Virginia never looked so good. The rolling mountains of Appalachia sliding into autumn flavors; crisp, clear, star-filled nights tempered by the mid-day deep blue cloudless sky; sweet rhythms filing the air and a few thousand music enthusiasts camping in the meadows of the Devils Backbone Brewery — it was The Festy Experience.

In its second year, The Festy is a three day music festival in Nelson County, VA. I had the privilege of photographing the weekend for the festival’s organizers. The musical lineup included Railroad Earth, The Infamous Stringdusters, Brett Dennen, The Wood Brothers, David Grisman, and many more amazing and talented musicians. Though this festival was much more than music – it was a celebration of local artisans and local food. There were artist workshops throughout the weekend given by songwriters, brew-masters, sustainable foodies, yogis, coffee brewers, kombucha afficionados, and more. For a full list of the musical acts and workshops, check out the Festy Experience website.

In all, I met some really wonderful folks, heard some great music, and was able to make a plethora of photographic imagery. A special thanks to Katrina for inviting me out to photograph the weekend and to all at the Festy for putting together a great weekend.

Here is a small collection of images from the photo story:

Above: Toubab Krewe on the Main Stage

Above: Jesse Harper – Songwriter Showcase

Above: Emmitt-Nershi Band on the Main Stage

Above: Two Man Gentleman Band on the Southern Stage

Above: Jim Lauderdale and The Infamous Stringdusters

Above: Brett Dennen on the Main Stage

Above: Toubab Krewe on the Main Stage

Above: Railroad Earth on the Main Stage

Above: Railroad Earth on the Main Stage

Above: Railroad Earth on the Main Stage

washington dc event photographer washington dc photojournalist editorial photographer virginia photographer maryland photographer live music photographer live music photography 

Seventy people were arrested in front of the White House this morning in what marks the beginning of the largest act of civil disobedience in the history of the climate crisis. Peaceful demonstrators, including scholar and author Bill McKibben, were arrested for protesting against the proposed Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline. Over 2,000 activists have pledged to be arrested everyday in front of the White House through September 3rd.

The activists are urging President Obama to reject approval of the pipeline which would potentially deliver 900,000 barrels of crude oil per day from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada to Texan Gulf Coast refineries. In place of the oil pipeline, activists are calling for more investment in clean energy programs.

Though the Alberta tar sands are the second largest cache of oil in the world, extracting oil there has devastating environmental impacts and is therefore disastrous for people. The processes required to cook and refine the tar sands’ bitumen into a synthetic form of crude oil creates twice the greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) as does processing a barrel of crude using conventional methods.

Watch this short film by Josh Fox to learn more about the Alberta Tar Sands:

More photos from today’s demonstration in Washington, DC:

SWAT Police clear Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House

The fossil fuel industry, with nearly unlimited finances, is putting enormous pressure on the Obama administration to approve the pipeline. In addition, lobby groups such as the American Petroleum Institute, have initiated large scale advertising campaigns highlighting supposed benefits of the pipeline while minimizing and ignoring many of the dire consequences (including the real potential for ruptured pipelines and oil spills).

While reducing our dependence on foreign oil is important – we really need to be focusing on reducing our consumption in general and of fossil fuels in particular. Tar sands oil is not a sustainable alternative to oil from overseas. Such a pipeline may boost economic activity for a short while and increase profits for a handful of oil mega-corporations, however the long-term consequences for the life support systems of the planet and human economies will be immense.

McKibben was quoted in The Nation as offering these words to activists just before the demonstration began:

“There is enormous pressure coming down on the White House from the fossil fuels industry. These are the richest people. They are the most powerful people on our planet. They usually win,” McKibben said. “We have to find a different currency to work in. Our currency today and for the next two weeks is our bodies and our creativity and our spirit. And that’s all we’ve got to put up against all that money, and we will find out if it’s enough.”

In the words of Frederick Douglas: “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” To learn more or to get involved in the fight against big oil, click here.

Here are a few more images from the demonstration:

Protesters were hand-cuffed and processed one at a time

Hundreds of supporters and tourists gather around the fence-line established by police

Sources:

Austen, Ian. August 8, 2011. “Oil Sands to Raise Emissions, Canadian Report Says.” The New York Times. Online: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/08/oil-sands-to-boost-emissions-canadian-report-says/?scp=2&sq=tar%20sands&st=cse

Lenz, Garth. August 20, 2011. “Canadian Tar Sands And The True Cost Of Oil.” The Huffington Post. Online: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/20/canadian-tar-sands-and-oil-costs_n_929361.html#s332120&title=Syncrude_Upgrader_and

Marshall, Christa. July 25, 2011. “Debate Intensifies Over Climate Change Aspects of Canada’s Oil Sands Pipeline.” The New York Times. Online: http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/07/25/25climatewire-debate-intensifies-over-climate-change-aspec-46622.html?scp=4&sq=tar%20sands&st=cse

Hansen, Dr. James. June 3, 2011. “Silence is Deadly.” Columbia University. Online: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110603_SilenceIsDeadly.pdf

Rampell, Catherine. June 16, 2009. “The Economic Impact of Climate Change.” Economix: Explaining the Science of Everyday Life. Online: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/the-economic-impact-of-climate-change/

Schor, Elana. June 7, 2011. “EPA Seeks Expanded Review of Proposed Oil Sands Pipeline.” The New York Times. Online: http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/06/07/07greenwire-epa-seeks-expanded-review-of-proposed-oil-sand-60126.html?scp=8&sq=xl%20pipeline&st=cse

Zornick, George. August 20, 2011. “Civil Disobedience on Tar Sands Begins Outside the White House.” The Nation. Online: http://www.thenation.com/blog/162883/civil-disobedience-tar-sands-begins-outside-white-house

I was recently invited to photograph The Aspen Institute’s Partners For a New Beginning Summit in Washington, DC. The summit brought together representatives from across the Middle East and North Africa to help promote new partnerships in the region. According to the Institute’s website, “Partners for a New Beginning (PNB) is an alliance to foster public-private partnerships that are committed to broadening and deepening engagement between the United States and local communities abroad in support of President Obama’s vision” for a New Beginning in relations between the West and the Muslim world based on mutual interests and respect. The Summit’s main areas of focus included economic opportunity, science & technology and education. Sessions also discussed the economic empowerment of women, water conservation, and creating business models that invest in human capital.

Here are a few images from their story:

Last weekend I took part in the TEDx Conference at Concordia University in Portland, Oregon. TED is a non-profit devoted to ideas worth spreading. The acronym stands for Technology, Entertainment and Design. Though, over the last 25 years TED has come to embody a much broader scope. Leading thinkers and doers in their respective fields – from astrophysics to urban planning and spoken word poetry to politics and education – are able to reach world wide audiences through the TED forum and platform. The “x” signifies that this event was independently organized.

The theme of this conference was “Think. Inspire. Do.”. Featured presenters included Jefferson Smith, Sharif Abdullah, and Dick and Jeanne Roy. Though the diversity of speakers was wide, the essence that underpinned the day seemed to be sustainability. What is it? How can we envision a truly sustainable human society and how do we go about translating those visions into real, tangible actions in our individual lives and collectively as communities, regions, nations, and as a single planet? To find out more information about the TEDx conference and to view videos of talks from the day, visit the official website. There’s also a second website, here. It was a really inspiring event. Here are a collection of photos that I made throughout the day:

Living in a large city like New York, LA or DC has its perks: museums, films, music, lectures, public transportation.  There’s an amazing amount of human diversity crammed into a relatively small geographical space. The culinary options alone are worth the experience.  However, there’s an obvious lack of green space and available land for growing food. Asphalt, pavement, highways and overpasses, parking lots and high-rise buildings leave most of the soil compacted below an impenetrable layer of human “progress.”   In many cases, the soils that do remain are heavily contaminated with the legacy of decades of industrial activity – lead, mercury, petrochemicals, to name a few – which make eating vegetables grown there a serious health risk.

In response, a growing wave of urbanites around the country are re-assessing city spaces and growing food in the most wonderful and peculiar places.  Last night, as part of the DC Environmental Film Festival, I had the pleasure of seeing a documentary titled “Truck Farm”.  Filmmaker Ian Cheney built a mobile garden in the back of his Dodge pick-up and uses the ‘truck farm’ as a segue to explore a much larger story about urban agriculture and growing food in densely populated cities.  Here is an excerpt:

Growing food in urban spaces makes sense for a number of reasons.  First, it’s where most of the consumers live.  This means that produce doesn’t have to travel very far from farm-to-plate, reducing the amount of petroleum needed for transport and refrigeration which also reduces emissions of CO2.  In addition, produce just tastes better when its fresher.   In our industrial agricultural systems and global food chains, some produce travels thousands of miles and can take up to two weeks to venture from farm-to-plate.  In that time, many of the robust sugars and flavors will break down and nutritional content is compromised.  This is a major reason why much store bought, conventional produce tastes so bland.

Certainly, truck farms aren’t going to feed entire cities.  Creative city-folk are also exploring abandoned lots, interior window areas, lawn-space, and roof-tops as viable spaces for growing food.

Most major cities have millions of square feet of rooftop space – the potential for growing food is immense.   The benefits go far beyond local food production.   Rooftop gardens help to reduce storm water runoff, improve city air quality, act as natural cooling for buildings and reduce the phenomenon known as the urban heat island effect.   Start up companies like Recover Green Roofs (Massachusetts) help to design and build living roof systems and they are sprouting up all over the country. Here’s a short video about Recover Green Roofs:

Here’s a video about rooftop gardens in New York:

In many cities around the country community groups are building elaborate urban farms on reclaimed land and are showing us that even the smallest of plots can be very productive. Growing Power is a non-profit started by former NBA star Will Allen with urban farm locations in Milwaukee and Chicago. They build soil fertility by creating 6 million tons of compost a year – mostly from organic material and food scraps from local restaurants. Their two-acre lot in Milwaukee includes six greenhouses growing over 12,000 pots of herbs, lettuce, greens and hosting six hydroponic systems that grow Tilapia and Perch (the poop from the fish feeds the plants!). The green house system maximizes the use of space by growing vertically, and thereby dramatically increases its productivity. Part of Allen’s mission is to build strong communities with healthy, affordable, and sustainably grown food. Here’s a short video about Growing Power:

There is a similar movement underway in New Orleans – a city with a rich agricultural and food history. City residents are reclaiming growing space within the city while others are attempting to revitalize local distribution systems for many of the idle farms surrounding New Orleans. For more information, see this recently published photo essay.

Brennan waters greens at The School at Blair Grocery - Lower Ninth Ward, New Orleans

Joe Brock - Founder of Wise Words Community Garden - Midtown, New Orleans

Still others are exploring the potential for growing food inside of the buildings where we live and work. The Windowfarms Project is the brainchild of Britta Riley. Riley and her team have pioneered a vertical hydroponic system that utilizes recycled materials and allows city dwellers to grow vegetables and herbs year round using window space and light. The design and efficiency of the growing system has been continually improved by many individuals contributing feedback from cities all around the world. Riley calls this “process of ordinary people contributing small innovations to collectively solve environmental problems R&D-I-Y” or Research and Develop-It-Yourself. Blueprints for designing a window farm system and much more information can be downloaded for free at their website. Here’s a short video:

Expanding on the idea of using windows in existing buildings for growing food comes the idea of vertical farming, which involves designing and building entire city structures with the sole purpose of growing food. The idea is simple. The availability of arable land is finite – yet, we need to continue to produce more food to feed our ever growing city populations. A vertical farm might be built within a city using the upward space of a 6 or 7 story building to grow crops, thereby decreasing the land area used and maximizing the productivity per unit of land area. Here’s a short video:

Last – there’s some really interesting Urban Farming adventures happening in Portland, Oregon. One that I’d like to mention here is the Sellwood Garden Club (SGC). The SGC approaches individual home owners throughout Southeast Portland and turns their grass lawns into individual farm fields that collectively nourish hundreds of people including farmer’s markets and local restaurants. So, instead of having a big farm outside of the city somewhere – many different homeowner’s lawns combine to form a collective growing space. Each homeowner “leases” the lawn space to the SGC (including access to water). The SGC does all of the landscaping, bed building, growing, and harvesting. In exchange for the use of the land, each homeowner receives a weekly CSA box full of an assortment of fruits and veggies grown on all of the different properties. Innovative and amazing. This is a model that could easily be reproduced in city and suburb areas throughout the country. It is estimated that the amount of lawn space in the continental USA is roughly 63,000 sq. miles!!! What an enormous potential for growing healthy food close to home.

Read more in this Portland Mercury Article.

Hollygrove Farm - New Orleans

The Iditarod Dog Sled race is test of human and dog endurance through one of the coldest, fiercest, and most inhospitable climates known on the planet.   During the race, temperatures along the Alaskan trail from Anchorage to Nome can plunge as low as minus 100˚F (-73˚C); teams mush through howling winds and white-out blizzard conditions.   Frostbite is a given.   Competition is fierce.

And yet, the Alaskan race admits few of the obstacles of the modern world:  no asphalt, no absent minded motorists, no public transit buses, no cyclists, no curbs, no pot-holes or construction zones, no soccer moms, no taxi drivers or text-walkers, nor any city bridges, ill-conceived intersections, or ominous and towering hi-rise buildings.  The Portland (Oregon) Urban Iditarod is a true test of the modern urbanite’s capacity to navigate the often turbulent and megalomaniacal tribulations of inter-city commuting.

Originating in 2001, the Portland Iditarod is held every March to coincide with the Alaskan dog sled race.  Beginning with only 8 registered teams in 2001, the event has burgeoned to over one-hundred teams today.  In the Portland version, entering teams each have a theme and dress in costume.  Their “sleds” are rigged shopping carts and other uniquely crafted vessels retrofitted to cope with the shifting and unpredictable urban terrain.   The “dogs” are groups of city folk tethered to their “sleds” by whatever method available: rope, bungee, twine, harness.    The themes, costumes, and designs invoke a sense of creativity that amalgamates popular culture, social and political critique, and often-times boarders on the absurd.

The race itself is less of a competition than it is a phenomenon.   There is no declared winner for the first to cross some predetermined finish line.    According to KATU News in Portland, “There are no winners. There are no losers. There are just a bunch of belligerent people”. The route for the race changes every year and usually covers roughly 4 miles throughout the city, including 4 or 5 checkpoints where participants stop to enjoy music and to share in strong drink and revelry.

The Keep Portland Weird website describes the Urban Iditarod as:

“… teams of barking humans [that] negotiate through the unrelenting and unforgiving dangers of Portland’s urban frontier. As an incentive to run, dogs and mushers alike will have several ‘rest stops’ to replenish lost fluids and discuss tales of mayhem. The course is over four miles, so dogs and mushers alike need to be ready and able to run their tails off.”

The photo essay (slidewhow) above was made during the 2009 and 2010 Urban Iditarod events.   The 2011 event is scheduled for March 12th.   More information can be found here:  Portland Urban Iditarod.

by Andrew Burdick

I remember, as a child, the family Christmas tree was a big deal. We would drive to the local market where rows of freshly harvested trees leaned solemnly in the chilly December air. Picking the right tree was crucial. My father explained: look for the right height and shape, stay away from the trees that are shedding their needles. Once home, setting up the tree was a shared ritual. The decorations were a living history of our family – photos from childhood, and other ornaments celebrating grandparents, extended family, and even our pets. I recall the crisp and fresh scent of pine, a fire crackling in the hearth, and cats pawing at the lights from below the tree. Yet, I don’t recall any discussions about where the trees were grown or what happened to the trees after the holidays when the neighborhood garbage collections were crowded with dead firs and pines.

A recent editorial in the New York Times exclaimed that all of the Christmas trees discarded on curbs and sidewalks around the country may be “the most environmentally sound part of the holidays.” And yet, I can’t help but feel a deep sadness as I walk down the street of my NW Washington, DC neighborhood and see countless fir and pine trees thoughtlessly abandoned along with the weekly trash. The Times editorial was titled, “Curbside Forest.” Looks more like a curbside clear-cut to me.

Relative to other activities in our lives – heating our homes, the cars we drive, some of the foods we eat – the measurable environmental effects of a single Christmas tree in the living room are small. Though, Christmas trees are symbolic of our society’s relationship to the natural world. In short: we kill a tree to bring it into our homes for a week or two and then discard the tree with the rest of our garbage. And, as is true with all environmental issues today, the impacts of our behavior on the planet are always cumulative. One 6-foot balsamic fir may not be a big deal; the 30 million Christmas trees harvested every year in the United States alone is a very different story.

Like row-corn in Iowa or cattle in a factory farm, conifer trees are packed together to maximize the number of growing trees – up to 2,000 per acre – replacing healthy and fecund forest ecosystems with monoculture farms. According to the USDA and the National Christmas Tree Association, in the United States, nearly 350,000 acres of land are under cultivation as Christmas tree farms. Proponents are quick to point that such farms are “preserved” as what they call “green space”. Yet, the diversity and integrity of the biological system is compromised. All other competing species are viewed as a nuisance, or pests, and they are “managed.” The trees are no longer subjects communing with a vibrant forest ecosystem, they are objects grown and harvested explicitly for human amusement and short-term financial profit. Trees are sprayed with Roundup and other toxic chemicals before being cut down and transported to market, where they will be sold to consumers who know little or nothing about the 8 year life of the tree, the soils where it was grown, or the evolutionary processes that brought the tree into existence.

The Times’ editorial points out that Christmas trees are more or less carbon neutral. As they grow, the trees sequester carbon and produce oxygen. Additionally, recycling programs do exist throughout the country where municipalities collect trees and turn them into compost and mulch. Even if 70% of Christmas trees end up as mulch in “recycling programs” (a generous estimate) it means that in the United States alone as many as 10 million trees end up in landfills every year. Ten million Christmas trees stacked end to end would stretch out over an expanse of nearly 10,000 miles – roughly the distance from Anchorage, Alaska to Johannesburg, South Africa.

As consumers, we are utterly disconnected from the trees – as is the case with most of the products we buy everyday (bread comes from the supermarket, electricity from holes in the wall, water from the faucet and clothes from the department store). We don’t know where and how the trees were grown and we don’t know (or don’t care) what happens to the trees after they are thrown out with the garbage. Generally, our disconnect from the things we buy and ignorance of the processes (both natural and human) that grow, produce, manufacture, and distribute, enable the culture of single-use, buy and throw away, that pervades the modern world.

Such a relationship begs the question: where did the tradition of decorating trees come from? Or, put another way, why do we cut down trees and bring them in to our homes? Traditions in the modern world are sometimes difficult to understand without historical context. Take for example, the diamond ring as a symbol that is today ubiquitously associated with love and marriage. During the great depression, the diamond company DeBeers created a marketing campaign associating diamonds with love. “A diamond is forever,” they told us. And, we believed them. The advertising slogan saved DeBeers from bankruptcy in the 1930’s and birthed a modern day tradition. Today, more than 80% of American brides receive a diamond engagement ring. And, like the purchasing of such rings, few Americans stop and ask themselves why do we buy Christmas trees. Why do we kill trees and bring them into our homes? Why do we decorate them? And, what does the reality of chopping down 30 million trees every year tell us about the tradition and our relationship to the earth?

The first written account of cutting down whole trees and erecting them indoors is regularly credited to a small town in Germany in the 17th century. However, the Germanic tradition likely evolved from an earlier practice in which branches from a tree would be cut and hung in the town center or on a prominent barn to signify the fall harvest or the beginning of winter festival. According to Clement A. Miles, author of the classic text Christmas in Ritual and Tradition, Christian and Pagan, the decorating of trees with lights and ornaments “often imitat[ed] and always suggest[ed] flowers and fruit.” Decorating of trees was a way for people to pay homage to the mysterious and wondrous natural processes that brought forth beauty (flowers) and sustenance (food), and which embodied the process of sexual reproduction that made new life possible. During the 18th and 19th centuries, the tree decorating custom spread throughout much of Europe, Great Britain, and the Americas. The tradition grew in popularity and became more accessible to the less affluent, and at some point during the 18th century, Christendom absorbed the tree as a symbol. Today, we know it as the Christmas tree.

Germany, 18th Century Christmas Tree

The Christmas tree and the Germanic tradition may very well owe their origins to similar tree-worshiping customs that were prevalent throughout earlier European and Mediterranean cultures. For example, during the Roman winter festivals of Saturanalia and the Kalends, families decorated their homes with the branches of coniferous trees and often adorned them with candles. The candles were symbols calling for and encouraging the sun (and the sun God Mithras) to be reborn after the winter solstice – with the recognition that the sun and its energy make life possible. And, in other Mediterranean customs, it was fairly common practice to put trees like cherry or hawthorn into water or pots indoors, in the hopes that they would bloom before the solstice or New Year.

Whatever the actual origin (or origins) of the modern day Christmas Tree one thing is certain – all of the forbears of the current tradition share in their foundation a reverence for some vegetative force (or spirit) that acknowledges the sun, soil, and celebrates the bounties of life. The earlier traditions acknowledge the deep connection between the human and the natural realms and celebrate that interdependence.

How has a tradition with such a rich history rooted in its reverence for the natural world been so maligned by advanced industrial society?

As the human presence on this planet is reaching a tipping point, it is appropriate and necessary to re-evaluate the meaning and relevance of some of our traditions. While changing traditions is not easy, it certainly is possible. Throughout history, necessity has been the mother of change. Traditions can also change when particular individuals critically reflect upon the meaning and significance of the custom and consider its relevance in relation to the social, religious, economic, or environmental knowledge of the time and place.

Such a re-evaluation is especially pertinent when we consider that the Earth, its resources, and its ecosystems are finite. Human beings are altering the geo-biological functioning of the earth so dramatically that once self-renewing processes, such as the creation of topsoil or the replenishment of fresh water aquifers, are no longer self-sustaining. We are turning renewable resources into non-renewable resources – in large part due to our use-and-throw-away orientation towards the natural world. Between now and 2050 we will add at least 2 billion people to the planet – all of whom will put further demand on the already stressed life support systems of this Earth.

The Christmas tree tradition could be, symbolically, in better alignment with the ideal of a sustainable human presence on the planet. For example, we could use smaller potted trees that are endemic to our respective bioregion, that could be planted outdoors after the holiday. This way, in stead of cutting trees down and throwing them away we would be planting new life. By doing this, the tradition would reflect the idea that the world and its living creatures do not exist explicitly for use by humans. We would be adding to the forest and the greater community of life. When we cut trees (even tress grown on farms) our actions serve to diminish biological diversity and thereby undermine integrity and vitality.

Continuing to share family traditions is important. Though, the meaning of our traditions needs to be regarded within the greater context of the earth community. To put it another way, we must be willing to break from past and current traditions if they do not promote the diversity, stability, and integrity of the biotic community. In their place, we must have the courage, strength, and wisdom to find alternatives that do not regard other living species as mere objects, commoditized for commercial exchange, but recognize that all creatures great and small are subjects – each with their own anima (spirit, soul, essence); each with their own right to live and to habitat; and each with their own part to play in this grand symphony of life.

The cultural historian Thomas Berry wrote, “to reduce any mode of being simply to that of a commodity within the community of existence is a betrayal … the Great Work now … is to carry out the transition from a period of human devastation of the Earth to a period when humans would be present to the planet in a mutually beneficial manner.” And, in order to do this, Berry suggests, we must be able to recognize that the whole of the universe contains “subjects to commune with” and not “objects to be exploited.”

Adapting the Christmas tree tradition isn’t going to get us all the way there. But, it is a real step in the right direction.

———————————-

Postscript: Real v. Artificial Trees – An Environmental Impact Perspective

A 2009 comparative life cycle assessment by the Montreal based consulting firm, Ellipsos, compared the relative environmental impacts of natural and artificial trees. The study measured environmental impact in four categories: ecosystem quality, human health, resource depletion, and climate change. The report concludes, “The natural tree is a better option than the artificial tree, in particular with respect to impacts on climate change and resource depletion. The natural tree, however, is not a perfect solution as it results in important impacts on ecosystem quality.”

That one action or one product (eg. real v. artificial Christmas trees) is less environmentally destructive than the other does not make it also sustainable nor does it make it right.

Sources:

Bage, Gontran, et. al. 2009. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Artificial Vs. Natural Christmas Tree. Available online: http://www.ellipsos.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=9〈=english

Berry, Thomas. 2006. Evening Thoughts: Reflecting on Earth as Sacred Community. Sierra Club Books. San Francisco.

Curbside Forest. January 4, 2011. Editorial in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/04/opinion/04tue4.html?scp=1&sq=curbside%20forest&st=cse

Sidebottom, Jill, Ph.D. October 4, 2010. Pesticide Used in Christmas Tree Production. Available online:  http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/fletcher/programs/xmas/environment/pesticides.html

Frazer, J. G. 1900. “The Golden Bough.” 2nd ed. London, iii. 138 f., and “The Magic Art and the Evolution of Kingship” (London, 1911), ii. 310 f. As cited in Miles’ Christmas in Ritual and Tradition …

Foster, John Bellamy. 1999. The Vulnerable Planet: A Short Economic History of the Environment. Monthly Review Press, New York.

Green.View Blog. December 19, 2008. O Tannenbaum: How green are your branches? The Economist.
Available online: http://www.economist.com/node/12833180

Miles, Clement A. 1912. Christmas in Ritual and Tradition, Christian and Pagan. Published by T. Fisher Unwin. Available Online: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19098/19098-h/19098-h.htm

Miller, Tyler G. 2002. Living in the Environment. 12th ed. Brooks/Cole, Belmont, CA

O’Rourke, Meghan. June 11, 2007. Diamonds Are a Girl’s Worst Friend: The trouble with engagement rings.
Published online in Slate Magazine: http://www.slate.com/id/2167870/

The National Christmas Tree Association: http://www.christmastree.org/statistics_consumer.cfm

United States Department of Agriculture, Quick Stats: http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov

University of Illinois Extension: http://urbanext.illinois.edu/trees/facts.cfm

This is the first time a full lunar eclipse has occurred on the winter solstice since 1638. That’s 372 years ago! The great Galileo was alive then, near the end of his life and under house-arrest by the Catholic Church who saw as threatening Galileo’s evidence in support of heliocentrism: the notion that the Earth and other planets revolved around the Sun.

This photo was made at 3:40AM EST from a rooftop in Washington, DC.

It’s 4:30AM, in the dark and chilly pre-dawn mist. A giant 18 wheel industrial dump truck lumbers its way through the streets of downtown Portland, its cargo covered by a taught black tarp stretched and tied over the enormous trailer’s steel girth. Near the middle of the Burnside Bridge, the behemoth slows and figures into an awkward k-turn like maneuver, so that the trailer sits at a slight diagonal consuming all four lanes. Inching backwards, the rig comes to a stop with the cargo bay doors in its rear hovering just inches from the bridge’s cement south side guardrail.

With a wicked crack, piercing the night’s eerie calm, the trailer’s cargo doors fly open. The rig’s hydraulic system engages, lifting the huge container to a steep angle. In a few short and terrifying moments, 2.6 million toxic cigarette butts die swiftly into the Willamette River far below.

Well, that’s not entirely true. The 2.6 million cigarette butts weren’t delivered to the Willamette by a truck. And they weren’t dumped into the river at one place, all at the same time. The vessel that carried the seemingly insignificant butts to the river was rainwater and runoff, through sewer outfalls and smaller streams, over the course of a year. And the culprit … well, look no further than yourself (if you smoke and toss your butts onto the ground as litter, of course).

In a city that receives nearly 50 inches of rain per year, it is estimated that roughly 20% of the more than 1 billion cigarettes littered every year end up in the waterways of the Willamette Valley watershed.

For a self-proclaimed ‘green-city,’ Portland has a huge cigarette litter problem. And, it appears that after the statewide indoor smoking ban went into effect in January 2009, cigarette litter has increased dramatically.

The number of cities, states, and foreign countries that have enforced similar bans is extensive. Though most share an unfortunate consequence of the well-intentioned legislation: an increase in cigarette litter. It appears fairly logical: smokers are no longer allowed to smoke inside their favorite pubs, restaurants, or cafes and so they end up outside on the sidewalks. Receptacles for cigarette butts are few and far between and who wants to stuff a burning, smelly, filthy cigarette butt back into their pocket? So, more butts are tossed onto our streets, lawns, sidewalks and gardens.

A thorough study by Environmental Campaigns (ENCAMS) in Great Britain in 2007 found that cigarette litter increased by as much as 70% across England after their country wide indoor ban went into effect in July 2007.

On a recent Saturday morning, I visited Slabtown – a late night bar and music venue in NW Portland. Before the indoor smoking ban, Slabtown was a smoker’s haven. Some nights the smoke was so thick one couldn’t see to the other side of the room. Now, between drinks, smokers funnel out onto the sidewalk in front of the building. And, despite a small outdoor ashtray on the sidewalk, most of their butts end up in the street.

In 30 minutes, I picked up more than 700 littered cigarette butts from the sidewalk and street around the building. Many butts had already been washed into the storm water drain near the corner of 16th and Marshall. Slabtown is not the only hotspot for cigarette litter – streets that border pubs and bars all over Portland show a visible increase in littered butts.

So what’s all the fuss about, you might be wondering. Yeah they’re unsightly. Yeah they stink. But cigarette butts are biodegradable, right? Wrong. Cigarette filters are made of a cellulose acetate (plastic like) fiber that can take years (and sometimes decades) to breakdown. Yet, within moments of coming in contact with water the butts will begin to leach toxic chemicals, including known carcinogens, into the surrounding environment.

The burning of a cigarette produces more than 4,000 different chemicals, of which 60 are known carcinogens and many more are considered probable to be cancer causing. The ingredients for this chemical smoke-tail include lead, arsenic, formaldehyde, benzene, and DDT. The list goes on, and on, and on. And, of course, there’s nicotine. But we all already knew that. What you might not know is that nicotine is considered a lethal poison. It’s actually used as a potent pesticide and 40-60mg will kill a full-grown adult human. By comparison, the average cigarette contains 8-15mg of nicotine and roughly 1mg of nicotine per cigarette smoked is actually absorbed into the body.

The purpose of the filter is to trap some of these chemicals so that they all don’t enter the smoker’s lungs and become absorbed into the bloodstream. But how effective is a filter at trapping harmful chemicals?

According to a 2000 study by Kathleen Register, the executive director of Clean Virginia Waterways, 1 cigarette butt per 8 gallons of water was “acutely toxic” and lethal to the water flea, Daphnia magna. Subsequent studies by Micevska, Warne (et. al.) in Australia and Japan have confirmed that toxic chemicals, including arsenic and polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs – highly carcinogenic), leach into their environments in significant quantities from littered cigarette butts and can have negative effects on biological life.

Do littered cigarette butts pose a health threat to people? Particular molecules, such as PAHs, are soluble in fat and bio-accumulate as they make their way up the food chain. In this way, the concentration of PAHs in animals at the top of the food chain (humans who eat fish from the river, for example) might be tens of thousands of times greater than the concentration of PAHs in the water.

To date, there is a clear lack of in-depth studies analyzing the potential for direct negative effects on human health from cigarette butt litter. Indeed, given the reductive nature of modern science and the fact that cigarette litter is a non-point source of pollution, such a direct cause-and-effect correlation may be unlikely to be made. Though, it should be clear to us all that any amount of unnatural and toxic chemicals being added to our waterways is unacceptable. Such pollution, in any significant quantity can only have negative consequences for people, water, and the ecosystems that support us all.

Nonetheless, cigarette butts are the most littered item (numerically) on the planet. Every year, we litter nearly 4.5 trillion cigarette butts into our environments – that’s roughly 80% of world production. To get an idea of how big this number is – if we took all of the cigarette butts littered on earth from one year and placed them end to end, we’d have a string of butts 99 million miles along: enough to make 419 round trip journeys from earth to the moon or circumnavigate the equator 3,900 times. The scale is almost incomprehensible – and that’s just one year’s worth of littered butts.

They line our streets and beaches, float in our rivers and lakes, and birds, fish, and other wildlife often mistake them for food. The Ocean Conservancy reports that many birds and fish have been found dead, their stomachs filled with cellulose acetate and other plastic debris. The cause of death: starvation. The plastic is not digestible and it makes food intake and digestion impossible.

The problem is large, though solutions are available. Ultimately, every cigarette butt littered is done so from a human hand. Smokers can be informed of the realities of cigarette but litter. In N. Ireland, Tidy Northern Ireland – a non-profit focusing on litter prevention – launched a combined advertising, PR and media campaign “targeted directly at smokers” who litter their cigarette butts. And, it worked. Some target areas saw more than a 70% reduction in cigarette litter. The messaging encouraged smokers to take “greater responsibility with their smoking litter.” In addition, the group helped provide more than 20,000 pocket ashtrays to smokers in seriously affected areas and worked to make cigarette disposal bins more affordable for local businesses.

Here in Oregon, the state legislature has made it a $90 fine for littering cigarette butts; though, skeptics wonder how that law will be meaningfully enforced. With more people smoking on the sidewalks and streets, one practical solution would be to make cigarette disposal receptacles more frequent. An added tax to cigarette manufacturers of a few cents per pack would easily pay for such an initiative.

In addition, cigarette butts could be given a monetary value similar to bottles and cans. Smokers would pay an additional “deposit” for every pack and when cigarette butts are returned – those butts could be credited towards the next purchase or redeemable for some small amount (i.e. $0.01 per butt). Many stores and tobacco shops already offer “pocket-ashtrays” – that allow smokers to hold on to their butts when no trash receptacle is readily available.

As my experience at Slabtown shows, having receptacles doesn’t necessarily mean smokers will use them. The problem, it turns out, is largely psychological. “People who would never even consider throwing their coffee cup or napkin on the ground don’t think twice about putting their cigarettes on the ground,” says Congresswoman Carolyn Tomei, D-Milwaukie.

Policy action and marketing from public and private institutions that is aimed at preventing cigarette litter is both necessary and required. However, we cannot apathetically rely on public policy makers or expect that multinational corporations will start to care about anything other than their own profit margins. Ultimately it is the action of individuals that have the greatest potential for preventing cigarette litter. For those of us who understand why cigarette litter is wrong and destructive, we must no longer tolerate the behavior of those that do not understand or do not care. Social pressure has an incredible influence on behavior. When out and about around town – and you see someone littering a cigarette butt, let them know it is unacceptable.

Some advocates of ending cigarette litter support the ‘cradle-to-grave’ ideology, which suggests that tobacco companies – such as R.J. Reynolds and the Altria Group (formerly Phillip Morris) – should be responsible and accountable for all of the cigarette litter their products produce. Presently, tobacco companies are not willing to help educate their customers about the negative effects of cigarette litter due to fears that such an inconvenience for the customer (no longer being able to litter butts!) will lead to a decline in cigarette sales. Misinformation from tobacco companies is a huge contributor to the widely held (and false) public perception that cigarette butts are biodegradable. Until such companies are forced to be accountable and responsible for the effects of the products they sell, they will happily continue to externalize those costs onto other people, our society, and our environments, waterways, and wildlife.

Recently, I was on my bicycle waiting behind a long row of cars on NW 19th near Burnside. It was a gloriously sunny afternoon. The driver in the dark blue Subaru in front of me casually flicked his cigarette butt onto the street; I watched as the smoldering butt rolled a few inches before stopping. I hopped off my bike and stepped on the butt to put it out. Then, I picked it up and approached his window. “Excuse me,” I offered, “but, it seems you’ve dropped some litter. If you like I could throw it away for you.”

The startled look on his face was of shock and bewilderment. His mouth fell open and is brow scrunched. I waited for an awkward moment, expecting an angry and defensive response. “Oh, uhh …” he stuttered – pausing for a long moment, processing my gesture. “No, I’ll take it” he said, extending his open hand as if to acknowledge responsibility. One less cigarette littered. Sure, not a huge deal. But, I have to believe he’ll think twice before doing it again.

Sources

Agency For Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), Public Health Statement for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). August 1995. Available online: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs69.html

Anderson, Jennifer. City ‘Dive’ Bars Get Ready For Last Gasp. Portland Tribune, August 14, 2008. Available online: http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=121866367346238000

http://www.tidynorthernireland.org/campaigns/cigarette-litter/index.php Non-profit organization with mission to help promote the cleaning up and prevention of litter in Northern Ireland.