electricity becomes $500. Such a policy change would create an incentive to do what? Hire another accountant to look for ways of reducing the tax. This is hardly desirable behaviour from a social point of view.

Now what if the policy change results in a tax on profits of $500 and the cost of electricity becoming $1,500. The incentive now is to reduce electric consumption. This is desirable behaviour.

Manitoba has an amazing resource in its hydroelectric potential. Manitobans are entitled to benefit from that resource, but that benefit should not be in the form of cheap energy. The benefit should be in the form of lower income and property taxes.

Eric Rempel

Preserving the Harvest

These days normal February fare on our dinner tables is fresh lettuce and tomatoes. We don’t even consider it a luxury. We give no thought to the energy that has gone into the production and transportation of that food from California to our dinner table. But seriously, how long do we think we can continue our wanton consumption of fossil fuel – particularly when realistic, pleasant alternatives are available.

Preserving local produce for winter consumption is not difficult and uses a fraction of the energy of “California dependency”. Moreover, food preservation can be a rewarding, fun family activity. This lifestyle was normal for our mothers and grandmothers, but most of us have forgotten the necessary skills. We forget these skills at our peril. The time will come when food will not flow as easily from California in the middle of winter, and we do well to live in anticipation of that time. This is why the South Eastman Transition Initiative hosted a food preservation workshop last week. We focused on canning, fermentation and dehydration.

On the one hand, none of these crafts is difficult to master. On the other hand, it is a mistake to think that they can be picked up just like that when the time comes that they are necessary. Probably then it will be too late. There is value in cultivating these crafts now.

In canning, we sterilize the food we wish to preserve and keep it sterile until we want to eat it. It is quite possible to home-can all of the food available in cans on the shelves of the grocery store, except when canning is done in the home, glass jars are used instead of tin cans. The appeal of canning is that the canning process is often the first step in preparing the food for the table. Also, the product coming out of a home-canned jar is identical to the produce coming out of a tin can off the shelf of the grocery store. It is something we are familiar with.

Fermentation is another form of food preservation. Today fermentation is used very little, but prior to about 1930 fermentation was common. It is a wholesome, low energy way of preserving food, but to enjoy it takes some adjustment to the palate.

Dehydration is simple and effective for many foods. The bacteria and mould that spoil food cannot multiply in the absence of moisture, so if moisture is eliminated, the food is preserved. This is why the beef jerky and fruit leather sold at convenience outlets does not go bad. Solar and electric dehydrators can be purchased or built, and they make dehydration easier, but any food thinly sliced and exposed to the sun and wind will dehydrate and keep.

No doubt, our current lifestyle is convenient and pleasant. However, it is possible only because we have access to cheap energy. To have the food of our choice available at the grocery store at the time of our choice is, well – luxurious! But it is also indulgent. We live that lifestyle at our peril. Such a lifestyle is not sustainable.

Eric Rempel

Can We Recycle the Phosphate?

Readers of this column will have noted that two weeks ago I wrote about the pending worldwide scarcity of phosphate. Last week I wrote about the pollution caused by phosphate. This week I deal with some ways of addressing both problems.

As we have noted, all animals ingest phosphate. It is a necessary component of the food they eat. Their bodies use a very small portion of the phosphate they ingest. The remainder is expelled in the urine and feces. That phosphate can have one of two destinies, but only two: it can recycle and again become a plant nutrient; or it does not recycle, and becomes a pollutant.

So there is an incentive for us to find ways of recycling the phosphate.

Were phosphate the only component of interest in excrement, we would probably be recycling the phosphate now. However, we have been much more interested in the pathogens found in excrement. We have become singularly adept at dealing with those pathogens. We are all familiar with the tragic part of the Walkerton story, but we should also note the other part of that narrative – the Walkerton story is unusual, a commentary on the effectiveness of our common treatment technologies in dealing with these pathogens. Unfortunately, as we deal with the pathogens, we more or less disregard the phosphate.

It need not be so. There is technology that will deal with human excrement in a way that will kill pathogens and allow the recycling of the plant nutrient component. The most familiar technology is composting toilets. These come in many designs, but all ultimately convert the excrement into compost in a way that will kill any pathogens. Unfortunately, managing a composting toilet is not as easy as pressing a leaver to generate a five-gallon flush. Any composting toilet requires committed management if it is to work well.

There are also technologies that allow for the safe application of municipal sewage onto cropland in a way that conserves the plant nutrients. Nevertheless, because of the way the sewage has been treated before it gets to the application stage, this is problematic. Firstly, our households dilute any organic effluent with prodigious amounts of water. This water needs to be dealt with if the organic matter is to be applied to cropland. Secondly, so much of what we flush plants do not like, things like cleaning agents, paints, and petroleum derivatives.

The best way of dealing with the phosphate and other potential plant foods generated in our households is to separate them from other waste at source. This way we would not dilute it with perfectly clean water or contaminate it with other waste. This could be done quite easily at the municipal level, but requires a cultural commitment to work.

At this time, we are probably not ready to change the way we treat human effluent, but as phosphate for food production becomes harder to get, and the impact of the pollution of our waterways with phosphates becomes more evident, we will have little choice but to become more resourceful in what and how we recycle.

Eric Rempel

What Happens to the Phosphate?

Last week I wrote about the need to respect nature's phosphate cycle. After all, the world supply of accessible phosphate is limited. Phosphate is a scarce resource. It ought to be used carefully and sparingly.

But phosphate also can be a pollutant. We see this in Lake Winnipeg today. When the phosphate in a water body exceeds a threshold concentration, the result is excessive algal growth. When these algae die, their decomposition uses up oxygen in the water. When that happens, other living organisms, such as fish, suffocate and die.

All of us ingest plants. We call this eating. The carbon and hydrogen component of the food we eat is converted to energy as we live and work. Our body expels the food components our body does not need. What our body expels, either as feces or as urine, we call human waste, but that is a misuse of the word “waste”. Plants do not consider this waste. For plants, this is food. There are only two possibilities for this excrement: either it nurtures plants, or it pollutes our environment. These are the only two options.

Have you ever considered what happens to the stuff you flush down the toilet? If you are at all thoughtful (most of us are not), you realize it does not disappear with the flush. It goes somewhere. If you live in Steinbach, it goes first to the treatment centre and from there to the lagoon. The treatment centre deals with pathogens and fats, but does nothing with the phosphorus. You cannot get rid of it. It needs to go somewhere. It is my understanding that most of it remains as sludge at the bottom of the lagoon. The sludge has a potential as plant nutrient for the cropland around the lagoon, but the quality is seriously compromised because of contamination by the other products we flush down the sewer; products such as cleaning agents, paint and petroleum products. The Steinbach city lagoon is rarely de-sludged. So what happens to the phosphorous ingested by the 13,000 Steinbach residents? Believe me, it does not disappear.

In 1995, I was involved in the start of a manure management company. The focus of this company was the management of manure coming from the industrialized hog farms springing up in this area. At the time of our formation, there had been no effort to apply science to the way manure was applied to cropland. Our focus then was nitrogen, and our goal was to match nitrogen application with nitrogen uptake by the crop. We quickly noticed that as we were optimizing nitrogen, we were over-applying phosphate by a factor of two. “No problem”, everyone said, “our Manitoba soils can handle that.” I spoke to many people about this over-application of phosphate, and no one I talked to foresaw a problem.

In 2002, just a few years later, we began hearing about the eutrophication of Lake Winnipeg, the result of precious phosphate flushed down the toilets of our cities, and the over-application of livestock manure. We pretend phosphorous disappears when we flush at our peril. It does not disappear.

Eric Rempel

Nature’s Phosphate Cycle

Nature moves in cycles. The most common cycles are the carbon, nitrogen and phosphate cycle, but there are others. Plants take their nutrients from the soil and air. Biomass is formed as the plant grows and matures. The plant die or are eaten by animal. The animals defecate and ultimately die. In each case the minerals that were taken up by the plant ultimately return to the soil to be taken up by subsequent plants, and the cycle continues.

Since we depend on nature for our sustenance, we do well to understand that cycle and nurture it. But industrialized agriculture does not do that. It has found very effective ways of circumventing the natural cycle. The result has been phenomenal crop production. But are these results sustainable?

 
For thousands of years, the Chinese and Indian civilizations have mimicked the natural cycle. Each peasant farm was more or less self-contained so that all biological material coming from the farm ultimately was returned to the soil of that farm. Most notably, human waste was returned to agricultural fields, often after careful composting. Using these techniques, they were able to maintain the fertility of their fields for those thousands of years.

In recent years, agriculture in those countries has also industrialized. Here too, this has resulted in phenomenal yield increases.

 
But industrialized agriculture, in significant respects, ignores the natural cycle. Within an industrialized system, a field is tested for available plant nutrients. The interest here is primarily in the macro-nutrients N, P, K, and S. Fertilizer is then blended and applied at the rate that will optimize plant growth. The questions: where does the fertilizer come from, and is the supply reliable, are not asked.

But if we are to build a sustainable, stable society, these questions need to be asked. In Canada, phosphate is mined near Kapuskasing in Ontario and near Radium in BC. But Canada, in spite of its vast geological formations, has not discovered any really good phosphate deposits, and we do not produce world class phosphate. The most readily available phosphate rock has already been utilized, and the phosphate we are going after now requires more energy to extract and is of a lower quality.

Phosphate is essential to crop growth. Unlike petroleum energy, which can, in certain circumstances be replaced with other forms of energy, there are no substitutes for phosphate. There is only one reasonable response to looming phosphate shortages. We need to use the phosphate currently within the food production system more efficiently. This means the more efficient return of livestock manure to growing crops, but also the recycling of human waste, which is rich in phosphate, to agricultural fields.

Currently, there is little incentive to do any of the necessary recycling. Just as a carbon tax is needed if we are all to use energy more efficiently, a resource use tax is needed to get us to change our phosphate use habits before the shortage of phosphate has a catastrophic effect on our food supply.

Eric Rempel

Purposeful Exercise

Our push-button lifestyles emerged in the 20^th century along with the introduction of electricity. I still remember the euphoria that swept the countryside around 1950 as we all got “plugged in.”

Of course by that time tractors and cars had, for the most part, replaced horses. A gallon of gasoline probably got more done in an hour than man and animal together had formerly done in a day. And the advent of petro-chemicals on the farm eased the burden of keeping weeds at bay.

Modernity was celebrated. Perhaps nothing symbolized this shift better than the thermostat. In earlier times it required a lot of physical activity to keep one’s house warm. Now, with the advent of the modern oil furnace, you could do it with a little push of your index finger.

As the decades rolled on, technology advanced steadily with gizmos and gadgets that allowed us the luxury of not using our muscles very much at all. Soon cars had automatic transmissions, power steering and electric window openers. Manual typewriters became electric and then morphed into computer keyboards. Fruits and vegetables for which we used to labor now appeared like magic year-round in supermarkets.

Ah yes, utopia was within reach! But as we bore down on the close of that great century we gradually became aware that modernity was bringing with it unintended consequences. We were being changed as people.

The term, “couch potato” was born. The word “obesity” found its way into our vocabulary from relative obscurity. Books and articles about the negative effects of a “sedentary” lifestyle began to flood the market. And, wouldn’t you know it, soon it was suggested that a host of medical problems were linked, directly or indirectly, to lack of exercise. Modernity was beginning to bite back.

And so emerged the modern exercise gym. Many of us began to drive miles for the opportunity to sweat it out at the gym in order to gain back the health that modernity had taken from us. Or we could be found walking or running around town, going nowhere in particular, just to get back into shape. But most of us soon gave up. It was too hard to fit modern exercise programs into a tight schedule in which we drove from one sedentary activity to another.

So what is emerging now in the 21^st century is an attempt to build purposeful exercise into our lifestyles. In some senses it is a throwback to earlier times before electricity and oil took over most of our daily physical responsibilities. Walking or biking instead of driving is making a comeback. Growing your own food is gaining popularity. Participatory sports is putting a dent into spectator sports.

The genie is out of the bottle. Once we begin to comprehend what the modern lifestyle has taken from us, we will find many ingenious ways of putting exercise back into our daily routines. The more we do, the more our bodies and our environment will thank us.

Jack Heppner