Save Eco Destinations

An important part of being ecologically responsible is choosing your food-and where you get it from-wisely. Organic, fair trade, responsible soil farming, local foods are always best, of course. In many cities, finding an integral place to eat can prove a headache.

Fortunately, London’s not one of them. If you happen to live there or just be passing through, London offers you several options for wholly nourishing eats.

Duke of Cambridge

The Duke

If you want upscale, a sleek bar, dark ceilings, sweet hardwood floors and serious ecological responsibility, look no further. A blackboard displays their business practices, including where their food comes from and their green energy policy, and menus list eco-facts about the first certified organic pub in Britain.

When the place opened about a decade ago, the owner, Geetie Singh, wasn’t so loud about it, but now that people care enough to know, she’s only too happy to let it out.

Their menu includes vegan cuisine, fish approved by the Marine Conservation Society, meats, wines, cheeses – all without sacrificing taste for ethics, which Singh says is what she wants to prove to her customers.

Konstam at the Prince Albert

Konstam

This futuristic-style restaurant donates money to charity to fight hunger – 50 pence from each soup sold every October, to be exact. (Hey, it’s better than nothing, right?) Their menus are also highly informative, and they hold no reservations about where each of their ingredients originates from, 85% of which are local.

The teal walls and chain-mail draperies sort of clash, giving the impression that the place is anything but eco-friendly. Looks are deceiving! But then there is the open kitchen, where you watch the cooks work it. Not vegan friendly.

Daylesford Café

Daylesford Café

This place sells 100% organic, certified food within sterile white walls. It’s also a shop. Branches are located throughout London.

Now, in my opinion, I am annoyed to read that their motto is “Respect and nourish the land, and it will nourish you” when at the same time they serve hare, if wild, and venison, bacon, mackerel,  … hunting does not bestow respect upon our fellow creatures, I don’t buy any of that crap.

But, hey, I know not everyone is vegan or even vegetarian, and it’s organic, so there you go. You’re welcome.

Since around 2000, increasingly fewer people have been residing on the Great Plains. Numerous environmentalists have grasped this grand opportunity to turn the Plains, uh, plain-y again. Let me rephrase: lovers of nature and the outdoors are working to return the Plains to their original, wild state.

The process includes replenishing fauna and flora populations. It’s definitely working – wolf populations have already risen in the Yellowstone area. Eco lovers fantasize about turning a large chunk of the central US landscape, from West Texas and New Mexico up to the east of the Rockies, into wild, uninterrupted, fenceless, free land, letting become the unfettered, blooming ecosystem it once was-and the newest ecotourism destination in the States.

The idea was originally Professor Deborah and Frank Popper’s. In the late 1980s, they wrote an article in the journal Planning discussing the myriad benefits of restoring the area, which they dubbed the Buffalo Commons, to its original, unharmed state. They proposed turning the local agricultural industry as much as possible into an ecotourism destination.

Not all conservationists agree with this project, but those who do have stepped up and taken charge, making things happen.

The American Prairie Foundation has been purchasing land in the state of Montana to return it to the wild American bison. The Great Plains Restoration Council is doing its part to keep South Dakota’s open land protected. Private landowners have also joined in, buying land to make it the open space it once was, bison and all. One such landowner is Ted Turner. He owns a notable 2 million acres (!) spread over Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Oklahoma. Phew. Rock on.

Travel operators have been in place since last year. There custom and group tours available, wildlife safaris (including private plane flights across the land, a growing trend, oh oh), backcountry jeep safaris, and several days long wolf-watching trips, for example. Pronghorn antelope, elk, mountain lions, bighorn sheep and bison can now be regularly spotted migrating to the vast area. You can also arrange bison hunts if you’re soulless.

Accommodations are often rustic and towns can be spread far out from each other for now. Plans include the building of upscale lodges that will hopefully be ecologically responsible.

Check it:

American Prairie Foundation (406-585-4600; www.americanprairie.org).

Custer State Park in South Dakota (605- 255-4515; www.sdgfp.info/Parks/Regions/Custer/index.htm).

Off the Beaten Path is based in Bozeman, Mont. (800-445- 2995; www.offthebeatenpath.com).

Logging Camp Ranch is in Bowman, N.D. (701-279-5501; www.loggingcampranch.com).

Dakota Birding operates out of Valley City, N.D. (701-845-4762; www.dakotabirding.com).

Victor Emanuel Nature Tours is based in Austin, Tex. (800-328-8368; www.ventbird.com).

I’ve always felt guilty about living in the city (except for the fact that I take public transportation), felt I pollute more here. Although, maybe I just feel that way because the city’s so damn dirty that wearing flip-flops turns my feet black. Eek.

It turns out that, overall, large cities’ greenhouse gas emissions are lower than those of rural areas-much lower. Go figure. Maybe it’s a good idea to vacation in cities, then, and particularly in green ones if you can find them! *Cough* *Cough*

While cities, then, do pollute considerably, rural emissions are more detrimental to the environment because they are largely methane-based rather than carbon dioxide-based, and methane pollutes way more. (Speaking of methane, did you know cattle expel more methane than anything or anyone else on the entire planet? Solution: vegetarianism.)

The way the discrepancy between urban and rural emissions was calculated was through the comparison of 12 large cities around the globe to their respective countries. On average, it was found, cities produce fewer greenhouse gasses than rural areas. It makes sense to me when considering that industrialized countries are loaded with factory farms. Again, cattle emit so much methane it’s obscene. Becoming vegetarian is one of the most efficient ways you can curb your carbon footprint personally and by extension. Not to mention how they pollute soil and water…but I won’t get into that today.

Here’s the list of cities and how badly they’ve scored:

1. Washington, DC, US – 19.7 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent

2. Glasgow, UK – 8.4 tonnes

3. Toronto, Canada – 8.2 tonnes

4. Shanghai, China – 8.1 tonnes

5. New York City, US – 7.1 tonnes

6. Beijing, China – 6.9 tonnes

7. London, UK – 6.2 tonnes

8. Tokyo, Japan – 4.8 tonnes

9. Seoul, South Korea – 3.8 tonnes

10. Barcelona, Spain – 3.4 tonnes

11. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – 2.3 tonnes

12. Sao Paulo, Brazil – 1.5 tonnes

Sargassum muticum attached to rocks on sandy bottom in San Francisco Bay (photo - Andrew N. Cohen)

Taking a nuisance or plague and turning it into something useful—that’s using your noggin’. The seaweed clogging up the seaport in Venice is about to be converted into a source of clean energy. Genius.

Two kinds of slime algae, Sargassum muticum and Undaria pinnatifida, have been annoying Venetians for a while now. Brought over from the Sargassi Sea and Japan on ships, the algae made the navigation of gondolas and ferry boats in Venice troublesome.

Now, Italy has announced an eco project to harvest the seaweed in the canals and turning it into green (emissions-free) energy. It will cost 200 million Euros—but it’s worth it, don’t you think?

The algae will fuel a power plant. Whoa. And it will be ready in two years’ time. I’m not done: it will produce enough energy to power half of Venice’s city center (40 megawatts). The only thing missing is the final authorization (not everyone’s so keen on the 200 million Euros factor of the project…).

Here are the details: “The algae will be cultivated in laboratories and put in plastic cylinders where water, carbon dioxide, and sunshine can trigger photosynthesis. The resulting biomass will be treated further to produce a fuel to turn turbines. The carbon dioxide produced in the process will be fed back to the algae, resulting in zero emissions from the plant.”

I’d like to see some more numbers: how long will it take for the algae energy production to save Italy the 200 million Euros to be invested in the project? Is it financially sound, or only environmentally (the algae-run plant would help offset the carbon emissions of ships docked in the Venetian seaport)? I would guess both, since Enalg, a renewable energy services company, is teaming up to collaborate on the project. Money’s always a crucial factor in these issues; well, usually. We humans sure are greedy.

Cornwall, Scilly Isles

The forecast points to rising sea levels and frequent violent storms leading to flooding.

The Scilly Isles will be taken over by a meter-plus rise of sea water in this century. These isles are particularly vulnerable relative to the UK because they lay isolated, 28 mi. out in the Atlantic from the UK’s mainland.

The so-called Maldives of the Atlantic Ocean are surrounded by submerged islands already, a grim reminder of watery destruction to come. (These surrounding islands were invaded by rising sea levels within the past several centuries.) You can still find archaeological remains. What now constitute hilltops, though, used to stand much higher. How depressing. The Scilly Isles will be the next Tuvalu.

The plan now is mitigation. Personally, I think this shows denial and procrastination. What they should be working on are plans to move residents (11,000 households, folks) out onto higher land. They need to educate the Scilly Isles’ inhabitants about their options-what they can do with their savings, how they could move their belongings to their new homes, where they could establish themselves in the UK, and so on. I imagine that at least Britain, if not the whole UK, will offer these unfortunate people help.

“The bottom line is that we mustn’t bury our heads in the sand,” commented Andrew Davey, an expert on coastal matters for the National Trust.

Right: the sooner the better, so why aren’t they getting their asses in gear? It seems to me like they don’t want to freak people out-but they should! Maybe the very decision-makers are freaking out and they don’t even know it yet, hence the rampant denial and choice of mitigation over sensible action.

But really, if we’re ALL going to wait until the last minute to salvage refugees, we won’t be able to ask each other for help, because we’ll be too caught up helping those nearest us geographically, nationally, and so on. We’ll be donating money to campaigns aiding people in our own country, right? Desperate times lead to protecting your “own” and neglecting everyone else. In desperate times, we don’t think straight.

So why wait it out? Shit.