TCLocal

by Jon Bosak, TCLocal Editor

For someone who believes, as I do, that decreasing availability of cheap fossil fuel will eventually make the transportation of food over long distances economically unfeasible, the phrase “local food” acquires a special meaning beyond the usual lifestyle implications. It’s less about maintaining moral purity and more about whether we’re going to have enough to eat. Since I live in the state of New York, the question becomes: could New York feed itself on what it produces?

A couple of years ago, I attempted a back-of-the-envelope sort of calculation to answer this question from a “peak oil” standpoint. To model the worst case, the one in which it takes more energy to extract fossil fuel than the energy we can get out of it, I put the question this way: if New York State produced what it did a hundred years ago, before the arrival of gasoline- and diesel-fueled equipment, could it feed its present population?

The answer, based on New York State agricultural statistics from the 1900 U.S. census, was rather depressing. Despite the fact that New York back then was an agricultural powerhouse — being, for example, far and away the number one state in potato production — its 1900 output of food would barely keep its current population alive.

Carbs weren’t so bad; assuming, in round numbers, a state population of 20 million (a little more than the current estimate), NYS 1900 could annually provide each resident with 87 pounds of corn and wheat and 114 pounds of potatoes. But protein was another story. NYS 1900 could provide each current resident with just 16 pounds of beef and pork, 37 eggs, and half a chicken per year. Dairy production, a historical strength in the state, would provide each person now living here just 39 gallons of milk per year, including an average six pounds of butter and seven pounds of cheese. This is probably enough animal protein to sustain life, but not remotely what we’re used to.

NYS fruit wouldn’t take up much of the slack, either; apples, grapes, peaches, pears, and berries put together would only amount to about 75 pounds per person. New York invented beans as an article of commercial North American agriculture (the first commercial bean crop on record was grown in 1836 in the Town of Yates, in Orleans County), but each person in our current population would only get about four pounds of them a year, plus a little less than a pound of peas. The problem, of course, is that in addition to cutting the fossil fuel input (including all the natural gas we turn into fertilizer), we would be trying to feed almost three times the number of people today that we supported in 1900.

Obviously this calculation was based on some very pessimistic assumptions about available fuel. But it also contained some extremely optimistic assumptions as well — most importantly that we still had substantially more arable land than we actually do now and also that we still had the vastly greater resources of animal power available a hundred years ago.[1] While suggestive, it wasn’t a very precise way of assessing our current resources.

The Cornell studies

Unknown to me, teams at Cornell University under the direction of postdoctoral researcher Christian Peters were engaged in sophisticated studies that would answer a more immediately interesting question — not what would happen if the energy inputs failed, but what the state’s carrying capacity is now, given current rates of production, and what our distribution system would look like if food miles were reduced as far as possible.

The work undertaken so far by Peters et al. has been described in two articles published in the journal Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. The first piece, from 2006,[2] investigated the influence of diet on the demand for agricultural land and, secondarily, the ability of New York State to reduce environmental impacts by supplying food locally. The second study, from 2008,[3] focused more closely on local food by developing and applying a method for mapping NYS foodsheds. While preliminary, the results of these studies pose serious questions for those who seek to relocalize our diet, and they raise some significant issues for planners attempting to grapple with the contraction of agricultural supply chains due to rising fuel prices. The purpose of this article is to make the key findings of these seminal studies available to a larger audience.

The relatively short list of products actually produced in our climate suggests that the answer to the question of how much of our food needs can be supplied locally depends to some extent on what kinds of foods we plan to eat. The 2006 study approaches this issue by using USDA data to define 42 different nutritionally complete diets supplying 2300 calories a day, calculating the agricultural land requirements for each diet, and then calculating the potential ability of NYS to supply that diet to each resident based on recent estimates of available agricultural land (not land currently in production, but land that could be). Each of the 42 diets is nutritionally complete but contains different proportions of meat and eggs at rates from 0 to 12 ounces per day and different proportions of calories from fat ranging from 20 to 45 percent of total calories. The average U.S. diet contains 5.8 ounces of meat or eggs per day and 41 percent of calories from fat; Figure 1 shows where this average diet falls in the six by seven matrix formed by the two variables.[4] While obviously incomplete, the model does represent the range of common American food consumption patterns from low-fat lacto-vegetarian to high-fat, meat-rich omnivorous.

Figure 1. Matrix of 42 complete diets. (Click for larger image.)

Land requirements for each diet are based on a division of available agricultural land into three categories: harvested cropland, cropland pasture, and permanent pasture.

Figure 2. Available agricultural land in New York State. (Click for larger image.)

Further methodology, detailed in the study, addresses the interdependencies between perennial crops (grown mainly on grassland) and annual crops (grown mainly on cultivated land), and the calculation of carrying capacity employs a conditional equation that determines which category of land is limiting to food production. Figure 3 shows the results, with the seven levels of meat consumption displayed across the bottom and the six levels of fat consumption grouped within each meat consumption level. For example, someone who ate 190 grams (6.7 ounces) of cooked meat equivalents per day would require somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.45 hectares (about 1 1/8 acres) of combined annual and perennial NYS crops for their sustenance if their entire diet came from within the state.

Figure 3. Land requirements of complete diets. (Click for larger image.)

Effect of diet on carrying capacity

Not surprisingly, the results show a nearly fivefold difference in the amount of land needed per capita depending on the diet, from 0.18 ha (0.44 ac) for a diet of 0 g meat and 52 g fat to 0.86 ha (2.12 ac) for a diet of 381 g meat and 52 g fat. As most TCLocal.org readers are aware, animal products require much more land per unit of edible energy than grains; in NYS this amounts to 3.3 to 6.3 times as much total land required for the animal products other than beef and a whopping 31 times as much for beef.

On the other hand, as shown in the figure, much of the difference is in the amount of land devoted to perennial crops rather than cultivated crops. If we consider just cultivated land requirements, the clear animal products winner is whole milk (1.2 square meters of cultivated land per 1000 calories). This is just slightly above the figure for grains (1.1 square meters per 1000 calories) and actually below the requirements per 1000 calories for oils (3.2 square meters), pulses (2.2 square meters) and even vegetables (1.7 square meters).

Beef is always presented as the bad boy in discussions of agricultural requirements, but this seems to depend on where you are. The fact is that a lot of the NYS agricultural land base is not suitable for the production of annual crops but is great for forage, which provides most of a ruminant’s nutritional needs. Grassland (I will note) also requires much less in the way of fertilizer and energy inputs and helps to conserve topsoil and nitrogen. Most other foods, including most other animal products, require annual crops, the land for which is more limited in extent and is therefore the limiting factor in the total NYS food supply. Using NYS production figures, the study finds that beef (all cuts) requires 5.3 square meters of cultivated land per 1000 calories, whereas pork (all cuts) requires 7.3 square meters and chicken (all cuts) 9.0. The energy implications of these findings are not brought to the fore in the articles under review here, but clearly the effect on total production and energy requirements of including various kinds of meat in the diet is to some extent location-specific and not as straightforward as it’s often assumed to be.

Another nonobvious outcome that can be seen by studying the different fat proportions for each meat consumption level in Figure 3 is that increasing the amount of fat in the diet somewhat reduces the amount of land required. As a result, the difference in carrying capacity due to differences in diet is closer to threefold rather than the fivefold difference suggested by Figure 3. This is summed up in Figure 4, which shows the potential carrying capacity of the NYS agricultural land base for each of the 42 diets. In general, the population supported by NYS decreases with increasing fat in the no meat diet, reaches a peak and then declines in the 63 and 127 g meat diets, and increases with increasing fat in the 190-381 g meat diets. As indicated by the grey shading, some diets with low to modest levels of meat feed equal or greater numbers of people than lacto-vegetarian diets with moderately high levels of fat.

Figure 4. NYS carrying capacity according to diet. (Click for larger image.)

One possibly unexpected implication of the study is that a vegan diet does not support the maximum number of people, at least not in the state of New York: “[W]e conclude that the inclusion of beef and milk in the diet can increase the number of people fed from the land base relative to a vegan diet, up to the point that land limited to pasture and perennial forages has been fully utilized.” Figure 5 shows what’s meant by this; even the diet with the highest proportion of meat still doesn’t exhaust the land available for forage.

Figure 5. Use of available NYS agricultural land by diet. (Click for larger image.)

In a passage sure to provoke some of our readers, the authors continue: “[T]he higher populations supported by lower fat, non-vegetarian diets relative to higher fat, [lacto-]vegetarian diets support the claims by animal scientists that the inclusion of animal products in the diet can increase the amount of humanly edible calories available in the food supply. Indeed, more substantial differences may have been observed had a vegan diet been included among the diet scenarios.” The authors hasten to add that this is not an endorsement of the average American diet: “Nonetheless, it is critical to note that the area of overlap observed occurs between 63 g (2 oz) and 127 g (4 oz) of meat, far below the 163 g daily consumption of the average American.”

Beyond these details, Figure 4 also provides the answer to my original question: Can NYS feed itself? The answer is an unequivocal No. Assuming that everyone gets a complete, balanced daily diet that includes 190 g of meat and contains 30 percent fat, the state could potentially feed about 21 percent of its current population. Given a radical change in the average diet, this proportion could, judging from Figure 4, rise to a little over 30 percent, but it’s clear that NYS will always be a net importer of food. Since the cost of transporting food from outside the state is certain to increase dramatically over the next couple of decades, the effect on food prices can readily be imagined. I think this also suggests that economic forces will push back into production some land no longer considered agricultural (golf courses, lawns, etc.).

A subsidiary but still interesting question for people living out here in Tompkins County is whether the situation just described is the same for all parts of the state; after all, a basic (if mostly tacit) assumption of relocalization is that things aren’t going to be the same everywhere. Peters et al. address this question in the second of the two articles reviewed here.

Foodsheds

The 2008 paper takes on the question of what we mean by “local” in an increasingly urban civilization. “To what degree can food be produced locally?,” the study asks. “Moreover, should the meaning of ‘local’ be context specific?” The method is based on a relatively recent reintroduction of the concept of a foodshed, first used by W.P. Hedden in 1929. Peters et al. define a potential local foodshed as “the land that could provide some [specified] portion of a population center’s food needs within the bounds of a relatively circumscribed geographic area,” or more simply, “the area of land that feeds, or could potentially feed, a population.” Foodsheds provide a framework for analyzing the capacity to produce food locally at the scale of an individual city, and a principal goal of the 2008 study is to develop standard methods for this kind of analysis.

The model created in support of this goal employs geographic information systems (GIS) to estimate the spatial distribution of food production capacity relative to the food needs of a given population center and then applies optimization tools “to allocate production potential to meet food needs in the minimum distance possible.” The software implementing the model also produces foodshed maps that aid in visualizing the geographic extent of a food supply.

Assuming a constant basis in the land use data from NYS, it’s apparent that studies of this kind will produce different results depending on the assumptions regarding nutritional requirements and the algorithms built into the foodshed optimization technique.

Since the focus in the second study is on foodsheds rather than dietary variables, it holds those variables constant by using just a single representative complete diet containing 6 ounces daily from meat and eggs and 30 percent of calories from fat. A number of other simplifying assumptions are needed to make it possible to do the spatial modeling; for example, because the concept of a foodshed is tied to population centers, rural NYS residents are assumed to get their food from the nearest center. Also, and crucially, the model seeks to find the minimum total distance food would optimally travel throughout the state rather than optimizing for an individual population center, since the most efficient allocation for the whole state might require that land near one population center be assigned to a more distant population center. Due to matrix size constraints imposed by the spreadsheet software, only 125 of the 132 statistical NYS population centers could be included in the model, resulting in the elimination of the seven smallest (totaling just 0.2 percent of the state’s population).

Even with these simplifications, the optimization model used to calculate foodsheds is quite complex, and I’ll have to refer readers who want more details to the published study itself.

A selection of the output produced from the model for the largest NYS population centers is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6. Statewide maps of selected foodsheds. (Click for larger image.)

These maps show foodsheds for food from annual crops and fruits (on the left) and food from perennial forages (on the right) for the six largest consumption zones in New York State: Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, Albany, Poughkeepsie-Newburgh, and NYC. These six foodsheds, indicated by the different colors, are layered over greyscale shadings showing the capability of different areas of the state to produce food. For example, the completely black pixels in the map on the right show that the area represented by those pixels in the original model (not necessarily scaled the same as the pixels here) is potentially capable of producing 1200 to 1800 metric tons (Mg) of food products annually from perennial crops, chiefly pasture. HNE stands for “human nutritional equivalent,” referring to a complex submethodology for relating per capita nutrional requirements to combinations of farm products.

As can be seen from these maps, the presence of a population center much larger than the rest changes the shape of the other foodsheds. For example, on the perennial forages map, the Syracuse, Albany, and Poughkeepsie-Newburgh foodsheds extend farther to the north and west than to the south and east because the overall statewide food travel distance is shortened by ceding the land to the south of these centers to the NYC foodshed. This distortion takes an extreme form in the case of the Poughkeepsie-Newburgh foodshed (yellow), which extends from the population center as if it were being blown back by the enormous NYC food demand. Conversely, when a population center is relatively isolated, as in the case of Rochester and Buffalo, its potential foodshed spreads more evenly because it is limited by natural barriers rather than by competition with other cities.

This single example doesn’t begin to do justice to the resource provided by the model. I urge people interested in exploring the model further to check it out online:

http://www.cals.cornell.edu/cals/css/extension/foodshed-mapping.cfm

Our local foodsheds

Below are screen captures of two maps generated by the Cornell tool for the Ithaca foodshed, one map for cropland (annual crops) and one for grassland (perennial crops), with the outlines of the corresponding Syracuse, Binghamton, and Elmira foodsheds shown for comparison.

According to the model, in a distribution system that used all available NYS agricultural land, provided a certain balanced diet to everyone, and optimized statewide food distances, Ithaca’s food from cropland (Figure 7) would travel an average of just 11 miles, and its food from grassland (Figure 8) would travel an average of 25. In neither case, however, would that locally sourced food satisfy all the food needs of the Ithaca area population (estimated at 95,000 persons, which includes the Ithaca Urbanized Area plus nearby surrounding rural populations). The model shows that the optimized locally sourced food from cropland would fully supply the cropland component of the assumed diet for about 81 percent of the local population (76731/95000), whereas the locally sourced food from grassland would supply only about 19 percent of that dietary component (17965/95000). This illustrates in detail the conclusion reached in the TCLocal.org article that Dr. Peters published here in April: only about half of our food supply in Tompkins County would come from local sources if food was distributed in a way that minimized food miles for the entire state.

The effect of the immense NYC demand for food on the shape of our optimized foodshed is clear even at this distance from the city; both of Ithaca’s foodsheds lie entirely to the west and north of the population center, extending in the case of grassland across several adjacent counties. Also apparent from these maps is the basis of the model on potential agricultural land rather than the land that’s in production right now; anyone familiar with the areas included in these foodsheds knows that in fact much of the land shown as the potential source of our local food is not now actually in production. The need to preserve currently idle agricultural land north and west of Ithaca for future use has important implications for zoning and land use policy in in our area; as the cost of transportation grows, this is where much of our food will have to come from.

Figure 7. Potential optimized Ithaca cropland foodshed. (Click for larger image.)

Figure 8. Potential optimized Ithaca grassland foodshed. (Click for larger image.)

Where to be a locavore

The table in Figure 9 below provides one answer to the question, “how much of New York’s food can be provided locally?” The answer is: it depends on where you live.

Figure 9. Summary of model output. (Click for larger image.)

The table lists three categories of NYS population centers (using terminology from the U.S. Census) in order of the amount of food in Tg (millions of metric tons) they receive within the model. First, of course, is New York City, which is in a category by itself. In this model — which, it must be remembered, optimizes food distances for the whole state — NYC would get just 2.2 percent of its total from food produced within the state, and that food would have to come from an average of 264 km away. The next biggest population centers, the “urbanized areas,” would get 84 percent of their food from inside the state, and that would come on average from 51 km away. And the smallest population centers (excluding the seven very smallest, as noted above), could get virtually all their food needs met from within the state, and the food could come on average from just 25 km away.

Bottom line for the state as a whole: Given the diet assumed for the study, if all agricultural land were in use, and food distribution were optimized to minimize the total distance that food travels, New York State could get 34 percent of its food needs met from within the state, and that food would travel an average distance of 49 km to each consumer.

You’ll notice that the 34 percent figure differs a little from the results of the 2006 study, due no doubt to differences between the two studies in assumptions and methodology. The difference isn’t enough to change the basic picture and in fact reinforces it by coming at it from a different angle, but it’s obvious that the results provided by a model like this depend to a large extent on a complex set of assumptions. The authors point out several ways in which the model does not take into account real-world factors (geographic limitations, agricultural specialization, details of the food processing workflow, economies of scale, etc.) and note that optimizing for food miles does not necessarily optimize for greenhouse gas emissions or energy inputs. Nevertheless, one conclusion stands out fairly clearly. Outside of the NYC area, most population centers in the state could meet all, or nearly all, of their needs from food produced within the state. But NYC, if it depended on food produced within the state, would go largely unfed.

The study boils the results down to what I would call the good news and the bad news. The good news is that “NYS may be able to significantly reduce the distance food travels” to an average far less than the 1300 miles often cited as the distance from farm to consumer in the U.S. The bad news is that “feeding big cities may require food to travel great distances.”

Peters et al. don’t draw out the implications of that last point, but I will: People living in NYC are going to be paying an awful lot more for food as we begin to move down the energy descent slope, and it would be better for them if they started to relocate back to the small towns upstate that have seen their populations decline over the last half century. To rephrase the old saying, NYC is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to try to survive there.

Notes

[1] Anyone who wants to check my figures or apply this method to other states can find a scan of the entire 1900 census abstract at http://www.ibiblio.org/tcrp/src/1900census.pdf (this 66 MB file is best downloaded before viewing).

[2] Peters, C. J., J. L. Wilkins, and G. W. Fick. Testing a complete-diet model for estimating the land resource requirements of food consumption and agricultural carrying capacity: The New York State example. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22(2); 145-153.

[3] Peters, C. J., N. L. Bills, A. J. Lembo, J. L. Wilkins, and G. W. Fick. Mapping potential foodsheds in New York State: A spatial model for evaluating the capacity to localize food production. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24(1); 72-84.

[4] Except for two screen shots (Figures 7 and 8), all the illustrations in this article come from a presentation given by Dr. Peters at the conference “Planning for Farms, Food, and Energy in Central New York” sponsored by the American Farmland Trust 25 March 2009 in Syracuse. I am indebted to conference organizer Judy Wright for a copy of the presentation slides. Most of the figures can be magnified for a better view.

by Christian Peters

Modern people in industrialized countries ask themselves a question that most people have not needed to ask over most of human history: “Where does my food come from?” The fact that the answer is not immediately obvious testifies to the completeness of our transition from an agricultural society to an industrial one. Food often travels great distances from the farm field through processing facilities, distribution channels, retail outlets, and ultimately to a person's plate. As a result, the journey of food remains a mystery to most of us.

To some extent, this transition has been a success. For most of the twentieth century, the principal goal of agricultural research was to increase economic efficiency of production, thus making food cheaper and more abundant. Trends in consumption and the percent of disposable income spent on food show that these efforts were effective. In the U.S., for example, the share of income spent on food dropped from 24% in 1929 to 11% in 1998 (USDA Economic Research Service, 2000). Food has become much more affordable, but this transition has aggravated health problems related to excessive consumption. In addition, the increased intensity of agriculture necessary to enable this increase in abundance has raised many issues about the environmental sustainability of the food system.

Among the many sustainability issues surrounding the food system, dependence on non- renewable energy sources and growing concern about climate change present a clear challenge. Energy consumption grew 20-fold between 1850 and 2000 (Holdren, 2008). However, limitations to increasing the supply of fossil fuels or regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may cause this trend to reverse in the twenty-first century. The possibility of society entering a period of “energy descent” within this century suggests that we learn more about the journey of food from farm to plate. Specifically, we need to understand which elements of our food system are most sensitive to changes in the availability of energy so that society may plan strategically. One course of action that has been proposed is to increase reliance on “local” sources of food. This paper will address two fundamental questions related to this strategy as it applies to Tompkins County: “How much food could Tompkins County provide for itself?” and “What is the capacity of other places in New York State?” Answers to these questions will begin to shed light on a larger issue — how much of our food should be produced locally?

How much could Tompkins County produce?

One way to examine the capacity of Tompkins County to localize food production is to estimate the number of people it could feed based on the potential productivity of its agricultural land. On one level, this is an elementary approach. It considers only the nutritional needs of the population and the capacity of the available soils and climate to produce food. The necessary human capital and physical infrastructure for creating a local food system are simply assumed to exist or to be possible to develop. Nonetheless, calculating the capacity of land to meet human nutritional needs is sufficiently complex to constitute a valuable first step.

Such an analysis has been conducted for New York State. It examined a wide range of possible diets and estimated both the land requirements of each diet and the number of people that could be fed from the agricultural land within the state (Peters et al., 2007). The methodology estimated food intake based on the nutritional needs of the New York State population, preferences for individual foods, and a range of assumptions about the amount of meat and fat in the diet. Land requirements for the human diet were calculated based on estimated food intake, adjustments for losses and inedible portions, New York State crop yields, and standard livestock feeding practices. The carrying capacity was estimated based on the land requirements of each diet and the amount of cropland and pasture available, with limitations placed on the amount of land that can be tilled.

Given the complexity of the methodology, let us assume that Tompkins County is just like New York State, only smaller. Thus, the number of people that the county could feed (P_Tompkins) can be estimated as a simple product of the total number that could be fed in the state (P_{New York State}) and the proportion of available agricultural land in Tompkins County (A_Tompkins) relative to that available in New York State (A_{New York State}):

P_Tompkins = P_{New York State} × (A_Tompkins/A_{New York State})

For purposes of illustration, let's estimate capacity to feed the population a diet with 6 ounces of cooked meat and eggs daily and 30% calories from fat. This diet reflects the current American preference for meat and eggs as a protein source yet adheres to the recommended limit of no more than 30% of total calories from fat. The statewide analysis estimated that New York could theoretically feed 4.0 million people such a diet from its 5.0 million acres of harvested cropland, cropland pasture, and permanent pasture (Peters et al., 2005; Peters et al., 2007). According to the 2007 Census of Agriculture, Tompkins County has 70,150 acres of land in harvested cropland, cropland pasture, and permanent pasture (USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2009). Based on the equation above, the agricultural land of Tompkins County could theoretically feed 56 thousand people — 56% of the estimated 2007 population for the county (101,055, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, 2009).

This estimate should be taken with several grains of salt. It is based principally on the capacity of the available land and does not account for many of the social or economic factors, such as food processing infrastructure, that might further limit the capacity for Tompkins County to supply its own food. Nonetheless, it provides a baseline estimate that could be adjusted to account for changes in crop yields, availability of land, and different diets. This baseline suggests that the agricultural land of the county has significant potential to meet the food needs of the county, but that the county could not be self-sufficient.

Where would neighboring counties get their food?

Of course, Tompkins County is not the only county in the state that would like to be fed. Thus, it is reasonable to consider a more complex analysis that accounts for the needs of surrounding population centers. Such an analysis has already been conducted for New York State. The research attempted to map potential local foodsheds, geographic areas that could theoretically provide the food needs of a population center (Peters et al., 2009). The study used geographic information systems and optimization models to determine how much food the major population centers of New York could supply from within the state if all agricultural land were used to feed people as “locally” as possible.

The foodshed model used the statewide analysis of the food requirements of the human diet as a foundation. Food production capacity was then estimated spatially based on the distribution of agricultural land and the productivity of the underlying soils. Food needs were also estimated over space based on the location and population of the state's urban centers. This data on potential food production capacity and estimated food needs were organized in an optimization model that sought to minimize “food miles.” In other words, it allocated the available food production potential in the shortest possible distance.

The analysis did not produce results specific to Tompkins County, but the summary results provide the basic story. According to the model, the larger cities of upstate New York (Ithaca included) could theoretically supply 84% of their food needs within an average distance of 32 miles from the city center (Peters et al., 2009). The smaller cities fared even better and could theoretically supply 98% of their needs within an average distance of just 16 miles. In contrast, the model allocated New York City (NYC) just 2% of its food needs even though it drew on land an average distance of 165 miles from city center. Since the greater NYC area contains the majority of the state's population, this is a serious deficiency.

Again, these results should be interpreted with caution. The analysis shows that with respect to food, the distribution of land to people is nearly in balance in upstate New York. However, this balance is upset once the population of NYC is included. This does not imply that NYC cannot or should not obtain some of its food from local sources. Rather it points out that there is simply not enough land to meet the food needs of all people in all cities of New York State. The geographic area of analysis would need to be much larger to see how “local” the NYC food supply could be.

Conclusions

These two attempts to examine the food production potential of Tompkins County should not be seen as immutable estimates. Rather, they provide a quick estimate of the capacity of the county to meet its food needs and a sketch of the thinking behind the calculations. The details of the analyses, while nuanced and important, are covered in depth in the original publications. The intent of this article is simply to initiate a larger discussion.

Acknowledging these limitations, the two examples suggest that while Tompkins County may have a significant land base relative to its population, it is not an island. Rather, it is part of the very populous Northeast U.S. region. In the context of planning for energy descent, Tompkins County lies in the “backyard” of the nation's largest city. Thus, local needs for the county's agricultural land will have to be balanced against the demands of this major metropolitan area. After all, New York City already relies on upstate New York for its water supply and many of the dairy products the city consumes.

Since all food cannot be local, we should think strategically about which foods would be most important to provide locally. This will vary from location to location and from one food to another. For example, NYC is a major seaport with access to the most energy efficient form of transport available (shipping over water), whereas many towns and villages in New York are accessible only by road. Similarly, grain is easy to store and can be transported by slow, energy efficient methods, while fluid milk is bulky and perishable. It needs to be moved quickly. Such issues will clearly influence which foods are most important to supply locally and which locations have the greatest need for access to locally produced foods. We will need to think in this broader context if we are to plan strategically about how to adapt our food systems to the challenge of energy descent.

References

Holdren, J.P. 2008. Science and technology for sustainable well-being. Science 319 (5862): 424-434.

Peters, C.J., Bills, N.L., Lembo, A.J., Wilkins, J.W., and Fick, G.W. 2009. Mapping potential foodsheds in New York State: A spatial model for evaluating the capacity to localize food production. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 24 (1): 72-84.

Peters, C.J., Wilkins, J.L., and Fick, G.W. 2005. Input and Output Data in Studying the Impact of Meat and Fat on the Land Resource Requirements of the Human Diet and Potential Carrying Capacity: The New York State Example [R05-1]. Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Peters, C.J., Wilkins, J.L., and Fick, G.W. 2007. Testing a complete-diet model for estimating the land resource requirements of food consumption and agricultural carrying capacity: The New York State example. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 22(2):145-153.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. State and County QuickFacts for Tompkins County, New York. Available at Web site: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/36/36109.html (verified 1 March 2009).

USDA Economic Research Service. 2000. Major trends in U.S. food supply, 1909-99. FoodReview 23(1): 8-15.

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture. Available at Web site: http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/New_York/index.asp (verified 1 March 2009).

Additional Resources

U.S. Food consumption data: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FoodConsumption/

Census of Agriculture Query Tool http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Online_Highlights/Desktop_Application/index.asp

Local Foodshed Mapping Tool http://www.cals.cornell.edu/cals/css/extension/foodshed-mapping.cfm

by Persephone Doliner

What Is Processed Food?

To process food is to make parts of plants and animals more edible than they would be in their unprocessed state. Manufactured products containing lots of chemicals and sweeteners, a class of processed foods, have given all processed foods a bad name. Other, more basic foods are also processed: all food made of grain; milk, butter, cheese, and meats; plant-based meat substitutes (tofu, seitan, etc.); dried and canned fruit and vegetables; all fermented foods; oils, syrups, even honey. Although all cooking is food processing too, in this article, food processing refers to the many other ways of transforming plants and animals into human food: (1) techniques that get food ready to be cooked (e.g., cleaning and hulling grain, butchering animals), and (2) techniques that preserve food, retarding spoilage for periods ranging from a few weeks to many years (e.g., making cheese, canning).

Who Needs Processed Food?

Most of us. Your diet probably has a large processed component. Diet variety depends on eating some processed foods. Otherwise food choices would be limited to what could be raised, hunted, or foraged and eaten as is. In a sense, processed food is civilized food.

If you live in Tompkins County, eating locally raised foods year round requires eating stored or preserved foods, since the local growing season ends with the cold weather. And of course the universal need to eat processed foods such as grains and dairy products applies in Tompkins. Overall, processed foods are an important part of the local food supply.

Technique and Scale

A few words about two key dimensions of food processing are in order, before discussion of its role in Tompkins under energy descent conditions. The two key dimensions are technique and scale, both of which take many different forms when people process food.

Here is a list of 21 generic, common techniques used to process food: baking, brewing, butchering, cleaning, confit, culturing, curing, drying, fermenting, freezing, grinding, heating, hulling, milling, pressing, pickling, refining, salting, smoking, sterilizing, sugaring, vacuum packing. In general, each of these food processing techniques is used for more than one type of food. The equipment needed to carry out a technique is usually specific to a food type, however. For instance, fruit and seeds are both pressed to extract juice or oil, but the equipment needed is not interchangeable. Grain for beer and cucumbers for pickles are both fermented, but the procedures and set-ups used in the two cases are quite different.

Like technique, the scale at which food processing can be done also varies widely. The same technique can be applied in a home kitchen, a small commercial facility, or a huge factory. The procedures used at these three different levels may not be the same, and the equipment certainly won’t be the same at the different scales. The machines that process our current commercial food supply differ in design from those used in a small-scale operation, and those in turn differ from the tools you might use in your kitchen. For example, in large-scale commercial flour production, grain is crushed under rollers; in small-scale commercial production, it is ground in mills using large stones; at home you can use a machine about the size of an automatic coffee maker that grinds using metal or little stones.

A few modern techniques are strictly industrial processes (e.g., aseptic packaging, which relies on heating to very high temperatures and complex packaging). All types of food can, however, be processed and preserved in some way at all of the different scales. All foods can be processed in a home kitchen as effectively as they can be processed in a small or large factory.

Processed Food Supply under Energy Descent

Most of the processed food that Tompkins County currently consumes comes from elsewhere. There is little commercial food processing in the county. There are no large factories processing food, and only a few small operations. At the other end of the scale, home food processing appears to have recently gained in popularity, yet most households in the county don’t do any.

Large-scale commercial food processing is highly centralized. For instance, over 90 percent of the canned tomato products consumed in the U.S. come from California. Centralized food processing depends on agriculture conducted on a very large scale as the source of the food to be processed, on industrial production and storage, and on nationwide distribution, largely via trucking. If energy descent deprives this food processing system of the sources and practices it relies on, it may become less productive or even fail. Products will become scarcer and more expensive and may vanish. Tompkins County will have unmet processed food needs, and a need to supply itself with more of the processed food it consumes .

What would a working local food processing system look like? Under conditions of energy descent, could small-scale operations supply enough processed food to feed TC? Many unknowables (how much food can be grown, how many people need to be fed, how many people are available to work, what equipment can be maintained, how it can be powered, and what shape is society in) come into play; answers are not within grasp here. Even if the answer to the overarching question posed above (Could Tompkins adequately supply itself with processed foods?) is ultimately no, food processed locally will increase the county’s food supply under energy descent. More is better.

Given future uncertainty, the rest of this article mostly concerns the effects of conditions as they exist today on local food processing. What local conditions promote growth? What conditions retard it?

What Processed Foods Are Needed Most?

The county would need to grow more food and different food than it does now if it were trying to supply itself with processed foods. Most of the human food produced here is fruit and vegetables that are eaten fresh and unprocessed. Some grain, beans, and meat are raised in the county, and contiguous counties produce substantially more. Yet flour, cleaned grains, pasta, packaged baked goods, milk, cheese, meats, plant-based meat substitutes, and fats and oils all mostly come from outside the county and the wider local area. These processed foods are the staples of most diets; without them, people are hungry. If county residents seek to supply themselves with processed food, they need to produce these kinds of food. Processed fruits and vegetables are important but not vital, as they can be replaced by stored raw fruits and vegetables. If local food processing is to fill gaps left by the withdrawal of out-of-area food, its focus must be on processing grain, beans, nuts, seeds, meat, and dairy to produce staples.

Can Tompkins sustainably grow enough food to supply itself with foods to process? Another big question, again beyond the scope of this article. One aspect of the issue that can be discussed a little here is the relationship between production and processing.

The Chicken/Egg Conundrum for Growing and Processing

Growth in local food production and growth in food processing should go hand in hand, each promoting the other. A home jam maker wants to make strawberry jam for himself and his friends; he spends $30 on berries at a local U-pick, supporting their business. An artisanal (i.e., small-scale commercial) jam maker needs fruit; she buys the output of a half-acre each of blueberries, raspberries, and strawberries, supporting local agriculture on a larger scale. The big glitch in this picture of simple mutual reinforcement between production and processing is the chicken/egg problem: Which comes first? Dedicating farm resources to a particular crop for a processor is a major decision for a farmer. And, like a farm, starting and maintaining a commercial food processing operation takes heaps of money, knowledge, time, skill, siting, and equipment. Who is going to invest in, say, a commercial oil press to make sunflower seed oil if the supply of sunflowers is not at hand? But who is going to grow sunflowers in the amounts needed to supply an oil producer if the press isn’t up and running and begging for seeds?

Processing food at home does not suffer much from the chicken/egg problem. It’s not too hard to get started; techniques for preserving fruit and some vegetables at home are easy to learn and do not require specialized tools. Other vegetable and fruit methods a household can use, and techniques for processing grain, nuts and seeds, dairy products, and meats call for special equipment and more advanced skills — but nothing on the level of a professional investment in learning, plant, and equipment. In parallel, the potential contribution of home food processing to boosting the demand for locally farmed foods is also far smaller than the contribution that a commercial enterprise might make. But widespread home food processing in the county would still increase demand for locally raised food, perhaps significantly.

The producer-processor relationship is more complex for the staple foods than for fruits and vegetables. Generally speaking, this is because the staple foods need to undergo multiple types of processing before they can be eaten. Stalks of grain-bearing plants like wheat, oats, and barley do not go directly from field to oven, for instance. They need to be threshed, cleaned, hulled, and milled. Without facilities in place to handle these steps, grain isn’t usable. So neither consumers nor small-scale commercial processors can buy directly from farmers.

The Cost of Doing Business

As noted above, setting up commercial food processing operations takes money, knowledge, skill, and equipment. The last three elements are technique-specific; a miller doesn’t need the same knowledge as a butcher, or the same tools. Deciding what methods and machines to use in commercial processing is not straightforward even once a potential processor is well-informed and funded. Say you want to clean and hull grain commercially. You have about a dozen different grain cleaners to choose from. You have a range of choices in hullers too; a small impact huller will cost you about $15,000; the next step up in size and efficiency, about $23,000.

Food processing needs specialized, well-equipped facilities, too, and these need to be licensed. (Licensing is discussed more below.)

Storage of foods to be processed and of finished products also takes substantial resources: clean, dedicated, appropriately designed space; temperature control; and insect and rodent control are some needs. Other elements of a commercial food business are distribution and marketing; even at a small scale of commercial food processing, some staff needs to work exclusively on these.

Fossil Fuel Dependence

As with industrial scale food processing, everything that goes into small-scale commercial food processing as it is practiced today — agriculture, tools, equipment, facilities, and production, storage, and distribution — uses fossil fuels. Scarcer energy may make the methods and machines that are best to use now unusable in the future. At the very least, planning for such a transition is yet another consideration for a new food processing enterprise.

Legal Considerations for Commercial Food Processing

Laws governing food processing are numerous; they are (appropriately) different for different foods; and they exist at various levels of government (e.g., county, federal). No processed food product can be legally sold to the public without government licensing of (at least) the place and methods of production. The facility license and the product license are separate, and each is managed by different authorities. Generally speaking, in Tompkins the county regulates facilities, and the state regulates products. If you wanted to produce tomato sauce to sell, for example, you would need to go to the county health department for a license for your facility, and you would need to go to the state for your license to produce tomato sauce. For the latter, you would obtain a “20C” processing license by submitting and testing your recipe. For some foods, wholesaling to stores requires a higher level of licensing — a federal license rather than a state one, for instance — than direct selling to the public.

Just as processing grains, dairy, fats, and meats is more complicated than processing fruits and vegetables, regulations surrounding production of these staple products is more complicated, and licensing generally involves federal agencies in addition to local and state ones.

In general, the regulations governing processed foods tend to favor production on a large scale and to discourage small-scale enterprises. Conforming with regulations may simply require investments in plant and equipment too large for new entrepreneurs. Inattention and confusion at regulatory agencies can also pose problems. A fully equipped and ready-to-go small meat packer, for instance, may be unable to get a license to operate because it cannot get an appointment to be inspected.

Two more legal considerations food processors must address are zoning and product liability. Zoning limits where food processing facilities can be sited. Product liability limits where and whether products can be sold. Commercial food processors need insurance to sell legally.

Local Commercial Food Processing in the Big Picture

The existing international food supply and processing system discourages new local food processing enterprises. Processed food (even the “good” kind) is cheap and abundant under current conditions of fossil fuel-supported agriculture, food manufacturing, distribution, and marketing. Food produced and processed locally on a small commercial scale usually costs more than food produced on an industrial scale. Local food processing enterprises won’t succeed if people don’t buy the products, so they won’t start up if a viable business looks unlikely. It’s another chicken/egg conundrum: Which comes first, the need for locally processed food, or the production of that food?

Some aspects of energy descent may favor local food processing. If products from far away become scarcer and more expensive, the cost advantage may shift to local products. Surpluses of produce that cannot be sold fresh because of transportation and storage problems may be more saleable in processed form. An overall poor economy and job loss may leave many people to work in local food processing. Local knowledge and enthusiasm about alternative energy may help keep food processing equipment up and running.

Energy descent is of course overall a limit to future local food production and processing. To reiterate, the way farmers — including small-scale organic farmers — grow food now depends heavily on fossil fuels and on inputs from outside the county. The equipment and methods used to process food now are similarly dependent, and scarce energy may make them unusable. In the past, people processed food using power from animals, wind, and water. Using these again implies enormous relearning and refitting, and scaling down output. On the plus side, Tompkins has land well suited to grazing animals and pockets of wind and water well suited to energy generation.

Home Food Processing

Processing food at home bypasses many of the difficulties involved with commercial enterprises. Without major investment or legal encounters, a household can supply itself with some or all of its own processed foods. The work is satisfying, and in most cases not too difficult. If you can follow a recipe, you can learn and safely apply most techniques. Yet home food processing does take time and effort. People learn by doing and by following instructions precisely; they are not proficient the first time around with a particular technique or food; care must be taken to have the set-up and tools needed on hand; and, perhaps most important for those with busy, heavily scheduled lives, several sequential hours of time are needed to accomplish most food processing activities.

Providing a household with all or most of the processed foods it eats means committing a lot of time. Putting by enough fruit, vegetables, and cheese, say, to last from one autumn until the next summer will likely require daily work during the growing season. Fortunately, home food processing/preserving is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Assuming you are buying most of your processed foods, and not trying to make everything yourself, you can start small and stay small, and you can confine your efforts to one technique or one product.

While knowledge about how to process food at home is not as common as it once was, it’s out there. People put up food all the time only a generation ago in most families. Opportunities to learn are at hand. The National Center for Home Food Preservation (http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/index.html) offers comprehensive information. Some useful books are the Ball Blue Book (ISBN 0-9727537-0-2), the Ball Complete Book of Home Preserving (ISBN-13 978-0-7788-0131-3), the University of Georgia’s So Easy to Preserve, and Rodale’s Stocking Up. If you consult books or pamphlets, be sure to use the most recent (late 2000s) editions, as expert recommendations for safe methods of food processing have changed over time. A full list of sources of information on food processing is available from Cornell Cooperative Extension (CCE), which also conducts classes on many techniques.

Instruction may be as close as your next-door neighbor. Home food preservers often like to share what they know. Joining IthaCan, a local on-line network, is one way to connect with mentors and people to learn and practice food processing with. You can read about IthaCan and sign up as a member on the Prepared Tompkins website (http://www.preparedtompkins.org). Working in a group on food processing is fun and practical; it smoothes the often repetitive work, saves on energy costs, allows equipment sharing, and builds relationships with like-minded others.

Eaters, Processors, and Farmers

Some local factors favor the development of local food processing on both the home and small-scale commercial scales. First, local small-scale agriculture, though limited in its range of products, is strong. Organic farm start-ups are frequent, and some small-scale organic farms now have generation-long histories. Many other local farms have much longer histories-some farms have even survived from pre-fossil fuel days.

The county’s geography could also favor local processing. With the City of Ithaca and the county’s several towns positioned very close to farmland, food doesn’t have to travel far to be processed off-farm or to be sold.

County employment and incomes are relatively high, encouraging many (though far from most) county residents to buy local fresh food. The preference for local might extend to processed food, given the “right” quality and price. Local processed commercial products have had mixed success; some are established, while others have failed.

Systems for marketing local food are also fairly well-developed; the Ithaca Farmers’ Market is one of the largest in the state, and local food is increasingly sold by local retailers and by on-farm markets.

Formal relationships among growers, eaters, and processors other than the basic retail relationship could foster local food processing. One useful type of relationship is “bespeaking” foods to be grown in quantity. A group that wants to freeze peas in July might, for instance, talk to a farmer in January about growing and selling them the food. Home food processors could readily organize themselves to bespeak foods. Food salvage, or gleaning, is another, more complicated farm-processor-consumer relationship; under government regulation, farm donations are processed and distributed, usually by a charitable agency. Tompkins does not have such a system in place, though elements of it exist.

Training and Support for Commercial Local Food Processing Enterprises

Institutional support exists for beginning a local food processing business. The Food Venture Center (http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/necfe), located in Geneva, NY, offers excellent information on getting started and ongoing help with product development, business planning, licensing, and marketing. The Tompkins County Health Department, which regulates facilities, has a good reputation for helpfulness with some local food entrepreneurs. The New York Small-Scale Food Processors Association (http://www.nyssfpa.com) provides information and support (e.g., newsletter, joint purchasing and distribution, nutrition labeling) with membership, which costs about $40 yearly.

Tompkins does not have a food processing facility designed specifically for rental to small-scale food processors — a common model for starting and running artisanal food businesses. The types of processed foods that can be made in an ordinary kitchen can be produced for sale in any licensed commercial kitchen, and these are abundant in the county, in restaurants, at caterers, and in bakeries. The Women’s Community Building in Ithaca rents a licensed kitchen equipped with a jacket kettle for making large batches of jams and sauces. The Varna Community Center also has a rental kitchen. (A caveat: as described above, to be sold, each food needs to have its own license, in addition to being made in a licensed facility.)

Restaurant kitchens mostly have equipment that will be useful only for processing fruits and vegetables, not grains, oils, dairy, and meats. Small-scale equipment for processing the staple foods may or may not be portable.

“Copacking” is another model for producing commercial food products on a small scale. In this model, a producer hires a processor and facility to make a product.

Finally, existing commercial food processors in Tompkins County offer models for new businesses and may even offer advice. These businesses include Eve’s Cidery (soft cider), Bellwether Cider (hard cider), Ithaca Soy (bean curd), MacDonald Farms (fermented vegetables), Fingerlakes Farmstead Cheese, the Piggery, Purity Ice Cream, Seven Mile Creek Winery, and more. Upstate New York beyond county lines offers additional exemplars of small-scale enterprise for Tompkins entrepreneurs. These include the Hawthorne Valley Association (fermented vegetables), Hunger Action Network (jams), Hudson Valley Foodworks (rental/copacking facility), Lakeview Organics (grain cleaning), Martin’s Kitchen (condiments; copacking), Morrisville/Nelson Farms, the Schoharie Co-op Cannery (in planning), and Wild Hive Farm (a mill and bakery).

Yearning to “Eat Local”

A big booster to small-scale local commercial food processing may be that people in this county want local food, and they want to see local food processing grow along with local agriculture. Tompkins has people who like to buy local products; these include members of the “green” community and gourmets, or “foodies” (not mutually exclusive categories). The yearning for a personal connection with what we eat is strong here.

The county also has many people who want to be in the food processing business. Working with food appeals to many as a socially useful and satisfying way to make a living. The combined enthusiasm and energy of buyers and would-be producers of local processed foods could go a long way toward making more local small-scale commercial food processing businesses a reality.

To individually encourage the growth of food processing in Tompkins, commit yourself to “eating local” to whatever extent you can. Inform yourself by reading product labels and learning where your food is coming from. Try and buy locally processed products. Learn and practice personal food processing. Talk to others about products you would like to see made locally. Work toward local production of staples: grains, beans, nuts and seeds, meat and dairy. Encourage young people to become food producers and processors and promote needed education in schools. Consider becoming a producer or processor yourself.

by Tom Shelley

Introduction

Our current growth-based economic view is based on the continuous and ever-increasing use of energy and resources. This process generates solid waste, pollution, and greenhouse gases in enormous quantities. Despite international efforts to reduce waste, the amount generated continues to grow.

Eventually we will hit a collective wall, the bricks of which will be environmental degradation, climate change disasters, and the peaking of many resources. Properly prepared communities will handle the triple crises of environment, energy, and economy better than those that are not. Dealing with our wastes in a more sustainable manner will help to ensure our survival in an energy- and resource-constrained future.

In fact, if we radically reorient our world view, we can live in a world of little or no waste. Biomimicry — following the designs of nature and the paths of indigenous peoples — can create a nearly waste-free economy. In an ideal world, as in nature, there would be no wastes, only re-purposed resources.

Our present system of domestic waste disposal, in which we make it “go away” by putting it on a truck and driving it to the landfill, is resource intensive. Picking up waste, processing it (including recycling), and hauling off the landfilled wastes and the recycled materials requires lots of energy, mostly in the form of fossil fuels or electricity generated from fossil fuels. The same is true for the treatment of sewage, animal wastes, and various industrial wastes. Fortunately, our diminishing consumption will mean a lot less waste.[1] Even if we follow the path of biomimicry, we will still be left, as we always have been, with an irreducible minimum that must be disposed of for various reasons. The following sections address specific waste streams and some alternatives for managing each one as individuals and as a community. Due to space limitations, this article is more of an outline than a treatise, and many questions are posed for which there are currently few, if any, answers. Hopefully, the answers will follow from our ingenuity at doing more with less as energy descent unfolds.

Human waste and domestic animal waste

Human bodily waste, and that of our animals, would quickly create a serious problem if it were not dealt with properly. In the urban setting, our current method of mixing body wastes with large amounts of expensive, purified drinking water, then re-purifying the water and returning it to the original water source is not a sustainable use of water, energy, or energy-intensive chemical resources. Sewage disposal in suburban and rural areas places an additional strain on resources and the environment. Many unanswered questions arise when considering urban waste disposal:

Infrastructure. What is the age and life expectancy of the current sewer and septic systems? What are the expected maintenance requirements and fossil fuel dependencies of repair and replacement materials? Will the required materials even be available in the future?

City sewers. How much energy does it take to run the City of Ithaca's sewage and treatment system? Can we reduce that cost? Can sewage treatment inputs be reconfigured to yield organic manures for local farming without contaminating sewage sludge? How long can the current systems be sustained on emergency power? Can emergency or even long-term power be supplied from local, City-owned hydropower? Can currently flared methane be used to heat greenhouses or for other heat recovery uses?

Septic systems. Many people in Tompkins County depend on septic systems that need periodic cleaning. Local septic tank cleaning firms now take their “product” to the Ithaca Area Wastewater Treatment Plant for processing. How will we manage this waste with less energy for transport? Will high costs of energy interfere with the processing load on the wastewater treatment plant if the volume of septic system effluent grows dramatically with population growth in areas not served by the plant itself? If this happens, what can we do about it? Will septic systems as we know them need to be phased out or abandoned in favor of other systems? Could we develop local or district sewage-to-methane facilities to relocalize the energy needed for heat and hot water using pumped septic tank effluent?

Sustainable waste treatment systems. Some experts believe that the way to approach sewage treatment is to stop using large amounts of water to process human waste and instead figure out ways to process it that yield fertilizer. Such an approach would reduce the energy consumed in the sewage treatment process; the chemical inputs, especially chlorine; and the need to maintain an extensive above ground and underground infrastructure. What would an alternative system look like? How much would such a system actually cost? Could it be deployed on a mass basis? How much will services deteriorate before local residents can be convinced to pay for and use alternative systems? Would more localized, small-scale processing be more energy efficient and cost effective?

Examples of human waste disposal[2]

Household scale: Small scale, aerobic, above ground composting (out of doors) with other organic materials could completely eliminate the septic tank system in rural and suburban areas. Most or all of the inputs are free, and there is no energy input other than human labor.[3] Dry and wet composting toilets provide an excellent solution in more densely populated areas, although they can be expensive and in some installations still require energy inputs. Many different commercial models are manufactured, and plans for homemade units are available. Envirolet is one popular commercial firm.[4] There are some manufacturers whose products reclaim water as well as make compost. Healthyhouse is an example.[5] Properly composted human waste can be used for general purpose gardening, as it has been for thousands of years, but for safety reasons many composters believe that it is only suitable for orchards, field crops for domestic animals, etc. Human urine[6] can go into greywater systems (see below) or compost piles, and it can be directly applied to vegetable crops as a fertilizer, since it is “clean” and provides carbon, nitrogen, and other essential elements for plant nutrition. See Liquid Gold for details.[7]

Urban scale: The aerated sewage sludge from human wastes is composted and used on food and field crops in many urban areas. Even a city as far north as Fairbanks, Alaska, composts all of its sewage sludge all year round. In Sweden, many communities collect human urine on a large scale and use it to fertilize field crops. Methane generated by the sewage treatment process or anaerobic digestion of human sewage is used to produce heat and hot water and the co-generation of significant amounts of electricity. The local sewage treatment plant uses about half of the gas it produces to generate some of the electricity that powers the plant. The plant’s operation is detailed on the City of Ithaca’s web site.[8]

Human wastes can be processed on a small scale to provide biogas for heating and co-generation of electricity (district heating) for a neighborhood or small village. We could heat our homes and read by the light generated by our own wastes. The solid byproducts would be further composted and used to grow the food we eat. Although not based on human wastes, the plan developed for Linden Hills, Minnesota, explores some of the possibilities.[9]

Examples of water reuse

Household or neighborhood: Greywater is the waste water from any household source except toilets. Greywater systems most frequently take the form of artificial wetlands, although there are many other designs. This reuse of lightly used water from sinks, showers, or the laundry uses little or no energy and can remove a tremendous burden from our current home wastewater treatment systems. At the same time, the biological cleansing and oxygenation provided by an artificial wetland can purify this lightly contaminated domestic water and return it to beneficial use, such as watering gardens. Greywater systems are easy to build and maintain and can be constructed to serve multiple households or small villages. For examples, see Art Ludwig’s Create an Oasis with Greywater.[10]

Urban scale: Large-scale greywater systems using artificial wetlands have already been developed in some urban areas. Some large-scale indoor systems using greenhouses have been developed as well. Reports from Australia and China detail large-scale greywater use.[11][12]

Using a combination of the above methods, we could process all human bodily wastes in a beneficial manner, using comparatively little energy, and eliminate the need for traditional sewage treatment systems.

Special Materials

Dog waste can be processed in the same way as human waste. A composting project in Montréal at a single public dog run diverted over a ton of dog waste and at least 7000 plastic bags from the city’s landfill.[13]

Cat waste carries more pathogenic bacteria, and when mixed with clay-based kitty litter, it is especially difficult to process in alternative systems. Using cellulose-based litter (wood shavings, processed newspaper, or other biowastes) or wheat-based or other compostable materials allows cat litter to be composted. However, the compost may only be used on non-food crops.[14]

Fiber-based diapers, with little or no plastic used in their manufacture, can be composted commercially. Cloth diapers can be used repeatedly.

Feminine hygiene products and other materials contaminated with human blood or other body fluids, usually landfilled or processed by the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW), may be compostable, depending upon composition and circumstances.

Hospital waste streams, both human and veterinary, are often difficult to handle due to their content of tissues, body fluids, plastics, radioisotopes, antibiotics, and various drugs. Incineration is the most often used disposal method along with various alternatives, such as alkali decomposition, autoclaving, etc. all of which are extremely resource and energy intensive. Any fiber-based materials may be composted in a commercial compost system.

Food waste, lawn debris, and other organic waste

Composting. Along with many paper items, 100 percent of home and restaurant food wastes can be composted. This would further reduce energy consumed in traditional waste processing, provide additional jobs, and generate soil amendments for organic gardens, at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Composting may be undertaken year round in commercial facilities. If done in greenhouses, it can be used to generate heat. “Lawn waste” of all kinds can be composted into mulch. Animal bedding can be composted with plant remains, as is done at Cornell University. Some animal manures, such as chicken waste, can be either composted or turned directly into garden soil. Composting will have an increasingly important role in our energy- and resource-constrained future. For local sources of composting information, see the Cornell Cooperative Extension Compost Education Program[15] and Cornell Composting.[16] Cayuga Compost runs an excellent local commercial composting operation.[17]

Vermiculture. A rich compost can be made using small red worms as the main decomposing organisms. Vermiculture can be done inside during the winter, which is an advantage over most small home composting setups. It is even undertaken on a commercial scale.[18]

Chickens. Many kinds of food waste and composted food wastes can be fed to chickens, which in turn produce valuable fertilizer and eggs. Chickens eat garden pests and weeds as well. Interest is growing in allowing small numbers of chickens (hens) to be kept in the urban/suburban environment.[19]

Other types of solid waste

Recycled materials. Increased recycling of a wide variety of materials could reduce Tompkins County’s energy requirements and our greenhouse gas emissions. It would be desirable to develop local recycling-based industries that use materials discarded in the County. As the cost of transporting materials grows, opportunities for “green” business development based on recycling and reuse will also grow. Tompkins County Solid Waste Division, an operation funded mostly by the County, already has one of the highest diversion rates in the U.S., nearly 60 percent. A wide variety of materials are taken for recycling in addition to the usual glass bottles, paper, newsprint, cardboard, and metal cans, including many fiber items, aseptic packaging, beverage cartons, clothing, and used motor oil.[20] However, there are still many materials that aren’t recycled or for which we could do a better job. For example, while most large supermarkets take back the plastic bags they dispense, most types of plastic packaging and other plastic items that are not bottles or food tubs still go to the landfill. Plastic waste is now a significant component of the average family’s non-recycled waste stream. Metals are a special case: there are traditional local purchasers of discarded metal plumbing components, roofing, structural steel, wire and cables, car parts, appliances, etc.

Some materials have new markets due to the energy and greenhouse gas crises. Used cooking oil, for example, is now strained and used directly for motor vehicle fuel in converted engines. Vegpower[21] and Liquid Solar[22] are local examples. Used oil can also be converted into biodiesel and used in conventional diesel engines, as shown by Ithaca Biodiesel.[23] Such local sources of carbon based fuels will become increasingly important in the future. These products still produce greenhouse gases, but they are less polluting than traditional fossil fuels overall.

"ICI" (institutional-commercial-industrial) is a specialized set of waste streams that can be recycled in bulk (metal turnings, plastic trimmings, packaging films, etc.) but not in traditional municipal solid waste systems. In our area, most of these materials must be transported to an urban market to find a buyer, often at an expense more than the value of the material to be recycled. These materials often end up in a landfill. IMEX, sponsored by the City of Seattle, is an example of a government-sponsored urban industrial materials exchange.[24]

Special Materials

Hazardous waste: Some spent hazardous materials can be locally processed or reused; for example, solvents can be distilled and used again. Strict state and federal regulations govern hazardous waste reuse. The Tompkins County Solid Waste Division hosts a very successful household hazardous waste program.[25]

Construction debris: The byproducts of construction and demolition are among the largest components of the municipal waste steam. Wood, sheetrock, masonry, and metal elements are heavy are and generated in large quantities.[26] Some of these materials, especially metals, have traditionally been recycled. Large volumes of other materials have usually gone directly to the landfill. In recent years, with the increased cost of construction materials outstripping the increased cost of other materials by a wide margin, many other items are now reused or recycled. Old concrete is crushed and reused as aggregate; asphalt paving is milled, reconditioned and repaved; sheetrock is processed into an agricultural amendment; wood is shredded on site and used as mulch. In the future, fewer construction materials will be headed for the landfill.

Composite materials: Carpeting, mattresses, furniture, car and truck seats, and other composite materials are now increasingly recycled, mostly on an industrial scale.

Glass: Many kinds of glass cannot be reused to make containers or other items. Non-recyclable glass can be ground and used as filler in bricks and as aggregate in concrete and paving materials.

Batteries: Alkaline batteries can be broken down into their components and almost 100% recycled. All other types of batteries, especially lead-acid car batteries, can be recycled.

Fluorescent bulbs: Fluorescent bulbs of all kinds, along with some other specialty bulbs and light sources, should be recycled due to the mercury and other toxic elements they contain. Ordinary incandescent bulbs can be recycled for all of their components.

Plastics: Plastics that are not recycled in traditional residential curbside programs are increasingly recycled as plastic lumber, aggregate for concrete, and other products.

E-Waste: Computers, cell phones, and other electronics can be increasingly recycled or reused. Take-back programs are now more common and effective and, in some instances, are mandated by state and local governments.

Freon: Many freons are severe ozone depleting chemicals, and their disposal is heavily regulated by the Federal and state governments. The Tompkins County Solid Waste Division charges $20 to remove the freon from air conditioners, refrigerators, freezers, and other equipment.

Reuse centers: Thousands of consumer items can be successfully repaired, cleaned up and recirculated back into the community instead of being recycled (down-cycled in many cases) or discarded in a landfill. This process really saves energy and dwindling resources of all kinds, limits the emissions of greenhouse and hazardous wastes, and generates jobs. As we prepare for energy descent, generic or specialized reuse centers will become central to our communities. Some local examples are:

Finger Lakes ReUse, Inc. This newly formed organization accepts used and surplus building materials, furniture, housewares, electronics, art and school supplies, and more for resale.[27]

Significant Elements promotes the reuse of architectural elements.[28]

RIBS recycles bicycles and offers bike repair classes.[29]

Friends of the Library recycles books and various non-print media.[30]

SewGreen resells fabric, sewing machines, and sewing supplies and promotes sustainability in fiber, fabric, and fashion.[31]

There are also numerous used goods stores that promote the reuse of a wide variety of consumer items.

Freecycle: This is an electronic (mailing list-based) materials and consumer products recycling and reuse program that is completely free and has wide popular support. Ithaca Freecycle[32] is a local branch of an international organization. Its only goal is to keep materials out of the landfill. As long as the internet or local networks survive, this forum will be an important part of our community's materials exchange.

Farm animal wastes: Since a mass transition to a vegan lifestyle does not appear imminent, the long-term handling and processing of farm animal wastes will be a substantial issue for the county and region. Ideally, all small-scale farm animal wastes will be composted or spread directly on productive farm land to return valuable nutrients to the land. Some animal wastes — rabbit and chicken droppings, for example — are composted and sold as garden fertilizer. For large-scale “factory” farming this is not an immediate option. Energy descent will eventually make such operations uneconomical, but in the meantime the waste disposal from factory farms must be handled appropriately to prevent environmental contamination. Although factory farm waste processing is heavily regulated in most states, it is still a major environmental concern in some local towns. In most instances, appropriate handling of large-scale animal waste streams can provide cost-effective benefits such as co-generated electricity and methane production for heating farm water and greenhouses.

Storm Water: Although not a “waste” in the usual sense, runoff rain water is often contaminated with a wide variety of hazardous or undesirable materials: animal wastes, fertilizer, pesticides from farming and domestic sources, petroleum products from vehicles, sunscreen and other topical applications from humans and pets, a wide range of pharmaceuticals and antibiotics from human and veterinary use, copper and lead from roofing materials and gutter systems, and many other materials. Much storm water gets treated in publicly owned water treatment works, and some goes directly into bodies of water. Water from roofs can be collected and used to water gardens; properly collected and purified, it can be used for human consumption if necessary. Much work needs to be done to conserve and utilize this valuable resource.

Conclusion

The long-term goal should be to achieve “Zero Waste” while expending as little energy as possible and ensuring that little or no residue goes to long-term in-ground storage, the air, or a body of water. Incineration, even to generate electricity, should be avoided at all costs, as it destroys valuable resources, severely contaminates the air, and produces massive quantities of greenhouse gases. Manufacturers must be required to reduce packaging, especially petroleum based plastics, and take back products or their components that can’t be reused or recycled locally. Composting, recycling, reuse, and repurchasing programs must be generated to cover all of our resources. When energy and resources are scarce or no longer attainable, nothing will go to waste.

By Angelika St.Laurent

Small livestock and poultry production could help Tompkins County address many of the food and materials challenges it will face as the cost of energy climbs.

Benefits of local and urban small livestock and poultry production

Today, most animal products come from the three species that are most easily confined in mass production units and can live on diets mostly consisting of corn, the grain most highly subsidized by government programs: cattle, pigs, and chickens, with turkeys a distant fourth. The products of other traditional livestock, such as rabbits, goats, geese, ducks, and sheep, have mostly disappeared from our plates. Exotic livestock, such as guinea pigs and emus, are even less present in our cuisine. Other animal products like wool and down in clothing and bedding are frequently replaced by synthetics.

This situation poses both a challenge and an opportunity. Products of lesser-known livestock have a smaller market, as many people are unaccustomed to different tastes and textures. On the other hand, there is less industrial competition for less popular livestock, which makes it easier to run a small business successfully. Moral concerns about animal well-being also benefit small-scale poultry operations, which run differently from factory farms and are closer to consumers who want to know about them. Several farms in Tompkins County already raise goats, sheep, alpacas, and free-range poultry. It is likely that under energy descent conditions, the prices for mass-produced animal products will increase, creating a wider market for alternative animal products.

Livestock and poultry provide us with easily digestible protein and fat; leather; fibers and feathers for clothing; manure for fertilizer; and last but not least, entertainment and enjoyment. Despite these benefits, opponents of animal-based agriculture often point out that a mostly plant-based diet feeds the most people on the least area of agricultural land. However, this requires that the agricultural soils are in good shape, and maintaining soil fertility in purely plant-based agriculture is time-consuming and dependent on fertilizer imports. Moreover, many soils in Tompkins County, especially in the south of the county, are shallow, sometimes poorly drained, acidic, and low in nutrient content. Raising animals is frequently the best use for these soils and is likely to result in long-term soil improvement. Small livestock in particular can safely and sustainably graze sloped areas that would erode under the hooves of cows or horses. The integration of animals in crop production helps maintain soil fertility and can reduce weed and pest pressure.

Some urban environments are too shady or otherwise unsuitable for crop or vegetable production but provide conditions good for raising rabbits or a small flock of chickens. Considering that a good laying hen produces four to seven eggs a week, even a small flock of five chickens can provide a household with all the eggs needed for their own consumption and some left over to sell. Urban animal husbandry could provide a valuable opportunity for low-income households to improve their diets and generate some extra income. Permitting small livestock in residential areas could help relieve poverty in times of economic hardship. Bedding for urban animal husbandry can partly be supplied by fall leaves; urban livestock owners eager to remove fall leaves from private gardens and public spaces could relieve town/village and garden owners of the responsibility.

Difficulties of local and urban small livestock and poultry production

In some urban and residential areas (for example, the City of Ithaca and the Village of Dryden), it is forbidden to keep any animals other than pets. Reasons for this general ban on livestock are concerns about noise, smell, rodents, and health issues. These are serious issues that need to be addressed if considering small-scale animal raising in residential areas.

In fact, small-scale animal husbandry is possible without causing these problems. Odor and rodent problems usually arise out of overcrowding, poor hygiene, or inadequate feed storage. Animal housing in sufficiently big coops and cages with regularly changed bedding does not stink, and feed storage in properly locking containers does not attract rodents. Hygienically kept animals are also healthy animals. It is in the interest of livestock and poultry owners to keep their animals under inoffensive, good, and hygienic conditions. Unfortunately, there are always some owners who lack this insight. Therefore, permitting livestock or poultry raising in residential areas requires some sort of supervision in order to protect neighbors and animals.

One possible way to insure hygienic livestock raising in residential areas and at the same time ease the development of small livestock businesses in rural areas would be to reinstate the position of County Veterinarian. A County Veterinarian could provide advice in difficulties, give seminars for aspiring livestock keepers, and inspect and judge facilities if neighbors raised concerns. The Cornell College of Veterinary Medicine could add the office of County Veterinarian to student rotations, which would provide more manpower for the job at hand and at the same time provide students the opportunity to become familiar with animals that are less prominent in the curriculum.

At present, only a small percentage of the population is familar with the how-tos of livestock raising, and the task of caring for an animal other than a pet might appear overwhelmingly difficult. Some hands-on experience for prospective livestock keepers could both develop a reasonable idea of the challenge and protect livestock from improper handling. The 4H program in Tompkins County already offers children and teens the opportunity to become familiar with livestock raising. Knowledge about raising small livestock could also be spread by integrating classes on animal husbandry in a degree program in sustainable agriculture at TC3. A K-12 program in livestock management for area schools could be developed at the New Roots School. And most small livestock owners are happy to share information and advise on a private level.

Unfortunately, raising animals, or food in general, on a home scale also carries a certain socioeconomic stigma as a sign of poverty. At present, this stigma creates a strong motivation to oppose animal husbandry in residential areas. Some private trend-setting is crucial to help overcome this perception. Every clean backyard chicken coop, every clutch of home-produced eggs or batch of locally-produced goat cheese brought to a potluck, every showing of crafts made from local wool is a step toward making small-scale animal husbandry fashionable.

Frequently, the cost of the animals' accommodations vastly exceeds the price of the livestock or poultry itself. While the first benefits of a small livestock or poultry operation can be reaped usually within a couple of months, breaking even on initial investments can take years. Allowing animals to forage for part of their food can bring down feed costs substantially, spare a fair amount of labor cleaning coops and cages, and improve the quality of the product. Nevertheless, fencing is essential for safekeeping of both animals and neighboring gardens. Good fencing material comes at a substantial price. Shelter is a second big unavoidable investment. Recycled old fencing and building material can bring costs down a bit. Sheds, garages, screened-in porches, and even old car bodies can all be turned into acceptable animal housing.

One additional difficulty in raising poultry close to old buildings is the potential lead contamination from old paint. Poultry can ingest lead-containing particles that make eggs and meat unfit for human consumption.

Action items for local residents to increase local small livestock and poultry production:

• Support your local farmers: Buy locally produced eggs, goat cheese, and meat.

• Looking for gifts for the holidays? Consider mittens, scarves, or hats made out of local alpaca wool.

• Be a trendsetter: Serve your guests a dish containing unusual animal products. They will be surprised how tasty your dishes are.

• You have a big lawn and don't really like mowing it? Consider renting out the space to someone who keeps sheep.

• Lobby for the right to keep chickens and other small livestock in residential areas.

• Offer a chicken owner the opportunity to rake and take away your fall leaves.

• You own an old barn/shed? Consider keeping it in shape, it might become useful once again.

• Enroll your children in 4H livestock programs.

Action items for local governments to increase local small livestock and poultry production:

• Consider reinstating the office of County Veterinarian. A County Veterinarian could be very helpful for starting up small farms.

• Consider allowing poultry and small livestock in urban areas. Keep the ban on noisy poultry like roosters, guinea fowl, and peacocks.

Notes on particular livestock and poultry choices

Rabbits

Rabbits are probably the livestock best suited for urban environments. They are winter hardy, do not require much space, and make very little noise. Rabbit manure composts easily and is far less smelly than that of poultry. Cages and hutches can be built cheaply, often with recycled materials. Being kept in cages, rabbits are not affected by heavy metal contamination in the soil. Rabbits are considered pets; thus, there are no legal restrictions on raising a small herd of rabbits for home consumption in an urban setting. Rabbit meat is very lean, and probably healthier than many other meat choices. The greatest challenge for a rabbit-raising business is that not many people are inclined to eat an animal they are used to considering a pet.

Chickens

Chickens are the classics in backyard poultry keeping. The time investment in a small flock of hens is about 10 minutes a day for feeding, watering, and egg collection, plus 30 minutes a week to clean the coop. Hens lay eggs without roosters, and egg production is therefore possible to accomplish without much noise. There are many elegant ways in which chickens can be incorporated into gardening (e.g., chicken tractors). Keeping chickens and other small livestock is currently not allowed in the City of Ithaca and the Village of Dryden. Also, lead contamination may make poultry keeping inadvisable in some gardens.

Ducks

Ducks grow very fast and have the most economic conversion ratio of feed into body mass. Even though they grow to a slaughterable age faster than chickens, their meat remains tender for much longer if slaughter is delayed. Smaller varieties also lay plenty of big eggs, which are excellent for baking. Ducks are very winter hardy, quiet, easily confined, and rarely bothered by diseases. Ducks are unique in their taste for slugs. (In slug-plagued northern Germany, small businesses rent out ducks to "deslug" gardens.) Compared to chickens, ducks are more labor-intensive, are more vulnerable to predators, need more space, and always require a source of liquid water.

Sheep and goats

Sheep and goats are too big to be kept in an urban setting, but a large suburban property could be big enough to accommodate them. Sheep and goats need substantial investments in barns and fencing. The time investment for a small flock can vary from 5 minutes a day (free roaming in a large garden during the summer) to an hour or more if animals are stabled. Besides the obvious products, they can contribute to landscaping as "lawnmowers." Many landowners like the view of closely cropped grass; with higher energy prices, sheep or goats grazing might become more appealing than the use of a riding lawn mower. Sheep and goats both feast on poison ivy, offering an option for environmentally sound weed removal.

A Local Health Resource Assessment

By Bethany Schroeder

Through an ongoing application of fiscal resources, professional collaboration, and continuous assessment, the legislative, medical, and social work communities of Tompkins County have created a network of health services that largely complement one another. The degree to which the network remains integrated as peak oil and climate change influence the region will be a matter of planning, depending on the approach the community and its formal and informal leaders take.

The purpose of this overview is to describe broadly the infrastructure available in the County, so as to quantify local medical care, with a view to planning for access to services despite fewer resources. If, as anticipated, travel from one part of the County to another in the next 10 to 20 years becomes increasingly expensive, planning alternatives to present automobile-oriented patterns of care will be the best way to assure a healthy community. Similarly, the cost of producing and distributing required supplies at the end of long supply chains may become prohibitive, either because of decreasing availability of materials from which the supplies are made or because of the cost of transporting them. In short, decisions about developing, using, and husbanding local physical and human resources are necessary if we are to provide health care to residents in an energy-constrained environment.

Almost all medical supplies rely on petroleum for manufacture and transport. Plastics are actually made out of fossil fuels.

Tompkins County Medical Infrastructure and Human Resources

With a population of just over 100,000 people, Tompkins County supports myriad health services, many already integrated into a system of referral sources organized to serve the needs of local people.

The largest health service is also the County’s only hospital, Cayuga Medical Center (CMC), which is also one of the largest employers in the region. Over 250 physicians have privileges at CMC, and they work with more than 1000 staff members, including nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), registered and licensed vocational nurses, physical and occupational therapists, nutritionists, radiological technicians, and other healthcare professionals and support staff, just to give a few examples. (Most of the 250 physicians noted above and many of the 75 or more NPs in the County have local private or group offices; a small number of physicians have private practices but do not maintain privileges at CMC.) The hospital is licensed for 204 beds but has square footage for many more, even by modern medical standards, and thus could accommodate more people in an emergency. CMC and its outpatient offices report serving 150,000 patients annually, many of whom sought care outside the Finger Lakes region until technological advances in diagnosis and treatment became available at CMC. At present CMC provides general and specialized care across the lifespan; through its multiple affiliations with other medical facilities and schools, CMC can claim with confidence the ability to treat a wide array of human ailments.

Clinic and urgent care services in the County are available through Guthrie Medical Group, based in Sayre, Pennsylvania; through CMC’s urgent care offices; and through the Ithaca Free Clinic (IFC).

The Guthrie Medical Group offers primary and specialty care; diagnostics, including laboratory and radiology services; and supplies, such as medical equipment and oxygen. Patients who select Guthrie can opt for inpatient, outpatient, and emergency care at Robert Packer Hospital in Pennsylvania; most Guthrie physicians are affiliated with CMC as well.

Guthrie is an important local source of home medical supplies.

CMC’s Convenient Care Center provides urgent and surgical care; radiological, laboratory, and imaging services; and sports and rehabilitation medicine. The Center also contracts to provide space to the Veterans Administration of Syracuse, which then offers outpatient services to local veterans. Many of the physicians who work at Convenient Care are affiliated with the hospital and have admitting and attending privileges at CMC. Both the Guthrie Clinic and CMC’s Convenient Care employ dozens of professional, ancillary, and support staff, including mid-level providers such as NPs and PAs.

At the other end of the technological spectrum is the Ithaca Free Clinic, where the County’s un- and under-insured residents receive care three afternoons a week. Staffed by volunteer retired physicians and the occasional NP or PA, IFC achieves its goals with the help of volunteer registered nurses, nutritionists, occupational and physical therapists, and administrative personnel. IFC is one of only two medically integrated free clinics in the United States. Alongside conventional or allopathic clinicians at IFC is a group of volunteer complementary and alternative providers, including a chiropractor, an herbalist, a licensed acupuncturist, and a massage therapist. Apart from simple urinalysis, random blood sugar analysis, and on-site electrocardiography testing, however, IFC offers no technical diagnostic services.

The Ithaca Free Clinic provides primary medical care for more than a thousand uninsured local residents.

Additional resources are available through an array of complementary and alternative medical (CAM) practitioners in the County. Complementary care is designed to complete or to enhance a person’s state of well-being, especially from a holistic point of view that considers the prevention of illness, the promotion of healthy behaviors, and the use of alternative products, such as herbs and oils. Local CAM practitioners include more than 35 chiropractors and 15 acupuncturists. The services of several herbalists are available to the community; others have been trained, may practice informally, and continue to reside in the area. Reflexologists, naturopaths, homeopaths, massage therapists, and other CAM providers practice in various settings in the area, although their numbers are difficult to quantify. Many of these care givers support themselves by way of other skills in order to make a living.

In addition to therapy services available in institutional settings, occupational, physical, and speech therapists work in private local offices. The services of audiologists and social workers are available in the larger institutions and through private offices as well. Similarly, several psychologists and psychiatrists practice locally, some in collaboration with other area programs, some in their own or shared offices. Nutritional services are available privately, through the schools, and through a variety of area programs, including Cornell Cooperative Extension, which sponsors programs that provide counseling, nutritional awareness, and basic education in food safety and preparation.

Cornell University and Ithaca College have student health centers, where students can receive specific levels of care, depending on the school’s resources. Gannett Health Center at Cornell offers medical care, including a full range of diagnostic services, as well as physical and psycho-social therapy services. The Hammond Health Center at Ithaca College provides a similar level of primary care to students, including laboratory and radiology services. Both health centers refer students to CMC for inpatient care, and both have extensive collaborative relationships with care providers in the larger community.

Several skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) give medical and nursing care and shelter to more than 600 area senior residents: Beechtree Care Center, Groton Nursing Facility, Kendal at Ithaca, Lakeside Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, Longview, and Oak Hill Manor. A number of houses for people, mostly seniors, who have conditions that require specialized care include Bridges Cornell Heights, Sterling House, and Claire Bridge. These facilities offer assisted living to residents who have functional limitations up to a specific level, at which time patients might be transferred to other facilities with the capacity to provide higher levels of care. Additional assisted living services are available in Dryden, Newfield, and Trumansburg. SNFs typically maintain most of the equipment needed for basic care, including respiratory, intravenous, and pharmaceutical supplies, whereas assisted living homes are licensed to provide occasional help rather than full support to residents. Housing primarily youngsters and adults with chronic developmental conditions, at least nine Franziska Racker Centers operate in Tomkins County. Limited unlicensed care is available 24 hours a day in these residential settings.

Two free-standing home health programs exist in Tompkins County. The Tompkins County Public Health Department (TCPHD) has programs in health promotion, communicable diseases, immunization clinics, obstetrical and maternal services (MOMS), home health care, and nutritional aid to woman and infants (WIC). Several programs for children with special care needs are available at TCPHD, along with bioterrorism preparedness, a flu hotline, and departments of environmental health, health and safety, and vital records. In total, the staff—registered nurses, physical and occupational therapists, nutritionists, and others—serve hundreds of patients in the community each year. The second local licensed home health agency, Visiting Nurse Services, also provides a range of intermittent services to homebound patients; in addition, this agency has social workers available to its patients. The county has one free-standing licensed hospice, Hospicare. This agency offers home visits and 24-hour care in its six-bed residential unit.

More than 60 dentists practice in the County, including generalists, periodontists, orthodontists, and oral surgeons. Dental hygienists and dental assistants are typically employed in dental offices as well, and most dental practices have most if not all of the equipment required for diagnosis and treatment of dental conditions. Ithaca is also regularly visited by American Mobile Dental, a dental van completely outfitted for every manner of oral care. The service is particularly helpful to people with Medicaid, since few area dentists take state insurance reimbursements.

Several optometrists and ophthalmologists have offices in the County. Such services are also featured in some of the larger retail stores—especially the “big box” stores. At least one area optometrist offers complementary services in his office, and he is recognized among CAM practitioners for his work in alternative therapies.

Dozens of human service organizations operate in the County. As a rule, non-profit organizations are represented by the Human Services Coalition (HSC), are listed in the local 211 directory, and use the HSC mail list to remain current on area social services trends and issues. Referrals to the non-profit social services come by way of service providers or the Information and Referral network housed within HSC.

The development of the HSC has resulted in a highly collaborative model of care within the psycho-social and public-resource oriented community, where the needs of the area’s most vulnerable residents are overseen and addressed. Food insecurity; gaps in healthcare access; conditions challenging to treat, such as addictions, traumatic stress, mental illness, abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, unplanned pregnancies, and AIDS are some of the problems these organizations work to resolve. The agencies that serve the public at this level rely on case management and care management skills to connect people with resources, analyze systems to solve problems, and consider problems and needs in the context of social settings. Many of the organizations mentioned in this assessment are members of the HSC.

Assessment Implications

Unlike some counties in upstate New York, Tompkins County currently offers a wide array of health-related resources and has the infrastructure and personnel to connect most people with the services they need. Nonetheless, according to recent census data, up to 12,000 Tompkins County residents have no insurance, an increase of 2,000 residents over the number just five years ago. Some number beyond these have inadequate insurance, but at the very least a safety net of state programs and a local initiative in the form of the Ithaca Free Clinic are available to them. Funding considerations at the state and federal levels may impact the availability and delivery of care in the near term. As the effects of peak oil and climate change unfold, transportation from home to healthcare facility, as well as the equipment and products available to support the treatment of diseases and injuries, will likely become more difficult and expensive of access. Speculation about the methods by which local health providers and County leaders could address the need to integrate preventive and treatment approaches to care and to consider changes in the allocation of infrastructure and human resources will be the subject of Part II in this series of articles.

References

Bednarz, G. (2005). Public health in a post-petroleum world. Energy Bulletin. http://www.energybulletin.net/node/12158. Accessed March, 2008.

Bednarz, G. (2008). Rising costs and the future of hospital work. Energy Bulletin. http://www.energybulletin.net/43514.html. Accessed May, 2008.

Community health assessment. (2005 & 2007). Tompkins County Health Department. http://www.co.tompkins.ny.us/health/cha05/index.htm. Accessed May, 2008.

McClure, L., & Kaufman, M. (2006). Just health care. 2^nd Ed. Coalition for Democracy of Central New York Health Care Committee.

Tompkins county health department annual report (2007). http://www.co.tompkins.ny.us/health/annual.htm. Accessed March, 2008.

By Katie Quinn-Jacobs

Home preparedness is a complex subject. However, a simple way to approach it is to focus on four basic elements: energy, shelter, water and food. Individual circumstances for both the long and the short term vary, of course, but these core elements will keep you centered on the most important things first. Whether you live in an apartment, co-housing, the burbs or a spread in the countryside, a complete preparedness plan will include all four.

Our present culture is predicated on highly centralized interdependencies, like just-in-time warehousing and specialization of services, that are not easy to replicate or extricate yourself from. Since our present lifestyles are products of that system, it’s going to be the rare household — at this stage of the energy descent transition — that is able to be entirely self-sufficient.

Preparedness vs. Survivalism

Individual household preparedness, constructed in a social vacuum, isn’t the most valuable long-term goal in any case; building community preparedness based on vibrant and sustainable social and economic structures is. Richard Heinberg’s article on resilient communities (http://www.richardheinberg.com/museletter/192) discusses this topic in more detail. Energy descent demands more individual activism, but not a revisioning of the American rugged individualist. A collective goal, mobilizing our community, is the winning strategy. Attempting to be an island unto yourself, like the “beans, boots and bullets” survivalists, not only raises ethical issues but is impractical as well. Our very nature is to be interdependent communal creatures. It’s easy to be discouraged or outright frustrated with transitioning the commons (or Commons in Ithaca’s case), but that’s the task ahead of us. “We’re all in this together” is not just happy talk; it’s an accurate assessment of our circumstances.

Collective change and community preparedness are the long-term necessities, yet it’s also important to take a look at short-term emergencies that volatility in the oil or gas markets could engender.

Short-Term Preparedness

If there is a regional shortage of gas, or if grocery store supply lines are disrupted or if the electric grid fails, you will want to be prepared. In the event of one or more of these scenarios, grocery stores and gas tanks will empty in a matter of a few days, if not a few hours. The systems that depend on fossil fuels in your home and community will be compromised in short order.

Most households in our area could be prepared to provide their own stored heat, water and food and could have an evacuation plan in place. Such emergency planning has not been a priority in Tompkins County, where floods and earthquakes are rare. And although we, like the rest of the country, are precariously perched on a complex system that requires numerous high-tech, fossil-fuel-powered elements to function properly, we don’t spend much time on contingencies because, for the most part, Tompkins County has been isolated from disaster. Even though many warning signs exist (see http://www.postcarbon.org/), we are no more ready for an abrupt oil or gas shortage than we were for the failure of the levees protecting New Orleans.

But your household can be ready to ride out a short-term emergency. By focusing on the basics — energy, shelter, water and food — you’ll develop a solid preparedness plan. FEMA (http://www.fema.gov/areyouready/index.shtm) recommends three-week supplies of energy, food, and water. These recommendations are based on how long it takes (on average) for relief efforts to reach victims, but you may find it prudent to prepare for a longer period.

Energy

Assess your energy situation first. Identify what critical systems (heat, refrigeration, water) in your home are dependent on electricity and strategize how best to deliver those systems off the grid or think about how you can live without them. If you can’t live without them, then you’ll need to evacuate your home. Many utility appliances, such as heating systems, even if they are oil based and your tank is full, cannot run without electric igniters, fans or pumps.

If you can generate your own electricity, how long will your system sustain your home? If you rely on a generator, how many hours of fuel do you have? If you are plugged in to alternative energy, how long can you keep critical systems (heat, refrigeration, water) going? How much of your usage will you need to curtail and how long will your batteries hold out?

Test your energy plan by simulating a power outage in your home, then make corrections or enhancements to boost your off-the-grid longevity.

Shelter

Historically, lack of heat is the number one reason people are forced to evacuate their homes in the northeast, largely because ice storms or heavy snows bring down power lines. However, fuel shortages or electrical failures aren’t seasonal, and in a post-peak-oil world, we need to be prepared for these infrastructure failures as well as natural disasters. Secondary crises, such as social unrest, gas leaks, and water-borne illness can also be potential concerns if the power outage or shortage is prolonged, as it was in New Orleans in 2005.

Having alternative shelters identified ahead of time will increase your chances of staying safe through the crisis. Assemble a communication list with your family and neighbors, so you can offer each other assistance if needed. Keep a small hand crank radio, so that you can hear public announcements and news bulletins.

Water

After loss of heat, the next reason for evacuation is lack of water. Storing water is as easy as it is essential. You’ll need to store 1-2 gallons/person/day for a minimum supply of 21 days, so that works out to be 21-42 gallons/person. (FEMA recommends a gallon a day per person, but two gallons a day will give you some cushion for the unexpected.) More information on how to store water and where to obtain the needed supplies is available at the PreparedTompkins.org post 2 Gallons A Day (http://www.preparedtompkins.org/?p=13).

Sanitation quickly becomes a significant issue, too. A simple 5 gallon bucket (like those used for drywall plaster) can be converted into a toilet. Inexpensive snap-on toilet seats are available through preparedness vendors, like Red Flare, for this purpose. Small air-tight portable toilets with water reservoirs are more expensive, but are also available. Work out where you plan to safely dispose of your waste (this will undoubtedly involve a shovel and an inquiry to your township’s zoning board) as part of your short-term plan.

If you have a drilled well on your property, you may be able to install a hand pump to use in emergencies. Hand pumps can be installed on top of the well casing if the residual water level in the well doesn’t exceed approximately 100 feet. Lehman’s has good information on installing a hand pump on your well, including a how-to DVD. And Bison sells stainless steel hand pumps that are manufactured in Maine. For more information on installing a hand pump on your well, see Hand Pumps on Drilled Wells (http://www.preparedtompkins.org/?p=119).

Food

Storing food for short-term emergencies can be done in a number of ways. Some people prefer to put aside a portion of their grocery money to build a supply over time, or you can do it all at once. You can even purchase rations through preparedness vendors online, which costs a bit more, but is a good choice for those pressed for time. Use a food calculator (http://www.preparedtompkins.org/?p=15) to estimate how many pounds of each food group to put away. Also check out the posts on the food section of PreparedTompkins.org (http://www.preparedtompkins.org/?cat=4), including how to pack a “superpail” (http://www.preparedtompkins.org/?p=49).

Rotate your stock and do an annual inventory. Pick a quiet time of year (perhaps February?) and involve the entire household in the exercise. Not only is it good to share the knowhow and have help with the job of storing food, but if your are not at home during a shortage, there will be at least one other person in your home who understands your food storage system.

Evacuation

Like any part of preparedness planning, arrange for this possibility ahead of time. Ideally, you’ll work out at least two different local scenarios and one outside our region (many disasters are regional, and leaving the area, if possible, may be the best course of action). Whether you plan to go to a neighbor’s, a family member’s or a public space, consider how you will get there. Wherever you end up, it needs to be accessible, safe and equipped with the basic necessities: energy, shelter, water and food.

Have an Emergency Evacuation Kit (EEK) complete with a communication list ready to go. Although your EEK can be made out of almost any storage container, more often than not people use backpacks for their EEKs (one for each member of the household), since they are designed to store gear, are highly portable and leave your hands free while you carry them. Putting these together in advance is important: you’ll be clearer-headed about what to put in your EEK and who you need to add to your call list if you’re not embroiled in an ongoing emergency.

Make the go/no-go decision before the decision is made for you. If you think you may need to evacuate your home, be sure not to wait too long. You’ll need time to secure your home systems (drain water pipes, turn off gas valves, gather current banking records, notify family members), and the longer you delay, the more likely that your options may become limited: roads may close or darkness may make leaving harder or you may face a worsening security situation.

New Interdependencies

Preparedness, whether for the long or short term, is an interconnected process that begins with individual awareness, but it must be followed by concrete practical steps. We cannot think our way out of the triple crises of energy, environment and economy. Whatever anxieties preparedness can evoke, it also bestows piece of mind once your plan is in place, and it will lead you in new and unexpected directions along the way. Your short-term plan may inspire you in ways you hadn’t thought about prior to doing this work and introduce you to people you wouldn’t have otherwise met.

Grassroots (bottom-up) change has the capacity to rework not only our lives, but our larger community as well. As we put our individual plans into action, our community begins to shift too: grocery stores become accustomed to bulk buyers, green jobs in alternative energy and building grow, humanure provisions work their way into zoning laws, local farms and urban gardens flourish, plumbers gain expertise at installing hand pumps, schools teach preparedness planning in class, sewing (http://www.sew-green.org/) and food preservation groups (http://www.preparedtompkins.org/?page_id=60) form, etc.

Myriad networks of people pool their knowledge and resources to create an interdependent lifestyle, not based on long distance just-in-time warehousing (in big-box stores or at home) and centralized specialization, but on local needs for goods and services. Although we are very fortunate here in Tompkins County, since this long-term process is already underway, we must not turn a blind eye to the possibility of short-term emergencies during these volatile times lest we find ourselves wanting.

[This is the second part of a two-part series. Post-Peak Land Use Part 1: Ecocities appeared previously. As usual, we invite your comments. A Land use glossary explains some of the terms used in these articles.]

By Josh Dolan

A sustainable city requires a balanced relationship with its neighboring rural areas. Moving toward a higher urban density while achieving a lower overall regional density will require transformation in both urban and rural areas. Food, fuel, and other human uses are important factors when considering rural land use. Housing and employment can be added in nodal developments close to prime agricultural soils and diverse forests.

Our region is known for its diverse agricultural products, including grapes, wine, orchard crops, dairy products, beef, and organic vegetables. Most agricultural land should shift away from acre-hungry factory farm, feedlot-style beef, dairy, and corn production toward more intensively managed field crops for human consumption and grass-fed small-scale meat production. The goal should be to sustainably produce as many calories per acre as possible while increasing productivity and employment. Many historic farms and prime soils are underused. Undermaintained land and agricultural buildings can be restored and brought back into production. This will create new and revitalized spaces which can be utilized as workshops to create diverse products.

Many of these farms can be updated for the 21st century by integrating permaculture design with highly diverse and resilient farm ecosystems. Diverse farm models can also be used to revitalize the rural economy by creating many more niches for humans within the landscape. As we shift from a high available energy service-based economy to a low-energy material economy, much of the energy currently gained through the use of fossil fuels will have to be replaced with labor-intensive human power. Systems should be created to link willing young farmers with land, to incubate rural land-based businesses, and to assist groups hoping to create cooperative farms and ecovillages.

Well-managed forests can provide a wide array of products. Many area forests are lacking good management and as a result are less healthy, more crowded, and less diverse than they could be. Popular education for rural landowners and farmers can instill better management practices, and cooperatively owned portable saw mills and forestry tools can help them add value to wood from their land. Programs to increase land access, especially access to forested land, can link urban residents with land in the country. Agroforestry techniques can increase diversity in forests and produce an income from lumber, value-added wood products, fruits and nuts, edible natives and fungi, and medicinal products.

Recreational uses such as hiking, biking, hunting, and fishing can help preserve rural land and important habitat. Riparian buffers along streams and rivers can reduce turbidity, reduce soil erosion, and integrate recreational uses. These buffers can also provide forest products, habitat, and wildlife corridors. Buffers of a minimum of one hundred feet are highly recommended for all creeks, but depending on soils and slopes, buffers could be much wider. Buffer strips can be managed by farmers and community projects. Steep slopes currently tilled annually should be converted to permanent cover such as nutteries and orchards, as well as coppice crops such as willow and poplar for biomass fuel.

The Conservation Village

The basis of rural life should be conservation villages: ecovillages from 50 to 200 households in size.

www.cascadeagenda.com/strategies/conservationvillages

These villages should be located within a ten-minute walk of major transit stops and should be designed using the same principles as urban environments. Higher density rural deveopment will also mean more feasible car sharing. Rather than the suburban model of development — which has an extremely low density, energy-wasting housing, and high dependence on auto-based transportation — these new developments should be urban and walkable in character, they should feature energy-conserving naturally built housing, and residents should work on site as much as possible. By retrofitting and reusing existing buildings, their embodied energy will be preserved.

The dark green of streams and wetland areas forms the backbone of the new landuse pattern. Nestled between the fingers of naturalized riparian corridors lies the productive landscape of forests, agroforestry plantings, grazing land and other farm fields. Farms are scattered throughout the landscape and, finally, villages are layed out along the dark purple fixed transit line and the light purple cirulator bus corridor. Pink pedestrian and bicycle trails connect the villages to each other and with the landscape.

Applying compact nodal development patterns greatly contracts overall development and, thus, fuel and energy use. Again, nodal development should always be linked with fixed transit and should occur in existing major transit corridors. Compact development would include multi-family housing with live-work features. Natural building techniques, proper placement and orientation of new buildings, and culturally sensitive design will create timeless and efficient towns that will be more desirable to live in, while efficiently sheltering residents. Energy-sucking low-density housing can gradually be dismantled or integrated into new village centers; using Transfer of Development Rights, financial and lifestyle incentives, and taxation, county policy can shift residential land use into a much more environmentally sound pattern. Farm land can be freed up and many forests allowed to grow back, becoming a source for sustainable energy far into the future. Here is an image of the Chrysalis Concordium (chrysalisconcordium.org), a car-free village concept from Rob Morache.

The car-free village nestled within the farm landscape. (Image by Rob Morache)

Zonation, a common design consideration in permaculture, orients high-activity gardening and vegetable farming close to each of the conservation villages. Orchards and grazing are slightly farther away and forestry operations farther still, along with irrigation and aquaculture ponds. Land of high biological diversity and health surrounds the village, with some land remaining wild and used for wildlife and low-impact recreation.

The Conservation Village assists in the preservation of both wild land and farm land, nestled in the midst of both. By putting the village back in the context of the country, residents are put in direct proximity of a productive landscape. This allows for a return to a material-based economy. Notice how the village integrates the existing built environment into its fabric and how solar aspect and landform play into village sites.

Efficient water catchment and conservation will be a high priority. Protection of creeks, riparian habitat, slopes and sensitive environmental features, wildlife corridors, and greenbelts allows for a large increase in many under-recognized and underappreciated natural services such as climate control and erosion control as well as the well-being provided to humans by intact natural areas. Public access with bike and hiking paths can allow any resident easy access and potential fitness benefits.

Ponds can catch and store water, and thus energy, high in the landscape. Through contouring and land-forming techniques such as keyline, water can be evenly distributed throughout the landscape. Pervious pavements and surface drainage within the conservation village will solve most conventional drainage problems and create beautiful water features within the residential area. Greywater can be treated on-site in constructed wetlands and living machines, then recycled in orchards and woody biomass plantings.

Energy can be produced entirely on site with a surplus for export to the city. Active solar should be an element on each building. Higher elevations are best for wind turbines and for storing water. Developments that straddle rivers and streams can take advantage of small-scale electrical hydropower and mechanical hydropower for milling wood, grinding grain, and other uses. Biofuels have multiple uses on the farm and in the village, many of which could be extracted from long-lived and productive crops such as nut trees. Wood can be used efficiently in the home and can also be used in gasification to produce natural gas for cooking; the char by-product can be used as a soil amendment that traps carbon in the soil for centuries. Wood can also boil water to create steam in a boiler facility that is then distributed to heat the entire development; this is called district heating. Wire, water pipes, tools, and vehicles will all be used more efficiently in the compact development. The total energy savings resulting from better development will be substantial and come from many sectors.

Each of the towns in Tompkins County would feature new nodal developments surrounding an enhanced, higher density town center. A transit connection in the town center would connect the rural population to downtown Ithaca and the University, College, downtown jobs, and downtown culture. The opportunity to develop a craft-based utilitarian economy would arise from villages' proximity to the land. Farmers' and crafters' markets in the centers will be the cornerstones of local life and generate significant tourism. Public-private partnerships can be created to establish not-for-profit business incubators, which will help to develop the physical infastructure of the village center and the village economy itself.

As we face the challenges of climate change and peak oil, we would do well to remember that all changes are not necessarily bad. The potential to transform our society for the better is at hand. By working together, we can do our part to reduce American energy consumption.

Previous article: Ecocities.

Land use glossary

Land use bibliography

Land use resources

By Josh Dolan

[This is the first part of a two-part series. Post-Peak Land Use Part 2: The Country will appear in two weeks. As usual, we invite your comments. A Land use glossary explains some of the terms used in these articles.]

As we build, so shall we live. — Richard Register

As we look for answers to the twin crises of peak oil and climate change, as well as the widespread symptoms of social decay and collapse such as elevated crime, degraded communities, and broken families, urban design and land use must be one of the central ways that we reform our way of life if we hope to survive. Carbon-neutral cities and towns have the potential to heal our broken culture and create a more desirable, more comfortable, more creative, more healthy, and less stressful civilization. By rethinking and redeveloping our cities, towns, and villages, we can put more people back in touch with the land while freeing them from the shackles of car culture.

Ecocity Principles

The ecocity concept is changing the dialog between the social justice and environmental movements; one ideal must not necessarily be sacrificed for the other. The ecocity movement offers many tools and formulations which can serve to drastically reduce our physical footprint on the earth and thus our carbon footprint. In both the rural setting and the urban, these concepts can be used to create a more fulfilling life for people of all means and backgrounds and greater flexibility in terms of lifestyle choices, residential choices, occupational choices, and transportation choices. Three key principles underlie this shift.

Principle 1: Reversal of the transportation infrastructure hierarchy

cars--->transit--->bikes--->pedestrians

pedestrians--->bikes--->transit--->cars

In order to fully take responsibility for energy security, we must look at one of our major uses of energy: transportation. Private automobiles are the primary means of transportation and by far the most inefficient. By creating conditions in our built environment favorable to walking, biking, and public transportation and by restricting access to private autos, we can take back our public space and reduce our energy consumption significantly.

Auto restrictions have successfully transformed many cities into healthier and wealthier communities. Limited auto access neighborhoods use barriers, parking restrictions, traffic calming, and slow streets to reduce car travel. Narrower streets save money and resources used in their upkeep, are safer by slowing traffic, use less land that could be used as public space or for growing food, reduce runoff, hold less heat and thereby reduce air conditioning, and allow for a greater sense of community ownership. An initiative to reduce paving and parking can facilitate this transition, and tradable depaving credits for private businesses and residents are a useful tool to further this change.

A citywide 20mph speed limit both saves fuel and creates safer conditions for pedestrians and bicyclists. Pedestrian areas can demarcate neighborhood centers and can be used as a tool to strengthen the local economy. This will become necessary for continued access to essential goods and services as the failed big box-model of business breaks down. Car-free housing can save residents money and further reduce the total number of cars in the city, also reducing the need for on-street parking. As fuel prices rise, Ithaca residents will continue to seek formal and informal car-sharing arrangements. Minibuses, delivery vehicles, car co-ops, and electric cars and trucks allow flexibility in moving materials and in the transportation of elders and car-free residents. Tax breaks for car-free living and car sharing make economic sense, especially if the city is able to receive carbon credits for these practices.

As much as we reduce car use, we need to increase access to other ways of getting around. Non-motorized modes such as walking, biking, skating, pedicabs, and cargo bikes should get the priority. Where bike facilities are improved, ridership increases greatly, so every effort should be made to allow access to both urban and rural residents to these facilities. Next comes fixed rail transit powered by renewable energy; personal rapid transit, trolleys, light rail, and traditional heavy rail are all forms that this change could take.

Every effort should be made to restrict the use of private cars in the city. More ways to reduce downtown auto traffic include car/van pools and park-and-riders, which should receive credits from the city. Public transit is subsidized enough to make it more affordable than private cars. Idealy, cars would be taxed if they choose to enter the city center.

Principle 2: Increasing density in walkable centers linked by transit

As the emphasis of our city moves away from car culture, the opportunity arises to change the face of our neighborhoods for the better. The first step is to identify neighborhood and municipal centers that will serve as the nuclei for redevelopment. We can then create specific area plans via a consensus-based planning process. Most medium density areas can be preserved while increasing population in the two to three blocks around centers. Centers themselves can be much denser and more diverse than current neighborhood centers. Clustered businesses and services would line the streets, and essential services would also be easily accessible at street level. Dwelling clusters on the upper floors would put many more people within the new center itself. The public spaces of the center, including the street, would create a maximum of usable, flexible space for neighborhood residents. These neighborhood enhancements demonstrate access by proximity; being there versus getting there.

Car-Free State Street. (Drawing by Rob Morache.) A car-free corridor would create a backbone of pedestrian and bycicle connections through the center of the city, melding the West End and Commons into a unified whole. Notice the overhead rail of the PRT (personal rapid transit) system, one possible form that a fixed transit network could take. Infill development in current parking lots as well as added stories would work together to create a much more densly populated downtown within easy walking, biking, and transit distance from anywhere in the city, filling the current need for more affordable housing downtown.

All of these developments would be centered around a transit stop, which would connect the neighborhood with the rest of the city without the need for automobiles. This type of nodal development can only be effective when linked by fixed transit lines. Transit would run throughout the city and connect rural areas along major transit corridors. Although questions exist about how to pay for such a transportation system, we should consider how much we spend collectively on private automobiles, auto infrastructure, repairing the damage done to our bodies and our communities by an auto-centric culture — not to mention oil wars, accounting for cross-cultural costs that can only be estimated.

These improvements can be created mostly by infilling where parking lots currently exist and by enhancing public and semi-public spaces such as front lawns, back yards, and alleys. Existing structures can also be remodeled to accommodate one or two extra floors for commercial spaces, apartments, workshops, etc. Spaces between buildings can be infilled to allow even more diversity of smaller spaces for apartments, studios, offices, etc. Rooftop gardens, cafes, and social spaces can use utilize space that is normally inaccessible and create a more three-dimensional usable space. All of this would be constructed to harmonize with the current built environment.

As the city becomes denser, the amount of walking and cycling to work increases, people are able to work much closer to where they live, and transit ridership increases. Along with the reduced reliance on private cars, air quality in the city will be greatly improved and street congestion will decrease. The dense neighborhood centers can be designed to conserve energy, allow easier recycling and waste management, and allow urban agricultural space. Tools such as the city's comprehensive plan, specific area plans, and neighborhood vision statements can all be used to great effect in shifting development into neighborhood centers. Transfer of Development Rights, or TDR, has also been used effectivly to encourage private developers to build where and what residents want. For more on TDR, see www.cascadeagenda.com/tdr.

Principle 3: Urban cooperative blocks, eco-hoods, and village clusters

The last key principle of ecocity and energy descent crosses from the physical sphere into the social. Urban cooperative blocks, or eco-hoods, are the reconfigured neighborhoods of a low-energy future. Some of the main features of the cooperative block are the common house, common yards and gardens, common parking, common cooking and eating areas, and toolshares. Through resource sharing, cooperative neighborhoods are able to reduce energy consumption while maintaining their relative level of comfort, creating and deepening community structures. There are many models for achieving more cooperation and thus energy savings in neighborhoods, including condominium corporations, non-profit groups, mutual housing associations, limited equity cooperatives, community land trusts, and more anarchic and informal cooperative living situations.

Other ways exist to increase cooperation in neighborhoods. One significant way to build community is to take down fences in backyards to free up more area for other uses. Much wasted space that could be used for growing food and community uses is locked away in the back yards of our cities and largely forgotten. By removing these physical barriers, we also remove some of the psychological barriers that prevent neighbors from approaching each other. Traditional urban design elements that focus on the community, including the zocolo or the piazza, can be forged from the newly freed spaces and allow for natural cooperation and togetherness. Vacant and underused lots can also be transformed into community spaces such as playgrounds and gardens. It must be shown that these changes will benefit residents, encouraging them to take part in the transformation. Tax breaks for urban gardens, city monies for new public spaces, and neighborhood-based celebrations are just some of the possible incentives to induce these changes. We must create sites that demonstrate these innovations now so that people can see the advantages and learn to create them in their own back yards.

Here are some other ideas for creating deeper community connections and energy savings:

Eco parks. Parks can be transformed with the addition of multi-use buildings, community gardens, edible landscaping, bike street and transit connections, and natural wastewater treatment and drainage. In addition, underused public and private spaces can be converted to pocket parks. These should be as diverse as the neighborhoods which they inhabit and should include BBQs, playgrounds, smaller community gardens, basketball courts, and other multi-use facilities. Major parks, such as Stewart Park, the City Golf Course, Washington Park, Cascadilla Gorge, etc., could each have their own theme.

Neighborhood consultas. Neighborhood grassroots governance, planning, and education. Facilitation training, consensus planning, charrette-style development planning, classes and internships for teens and low-income residents, eco-hood programs.

Intersection repairs. Piazzas can be created to calm traffic and create community space. Using natural building and public art, intersections become community spaces that knit together the physical space of a neighborhood. Each neighborhood designs and builds its own piazzas.

Green clubs. Building community and greening the neighborhood; stream stewards, tree-lawn gardeners, community garden co-ops, sew green, mutual aid networks, green workers co-ops, bike clubs, food preservation groups, social clubs, reading and learning circles.

Greenstreets and bikestreets. A network of pedestrian-only greenstreets can take advantage of underused inter-block areas. The greenstreets should connect neighborhood commercial centers, ecoparks, pocket parks, and community gardens. Bikestreets can network between all neighborhoods and parks, providing a sustainable and easy transit mode within reach of all residents. Bikeways should spread out in all directions from the city. All transit connections should have bicycle lockups, bike racks, and special service for bikers to surrounding towns. Example: Cascadilla greenway.

Neighborhood CSAs. To produce a maximum amount of food, open areas should be managed by a neighborhood CSA: a loose coalition of gardeners, urban farmers, and youth program participants. Fruit and nut trees, berry-producing shrubs and canes, and other produce can be planted on every block, in every tree lawn, and in all parks. Connections can also be made with land outside of town that is within walking distance of bus routes and bikeways. Modest housing facilities can enable part-time land access to a wide spectrum of neighborhood residents. Some examples of the neighborhood CSA would be a neighborhood farm at the Ithaca Community Gardens and a neighborhood orchard at the Ithaca Farmer's Market.

Coming next: The Country.

Land use glossary

Land use bibliography

Land use resources

Note: The following document was published in August 2007 on the old TCLocal web site. It was circulated to City government and announced to local sustainability groups, but the web site as implemented at that time did not provide for publicly visible input. We are republishing the report now to allow the community to comment and to present these ideas to a broader audience.

[Prepared by Jon Bosak, with input and discussion from TCLocal.]

To: Mayor and Common Council, City of Ithaca; Board of Public Works, City of Ithaca

CC: Superintendent of Public Works, City of Ithaca

From: TCLocal (Jon Bosak, Chair)

Date: 5 August 2007

Revised TCLocal Statement on the City of Ithaca Water Plant Decision

Background

The members of TCLocal believe that in the future, energy will become increasingly expensive. At some point in the next 20 years, geological limits on the rate at which fossil fuels can be extracted will combine with global population growth and development to create an ever-widening gap between global supply and demand, causing the price of energy to rise continuously until some completely new source of energy is discovered. We also believe that climate change caused by the emission of greenhouse gases such as CO2 is a real threat, to which we must respond by using less energy or by getting our energy from a clean source. We conclude that policy decisions should prefer choices that would preserve current function while using as little dirty energy as possible.

In March 2007, TCLocal submitted an opinion to the City of Ithaca Board of Public Works on the City Water Treatment Plant decision. That opinion favored the option of rebuilding the existing water treatment plant over the option of becoming a customer of an expanded Bolton Point plant. We recommended the Rebuild option because of the savings in electrical use, greater self-sufficiency, and greater system redundancy (three local water source and treatment plants rather than two). The fact that two-thirds of the City’s water “never sees a pump” but rather flows out to users by gravity made this an easy call; at Bolton Point, all the water has to be pumped, and adding the City’s demand would roughly double the amount of electricity consumed and CO2 produced there.

After submitting TCLocal’s recommendation, we were asked to reconsider our position based on data regarding chemical use. Treating the relatively turbid water of Six Mile Creek requires a substantially greater chemical input (chiefly to precipitate suspended matter) than is required to treat the much clearer water of Lake Cayuga, raising questions about the future economics and energy use of chemicals.

Hydropower aspects of the Rebuild option

In the process of reconsidering our previous recommendation, TCLocal became aware of a hydropower plan studied in the 1980s that would use the water now flowing through Six Mile Creek to generate electricity — enough to easily provide for the electrical needs of the rebuilt water treatment plant with some left over for other City uses. Substituting this clean, renewable energy for some of what the City now buys from NYSEG would simultaneously make the City’s water supply independent of fluctuations in the price of electricity while reducing the total CO2 emissions due to City of Ithaca Operations. We calculate that this reduction would be equal to 60 percent of the CO2 reduction the City has committed to achieving by 2020 under the Local Action Plan.

The 1989 Van Natta’s Dam proposal accompanying this statement provides further detail on the power plant option. (Note that the attachment, vannatta.pdf, contains just a small portion of the many documents related to this plan that are still on file with the City.)

Based on careful study at the time, and with due regard to environmental concerns (which were found to be almost nonexistent, the dam being located at the lowest part of the watershed that is considered environmentally sensitive), it was determined in 1989 that rehabilitation of the old turbine facilities at Van Natta’s Dam would enable the flow of water past the existing dam to generate a calculated 1.42 million kWh per year. If we generously allow for 5 percent downtime, this nets out to 1.35 million kWh per year.

In 2006, the last year for which figures are available, the City water treatment plant used 634,500 kWh of electricity, or about 47 percent of the total annual output of the proposed power plant. Thus, rehabilitation of the Van Natta’s Dam powerhouse as described in the 1989 proposal would not only make the City’s existing water treatment system (aside from chemical inputs) completely energy-independent, but it would also make over 700,000 kWh of virtually free, zero-emission energy available every year for other purposes. A rebuilt water treatment plant might or might not use more electricity than the existing one; there still seems to be some uncertainty about this. But even under the most pessimistic estimate, which projects an additional 45 kW average continuous demand, the electrical needs of the rebuilt water treatment plant (about 1.03 million kWh per year) would still be comfortably accommodated by the projected output of the power plant.

At a current rate of 10 cents per kWh, a power plant at Van Natta’s Dam would yield a savings to the City of about $135,000 annually, which is certain to increase substantially as electricity becomes more expensive. Equally important, the CO2 contribution due to use of electricity in City Operations (which would otherwise be supplied almost entirely by burning coal at the Milliken plant) would be reduced by about 1,300 metric tons a year, or 60 percent of the target reduction of 2,180 tons of CO2 specified in the Local Action Plan to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions for City of Ithaca Government Operations adopted by the City in 2006.

While there is little doubt that the cost of chemicals will rise in the future, there is no reason to assume that their price will, over the long run, rise any faster than the price of electricity, so the anticipated run-up in savings on electricity can be considered a hedge against increases in the cost of chemicals. And if we are considering a doomsday scenario where the national infrastructure fails entirely, we think it better to have a guaranteed supply of gravity-fed water that may need to be boiled for some relatively small percentage of uses rather than to have cleaner water sitting in the lake with no way to distribute it.

Rehabilitating Van Natta’s Dam will obviously cost much more now than the projected one million dollars it would have cost in 1989; a safe guess in advance of an expert reappraisal might be in the neighborhood of three million dollars. If electricity prices were to remain what they are now for the next 25 years, that’s about how long it would take for the project to pay for itself. With proper care, the plant would then continue to pay off for centuries by producing electrical power of increasing value, so 25 years is not a bad payoff for this essential piece of civic infrastructure; but actually, it’s exceedingly unlikely that the cost of electricity will remain flat over that length of time. The likelihood is exactly the opposite, and the odds are that the project would pay for itself more quickly.

It seems to us that the hydropower possibilities put the Rebuild option for the water treatment plant in a new light. The need to develop as many local sources of renewable energy as possible and the imperative to reduce our production of greenhouse gases are excellent reasons — reasons we understand much better now than we did back in 1989 — to seriously consider the Van Natta’s Dam rehabilitation plan on its own merits, independent of the water treatment plant. But if the Van Natta’s Dam plan were to be implemented, the Creek maintenance needed to support a rebuilt water treatment plant would come for free, because the expensive part — the system of dams — would be the same for both the drinking water supply and the power supply. So it’s our conclusion that the Rebuild option should not be considered in isolation but rather as a way to enable the construction of a new hydropower plant using the same basic infrastructure as the water treatment plant.

Environmental concerns: the big picture

Such a plan would, of course, be subject to the same aesthetic concerns that have been expressed regarding the Rebuild option as currently proposed. As people who are convinced that we and our descendants will have to make do with what we can find just a short distance from where we live, the members of TCLocal are as anxious as any City residents to preserve the beauty of the Six Mile Creek Natural Area. But it seems clear from the description of impacts in the current Draft Scoping Document (attached as draft-scope.pdf) that these aesthetic concerns have been overstated. Most if not all of the maintenance needed to keep the dams operational will be required for safety reasons anyway, even if the City abandons its water plant and does nothing with its hydropower potential; compare the “Impact on Aesthetic Resources” of rebuilding the water plant (page 12 of the Scoping Document) with the virtually identical “Impact on Aesthetic Resources” of not rebuilding the water plant (page 13 of the Scoping Document).

It’s also clear from the Scoping Document that the environmental impact of the construction needed for the Bolton Point option would be at least as great as the impact of the construction needed to rebuild the existing water treatment plant. In fact, given that maintenance of the Six Mile Creek system will need to be carried out in any case, the net environmental impact of the Bolton Point option appears to be considerably greater than the net environmental impact of the Rebuild option.

We believe that the minimal impact of maintaining Six Mile Creek as a critical part of our civic infrastructure poses no meaningful threat to enjoyment of this resource and is a small price to pay given the urgent need for energy independence and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The integrity of the Six Mile Creek Natural Area is threatened much more by climate change caused by GHG emissions than by any carefully executed maintenance of the City water system that has shaped the beauty of the watershed for the last century.

Conclusion

It is our considered opinion, based on the information currently available and attached to this statement, that the hydropower potential of a rebuilt City water treatment plant makes the Rebuild option a clear long-term winner in terms of finances, environmental impact, GHG reduction, and energy independence. We urge the City to carefully consider the combined benefits of a rebuilt water treatment plant and a rehabilitated power plant before it throws away a valuable piece of our local infrastructure and a once-in-a-century chance to do the right thing for our community and the larger world.

Attachments

Van Natta Dam Water Power Rehabilitation Project

http://ibiblio.org/tcrp/policy/wtp/vannatta.pdf

Draft Scope Document

http://ibiblio.org/tcrp/policy/wtp/draft-scope.pdf