Raging bees: Lamborghini studies bees for environment protection
Dylan Afuang May 23, 2021
In 2016, Lamborghinilaunched an environmental bio-monitoring project and made an apiary in the Lamborghini Park in Sant’Agata Bolognese.
Since then, the apiary has grown from a total of eight hives to the current 12, with a population of about 600,000 bees, of which 120,000 forage around the area. Foraging describes bees that fly to collect nectar and pollen.
And on the occasion of World Bee Day last May 20, established by the United Nations (UN) in 2017, Lamborghini emphasized its commitment to environment protection.
Thanks to the Audi Environmental Foundation, this year the Lamborghini apiary benefits from a “technological beehive.”
Lamborghini-Park-Apiary
The hive has two video cameras, one inside and one outside the hive, which make it possible to observe the behavior of the insects up close. The cameras provide more detailed data to the studies being conducted.
From the analyses of the bees, with their honey and wax, the company and entomological and apicultural experts, can detect a wide range of pollutants. Pollutants can range from pesticides used in agriculture and on urban and private green spaces, heavy metals, aromatic compounds, and dioxins.
This analysis is important in controlling pollution in the environment inside and outside the Sant’Agata Bolognese production plant, Lamborghini said.
With the clean surroundings, bees were able to forage within a radius of approximately three kilometers.
The bee project has also recently taken an experimental study of bio-monitoring of solitary bee colonies.
Lamborghini-beehive
Solitary bees are said to differ from social bees for their shorter foraging radius of 200 meters, and because each female takes care of her own offspring, unlike social bees which only take care of the queen bee’s offspring.
The colonies, made up of houses located inside Lamborghini Park and near the production site, make it possible to monitor more specific areas thanks to the shorter foraging radius. The shorter foraging radius allows for more effective studying of the environmental impact in the Park.
The bee bio-monitoring project is part of a broader environmental sustainability strategy that Lamborghini has been pursuing since 2009, the Italian marque said.
It has led the company to be awarded certification as a CO2-neutral company in 2015, which has been maintained even following the recent expansion of the production site.
On Earth Day last April 22, Lamborghini was also awarded the Green Star 2021, which ranked it among the most sustainable companies in Italy thanks to its commitment to reducing environmental impact.
Aside from the apiary, Lamborghini has planted 10,000 oak trees inside the Lamborghini Park, and made one of the largest photovoltaic (solar power) systems in Emilia-Romagna.
‘Impending disaster.’ Worsening algae bloom on Lake Okeechobee threatens coasts again
Adriana Brasileiro May 14, 2021
The scene at Pahokee marina on Lake Okeechobee last week was a warning sign: A thick mat of algae in various shades of green, brown, gray and fluorescent blue covered the area around boat slips. In some spots, the gunk was so dense it stuck out two inches above the water.
Elsewhere on the lake, the algae wasn’t as chunky, but satellite photos were just as shocking: NOAA monitoring images on Wednesday showed nearly two-thirds of the lake, or 500 square miles, were covered with blue-green algae, the potentially toxic stuff that has fouled rivers and canals in the west and east coasts of Florida in past years, killing fish and scaring tourists away. Green streaks of algae are already visible moving down from the Moore Haven lock on the Caloosahatchee River, which has received Lake Okeechobee water releases in recent weeks to lower lake levels.
Is South Florida in for another summer of slime? The answer has a lot to do with how much water will be flushed from the lake to Florida’s west and east coasts. Already, Lake Okeechobee is at 13.6 feet, 2.5 feet higher than what it was at this time last year. Forecasters are predicting a “well above average” hurricane season this year.
“This is an impending disaster,” said John Cassani, of Calusa Waterkeeper. He and other activists are asking Gov. Ron DeSantis to declare a state of emergency to protect the Caloosahatchee from harmful lake discharges as the rainy season approaches and the need to lower water levels will be unavoidable. “Think of the lake as a giant cesspool being flushed into the Caloosahatchee every day with no end in sight. It’s a catastrophic situation.”
Workers from Breen Aquatics vacuum up thick blue-green algae as they try to clean up blooms at the Pahokee Marina on May 3.
The bloom, which expanded quickly over the past few weeks as temperatures rose, is fueling heated debate about how the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers should manage lake waters considering conflicting interests: the need to send water south for Everglades restoration and the guarantee of sufficient supplies for farming while also managing flood protection structures such as its aging Herbert Hoover dike.
The Corps is currently revising its lake management policies to take into account a massive $1.8 billion upgrade of the dike that is scheduled to be completed next year as well as Everglades restoration projects that will come online in the next few years. The projects include a vast reservoir and stormwater treatment area that, once completed in 2023, will allow managers to send more water south when lake levels rise, reducing discharges to estuaries on the east and west. The aim is to produce water clean enough to replenish the Everglades amid efforts to recreate something close to the original flow of the River of Grass, going south through Shark Valley in Everglades National Park, taking much-needed fresh water all the way south to Florida Bay.
The Corps recently presented five conceptual plans for its new Lake Okeechobee System Operating Manual (LOSOM) that will receive public comment before more detailed proposals are presented in July.
But water quality activists want the state to act now under an emergency order to try to avoid a repeat of the devastating 2018 season when massive blooms of cyanobacteria in the lake were discharged to estuaries, killing marine life and making pets and even people sick. The blooms coincided with a widespread red tide that started in the Gulf Coast but spread as far as the Panhandle and St. Lucie County on the Atlantic coast, fouling beaches with dead fish and hundreds of marine animal carcasses.
On Friday the Corps said it will reduce discharges to the Caloosahatchee to 1,500 cubic feet per second from the current 2,000 cfs as a result of the blooms. Col. Andrew Kelly, the Corps commander for Florida, said releases will be made in pulses to try to flush out algae-laden freshwater and allow for water with higher salinity levels to move up the river.
“Some types of algae don’t do as well in higher salinity so we are trying to get some of the higher salinity up into the Caloosahatchee, which will support the degradation of some of that algae, by doing a pulse release of freshwater,” he said during a call with reporters.
Send ‘all that you can’ south
Friends of the Everglades, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Conservancy of South Florida and several water quality advocacy groups sent DeSantis a letter earlier this week saying the state must waive restrictions that stop water managers from moving more water south into conservation areas. Some of those restrictions exist to make sure the water is clean enough to go into conservation areas and beyond, into the Everglades.
DeSantis, who flew over Lake Okeechobee earlier this week to check on the problem, said he asked the District to send “all that you can south,” but didn’t respond to the request for an emergency order. He said he expects the Corps to come up with “a good regulation schedule that balances the equities” and mitigates negative impacts to coastal communities in the summer.
NOAA satellite images showed that cyanobacteria covered about 500 square miles of the lake earlier this week.
Treasure Coast Rep. Brian Mast threatened to sue the Corps to stop the discharges in an interview with CBS 12 on Thursday.
During a board meeting on Thursday, District staff said water conservation areas south of the lake were mostly full or couldn’t receive water because they were in the process of being restored or had projects under construction. Water Conservation Area 3, for instance, is undergoing restoration work after Tropical Storm Eta last year filled marshes to the brim, flooding tree islands and forcing deer to crowd onto levees to survive.
Communities around Lake Okeechobee said their needs must be taken into account. Hendry County Commissioner Ramon Iglesias expressed concern about a schedule that allows too much discretion and flexibility by the Corps every year. He said his fishing and farming community needs certainty so that residents can better plan their lives.
“No schedule should singularly prioritize the loudest people in the room,” Iglesias said during public comments. “We can have a schedule that takes everyone’s concerns into consideration, but not at the expense of my community or any other Floridian that depends on the lake when they need it for drinking, for fishing, for recreating, for farming and even for the environment.”
Sending water south to the Everglades during the dry season is common sense, but it’s important to hold the District accountable for how it manages water in the storm treatment areas, said Eve Samples from Friends of the Everglades. She said most of the water treated in these marsh-like reservoirs is runoff from farms and not water from the lake.
“Why is EAA farm runoff being given priority capacity in taxpayer-funded stormwater treatment areas when STAs could be cleaning water from the lake and sparing people east and west from exposure to these cyanotoxins?” Samples asked.
A decades-old fight for water
Organizations that defend agriculture said everyone is to blame. Nyla Pipes, a sugar industry advocate at One Florida Foundation, said nutrients come from multiple sources and all of them need to be addressed. She said people often blame agriculture because “the public really doesn’t understand that algae is already in our water” and it only gets out of control when there are too many nutrients.
“All this finger pointing … we need to be looking in the mirror because it’s all of us,” she said.
Blue-green algae blooms were observed in nearly two-thirds of the lake earlier this week.
The Everglades Foundation has said it’s about time the state started to manage the lake in a more equitable way and provided its own LOSOM idea to the Corps.
“Currently, we’re not managing Lake Okeechobee in a balanced way. It’s really managed for the needs of agriculture south of the lake, which is primarily sugar. They get the water when they want it. And when it rains, they dump all their stormwater into the Everglades,” said the foundation’s chief science officer, Stephen Davis.
The discussion highlighted the decades-old conflicts in lake water uses and needs. While higher levels benefit farmers that have for decades relied on consistently delivered lake water for their fields, environmentalists and coastal communities say the lake should be kept lower in the dry season and higher in the wet season, to prevent discharges of polluted water to the St. Lucie estuary in the east and the Caloosahatchee to the west.
To prevent a breach on the aging dike when there’s too much water in the lake, the Corps has historically discharged the excess to coastal estuaries. But Lake O is growing increasingly polluted with fertilizer from surrounding farms and communities, and decades of phosphorus and nitrogen that has accumulated on the bottom.
This “legacy pollution” can get stirred up by strong winds over the shallow lake, releasing nutrients that feed blooms. Davis said that’s probably the case now, as blooms are happening early in the season.
“Typically, we don’t see this much algal coverage on the lake until June or July, when we have the longest day lengths,” and sunlight drives the photosynthesis that makes algae grow and reproduce, he said.
Scuba divers begin 6-month effort to rid Lake Tahoe of trash
1 / 4
Tahoe Cleanup-Scuba Divers
This photo provided by Clean Up The Lake shows a scuba diver beneath the surface of Lake Tahoe, cleaning up trash on Friday, May 14, 2021. A team of scuba divers on Friday completed the first dive of a massive, six-month effort to rid the popular Lake Tahoe of fishing rods, tires, aluminum cans, beer bottles and other trash accumulating underwater. (Clean Up The Lake via AP)
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. (AP) — A team of scuba divers on Friday completed the first dive of a massive, six-month effort to rid the popular Lake Tahoe of fishing rods, tires, aluminum cans, beer bottles and other trash accumulating underwater.
The team of between five and 10 divers plans to look for trash along the entire 72 miles (115 kilometers) of shoreline and dig it out in an endeavor that could be the largest trash cleanup in Lake Tahoe’s history, said Colin West, a diver and filmmaker who founded Clean Up the Lake, the nonprofit spearheading the project.
“We are still learning not to be so wasteful. But unfortunately, as a species we still are, and there are a lot of things down there,” West said after completing the first dive.
The team collected about 200 pounds (90 kilograms) of garbage during their one-tank session and found 20 large or heavy items, including buckets filled with cement and car bumpers, that will have to be retrieved later by a boat with a crane, he said.
They plan to dive three days a week down to 25 feet (7 meters) in depth. The clean-up effort will cost $250,000 — money the nonprofit has collected through grants — and will last through November.
West started doing beach cleanups along the lake after visiting Belize and seeing beaches there littered with trash. But in 2018, after a diver friend told him he and others had collected 600 pounds (272 kilograms) of garbage from the waters on Tahoe’s eastern shore, he decided to focus on the trash in the water.
“I was blown away, and we started researching and going underneath the surface and we kept pulling up trash and more trash,” said West, who lives in Stateline, Nevada.
In a survey dive on September 2019, his team removed more than 300 pounds (136 kilograms) of debris from Lake Tahoe’s eastern shore and planned to launch his clean-up along the whole shoreline last year. The pandemic delayed those plans.
But the group of volunteers, which includes not only divers but support crew on kayaks, boats and jet skis, continued diving and cleaning both Lake Tahoe and nearby Donner Lake. By the end of the last summer, they had collected more than 4 tons (4 metric tons) of trash from both lakes.
The much-anticipated battery-powered 2022 Ford F-150 Lightning pickup has finally made its debut, a moment that feels like a sea change in the U.S. auto industry. The F-Series pickup has for years been America’s bestselling passenger vehicle, and Ford’s decision to offer it as an electric vehicle sends the message with a bullhorn: The EV’s moment is upon us.
Now that the truck has been unveiled — officially, that is; we saw it demurely hanging out in the background during President Joe Biden’s speech yesterday pushing his plan for EVs in America — we can get a sense of how Ford’s big pickup will work as an EV.
The truck will come in a single body configuration: SuperCrew four-door with a 5.5-foot bed (the F-150‘s most popular configuration). The three Lightning trim levels are also from the heart of the lineup: XLT, Lariat, and Platinum — although there’s also “a commercial-oriented entry model.”
Ford will offer standard-range and extended-range battery packs, with the extended-range pack optional on the two lower trims and included on the Platinum. The truck comes standard with a dual-motor powertrain and four-wheel drive. The standard-range version makes 426 horsepower, while the extended-range model boasts 563 hp; both have 775 pound-feet of torque. For the larger-battery version, Ford estimates a 0–60 time in the mid-4-second range.
Ford is estimating 230 miles of range for the base battery pack and 300 miles for the extended-range version (although it appears the Platinum trim will come in slightly lower). There are multiple options for recharging, as outlined below:
The 32-amp mobile charger is standard, and the 48-amp unit is optional. The 80-amp unit is included in trucks with the extended-range battery pack, which also comes standard with a dual onboard charger for faster recharging. Some sample recharge times (standard-range battery /extended-range battery) are:
15%-80% using a 150-kW Level 3 fast charger: 44/41 minutes
15%-100% using the 80-amp Ford Charge Station Pro: 10/8 hours
15%-100% using the standard 32-amp/240V mobile charger: 14/19 hours
Ford is partnering with Sunrun for in-home charger installations, while on the road, Ford is part of the EV America network.
Ford heavily emphasizes the electric pickup’s utility as a power source, which could be a key aspect of its appeal for those who might not be swayed by the green argument. The base truck will offer 2.4 kW of output available via eight 120-volt AC outlets sprinkled throughout the cab, bed, and front trunk. Upper trims (and the XLT, optionally) can crank out 9.6 kilowatts of power and adds two more 120-volt outlets plus a 240-volt outlet in the bed. Ford boasts that a connected truck with the 9.6-kilowatt system, working through the 80-amp Ford Charge Station Pro and home-integration system, can supply an average house for three days during a power outage. And it would do so automatically, with the system switching back to charging once grid power is restored.
In more traditional measures of pickup utility, the F-150 Lightning with standard-range battery has a maximum tow rating of 7,000 pounds; with the extended-range battery, it’s 10,000 pounds. Payload capacity is 2,000 pounds with the standard-range battery and 1,800 with the heavier extended-range unit. (Note that Ford characterizes the range, towing and payload figures as “targeted.”) The standard front trunk under the power-operated hood measures 14.1 cubic feet and can be hosed out.
Ford says the Lightning rides on a new frame, and the chassis ditches the standard F-150’s live rear axle for an independent suspension. Exterior dimensions are not much different than the current truck, though, with the wheelbase 0.1-inch longer, overall length greater by 1 inch, width up by 0.1 inch, and cab height taller by 1.7 inches. Interior space is unchanged. Ground clearance at 8.9 inches is half-an-inch less than the standard 4×4.
The Lightning will offer a 12-inch digital instrument cluster, and upper trims get a 15.5-inch touchscreen running Ford’s latest SYNC 4A operating system. Ford’s BlueCruise hands-free highway-driving feature will be offered, part of a Co-Pilot360 option package. A new Pro Trailer Hitch Assist automatically steers, brakes, and accelerates when hitching up a trailer. A phone-as-key feature also makes its first F-150 appearance here. The F-150’s recently introduced onboard-scale feature, which can measure the weight of items in the truck bed, gets an EV twist here, as the truck can adjust the predicted range based on the weight of the current payload. Ford also promises the ability to provide over-the-air software updates (as on the current Mustang Mach-E).
Prices start at $52,974 for the XLT — you can find the trim breakdown here — with the commercial model (details and specs of which are still to come) at $39,974, and that’s before federal and any state tax credits. Ford says the Lightning effectively will be at cost parity with comparably equipped gasoline models. Here’s how you can reserve one.
Production is set to start at Ford’s Rouge River complex in Spring 2022. But Ford is happy to take some of your money now: a $100 deposit reserves your very own F-150 Lightning.
Rubber Made From Dandelions is Making Tires More Sustainable – Truly a Wondrous Plant
By Andy Corbley May 15, 2021
As companies continue to search for more environmentally regenerative materials to use in manufacturing, the tire industry is beginning to revisit an old Soviet method of rubber cultivation, using a plant that is considered a pesky weed in the West—dandelions.
Dandelion field in Russia by Vadim Indeikin, CC license
A major tire company in Germany has partnered with the University of Aachen to produce dandelion rubber tires in a bid to cut back on landfill waste, microplastic pollution, deforestation, and economic shortcomings related to rubber tree cultivation.
While the concept of “dandelion rubber” seems like a Harry Potter spell waiting to happen, as mentioned previously, it was actually developed by the Soviet Union in their quest for self-sufficiency.
Reporting from DW tells the story of a scavenger hunt across the largest country ever, and the testing of more than 1,000 different specimens before dandelions growing in Kazakhstan were found to be a perfect fit.
Previously, the world used the rubber trees, mostly Hevea brasiliensi, from Brazil, but during the Second World War the major powers of the USSR, UK, US, and Germany, were all cultivating dandelions for rubber manufacturing.
After the war ended, demand and supply gradually returned to Brazil and eventually to synthetic tires made from petrochemicals.
Aiding the bees and our environment
Now, Continental Tires is producing dandelion rubber tires called Taraxagum (which was inspired by the genus name of the species, Taraxacum). The bicycle version of their tires even won the German Sustainability Award 2021 for sustainable design.
“The fact that we came out on top among 54 finalists shows that our Urban Taraxagum bicycle tire is a unique product that contributes to the development of a new, alternative and sustainable supply of raw materials,” stated Dr. Carla Recker, head of development for the Taraxagum project.
The report from DW added that the performance of dandelion tires was better in some cases than natural rubber—which is typically blended with synthetic rubber.
Capable of growing, as we all know, practically anywhere, dandelion needs very little accommodation in a country or business’s agriculture profile. The Taraxagum research team at Continental hypothesizes they could even be grown in the polluted land on or around old industrial parks.
Furthermore, the only additive needed during the rubber extraction process is hot water, unlike Hevea which requires the use of organic solvents that pose a pollution risk if they’re not disposed of properly.
Representing a critical early-season food supply for dwindling bees and a valuable source of super-nutritious food for humans, dandelions can also be turned into coffee, give any child a good time blowing apart their seeds—and, now, as a new source for rubber in the world; truly a wondrous plant.
Letters to the Editor: Apply the Clean Air Act to animal agriculture to fight climate change
Holstein cows at a dairy farm in Pixley, Calif., in March 2020. (Los Angeles Times)
To the editor: A massive industry with political influence works to preserve profits, knowing the harmful environmental and health impact of their products. Government leadership is channeled by lobbying pressure and campaign contributions, allowing business as usual to continue. (“Why meat and dairy corporations are the Achilles’ heel of Biden’s climate plan,” Opinion, May 16)
In the case of global warming, there are multiple industry players. In her op-ed article, Viveca Morris speaks of one: animal agriculture. In this case, the tantalizing promise of capturing carbon emissions from animals raised for food works as a smoke screen that obscures the primary problem.
If President Biden is to deliver on his climate pledges, his administration has to address all forms of carbon emissions, including those resulting from the meat and dairy conglomerates. His administration should apply the Clear Air Act to all greenhouse gas sources.
Gary Stewart, Laguna Beach
..
To the editor: I was disappointed that Morris did not mention the Good Food Institute, which is already working with huge global meat and dairy producers, including Tyson Foods, one of the companies she identified as “climate super-polluters.”
The aim is to produce lab meat and plant-based meats that will be as good or better in both taste and price. It will cut through the binary meat-eater versus vegan argument by simply changing the protein content of everyday products.
While I understand the urgency to address greener protein solutions, identifying Tyson and others as enemies misses the point. If these companies find a viable alternative that enables them to fulfill carbon policy and still make a profit, why wouldn’t they?
Jane Easton, Bristol, United Kingdom
..
To the editor: Morris’ piece shows exactly why a carbon fee is the best option to lower greenhouse gas pollution.
A carbon fee as proposed in the recently reintroduced HR 2307, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act, does not discriminate. If your industry produces carbon pollution, your industry pays a fee, and the money is distributed to Americans to offset any increased cost of carbon-pollution products.
Therein lies the incentive for industries to develop comparable non-polluting products.
ExxonMobil is the world’s single largest producer of single-use plastics, according to a new report published today by the Australia-based Minderoo Foundation, one of Asia’s biggest philanthropies.
The Dow Chemical Company ranks second, the report finds, with the Chinese state-owned company Sinopec coming in third. Indorama Ventures — a Thai company that entered the plastics market in 1995 — and Saudi Aramco, owned by the Saudi Arabian government, round out the top five.
Funding for single-use plastic production comes from major banks and from institutional asset managers. The UK-based Barclays and HSBC, and Bank of America are the top three lenders to single-use plastic projects, the new report finds. All three of the most heavily invested asset managers named by the report — Vanguard Group, BlackRock, and Capital Group — are U.S.-based.
“This is the first-time the financial and material flows of single-use plastic production have been mapped globally and traced back to their source,” said Toby Gardner, a Stockholm Environment Institute senior research fellow, who contributed to the report, titled The Plastic Waste Makers Index.
The report is also the first to rank companies by their contributions to the single-use plastic crisis, listing the corporations and other financiers it says are most responsible for plastic pollution — with major implications for climate change.
Graph Credit: The Plastic Waste Makers Index: Revealing the Source of the Single-Use Plastics Crisis, Mindaroo Foundation.
“The trajectories of the climate crisis and the plastic waste crisis are strikingly similar and increasingly intertwined,” Al Gore, the former U.S. vice president, wrote in the report’s foreword. “Tracing the root causes of the plastic waste crisis empowers us to help solve it.”
The world of plastic production is concentrated in fewer hands than the world of plastic packaging, the report’s authors found. The top twenty brands in the plastic packaging world — think Coca Cola or Pepsi, for example — handle about 10 percent of global plastic waste, report author Dominic Charles told DeSmog. In contrast, the top 20 producers of plastic polymers — the building blocks of plastics — handle over half of the waste generated.
“Which I think was really quite staggering,” Charles, director of Finance & Transparency at Minderoo Foundation’s Sea The Future program, told DeSmog. “It means that just a handful of companies really do have the fate of the world’s single-use plastic waste in their hands.”
Graph Credit: The Plastic Waste Makers Index: Revealing the Source of the Single-Use Plastics Crisis, Mindaroo Foundation.
Meanwhile, the report suggests that public policy responses to the threats posed by plastic pollution have focused further along the supply chain, where things become more fragmented.
“Government policies, where they exist, tend to focus on the vast number of companies that sell finished plastic products,” the report finds. “Relatively little attention has been paid to the smaller number of businesses at the base of the supply chain that make ‘polymers’ — the building blocks of all plastics — almost exclusively from fossil fuels.”
While there are about 300 polymer producers currently operating worldwide, just three companies — ExxonMobil, Dow, and Sinopec — combined are responsible for roughly one out of every six pounds of single-use plastic waste, the report concludes.
In 2019, for example, more than 130 million metric tons of plastic was used just once and then discarded. ExxonMobil, the report concludes, was responsible for creating 5.9 million tons of that single-use plastic waste in 2019, with Dow right behind it, generating 5.6 million tons that year.
Neither ExxonMobil nor Dow responded immediately to a request for comment.
Meanwhile, 20 of the world’s largest banks lent nearly $30 billion that was used for the production of new single-use plastics, the report finds. That funding represents about 60 percent of the commercial finance that funds single-use plastics. An additional $10 billion in investment in new single-use plastics has come from 20 institutional asset managers, like Vanguard and BlackRock.
“Through our Investment Stewardship program, Vanguard regularly engages with companies on issues that are financially material to their long-term value and sustainability, including climate issues and environmental matters,” Vanguard spokesperson Alyssa Thornton said in an email to DeSmog. “We expect company boards to oversee climate and environmental risks and provide investors with clear disclosures of their risk oversight and decision-making processes. Importantly, we do not dictate company strategy, or operational or financial decisions; rather, we hold company board’s responsible for being aware of such risks and opportunities as part of a foundation for making the most sustainable long-term decisions.”
Barclays did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Graph Credit: The Plastic Waste Makers Index: Revealing the Source of the Single-Use Plastics Crisis, Mindaroo Foundation.
Virtually all single-use plastic comes from fossil-fuel based feed-stocks, the report adds.
“One of the key findings of the report is that single-use plastics today is 98 percent fossil fuel-based,” Charles told DeSmog. “And that in itself is really, we say, the source of the plastic waste crisis. And that’s because if you’re only making new plastics from new fossil fuels, you’re taking away the commercial incentive, you’re undermining the commercial incentive to collect this plastic and to turn it into recycled plastic products.”
The report grades plastic manufacturers based on their preparation to transition away from fossil fuels and towards recycling — and found that most of the largest producers not only have made very little progress in that direction to date, they haven’t even set targets that would push them towards a “circular” model involving recycling.
“Over 50 of these companies received an ‘E’ grade — the lowest possible — when assessed for circularity, indicating a complete lack of policies, commitments, or targets,” the report found. “A further 26 companies, including ExxonMobil and Taiwan’s Formosa Plastics Corporation, received a ‘D-’ due to their lack of clear targets/timelines.”
In fact, fossil fuel producers appear to be counting on that failure to move towards recycling. “Two of the biggest markets for fossil fuel companies — electricity generation and transportation — are undergoing rapid decarbonization, and it is no coincidence that fossil fuel companies are now scrambling to massively expand their third market — petrochemicals — three-quarters of which is the production of plastic,” Gore wrote. “They see it as a potential life raft to help them stay afloat, and they’re telling investors that there’s lots of money to be made in ramping up the amount of plastic in the world.”
In a statement on the report, the American Chemistry Council pointed to the use of plastics in products like solar panels and wind turbines to highlight the role that plastics — though not single-use plastics — play in renewable energy. “The world needs plastic to live more sustainably, and America’s plastic makers are leading the development of solutions to end plastic waste,” the Council said. “We’re innovating and investing in efforts to create a more circular economy, where used plastics are systematically remanufactured to make new plastics and other products. In the last three years, the private sector has announced $5.5 billion in U.S. investments to dramatically modernize plastics recycling.”
Meanwhile, the plastics industry remains on track to continue rapidly increasing the amount of new plastic it produces each year, meaning more fossil fuel use — even while other industries are seeking to trim or eliminate their reliance on fossil fuels.
“Our numbers suggest a 30 percent increase in capacity compared to 2019,” Charles told DeSmog. “Now that is not out of line with the historical rate of growth, it’s about 5 percent per year. But if we are to see 5 percent growth in fossil fuel-based, that is a real threat towards the growth of circular plastics and recycling. So I think that’s a real cause for concern.”
As of 2019, plastic producers had created 8.3 billion metric tons of plastic — and 91 percent of it was never recycled, according to one peer-reviewed study. Even from the start, a NPR and PBS Frontline investigation found, industry insiders were skeptical that recycled plastic could compete against new production, with one industry insider warning in a speech — in 1974 — that “There is serious doubt that [recycling plastic] can ever be made viable on an economic basis.”
So where does the money for all this come from?
The financing of single-use plastics is complex, involving not only lending and investment by Wall Street fund managers and big banks, but also privately held companies. The report’s list of the top 10 equity owners of polymer producers includes not only state actors and massive asset managers like BlackRock but also private individuals like James Arthur Ratcliffe — co-founder and majority owner of INEOS, a UK-based petrochemical company.
“Transitioning away from the take-make-waste model of single-use plastics will take more than corporate leadership and ‘enlightened’ capital markets: it will require immense political will,” the report says. “This is underscored by the high degree of state ownership in these polymer producers — an estimated 30 percent of the sector, by value, is state-owned, with Saudi Arabia, China, and the United Arab Emirates the top three.”
The report calls not only for more disclosures from companies and financiers about their ties to plastic production, it also calls for global action to respond to the plastic pollution crisis — starting with a focus on the companies most responsible.
“A Montreal Protocol or Paris Agreement-style treaty may be the only way to bring an end to plastic pollution worldwide,” the report says. “The treaty must address the problem at its source, with targets for the phasing out of fossil-fuel-based polymers and encouraging the development of a circular plastics economy.”
That’s in part because the plastic waste crisis and the climate crisis share one other thing in common — their impacts are global in scope.
“The plastification of our oceans and the warming of our planet are amongst the greatest threats humanity and nature have ever confronted,” Dr. Andrew Forrest, chairman and founder of the Minderoo Foundation, said in a statement accompanying the report. “And we must act now.”
Sharon Kelly is an attorney and freelance writer based in Philadelphia. She has reported for The New York Times, The Guardian, The Nation, National Wildlife, Earth Island Journal, and a variety of other publications. Prior to beginning freelance writing, she worked as a law clerk for the ACLU of Delaware.
Twenty firms produce 55% of world’s plastic waste, report reveals
Plastic Waste Makers index identifies those driving climate crisis with virgin polymer production
Sandra Laville May 17, 2021
A woman collects recyclable plastics washed up on the beach in Bali, Indonesia. Photograph: Agung Parameswara/Getty Images.
Twenty companies are responsible for producing more than half of all the single-use plastic waste in the world, fuelling the climate crisis and creating an environmental catastrophe, new research reveals.
Among the global businesses responsible for 55% of the world’s plastic packaging waste are both state-owned and multinational corporations, including oil and gas giants and chemical companies, according to a comprehensive new analysis.
Quick Guide
The top 20 producers of single use plastic
The Plastic Waste Makers index reveals for the first time the companies who produce the polymers that become throwaway plastic items, from face masks to plastic bags and bottles, which at the end of their short life pollute the oceans or are burned or thrown into landfill.
It also reveals Australia leads a list of countries for generating the most single-use plastic waste on a per capita basis, ahead of the United States, South Korea and Britain.
ExxonMobil is the greatest single-use plastic waste polluter in the world, contributing 5.9m tons to the global waste mountain, concludes the analysis by the Minderoo Foundation of Australia with partners including Wood Mackenzie, the London School of Economics and Stockholm Environment Institute. The largest chemicals company in the world, Dow, which is based in the US, created 5.5m tons of plastic waste, while China’s oil and gas enterprise, Sinopec, created 5.3m tons.
Eleven of the companies are based in Asia, four in Europe, three in North America, one in Latin America, and one in the Middle East. Their plastic production is funded by leading banks, chief among which are Barclays, HSBC, Bank of America, Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase.
The enormous plastic waste footprint of the top 20 global companies amounts to more than half of the 130m metric tons of single-use plastic thrown away in 2019, the analysis says.
It’s not just oceans: scientists find plastic is also polluting the air.
Single-use plastics are made almost exclusively from fossil fuels, driving the climate crisis, and because they are some of the hardest items to recycle, they end up creating global waste mountains. Just 10%-15% of single-use plastic is recycled globally each year.
The analysis provides an unprecedented glimpse into the small number of petrochemicals companies, and their financial backers, which generate almost all single-use plastic waste across the world.
Al Gore, the environmentalist and former US vice-president, said the groundbreaking analysis exposed how fossil fuel companies were rushing to switch to plastic production as two of their main markets – transport and electricity generation – were being decarbonized.
“Since most plastic is made from oil and gas – especially fracked gas – the production and consumption of plastic are becoming a significant driver of the climate crisis,” said Gore.
“Moreover, the plastic waste that results – particularly from single-use plastics – is piling up in landfills, along roadsides, and in rivers that carry vast amounts into the ocean.”
By 2050 plastic is expected to account for 5%-10% of greenhouse gas emissions.
“An environmental catastrophe beckons: much of the resulting single-use plastic waste will end up as pollution in developing countries with poor waste management systems,” the report’s authors said. “The projected rate of growth in the supply of these virgin polymers … will likely keep new, circular models of production and reuse ‘out of the money’ without regulatory stimulus.”
The report said the plastics industry across the world had been allowed to operate with minimal regulation and limited transparency for decades. “These companies are the source of the single-use plastic crisis: their production of new ‘virgin’ polymers from oil, gas and coal feed-stocks perpetuates the take-make-waste dynamic of the plastics economy.”
The report said this undermines the shift to a circular economy, including the production of recycled polymers from plastic waste, reusing plastic and using substitute materials. Just 2% of single-use plastic was made from recycled polymers in 2019.
“Plastic pollution is one of the greatest and most critical threats facing our planet,”saidDr. Andrew Forrest AO, chairman of the Minderoo Foundation. “The current outlook is set to get worse and we simply cannot allow these producers of fossil fuel-derived plastics to continue as they have done without check. With our oceans choking and plastic impacting our health, we need to see firm intervention from producers, governments and the world of finance to break the cycle of inaction.”
… as it’s our birthday month, we have a small favor to ask. It’s not every day you turn 200. We hope you’ll join us in celebrating two centuries of independent, high-impact Guardian journalism, as we gear up for centuries more. Since 1821, tens of millions have placed their trust in our quality reporting, turning to us in moments of crisis, uncertainty, solidarity and hope. And we’re just getting started.
Thanks to funding from more than 1.5 million Guardian supporters in 180 countries, we’ve remained open to all, and fiercely independent. With no shareholders or billionaire owner, we set our own agenda and provide truth-seeking journalism that’s free from commercial and political influence. When it’s never mattered more, we can investigate and challenge without fear or favor.
Unlike many others, Guardian journalism is available for everyone to read, regardless of what they can afford to pay. We do this because we believe in information equality. Greater numbers of people can keep track of global events, understand their impact on people and communities, and become inspired to take meaningful action.
Over the past 200 years, we have reported on the most critical issues and events of the day, and published countless exclusives that have held the powerful to account and exposed incompetence, injustice and impropriety. From the global movement for racial justice to the climate crisis, from a broken food system to life in an age of misinformation, our fact-based journalism highlights injustice, offers solutions and helps make order out of a dizzying news cycle.
If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and helps sustain our future. Support the Guardian from as little as $1 – and it only takes a minute. Thank you.
ExxonMobil is the world’s single largest producer of single-use plastics, according to a new report published today by the Australia-based Minderoo Foundation, one of Asia’s biggest philanthropies.
The Dow Chemical Company ranks second, the report finds, with the Chinese state-owned company Sinopec coming in third. Indorama Ventures — a Thai company that entered the plastics market in 1995 — and Saudi Aramco, owned by the Saudi Arabian government, round out the top five.
Funding for single-use plastic production comes from major banks and from institutional asset managers. The UK-based Barclays and HSBC, and Bank of America are the top three lenders to single-use plastic projects, the new report finds. All three of the most heavily invested asset managers named by the report — Vanguard Group, BlackRock, and Capital Group — are U.S.-based.
“This is the first-time the financial and material flows of single-use plastic production have been mapped globally and traced back to their source,” said Toby Gardner, a Stockholm Environment Institute senior research fellow, who contributed to the report, titled The Plastic Waste Makers Index.
The report is also the first to rank companies by their contributions to the single-use plastic crisis, listing the corporations and other financiers it says are most responsible for plastic pollution — with major implications for climate change.
Graph Credit: The Plastic Waste Makers Index: Revealing the Source of the Single-Use Plastics Crisis, Mindaroo Foundation.
“The trajectories of the climate crisis and the plastic waste crisis are strikingly similar and increasingly intertwined,” Al Gore, the former U.S. vice president, wrote in the report’s foreword. “Tracing the root causes of the plastic waste crisis empowers us to help solve it.”
The world of plastic production is concentrated in fewer hands than the world of plastic packaging, the report’s authors found. The top twenty brands in the plastic packaging world — think Coca Cola or Pepsi, for example — handle about 10 percent of global plastic waste, report author Dominic Charles told DeSmog. In contrast, the top 20 producers of plastic polymers — the building blocks of plastics — handle over half of the waste generated.
“Which I think was really quite staggering,” Charles, director of Finance & Transparency at Minderoo Foundation’s Sea The Future program, told DeSmog. “It means that just a handful of companies really do have the fate of the world’s single-use plastic waste in their hands.”
Graph Credit: The Plastic Waste Makers Index: Revealing the Source of the Single-Use Plastics Crisis, Mindaroo Foundation.
Meanwhile, the report suggests that public policy responses to the threats posed by plastic pollution have focused further along the supply chain, where things become more fragmented.
“Government policies, where they exist, tend to focus on the vast number of companies that sell finished plastic products,” the report finds. “Relatively little attention has been paid to the smaller number of businesses at the base of the supply chain that make ‘polymers’ — the building blocks of all plastics — almost exclusively from fossil fuels.”
While there are about 300 polymer producers currently operating worldwide, just three companies — ExxonMobil, Dow, and Sinopec — combined are responsible for roughly one out of every six pounds of single-use plastic waste, the report concludes.
In 2019, for example, more than 130 million metric tons of plastic was used just once and then discarded. ExxonMobil, the report concludes, was responsible for creating 5.9 million tons of that single-use plastic waste in 2019, with Dow right behind it, generating 5.6 million tons that year.
Neither ExxonMobil nor Dow responded immediately to a request for comment.
Meanwhile, 20 of the world’s largest banks lent nearly $30 billion that was used for the production of new single-use plastics, the report finds. That funding represents about 60 percent of the commercial finance that funds single-use plastics. An additional $10 billion in investment in new single-use plastics has come from 20 institutional asset managers, like Vanguard and BlackRock.
“Through our Investment Stewardship program, Vanguard regularly engages with companies on issues that are financially material to their long-term value and sustainability, including climate issues and environmental matters,” Vanguard spokesperson Alyssa Thornton said in an email to DeSmog. “We expect company boards to oversee climate and environmental risks and provide investors with clear disclosures of their risk oversight and decision-making processes. Importantly, we do not dictate company strategy, or operational or financial decisions; rather, we hold company board’s responsible for being aware of such risks and opportunities as part of a foundation for making the most sustainable long-term decisions.”
Barclays did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Graph Credit: The Plastic Waste Makers Index: Revealing the Source of the Single-Use Plastics Crisis, Mindaroo Foundation.
Virtually all single-use plastic comes from fossil-fuel based feedstocks, the report adds.
“One of the key findings of the report is that single-use plastics today is 98 percent fossil fuel-based,” Charles told DeSmog. “And that in itself is really, we say, the source of the plastic waste crisis. And that’s because if you’re only making new plastics from new fossil fuels, you’re taking away the commercial incentive, you’re undermining the commercial incentive to collect this plastic and to turn it into recycled plastic products.”
The report grades plastic manufacturers based on their preparation to transition away from fossil fuels and towards recycling — and found that most of the largest producers not only have made very little progress in that direction to date, they haven’t even set targets that would push them towards a “circular” model involving recycling.
“Over 50 of these companies received an ‘E’ grade — the lowest possible — when assessed for circularity, indicating a complete lack of policies, commitments, or targets,” the report found. “A further 26 companies, including ExxonMobil and Taiwan’s Formosa Plastics Corporation, received a ‘D-’ due to their lack of clear targets/timelines.”
In fact, fossil fuel producers appear to be counting on that failure to move towards recycling. “Two of the biggest markets for fossil fuel companies — electricity generation and transportation — are undergoing rapid decarbonization, and it is no coincidence that fossil fuel companies are now scrambling to massively expand their third market — petrochemicals — three-quarters of which is the production of plastic,” Gore wrote. “They see it as a potential life raft to help them stay afloat, and they’re telling investors that there’s lots of money to be made in ramping up the amount of plastic in the world.”
In a statement on the report, the American Chemistry Council pointed to the use of plastics in products like solar panels and wind turbines to highlight the role that plastics — though not single-use plastics — play in renewable energy. “The world needs plastic to live more sustainably, and America’s plastic makers are leading the development of solutions to end plastic waste,” the Council said. “We’re innovating and investing in efforts to create a more circular economy, where used plastics are systematically remanufactured to make new plastics and other products. In the last three years, the private sector has announced $5.5 billion in U.S. investments to dramatically modernize plastics recycling.”
Meanwhile, the plastics industry remains on track to continue rapidly increasing the amount of new plastic it produces each year, meaning more fossil fuel use — even while other industries are seeking to trim or eliminate their reliance on fossil fuels.
“Our numbers suggest a 30 percent increase in capacity compared to 2019,” Charles told DeSmog. “Now that is not out of line with the historical rate of growth, it’s about 5 percent per year. But if we are to see 5 percent growth in fossil fuel-based, that is a real threat towards the growth of circular plastics and recycling. So I think that’s a real cause for concern.”
Marine debris collected on Midway Atoll, Photo Credit: Holly Richards, US Fish and Wildlife Service.
As of 2019, plastic producers had created 8.3 billion metric tons of plastic — and 91 percent of it was never recycled, according to one peer-reviewed study. Even from the start, a NPR and PBS Frontline investigation found, industry insiders were skeptical that recycled plastic could compete against new production, with one industry insider warning in a speech — in 1974 — that “There is serious doubt that [recycling plastic] can ever be made viable on an economic basis.”
So where does the money for all this come from?
The financing of single-use plastics is complex, involving not only lending and investment by Wall Street fund managers and big banks, but also privately held companies. The report’s list of the top 10 equity owners of polymer producers includes not only state actors and massive asset managers like BlackRock but also private individuals like James Arthur Ratcliffe — co-founder and majority owner of INEOS, a UK-based petrochemical company.
“Transitioning away from the take-make-waste model of single-use plastics will take more than corporate leadership and ‘enlightened’ capital markets: it will require immense political will,” the report says. “This is underscored by the high degree of state ownership in these polymer producers — an estimated 30 percent of the sector, by value, is state-owned, with Saudi Arabia, China, and the United Arab Emirates the top three.”
The report calls not only for more disclosures from companies and financiers about their ties to plastic production, it also calls for global action to respond to the plastic pollution crisis — starting with a focus on the companies most responsible.
“A Montreal Protocol or Paris Agreement-style treaty may be the only way to bring an end to plastic pollution worldwide,” the report says. “The treaty must address the problem at its source, with targets for the phasing out of fossil-fuel-based polymers and encouraging the development of a circular plastics economy.”
That’s in part because the plastic waste crisis and the climate crisis share one other thing in common — their impacts are global in scope.
“The plastification of our oceans and the warming of our planet are amongst the greatest threats humanity and nature have ever confronted,” Dr. Andrew Forrest, chairman and founder of the Minderoo Foundation, said in a statement accompanying the report. “And we must act now.”
‘It’s like a place of healing’: the growth of America’s food forests
Mike Jordan in Atlanta and Salomé Gómez-Upegui in Miami
May 8, 2021
Atlanta is home to America’s biggest food forest which also offers composting, beekeeping and bat boxes. Photograph: Peyton Fulford/The Guardian
There are more than 70 ‘food forests’ in the US as part of a growing movement to tackle food insecurity and promote urban agriculture
America’s biggest “food forest” is just a short drive from the world’s busiest airport, Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson, but there is a relative calm as you wander through the gravel paths that weave through its fertile 7.1 acres (2.8 hectares).
When the Guardian visits the Urban Food Forest at Browns Mill there are around a dozen volunteers working on a warm morning. Among them are a mother and son clearing weeds from a secluded area soon to become a yoga and meditation space. “I wanted to help,” Rina Saborio said. “I thought it was a really cool opportunity for the community.”
Hundreds of volunteers have come before them in Atlanta, and thousands at similar schemes across the US.
Food forests are part of the broader food justice and urban agriculture movement and are distinct from community gardens in various ways. They are typically backed by grants rather than renting plots, usually rely on volunteers and incorporate a land management approach that has a focus on growing perennials. The schemes vary in how they operate in allocating food and policies on harvesting, but they are all aimed at boosting food access.
Organizers in Atlanta stress that they properly distribute the food to the neighborhoods that the food forest is intended to support and it’s not open to the public beyond volunteer workers. Other schemes have areas where the public is free to take what they want.
Atlanta’s Urban Food Forest opened in 2019 with a plan to be a model for urban agriculture and to increase food access, a challenge that long predates the pandemic but which has been terribly exacerbated by the economic crisis caused by Covid-19.
This scheme is located in Atlanta’s southside Lakewood community, less than five miles from downtown. Lakewood is a food desert, as defined by the USDA, and the nearest grocery store with healthy food options takes 20 minutes via public transportation. Most nearby “food marts” offer far more sweets, processed foods, and canned goods than fresh fruits, vegetables and produce.
Celeste Lomax, who manages community engagement at the Brown Mills forest and lives in the neighborhood, believes education is key to the forest’s success and beams like sunlight when sharing her vision for the fertile soil she tends. “We’re using this space for more than just growing food. We have composting, beehives, bat boxes, and this beautiful herb garden where we’re teaching people how to heal themselves with the foods we eat. We’ll be doing walkthrough retreats and outside yoga. This is a health and wellness place. It’s so much more than just free food.”
Celeste Lomax, top left, manages community engagement at the Urban Food Forest at Browns Mill in Atlanta. Rosemary Griffin, bottom left, waters the garden. The food forest gives the community access to fresh, nutritious food with garden beds, herb gardens and fruit trees. Photographs by Peyton Fulford/The Guardian
The land, once owned by a pecan farming family, sat vacant for years and almost became a multi-family housing unit after being purchased by developers in 2000. It was acquired by the city in 2016, through a partnership with Trees Atlanta and The Conservation Fund, and a grant from the USDA Forest Service’s Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program.
Food access has been a long-term challenge in the city. According to a June 2017 report in the Atlanta Studies journal, food insecurity rates were above 25% in downtown Atlanta and nearby in southern Fulton and DeKalb counties, where residents are mainly people of color with lower incomes. In Atlanta Regional Commission’s annual Metro Atlanta Speaks survey, 18% stated they received food bank assistance since March 2020.
Before the pandemic, Lomax had enough herbs of all types, to give volunteers tea packs for homebrewing after a day’s work. Today, the volunteer maximum is set at fifteen people, but back then as many as fifty volunteers worked the forest on scheduled days. She is hopeful that there’ll be enough catnip, lemon balm, chocolate mint, and other herbs to keep up with demand as members of the community near and far come back to help. “Once this stuff grows, and I can start giving things away again, I’ll be blessing the volunteers. They call it sweat equity; I call it blessing those who bless us.”
‘A living system’
Some 35.2m people lived in food-insecure households throughout the US according to a report by the US Department of Agriculture in 2019. Last month a Guardian/Northwestern University investigation showed the scale of the crisis in the past year with one in four facing food insecurity before Christmas, amounting to some 81 million people. It also highlighted the racial divide in the food system with Black families reported to be facing hunger four times more often than white families.
The Dr George Washington Carver edible park in Asheville, North Carolina, was the first public food forest to open in the US, back in 1997. Since then, many more have emerged around the country, and though there is no official data, according to the non-profit Sustainable America, as of 2018 there were more than 70 public food forests in the United States.
As Mark Bittman writes in his book, Animal, Vegetable, Junk, urban gardens, farms and food forests “can’t compare in scale, appearance, or yield to large rural farms but by supplying populations with real food, and bringing power and understanding of food systems to urban eaters, they become important pieces of the puzzle.”
As defined by expert Michael Muehlbauer, Orchard Director at the Philadelphia Orchard Project who is currently working to bring a food forest to public land in Philadelphia, food forests “are a gardening technique or land management system, which mirrors and works with woodland ecosystems by incorporating trees, shrubs, perennials and annuals that produce human food. This creates a living system with numerous benefits including wildlife habitat, resilient biodiversity, an abundance of food and medicinal yields, carbon sequestration, increased urban tree canopy, local food security, and an opportunity for community gathering and education.”
Muehlbauer was one of the very first volunteers at the Beacon Food Forest in Seattle. It began back in 2009 when four friends from the neighborhood of Beacon Hill came together to transform a seven-acre plot of public land into an ecosystem that could provide local food to neighbors.
The role of community and volunteers is crucial to places like the Urban Food Forest. Volunteer Rina Saborio, bottom left, pulls weeds in the learning area. “We do something unique where we empower people to show up,” said Elise Evans, a long-time volunteer and former board president of Food Forest Collective. Photographs by Peyton Fulford/The Guardian.
Elise Evans, a long-time volunteer and former board president of Food Forest Collective, the nonprofit that manages the Beacon Food Forest, shared that the forest has helped in many ways with food insecurity.
“We’re not a food bank,” she clarified, “but we do something unique where we empower people to show up. We accept all volunteers who are kind and want to have a sense of purpose in growing food together. It’s sort of a large-scale demonstration site. Anyone can do this in their ecosystem and we’re showing them how that can be done.”
The Beacon Food Forest in Seattle is mostly an open harvest site. Except for areas designated as food bank plots and City of Seattle P-Patches, they allow free foraging on-site. Over the past eleven years, they’ve seen successful results and haven’t observed anyone “wiping out” a harvest. Evans said: “In the golden hour of the evening, we see many people on site harvesting food for their dinner or food for a neighbor. They get to harvest something and walk two blocks away to go home and have dinner.”
The role of community and volunteers is crucial to keep these initiatives going. And Evans knows this from personal experience. She first became involved in the Beacon Food Forest after attending the first “ground making party”, a monthly community gathering that pre-Covid that would attract more than 100 people of all backgrounds to work on the forest while enjoying pots of soup and salads picked from the site.
“It was a glorious communal experience,” she recalled. “At first I thought I would learn about permaculture, but in the end, it was a vivid experience with energy from people of all backgrounds. So I ended up making friends and stayed for the people, which is a story of many people at the Beacon Food Forest.”
J Olu Baiyewu, Urban Agriculture Director of the City of Atlanta, says that as urban agriculture installations continue to come into communities, digging more deeply into community engagement and outreach is essential: “I think what has become clearer for everyone involved is the need for a continuous community engagement beyond the visioning plan, continuous kind of check-ins,” he said.
Yet, consistent community engagement comes with challenges of its own. There are issues of governance, organizing and commitment to be sorted out, and as projects grow, these matters become increasingly complex.
Muelhbaur, who has worked for the past five years to bring a food forest to public land in Philadelphia, emphasized that “challenges for public food forest projects include volunteer burnout, as it can be quite a bit of work to organize these projects, which often fall on the shoulders of passionate volunteers Finding the right structure is important to keep the project organized.”
Citing his experience with the upcoming food forest, he added, “it’s taken five years of community organizing, talking to the city, making sure we have the right insurance policy in place, and negotiating a lease”.
As Evans put it, many volunteers are driven by wanting a change from large mono-crop agriculture. And aside from knowing where their food comes from, they want to know their neighbors. “In a world that’s increasingly digital and stressful, it’s consistent that we need community and this provides that. It’s nourishing both for our bodies and our hearts to show up to this space.”
Celeste Lomax shares her knowledge of the food found in the forest with other volunteers. Photograph: Peyton Fulford/The Guardian
‘This is so much bigger than us’
“This is good for stomach ailments,” Lomax recommended, speaking to one of the Atlanta volunteers about anise growing near lavender. “It’s good for insomnia, so I would use this in a tincture and also in a tea.”
As she continues explaining the potential of the forest, including her excitement about meeting a volunteer earlier in the day who offered to lead a cooking class on the property using herbs and produce grown in its dirt, Rina Saborio walks over to say goodbye after finishing her day of volunteering. In her hand is a bunch of chives she’s carefully uprooted from the area she and her son were clearing. She offers them to Lomax, who says she can keep them in exchange for her service.
“This is so much bigger than us,” Lomax said. “We thought we were just gardening but it’s grown to be so much more. It’s like a place of healing. I’ve had a lady cry because she was able to release stress in this place. That’s when I said, “Wow, this place is really magical. It takes a village to raise a child but it takes a community to change the world.”
… we have a small favor to ask. Perhaps you’re familiar with the Guardian’s reputation for hard-hitting, urgent reporting on the environment, which tens of millions of people read every year. We need your support to continue providing high-quality coverage from across a rapidly changing world.
The Guardian views the climate crisis as the defining issue of our time. It is already here. Mega-droughts, wildfires, flooding and extreme heat are making growing parts of our planet uninhabitable. As parts of the world emerge from the pandemic, carbon emissions are again on the rise, risking a rare opportunity to transition to a more sustainable future.
The Guardian has renounced fossil fuel advertising, becoming the first major global news organization to do so. We have committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2030. And we are consistently increasing our investment in environmental reporting, recognizing that an informed public is crucial to keeping the worst of the crisis at bay.
More than 1.5 million readers, in 180 countries, have recently taken the step to support us financially – keeping us open to all and fiercely independent. With no shareholders or billionaire owner, we can set our own agenda and provide trustworthy journalism that’s free from commercial and political influence, offering a counterweight to the spread of misinformation. When it’s never mattered more, we can investigate and challenge without fear or favor.
Unlike many others, Guardian journalism is available for everyone to read, regardless of what they can afford to pay. We do this because we believe in information equality. Greater numbers of people can keep track of global events, understand their impact on people and communities, and become inspired to take meaningful action.
If there were ever a time to join us, it is now. Every contribution, however big or small, powers our journalism and sustains our future. Support the Guardian from as little as $1 – it only takes a minute. Thank you.
