Consumer indicators: Egg labels

Every carton of eggs sold in Germany is labeled according to how the chickens were raised:

0. organic (Ökologische Erzeugung)
   
1. free-range (Freilandhaltung)
   
2. ground (Bodenhaltung)
3. cage (Käfighaltung)

There are detailed requirements for each type of production; for example, in addition to being fed organic feed, organic hens are required to have at least eight hours a day with no artificial light, room to build nests, and a place to "sand bathe."

The point is more consumer information, which undoubtedly leads to better (i.e., more humane) choices. The percentage of eggs purchased in Germany from caged hens has dropped in the last few years. Making the hens' living conditions apparent gives meaning to more expensive types of farming and allows consumers to make more informed choices.

It makes me wonder how the eggs I bought in the U.S. were laid.

Climate Lecture 2010: Elinor Ostrom at TU

Today Elinor Ostrom spoke at the Technical University's Climate Lecture. Her talk was lively and full of food for thought, based around the question "Who Affects Climate Change." Some highlights:

• She took issue with the premise of collective action theory that action must be taken at the global level. She hoped that international agreement can be reached at some point, but stressed that action needs to be taken now at all levels, and that even a global agreement would have to be implemented at lower scales.
• She drew on her vast knowledge of empirical research in collective resource problems to discuss the most important features of successful solutions: monitoring, trust, and use of local expertise.
• She advocated for a "polycentric" approach that takes into account the nested externalities of emissions decisions (for example, a family that drives to work rather than biking may face more health problems and will have to pay more for gas and car maintenance, in addition to emitting more greenhouse gases) and considers all levels of governance.

Ostrom peppered her talk with lively examples and anecdotes (in explaining one study of local policework that she'd done, she said "I'm sure I've spent more time in the back of a police car than anyone else here!"), and was an engaging and inspiring speaker.

In an interesting contrast with climate politics in the United States, German protesters loudly disrupted one of the speakers: Tuomo Hatakka, CEO of Vattenfall Europe, a major electric utility. After he took the stage to give some brief remarks, several students in the auditorium threw up huge banners protesting Vattenfall's use of coal and nuclear energy, to loud cheers and applause. The president of the university had to take the microphone and ask the students to channel their dissent into productive questions after the speech. And indeed, Hatakka came out looking like the grown-up: once the crowd calmed down, he said that Vattenfall is "part of the problem. But we want to be part of the solution." He added that the company is trying to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030, and become climate neutral by 2050.

It's clear that the vocal political fringe in Germany is of a distinctly green bent. Although I consider myself more of a pragmatist (and was embarrassed by the outburst), I think it is ultimately good for German politics that the debate is between the crazy greens and the pragmatic greens about the best climate policies, rather than between climate change deniers and believers over whether there's a problem at all.

Depressing

So what's happened to Lindsey Graham recently? The erstwhile Senate cap-and-trade co-author has turned climate skeptic! Ezra Klein explains:

Back when I interviewed Graham, he was trying out some of the same rhetoric, and I walked away pretty depressed. It seemed to me that Lindsey Graham 1) believed in climate change and believed that it was a problem, as that was the only explanation for the time he'd sunk into the issue, and 2) believed that the Republican base's antipathy towards Al Gore and environmentalists had become so overwhelming that the only way to convince them to cap carbon emissions would be to persuade them that doing so had nothing to do with atmospheric temperatures. And I really have no reason to think that Graham is wrong on that, or that I know grass-roots Republicans better than he does.

Ugh. More evidence that the Republican party has officially gone insane and that the U.S. political system needs a major overhaul. The "debate" about climate change has been over in most of the rest of the world for at least a decade. Can the U.S. just get with the program?

Ein neues wir: Documentary on eco-villages

I caught an interesting documentary by Stefan Wolf called Ein neues wir: Ökodörfer und ökologische Gemeinschaften in Europa ("a new we: eco-villages and ecological communities in Europe"). It profiles 10 communities in Europe, interviewing residents to show what life in each place is like. Although it's not exactly an earth-shattering film—Wolf doesn't tie the villages together or discuss their cultural or political relevance—it does show how real people are living today with a lighter ecological footprint.

Interesting, too, is that the residents' interest lies in the sense of community and well-being that comes from living in these eco-villages. Aside from a few solar panels and talk of energy-efficient buildings, their environmentally friendly lifestyle comes from living simply. Most of their diets are vegetarian or vegan and come from the food they grow themselves. A huge part of the day is spent with arts, music, and spiritual ceremonies: there isn't a TV or car to be found. Although the film doesn't discuss this directly, I suspect that the values shared by eco-villagers cause them to own fewer possessions, which allows them to work less and enjoy more free time as well as reduce their carbon emissions.

This slow, easy pace life had in the ten villages struck me the most from the film. It reminded me a little of the philosophy I've seen in long-distance hikers, but as a long-term way of life. Now I'm curious to visit one.

Local sustainability: State parks

Sustainability means long-term system viability. The environmental component often gets the most attention, but it's by no means the only aspect that needs consideration. At any rate, this article in May's Governing magazine shows state governments throwing all three out the window in their decision to close state parks, which are huge revenue generators, preserve the local environment, and encourage social interaction and active leisure.

Shame on you, state governments.

Back again

Well, I'm back in Berlin (for the third time now), working on a PhD in environmental management at the Free University Berlin. Over the past two months, I have thought several times: "Wow, I should share that. It'd make an interesting blog post." So I'm back at my blog again, with an updated mission statement.

The goal is to relate the theoretical ideas I'm working with in my research to everyday experiences in Berlin, while sharing information that I haven't been able to find online and thus may be of interest to others, too. I expect to post on environmental policy (specifically climate change and sustainability), the German higher education system, independent/international films, hiking in Europe, and weird cultural quirks.