Can a Newly Discovered Fungus really solve our Plastic Waste Problem?

 Image Collage by Genesis: Go Ahead... Make My Lunch.

A team of students from Yale University have discovered a fungus which apparently enjoys snacking on polyurethane, one of the most commonly used plastics. Led by Scott Strobel, a molecular biochemist at Yale, the students found the fungus in the Amazon in Ecuador on their annual Rainforest Expedition and Laboratory. 

Experiments by a team of researchers found that the fungus, Pestalotiopsis microspore, can thrive on eating plastic in an anaerobic environment—like that which you find at the bottom of landfills.

Image Collage by Genesis: P. microspora under microscope.

Source: http://scitechdaily.com/ecuador-rainforest-fungus-survives-on-polyurethane-without-oxygen/

This is a significant development, because the implications for a number of reasons, beginning with the global problem which plastic has become.

‘Houston, we have some plastic.’

We all know that plastic is a bit of an Achilles heel of modern civilization…and that may be a bit of an understatement. Sure, plastic is light, flexible, inexpensive, convenient, easy to work with and oh-so-disposable. Aye, there’s the rub.

We all like to believe that most plastic is recycled. Apart from the horrendous amounts of energy which is spent collecting, processing and then re-purposing that plastic, it’s a pretty good idea, too.  Except it’s nowhere near reality.

According to a study published in Science, plastic pollution is growing, particularly in underdeveloped coastal countries. 

Chart: Plastic Pollution is Growing, Credit: Jambeck et al, Science, 2015

Source: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/02/ocean-plastic-waste-china

This, of course, contributes to the notorious plastic flotilla in the middle of the Pacific Ocean (also known as the Great Pacific garbage patch), not to mention the plastic debris littering the shorelines of all major bodies of water around the world. 

Image: Great Pacific garbage patch 

Source: http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/12/are-there-reall.html

Here’s some more interesting tid-bits about plastic which you may not be aware of…

Inforgaphic: The Truth about Plastic 

Source: http://greenlivingideas.com/2011/08/01/plastic-world-infographic/

Biology to the Rescue?

So clearly something has to be done about plastic, right? The Yale scientists certainly seem to think so. In fact, they’re not the first to suggest a biological approach to solving the plastic waste problem, particularly in the Pacific.

Be it mushrooms from the Amazon rainforest or genetically engineered E. coli bacteria, scientists are scouring the natural world (and their very unnatural laboratories) searching for ‘silver-bullet’ organisms to clean up our mess.

Does anyone else see any inherent danger in this approach? Have these scientists forgotten the lessons learned from cane toads in Australia, killer bees in North America, and every other attempt to introduce a foreign species into a new environment?

Of course not, because materialist scientists don’t seem to learn from experience.  Their arrogance and hubris makes them believe more in their theories than in proven reality, believing in the technocratic dogma of the incessant march of progress which promises them (and the world): ‘this time will be different.’

Materialist Science: Playing with forces it cannot comprehend…nor control.

In July of last year, PeapodLife took on the question of GMO Foods in its blog by pointing out the dangers of introducing new species into the environment. Read the article and watch a related video on the introduction of foreign species here.

Despite what the scientists will tell you, they are in no way, shape or form ‘in control’ of the ‘technology’ they are purporting to wield, here. Anyone who’s seen Jurassic Park can tell you that!

Image Collage by PeapodLife: Jurassic Park Genetic Power, Nature & Science montage

So, are we saying giant mushrooms are going to devour New York City or Tokyo?

Image collage by Genesis Eco Fund: Rampaging Gumba, NYC.

No, of course not. We just couldn’t resist the image.

What we are saying is that nature is governed by chaos, and there is positive chaos, the chaos observable in evolutionary fractals—defined to a large part by the Fibonacci sequence—for example, the pattern of petals in a blooming flower or branches of a growing tree. But then there’s also the negative chaos of a devolving fractal: water as it’s being flushed down the toilet.

Rainforest Keeps on Giving; Humans Keep on Taking

Having said all that, that’s not even the greatest problem with this story about the plastic-eating mushroom. As always, it’s a story of exploitation. Here’s thing in nature, let’s see how we, the human race, can exploit it to the maximum of our abilities.

You would think that when we find such organisms that there would be a sudden and universal outcry: “Hey! Maybe there are other as-yet-undiscovered organisms that can solve other major problems we face!” But sadly no, rainforest devastation and resource extraction continues globally at an unprecedented pace.

Image collage by Genesis Eco Fund: Rainforest devastation: cutting; burning.

And the discovery of new species with ‘practical applications’ like our friend Pestalotiopsis microspora, doesn’t help precisely because it, too, is just another example of humanity’s culture of exploitation. Not harmony, not mutual symbiosis, but the same old ‘we’re at the top of the food chain so the world is ours to command, control, use and abuse as we see fit’ mentality which is responsible for how we’ve completely mismanaged and ruined the biosphere.

Be a REAL human being. Get an ecosystem and develop a harmonious and mutually symbiotic relationship with it. Allow the knowledge which comes from that experience to inform all your actions, inquiries, decisions, and goals.

Take Responsibility. Reduce your plastic consumption.

10 Tips to Reducing your Plastic Use

1.    Use reusable bags, not plastic or paper.
2.    Drop the bottled water.
3.    Don’t use single-use plastic packaging (buy in bulk when you can).
4.    Leave the sandwich bags on the shelf and use reusable sandwich boxes instead.
5.    Go the classy route and use silverware, not plastic-ware.
6.    Let the ’90s go — go digital… no more CDs, plastic CD cases, and so on.
7.    Use a refillable dispenser for your soap and cleaning supplies.
8.    Use a nice “to-go” mug instead of cups made of plastic or styrofoam (don’t even want to go into that issue).
9.    Try to buy products that don’t contain hard-to-recycle plastics (when you need to buy something, that is).
10.    Better yet, find products not made of plastic at all (again, when you absolutely have to buy something).
Source: http://greenlivingideas.com/2011/08/01/plastic-world-infographic/

Ecosystems & Mining: Natural Answer to Oxygen & Air Quality?

Collage by GenesisEcoFund: Could  Ecosystems Be the Answer to Oxygen & Air Quality in Mining?

Mining companies pump countless billions of cubic metres of air every year deep underground, and spend billions of dollars every year on liquid oxygen, oxygen masks, and oxygen extraction and condensing machinery.

When we began looking at the topic of oxygen, air quality and mining, we approached it primarily from the perspective of human health and safety—workers need clean air to breathe. It turns out that oxygen is an essential element in the ore extraction process—especially gold—aiding in the separation of the desired ore from the surrounding material.

So the short answer to the question, could ecosystems have some role to play in producing fresh oxygen and cleaning the air in deep mines is: we’re not sure; it really depends. On what? Many factors.

For starters, we cannot even begin to look at a pilot study with the mining industry without some kind of quantifiable figures: how much O2 is produced per X sq ft. of ecosystem? This is just a reality of trying to apply an ecosystem to an industry which is all about efficiency and exploitation (let’s face it: there is no other way to describe extraction of precious minerals from the earth).

Mining as an activity is fundamentally concerned with outputs. It has no concept of inputs—few resource extraction industries do, with the exception of some leaders in forestry which have learned the economic benefits of sustainable forestry practices (planting trees to replace the ones which were cut down). 

A mining operation will want to know how big an ecosystem they need (or how many individual ecosystem “modules”) for how many cubic feet of mine shaft per person? But here again: the mining industry is going to be about “what’s the maximum oxygen I can get for the minimum amount of ecosystem?” They will look at an ecosystem not as a superorganism, a living thing, something of intrinsic value, but as a cog in their machine—the big mining machine in this case—just as they do not consider the rock and ore they are mining as anything other than a resource to be extracted and profited from.

It’s not an attack. It’s not even a criticism. It’s just an honest and objective look at an industry which may be fundamentally incompatible with the essence of what ecosystems are all about.  Any industry/use which only cares about what the ecosystem outputs are, and not what they themselves need to input, has no grasp of harmony and mutual symbiosis.

So what about air quality? Could all the dust and soot in a mining operation offer an ecosystem a veritable treasure-trove of minerals and nutrients? Surely they could be considered an input.

Sadly, an overabundance of nutrients in a high order rainforest ecosystem results in an abundance of algae growth. In other words, considering how much dust and soot we’re talking about in the typical mining operation, it would take an impossibly large ecosystem to process all the contaminants in the air.  As a matter of fact, it would be very difficult to keep such particulates out of any ecosystem placed in that environment.

It definitely would make for a very interesting pilot study—to see if ecosystem technology could be utilized by the mining industry in a cost-effective way. Such a pilot project would require a significant amount of funding, a mining company to partner with, and participation by an academic institution.

Genesis is certainly not opposed to looking into the matter further. Despite what the initial indications are, we are not mining experts; we may be missing some key piece of the puzzle. We will definitely take some time digging deeper into this matter in the future.

Stay tuned, but don’t hold your breath.

Infant Allergies linked to Air Pollution What can You Do to Protect Your Children?

Image by Genesis EcoFund: Shielding Infants from Air Pollution Could Help Prevent Allergies

Image Credit/Source: Infant iStock http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/infant-allergies-linked-to-air-pollution-by-new-canadian-study-1.3060312

Smokestacks http://www.glogster.com/nora1254/clean-air-act-apes-/g-6lkq7n5b7b5tb3vj0lpbma0

"Allergic diseases constitute one of the most prevalent childhood illnesses. Several population studies have reported increased risks of developing allergy in relation to ambient air pollution exposure. However, there are only few studies on specific sensitization following children over longer time periods, with detailed assessment of exposure to air pollution.”

~ AAAAI American Academy of Allergy Asthma & Immunology; January 2012

Source: http://www.aaaai.org/global/latest-research-summaries/Current-JACI-Research/air-pollution-allergic-sensitization-child.aspx

Landmark Canadian study surveyed 2,700 Children; Shows risk of Infant Exposure

We can add another study to the growing body of evidence that air pollution increases the chance of allergies and asthma in children. This new Canadian study is the first to link pollution and allergies to food, mould, pets and pests in infants.

"This study started by recruiting pregnant mothers in 2008. That continued until about 2012," Brauer told CBC News.

"The idea is to follow moms during pregnancy and the kids as they age, to look at the development of allergy and asthma in quite a detailed way."

"Those kids that had higher exposure to air pollution during their first year of life were at an increased risk of developing sensitivities and allergies," Brauer said.
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/infant-allergies-linked-to-air-pollution-by-new-canadian-study-1.3060312

The study did not find a link between neo-natal exposure to pollution and allergies in children.

You can read the complete study by clicking the image/link below:

Image: Environmental Health Perspectives Infant Allergens Study

Source: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2015/3/ehp.1408700.acco.pdf

Of interest, was the finding that sensitivity rates appeared highest in Vancouver.

Image by Genesis EcoFund: Percentage of Children who develop sensitivity to Allergens, by City

Data Source: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2015/3/ehp.1408700.acco.pdf

Brauer told the CBC that the higher rates in Vancouver were not linked to air pollution but other factors, including the general affluence of the population in Vancouver.

"We know that populations that tend to be wealthier tend to have higher rates of allergies. Allergy is something that we seem to link to more affluent lifestyles, globally. So there may be something going on there," said Brauer.

"Of course there's other things: the vegetation, food, lifestyles — other factors that may differ between Vancouver and the other cities."
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/infant-allergies-linked-to-air-pollution-by-new-canadian-study-1.3060312

General Effects of Air Pollution

Air pollution causes a range of respiratory symptoms, including

• coughing,
• throat irritation,
• chest tightness,
• wheezing,
• shortness of breath

Higher air pollution levels have also been associated with a higher incidence of heart problems, including heart attacks, and toxic air pollutants can increase the risk of developing cancer. The following poster/pdf provides more information:

Image Thumbnail: Effects of Common Air Pollution Poster PDF

Source: http://www.ourair.org/edu/health-effects-of-air-pollution/

So What Can be Done?

Interestingly, the study found that several factors seemed to lower the risk of developing sensitivity to allergies, including:

• A cat or dog in their house.
• No attached garage on the house.
• Eating dairy products, eggs, nuts or grains during the first year of life.
• Attending daycare.
• Having older siblings in the house.

The researchers also evaluated the use/type of the home’s ventilation system; with exposure to traffic-related air pollution assessed by measuring nitrogen dioxide levels at each child’s home address.

There seems to be an interesting connection between exposure to natural elements versus industrial ones. That is, exposure to pet hair, dander, etc. as well as other children or another sibling seemed to reduce sensitivity to allergens.

If we consider the ability of an indoor ecosystem to break down synthetic compounds and VOC’s, it seems like a natural extension to any preventative program to reduce allergies. Ecosystems  not only clean the air of pollution which many home ventilation  systems cannot filter, they also produce freshly oxygenated air, as well as ionized water vapour which acts like a magnet attracting airborne particles.

Genesis Eco Fund looks forward to the day when there is a critical mass of ecosystems in homes across Canada so similar studies can compare the effects of ecosystems on the development of sensitivities to allergies in children.

The Natural PATH to ‘Smart Cities’ takes Advanced Human Habitat on the Road

Image Collage by Gensis Eco Fund: The Natural PATH to Smart Cities 

Image Sources: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/revealed-awardwinning-design-to-transform-disused-tube-tunnels-into-underground-cycle-routes-10026687.html, 

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=f537b454b35a2410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextchannel=04708b7a29891410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

Recently, Upworthy posted an article entitled I never realized how dumb our cities are until I saw what a smart one looks like. The blog post included snippets and commentary about a 20-minute report by CBC News, The National on “How Cities Make us Sick.” We have included the complete video, below.

Video: How Cities Make Us Sick 

Credit CBC News The National C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Local Settings\Temp\CBC News The National

Source: YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQfC6mKTErg

Now, we are not refuting the questioning of so-called “obesogenic environments;” that is, cities being designed around cars, fundamentally antithetical to regular physical activity, and essentially major contributors to the obesity epidemic.

However, better transportation does not a healthy city make. And the idea that a ‘smart city’ is one which promotes physical activity is just another in a long series of oversimplifications and ‘magic-bullet’ solutions that humanity is so enamoured by and prone to fall for—until they reveal their inadequacies.

If we take a biomimetic, ecosystem view (and at Genesis Eco Fund we know there is no better approach to take to solve questions of environment and human health, since inherent human health is defined by biology, environment and natural law), we must look at a community at a more fundamental level.

A community is an ecosystem--a super-organism—which is itself a collection of smaller organisms. Expressed on a smaller scale, a community is a functioning organ made up of many smaller cells. The overall health of the organ is dependent on the health of its cells. True, a handful of cells can be damaged or diseased without the organ collapsing; but a cascading mass failure of cells will result in organ failure.

Now, it is also true that organs have inter-cellular systems, including transport and energy systems. And, it is also true that failure of these systems can also produce organ failure: for instance, blockage of an artery in the heart will most likely result in a heart attack. It so happens in the case of the heart that transportation is a primary key to heart health. But free-flowing arteries do not alone make a healthy heart. What if, for instance, the blood cells themselves are diseased?

This is the point we are discussing here today. While it could be argued that the movement of people from A to B is a primary necessity of a well-functioning city, what if the people being moved from A to B are “sick?” So here we return to the first premise, that the chosen mode of transportation in most cities—the automobile—promotes obesity.

But this is still only looking at one aspect of the city…transportation. What about the health of the rest of the environment these ‘blood cells’—people—spend their time?

What about toxic sick buildings? What about stressful home, work, school, healthcare environments? No matter how much time we travel to and fro within the city, we spend far more time at various destinations than we do on the journey. To say that a smart city is defined solely by its transportation system ignores the cellular nature of all cities. If people are literally “the lifeblood” of a city, their home, office, school, etc. are the other “cells” they nourish (and are nourished by). Getting them from one cell to the next is an afterthought.

Ecosystems create Advanced Human Habitats—cleaner air, more relaxing, less stressful living spaces, spaces of harmony and symbiosis which boost mental function, psychological wellbeing, energy, vitality and immune system. You’re going to eat much healthier and make healthier lifestyle choices once you live in Advanced Human Habitat…because the environment supports Advanced Humans.

Video: Fitch Street Living Wall EcoSystem 6-Month Update

Source: YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6opN_OXIu8&list=UUS1hpBLiueJB_C-AyL1QNSQ

Want people to walk more and ride their bicycles in Toronto, even in the dead of winter? Make more underground walkways and cycling paths and line them with rainforest ecosystems. Just imagine riding your bike to work past an ecosystem like the one above. It’s not as expensive to do walkways and cycle paths as it is road tunnels or subways, and the health and wellness benefits are many.

These underground walkways (like the PATH, downtown) are also much cooler in the summer (the ecosystem will help with that), and it will be that much easier for someone to hop on a bike or trike and ride across town when they are in a refreshing cool transportation artery when it’s 30 degrees Celsius and humid above ground.     

Image: PATH, Toronto 

Source: http://www.torontopath.com/view/Waxon-Waxbar.aspx

(There has been talk of expanding the PATH, like this article from 2011 in The Globe and Mail: Toronto mulls plan to expand world's longest underground shopping complex. )

And when you arrive at work or at school? Imagine being greeted with the same refreshing, clean, oxygenating, relaxing, rejuvenating atmosphere as your ecosystem-lined “PATH” was.

Just imagine how incredible that would be.

And how ‘smart.’

World Wetlands Day 2015: Wetlands for Our Future

Image: WLE Postcard (back/front) highlights ecosystem services provided by Southeast Asian wetlands
Source: http://wle.cgiar.org/blog/2015/02/02/wetland-ecosystem-services/  
February 2nd 1971, the Convention of Wetlands was adopted and began the annual tradition of celebrating World Wetlands Day.

This year, the International Water Management Institute, or IWMI, has marked the occasion with the theme, Wetlands for Our Future, a photo contest, and communication materials available for download.  

In addition, they have produced the following infographic which highlights how broad-reaching the impacts of wetlands are on all of us.

Image: IWMI Infographic “Wetlands at Work” Source: http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/Publications/infographics/infographic-wetlands-at-work.pdf

What is particularly telling is the foundational impact of wetlands on ecosystems.

The Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) and International Water Management Institute are a part of CGIAR—A Global Agricultural Research Partnership.

CGIAR research partnerships focus on reduction of rural poverty, improvement in food security, nutrition and health, and sustainability in managing natural resources.

What International Wetlands Day signifies is the recognition that ecosystems are the backbone of sustainable agriculture, and that ecosystems themselves have a foundation—wetlands…water.

More than anything else, wetlands produce living water. This ionized energy-rich flow is capable of supporting massive plant and animal populations, in addition to providing naturally filtered water for human consumption, so long as it is an agricultural ecosystem.

What wetlands cannot support (what no living system can support) is industrial agriculture model built on a paradigm of exploitation.

Any attempt to use wetlands as a “silver bullet” to support inherently unsustainable western-style industrialized agriculture is doomed to fail. Trying to bring increased productivity and efficiency to the rural poor using an anti-ecosystem model, supported by what can only support ecosystems, is folly.

That said, opportunities do exist to uncover and embrace nature’s modus operandi, thereby producing everything required by local populations in environmentally responsible and sustainable ways. In other words, to comprehend how wetlands and other ecosystems interact, and use that comprehension to enable those systems to flourish naturally. 

Any exploitative model, however ingenious it may seem, will be in a constant state of conflict with the underlying natural world which seeks harmony and symbiosis. An ecosystem approach, built on harmony and symbiosis, will be met by nature as an ally, and will be supported by nature to succeed.

It’s an infinitely complex process summed up by a very simple fact. All research in this area should be focused on restoring humanity’s harmony and symbiotic relationship with the ecosystem—wetlands included. How can we contribute and support ecosystem (as oppose to “exploit and manage” resources).

Consumer Product Companies: Charmingly Fresh or Naturally Deceptive?

Video: THE CONSUMER DICTIONARY: FRESH | The Checkout | ABC1 

Source: YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-pRAvjkqIo

“The art of pleasing is the art of deception.”
~ Luc de Clapiers

“The art of pleasing is the art of deception.”

~ Luc de Clapiers

Image & Quote Source: http://www.knowledgeoverflow.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/the-art-of-pleasing-is-the-art-of-luc-clapiers.jpg

The issue of product labelling is not a new one. Packaged goods companies have resisted the use of honest straightforward language in advertising and on product labels for decades.

The whole controversy around GMO labelling of products is the episode of the legal language merry-go-round. And it’s not our intention to get into that debate here. Rather, we want to focus on some of the more “benign” and sneaky uses of language which permeate the consumer landscape.

The above video shows just how clever and slippery companies are about the use of terms which have very specific definitions. Without being redundant, it’s our belief that companies using the term “fresh” this loosely to describe their products are far from being endearingly “fresh” (as in when a man or woman is being forward, flirtatious or bold).

There’s another favourite catch-all word for marketers: “natural,” “all natural,” “naturally,” etc. Combined with beautiful graphics of plants, animals, landscapes, water and of course the ubiquitous colour “GREEN,” the result is a plethora of products with lousy labels.

Video-link: Lousy Labels - Episodes - Marketplace

Source: CBC.ca/Marketplace

So pervasive is the practice of misleading or outright deceptive marketing, advertising and packaging of so-called “environmentally, wholesome, holistic” products that a whole new term was coined to describe the practice: GREENWASHING.

Image: What would Andy Warhol say about Campbell’s Greenwashed Soup?

Source: awdsgn.com: It's green. So what?

Why do they do it? Why do companies insist on misleading and deceptive labelling, especially when it comes to trying to improve the impression of their product as fresh, natural, healthy, eco-friendly, etc? Is it possible that they’re just naturally deceptive…but downright pathological?

Video: THE CORPORATION [6/23] The Pathology of Commerce

Source: YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5hEiANG4Uk&list=PL36240027B32E7B82&index=6

We’ll leave the ultimate judgment in your hands. But judge wisely…with your dollar and your voice. Otherwise, the power will naturally remain in the hands of the pathologically deceptive.