In our current industrial economy people are paying for the fair cost of goods.  RIGHT!?

What if that’s not the case.  What if what we’re really paying is a falsified notion of the cost?  A number that doesn’t reflect the real price of production.  Let me explain:

When a commodity is priced for the market, let’s say a cow, both the cost of production and the value of the product are taken into consideration.  To price a cow we would look at its production: $100 for cultivation of hay, $5 on medicine, $200 in labor for the ranch hands, and $45 dollars on butchering.  So in this case a cow, which (priced by the pound) costs about $350.  That seems reasonable.

But it isn’t.  This fails to consider that factory farm conditions form giant cesspools of fecal material that release enormous amounts of toxic gas, and render the land in their vicinity unusable.  That the over farming of cattle is depleting the nutrient rich topsoil little by little until it will be rendered unusable to grow anything.  That the overuse of antibiotics are developing resistant strains of bacteria that increase medical expenses for cows and humans alike.  These costs are ludicrous! The thing is, we just haven’t had to pay them yet.  These effects don’t really become a problem until they reach a critical mass, at which point it will be too late to deal with them effectively.

Organic grass-fed cows, or cows that are raised in the manner to which they are adapted by nature (as oppose to corn fed, antibiotic laden factory cows), have much healthier lives, are healthier to eat, and taste better.  The problem for consumers is that the meat is prohibitively expensive.  The grass fed cows are mostly raised in a sustainable way; one that supports the ecosystem, and encourages health and biodiversity.  The cost of the organic grass fed beef, while higher represents the true cost of production.  The other beef saves you a few dollars at the cost of the future of our nation.

A parallel can be drawn to most other good and commodities.  Some are sustainable, and reflect the true cost of production, like organic grass-fed beef.  Others save you a few pennies, and fail to inform their true cost is decay to the very ecosystem, or social system upon which you depend

Nobel prize winner Paul Krugman recently wrote an article about the changes that need to be made.  It was published in the NY Times:

Read it now!

In an exploding digital economy it’s easy to forget that upgrading to the latest and greatest has an environmental cost.  What happened to all those old Motorola Razor phones when the iPhone was launched?  Where did your old TV go when you upgraded to flat screen?  Consumer electronic waste, also known as e-waste, is one of the fastest growing problems facing our planet.

“In some countries, the amount of e-waste being produced – including mobile phones and computers – could rise by as much as 500 percent over the next decade, and growth on such a scale will create intractable problems for people’s health and the environment as waste, much of it containing toxic material, decays.”  writes Daniel Christopher Jones in a article from Busmanagementme.com.

We have a big problem on our hands!  Technology isn’t going away, and needs to be upgraded regularly.  We can’t just bury our old cell phones in the dirt and hope for the best.  There has to be a better way.

How can this be monetized? If a lucrative business can be set up around the recycling of electronic goods, then a sustainable “food chain” of consumer electronics can be established.  Someone in the world may be able to generate massive value, and solve a major problem simultaneously.  Computer and electronics companies typically have basic recycling programs associated with their products, however most gadgets fall through the cracks in the infrastructure, often ending up in landfills.  Even so called environmentally conscious companies, like Apple with Al Gore on it’s board of directors, come up short [read Wired magazine's article Recycling: Not Apple's Core Value].  By making minor changes in the infrastructure, some genius entrepreneur could make a major impact on this growing problem.

The Kyoto protocol is a global initiative aimed at stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.  Which as most would agree is a great thing.

Although according to NPR, drafting a new agreement in the near future seems unlikely.  The reason for this is strong opposition from the United States Congress.  Although President Clinton signed the original pact, the U.S. refused to ratify the original agreement and is slowing the creation of a new draft because the original pact did not require any action from developing countries like China, which is the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter.

Both the Bush and the Obama administration felt that this was a fatal flaw in the protocol. There has been little progress but not for lack of effort.  In an interview between NPR and European Commission Vice President, Margot Wallstrom, she said that it has been very difficult negotiating a treaty that the U.S would agree to and that all parties involved would rather be on track to a solution.

Hopefully these issues will be worked through in December when world leaders meet in Copenhagen to discuss next steps.

There are several options: burying, cremation, freezing, “beetleization” etc., the list goes on. Most of you, I assume, have heard of the first three options, but unless you studied ecology at the University of Vermont, or google Bernd Heinrich obsessively, you are probably asking what beetleization is.

There is a breed of beetle called the sexton, or burying beetle. It’s a little critter, about the size of a bumble bee, and it can (and will, with the help of a mate) take that much bigger and very dead shrew and get it very quickly underground.

Heinrich explains how these beetles (they work in mom and pop teams) manage to find, lug and inter corpses many times their weight and size. Burial beetles are, says Professor Heinrich (who for years taught at the University of Vermont), “the undertakers of the small animals in the forest.”

So, with a few more beetles, it is possible to save some money on a mortician and a casket, and let nature run its course.

Read more from NPR.

The Clean the World Foundation has found a use for it, and unless you’re Mother Teresa, it’s probably for a better cause.  Through the collection, recycling and distribution of soap and shampoo products discarded by hotels every day, Clean the World is dedicated to preventing millions of deaths caused by acute respiratory infection and diarrheal disease by donating the unused bars of soaps to third world countries.

Acute respiratory illness is the number three killer worldwide. Diarrheal illness is the number five killer worldwide. The illnesses kill five million children every year.

While soap is a basic necessity in the United States, it’s too expensive for the impoverished in the third world.  A left-over hotel bar can last a week for one family.

So instead of looting the bathroom from top to bottom on checkout day, first check to see if your hotel participates in this program.  For more details on the foundation go to:  http://www.cleantheworld.org.

Read more from Myfoxny.com

“There is a great interest in bringing sustainable concepts into our daily lives,” said Dalshad Ismael, director of engineering projects at the Kurdish Ministry of Higher Education, during a session on buildings of the future at a Portland community center this week.

“People may not understand it as such,” he added, “but they know we must protect what resources we have.”

Several participants said that the concept of sustainability is not new to Iraq, but years of warfare have meant that it is rarely put into practice.

The meetings could lead to what the visiting academics hope will be their country’s first major sustainability effort.

The trip was funded by the Michael Scott Mater Foundation, with assistance from Oregon State University, the University of Oregon and Portland State University as well as support from the United States Department of State. The 19 professors, lecturers and deans come mainly from schools of engineering in Iraq.

Read more from the New York Times.

The Washington Nationals new baseball stadium, built by the District of Columbia, is the first big-league ballpark to meet standards set by the U.S. Green Building Council. It will have energy-efficient lighting, ultra low-flow lavatory faucets, low-flush toilets, recycling bins, a green roof, bike racks and preferential parking for high-mileage cars.

The Cleveland Indians installed solar panels last summer at their ballpark and the Boston Red Sox quickly followed suit at Fenway Park. The Oakland A’s now sell beer in cups made entirely of biodegradable corn starch, while the Seattle Mariners recycle food waste as well as paper and plastic containers. Even the Pittsburgh Pirates’ scouts drive flex-fuel cars.

“By getting America’s pastime to embrace environmentalism, we can move beyond the debates about left, right and politics,” says Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist at Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a longtime Mets fan and manager of his son’s little league team. Hershkowitz is especially hopeful that baseball’s green drive will influence fans too. “There’s nothing comparable to the brand loyalty that professional sports teams generate.”

Read more at money.cnn.com.