By Craig A. Severance

The Waxman-Markey bill has a very strong set of building efficiency codes (see Section 201, page 214 of the bill — a big PDF). Our guest blogger, Craig A. Severance, discusses what the bill requires in a post first published on his blog. Craig, a practicing CPA and former Assistant to the Chairman and to Commerce Counsel, Iowa State Commerce Commission, did one of the most detailed cost analyses publically available on the current generation of nuclear power plants being considered in this country (see “Exclusive analysis, Part 1: The staggering cost of new nuclear power“).

The greenhouse gas cap-and-trade title of the Waxman-Markey bill gets most of the attention, as it should, but the bill has many other provisions, some good, some lame.

It’s important to “get things right” when a new building is constructed. More so than perhaps anything else we create, new buildings will be with us for a very long time.

Mistakes We Have to Live In. Our gas guzzler cars and trucks will rust away to the scrap heap in little more than a decade. Appliances and machinery share a similar fate. This quick turnover assures us our mistakes of the past will not stay with us very long.

Not so with buildings– an energy hog building will likely still be around a hundred years from now. Thoughtlessness in design and orientation of buildings creates inefficiencies that are often impossible or prohibitively expensive to fix. As energy costs rise, such buildings will be a burden to their owners and renters.

Almost Half of Our Energy Use. While it is fashionable to talk about wind farms and hybrid cars, buildings are the “elephant in the room” seldom discussed, though they are responsible for almost half of U.S. energy use.

Climate scientists have concluded we must cut global warming emissions by at least 80% within just 40 years, or face catastrophic climate disasters. If we don’t start making better buildings now, we have no hope of meeting this goal.

Stop Doing Things Wrong. For all of these reasons, strong measures are urgently needed to stop new buildings from being built the wrong way, when we know how to build them right.

I know many builders who would like to build better, more energy-efficient houses. They don’t do it, because “the builder down the street” is not doing it. Most energy efficiency measures are literally invisible. Since the added advantages don’t “show well”, they are not perceived by buyers to add value. No builder can add extra features without recovering the cost, so we keep “building stupid buildings” even though we have known for 30 years how to build smarter.

Getting All the “Builders Down the Street” On Board. The way improvements in building technology achieve widespread adoption is through building codes. If everyone has to do it, everyone does it.

When the Waxman-Markey comprehensive energy & climate bill (which is also known for its “Cap and Trade” program for greenhouse gases) was first introduced as a Discussion Draft on March 31st, many criticized its failure to take strong action on buildings. Though the draft called for a national “model” energy building code that states should adopt, it had no teeth. An arduous campaign would have ensued for adoption in all 50 states, where special interest lobbying campaigns would likely stop or delay many. If someone like Alaska Governor Sarah Palin wanted to grandstand and oppose requirements for better energy efficiency in buildings, there was then nothing in the bill that could be done about it. Pockets of America would continue with no advancements in building energy codes.

This might be acceptable if there were no overarching national and global crisis. However, global warming now threatens to inundate our coastlines and turn vast stretches of fertile American farmland into dustbowls.

The Committee “got it” and strengthened the bill. The bill (H.R. 2454) that passed the full House Energy & Commerce Committee last week no longer speaks of a national “model” energy building code. Instead, it establishes enforceable “national energy effficiency building codes” for new residential and commercial buildings. States and local governments will be required to adopt the new national codes, or codes that achieve equal or better energy savings. Noncompliance will result in loss of significant funding. If they still do not do so, the Federal government itself will step in and enforce the national energy efficiency building codes. (Nobody actually wants that to happen, but you have to be willing to do it to enforce compliance.)

In other words, if the bill becomes law in its current form, new buildings around the country will actually need to be built better, to achieve greater energy savings. It will actually happen. (The building energy efficiency codes are contained in “Section 201″ of the Bill).

How Much Better Buildings? Major reductions in building energy use are required by the Bill — over time, reaching 75% reductions from current energy use standards. The Bill begins with “Baseline” standards which are the minimum energy efficiency requirements in the 2006 IECC code for residential, and the 2004 ASHRAE code for commercial. It then sets “Target Dates” for % reductions from these Baselines.

The Bill is complicated to read, and might give the impression of earlier action than will actually occur. Each date below is the date the Target must be set by the Department of Energy (DOE). and the national codes to enforce each Target would need to follow within one year, with state adoptions to be achieved by one year later than that. So, if you add 2 years to each date below, you will be at the probable time of actual enforcement:

• 30% reduction from Baseline - immediately upon passage of the Act. — i.e. enforcement probably by 2012
• 50% reduction from Baseline - for residential by 2014 and for commercial by 2015 — i.e. enforcement probably by 2016 and 2017 respectively
• 55% reduction from Baseline - for residential by 2017 and commercial by 2018 – i.e. enforcement probably by 2019 and 2020, respectively
• 60% reduction from Baseline - for residential by 2020 and commercial by 2021 — i.e. enforcement probably by 2022 and 2023
• 65% reduction from Baseline - for residential by 2023 and commercial by 2024 — i.e. enforcement probably by 2025 and 2026 respectively
• 70% reduction from Baseline - for residential by 2026 and commercial by 2027 — i.e. enforcement probably by 2028 and 2029 respectively
• 75% reduction from Baseline - for residential by 2029 and commercial by 2030 — i.e. enforcement probably by 2031 and 2032 respectively
• Further reductions? - beginning in 2033, DOE is to evaluate if further reductions should be set
• Zero Net Energy buildings are to be supported by DOE efforts to support “distributed renewable energy technology” as part of this entire process

Actual Standard Set. While the Bill sets the above % Targets, the actual standard set by the Bill is the “maximum level [DOE] determines is life-cycle cost justified and technically feasible”. That’s a mouthful — basically it means does it cash flow, in other words do the energy savings more than pay for the cost of doing them.

If DOE determines that greater amounts of energy savings are feasible and cost-justified, it can set new codes that achieve more savings than the above Targets.

On the other hand, if DOE determines the above Targets are not feasible or cost-justified, it doesn’t have to meet them. It can instead set new codes that achieve less savings than the above Targets.

Congress is punting here to the technical experts — setting % Targets that Congress wants to see achieved, but allowing for better or worse results if the DOE says so. I think a lot of these “technical” determinations will actually depend (more than they should) upon what political party controls the White House at the time.

Implications. The only reason I am bothering to write about a Bill that still has a very long way to go (i.e., the Senate), is because of the sweeping changes to be wrought to the energy and building industries if Section 201 of this Act actually becomes law.

Some initial impressions:

• Enormous boost to jobs related to making buildings more energy efficient — e.g. Energy Raters, insulation contractors, blower door air leak-tightening contractors, manufacturers of high efficiency windows, high efficiency furnaces and air conditioners, high reflectance roof coatings, etc.
• Changes by lenders to incorporate energy savings may be needed. The DOE methodology will likely require boosts to energy savings if the cash flow from energy savings exceeds the extra mortgage payments to pay for it. However — will lenders be willing to loan the extra dollars up front?
• Utility forecasts of growth in energy demand from new buildings will need to be drastically adjusted downward. This will eliminate the need for billions of dollars in new power plant construction that otherwise would have been required.
• Achieving the higher levels of savings (e.g. >50%) is likely to involve renewable energy resources such as solar hot water, and solar photovoltaics. Many of these are already cost effective so they should meet the DOE test. (More jobs - lots of more jobs - in these fields.) Also, regional differences in codes will be needed - and this is anticipated by the Act.

Something to Fear, or Promote? Change can be frightening, and this Bill will definitely require major changes in how buildings in the U.S. are designed, built, and possibly financed. There is likely therefore, to be intense lobbying against the strong provisions described in this article. Many builders will be reluctant to change practices, and fearful of how well they can prosper with the new code requirements.

Although every one of the changes will actually have zero or negative cost — they will have a life cycle cost less than the life cycle energy savings — the biggest fear voiced will be that these measures will make buildings cost more. Congress and the lending industry need to work together to develop solutions to this “up front cost” stumbling block.

In the end, we must keep in mind why this Bill exists in the first place. The threat of climate catastrophe from global warming is real.

Do I want my new home to be energy efficient, or under water?

This piece originally appeared in Climate Progress.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Shelter at 4:35 PM)

By Roger Valdez

Ambitious programs to build sustainable communities.

I have written about energy efficiency programs in Cascadia’s three largest cities and how each of these communities is working to combine federal, state and local dollars to incentivize energy efficiencies.

What about some of the region’s smaller cities? Small cities have as much to gain – and to lose – as the big urban centers.

When I was last in Oregon I was surprised to hear that Lincoln City was endeavoring to become carbon neutral. One of the last times I was in Lincoln City was to see George Jones at the Chinook Winds Casino. It seemed the last place in the world that would be making carbon neutrality a goal. But Lincoln city has a lot at stake.

At just 11 feet above sea level, Lincoln City is well within the danger zone for rising sea levels caused by global warming. So, they’re getting proactive. The City will combine a mix of energy savings along with purchase of renewable energy and carbon credits to achieve neutrality. There is some ongoing debate about whether these methods truly lead to neutrality. But it’s hard to argue with Lincoln City’s dedication to efficiencies and sustainability — and even the Casino has taken measures to shed 900 tons of emissions annually. Because of this focus, Lincoln City became an EPA Green Power Community in 2007.

And speaking of Green Power Communities, Bellingham, Washington, was not only selected for the program but became the Washington’s first green power community. The EPA’s program focuses on voluntary community-wide efforts to create energy efficiencies and reduce the environmental impacts of energy consumption including greenhouse gas emissions.

This fall, Bellingham will initiate the Energy Efficiency Community Challenge aimed at substantially reducing Bellingham and Whatcom County’s consumption of electricity through an incentive program designed to motivate retrofits of existing residential and commercial buildings.

The strategy is similar to Portland’s and Seattle’s, with low interest loans funded through the use of Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant money, a social marketing program to promote the loans, and training programs to prepare workers for green jobs doing the retrofits.

The goals of Bellingham’s program are ambitious. In the first 18 months, the plan seeks to have 100 Whatcom County businesses reducing their energy use a minimum of 5 to 15 per cent and 1000 residential housing units saving 5-30 percent of their energy use. The work of retrofits should eliminate 2,100 metric tons of CO2 per year, create $24,875,000 of economic activity in Whatcom County and create 35 new green collar jobs.

Smaller towns and cities in the region aren’t being left behind the race to create energy efficiencies and reduce their impact on climate change. And the side benefits – jobs, efficiency savings, and quality of life – may be substantial.

This piece originally appeared in Sightline Institutes blog, The Daily Score.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Cities at 3:55 PM)

The Next Wave: Tale of The First Climate Refugees We were impressed and moved by the recently released film The Next Wave, a short documentary that received a Jury award at the Ninth Annual Media that Matters Film Festival. The story follows the struggle of the Carteret Islanders, some of the world’s first climate change refugees. These South Pacific people have lived simple, peaceful and extremely low-impact lives without cars, electricity or running water. Now global climate change is causing the resources that sustain them to die off and disappear: by 2015, the Carterets will be uninhabitable.

Producers Jennifer Redfearn and Tim Metzger chronicle the islanders’ search for a new home in Bougainville, where they will face the challenge of gaining acceptance from war-weary inhabitants, and the task of reinventing their culture within an unfamiliar social structure. The film is a tool for fostering understanding and compassion for a sort of challenge that is becoming increasingly common in a climate changed world.

The Next Wave is an abbreviated version of Sun Come Up, a longer work-in-progress. You can watch a trailer here. (JL)

Open Course Craze Professors at universities and institutions across the world are uploading their lectures to audio and video servers like iTunes and YouTube to provide instant access to an abundance of higher-education information. Open Courseware has been making it possible for a few years now for anyone to attend classes that were previously reserved for only those privileged enough to be able to attend the world’s most prestigious colleges and universities. More and more schools seem to be catching on to the downloadable course craze, as an influx of people continue to demand to be able to listen to physics lectures in their pajamas, take notes on biology while the baby is sleeping or educate themselves on a public policy while commuting to work.

Check out the following pages to learn more.

Harvard MIT Berkeley JHU (SK)

Climate Texts Made Public Do you wish you could read over the shoulders of world leaders as they prepare for the upcoming climate negotiations in Copenhagen?

In a sense, you can.

The UN has made the climate negotiating texts available for public viewing. Given that politicians aren’t generally enthused about giving others a window into their work until they’re sure that things have been cleaned up the way they’d like, open access to these texts is a pretty significant concession. See what the discussion looks like now, and you’ll have a better understanding of what key players are brokering — and blocking — come December.

Visit the UNFCCC website if you would like to download a copy. (JL)

Kickstarter We’re big fans of micropatronage so it’s great to see a new site like Kickstarter.com offer a stylish platform for crowdfunding ventures. Need money to make your first feature film or album? Some capital to get a small business venture off the ground? Want to try a random experiment with crowdsourcing? Submit your project to Kickstarter, choose a fund-raising goal, and wait for the verdict of your peers (it’s all or nothing — if you don’t make your goal, you don’t get any of the pledge money). Unlike in microfinance schemes, funders don’t technically get any return on their investments (beyond enjoying the art or service created), but participants can offer whatever incentives they like — anything from an advance copy of the completed work to a private concert.

It may take a while for this particular site to find its feet. Currently, project submissions are by invitation only and there’s no way to filter existing projects — if you’re looking for inventors or humanitarian campaigns be prepared to sift through a lot of “help me buy DJing equipment” requests. But the potential is great. Many musicians are already finding crowdfunding the only viable way for them to get around the music industry — while closing the distance between them and their fans — and as the existing projects indicate, the set-up could work for almost any endeavor. Crowdfunded X Prize, anyone? (Thanks to Worldchanging ally Sarah Rich.) (CB)

Biodiversity in the Built Environment Via the South African e-Journal of Green Building, a task group from the UK Green Building Council (UKGBC) has issued 10 guidelines to help developers, architects, planners and building owners encourage biodiversity in the built environment. If the recommendations are adopted, UK cities may start seeing native animals like otters, falcons and bats return to the urban landscape. From the article:

Just some of the design features which would encourage biodiversity in cities are specially made nesting bricks built into cavity walls for birds such as swifts and starlings, or ledges that mimic cliff faces for peregrine falcons which are attracted to tall buildings. Cathedrals, office blocks in Canary Wharf and Battersea power station in south London are all known to have housed breeding birds of prey.

Paul King, chief executive of the UKGBC, said: “If done well, new developments can actually create habitats in which wild species thrive, and which we can all enjoy. Green roofs, living walls, and good old-fashioned parks and green spaces in our built environment can make us all feel happier and healthier, and give something back to nature.”

For more on urban biodiversity, read Emily Gertz’s article, For the Birds. (JL)

Image source: Intel

The Future of Webfront Retail? Intel and Microsoft have developed several versions of new kiosks to help bricks-and-mortar retailers offer online-style convenience within their four walls. This could be the future self-service experience: scan yourself in, try clothing (or product) on a digitized photo of yourself to see how it looks, add it to your virtual cart, and pay at the kiosk with cash, credit or even your cell phone. Since you’re in a store, however, you can walk out that day with your purchases.

These kiosks are designed to help traditional stores compete in an increasingly virtual world, but we think that the technology would complement other innovations in a system that could reinvent retail entirely. It’s a souped-up version of the kiosks used in Nau’s webfront stores, and could pair well with elegant delivery systems to create a more efficient, less energy intensive process for connecting people with the stuff they want. (JL)

Skateistan: Kickflips in Kabul In Western mainstream media, most young Afghans are portrayed in a particularly negative light. And likewise, in Afghanistan, most young people only hear negative things about the West and Western culture. Working to create a positive voice for both sides is Skateistan, the first co-educational skateboard school in Afghanistan. Founded in 2007, the school offers boys and girls between 5 and 17 years free skateboarding lessons and so much more.

An excerpt from the video:

Aside from skateboarding, Skateistan aims to teach children solid life skills and help with social interaction. The kids are just very keen to get involved with something. It wasn’t necessarily the actual skateboarding, but focusing on an activity, giving them something to do that is positive. At the moment in the media, there isn’t anything positive written or spoken about Afghanistan. You only hear negative stories about America, about oil, about Taliban, about war. So Skateistan is trying to create something positive in Afghanistan. There doesn’t seem to be any animosity about this being a Western Sport…It’s very important to have fun. Skateboarding is just pure fun. It’s noting else. It’s just pure fun…fun is really important. Skateistan aims to encourage this.

Architecture for Humanity and Nike recently announced that Skateistan will be the first recipient of their GameChangers fund. According to Architecture for Humanity, Skateistan will use the funds to build Kabul’s first indoor skate park at Ghazi Stadium. Australian firm Convic Design will contribute to the design for the outdoor area around the facility and the indoor skate park will be built to international standards by IOU Ramps from Germany. Construction began last week, and is expected to be completed by fall 2009. (SK)

Majora Carter on “Asset-Based” Solutions Worldchanging ally Majora Carter recently spoke with the American Society of Landscape Architects about her “asset-based development group”. An excerpt from an interview that’s worth reading in full:

Planners, infrastructure engineers, politicians, and even social service agencies often look at areas or groups of people — I think they like to call them “populations” — as problems that can be solved with this or that action. It usually involves taking money from somewhere and putting it where an expert says it’s needed. It is undoubtedly never enough, and it engenders a sense of competition from whomever feels it’s being taken away from the “problem” that they want to solve.

(JL)

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Features at 11:02 AM)

Compiled by Austin Davis

Clean Energy Funding Trumps Fossil Fuels

Global investors spent about $250 billion building new power capacity in 2008, and for the first time the lion’s share of that money went to renewable sources, according to the United Nations Environment Program.

Renewable sources accounted for 56 percent of investment dollars, worth $140 billion, while investment in fossil fuel technologies was $110 billion, the U.N. program said in a report, Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment 2009, released on Wednesday and produced in collaboration with New Energy Finance, a research company based in London.

Here is the full study, “Global Trends in Sustainable Energy Investment.”

The U.N. report highlighted how investment in developing countries in 2008 had surged forward by 27 percent to $36.6 billion, and now accounted for nearly one third of global investments. “Bright points” last year included the growth of wind power in China and a rise in spending on geothermal energy in countries including Australia, Japan and Kenya, according to Achim Steiner, the executive director of the United National Environment Program.

Brazil, Chile, Peru and the Philippines had brought in, or were poised to introduce, policies and laws fostering clean energy, he said. China led new investment in Asia while Brazil accounted for almost all renewable energy investment in that region.

Climate change threatens Mideast stability: study

Climate change could spark “environmental wars” in the Middle East over already scarce water supplies and dissuade Israel from any pullout from occupied Arab land, an international report said on Tuesday.

Almost 10 years of failed peace talks between Syria and Israel have focused on water in and around the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. The vital resource is also a point of conflict between Israel and Palestinians seeking a state.

Regarding the Syria-Israel dispute, the report said Israeli concerns about “food security and reduced agricultural productivity could shift the strategic calculation on whether to withdraw” from the Golan Heights, occupied in a 1967 war.

“The expectation of coming environmental wars might imply that the way to deal with shrinking resources is to increase military control over them,” said the Danish-funded study by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, an independent organization headquartered in Canada.

The Golan supplies 30 percent of the water for the Lake of Galilee, Israel’s main water reservoir.

Regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the report said sea-level rises as a result of climate change threatened to contaminate Gaza’s sole aquifer supplying 1.5 million Palestinians in the territory.

Student invents solar tower storage system

Claus Volkening, 23, of the University of Portsmouth, has designed and laboratory-tested a solar updraft tower that uses water storage tanks to solve the problem of existing solar power plants which only generate electricity when the sun shines.

Existing solar updraft towers work by collecting heat energy from the sun and sending the warm air up through a tower which houses a turbine. Volkening’s model siphons off some of this energy and uses it to heat water – energy which is later released to keep the turbine turning at night.

Best practice for biochar

The nascent biochar industry… plans to sequester vast quantities of carbon in soil using an ancient Amazonian agricultural practice and to sell the latent emissions as credits on a global carbon market.

The concept is simple: if terra preta — or charcoal-enriched soil — was re-created globally, as much as 6 billion tonnes of CO₂ could be prevented from entering the atmosphere annually, a substantial fraction of the 8–10 billion tonnes emitted each year by humans. Proponents, who include no small number of world-class climate scientists, say that burying biochar not only would slow the rate of warming, it would enhance soil fertility — and the charcoal-making process could produce sustainable biofuels to boot.

Small islands win UN vote on climate change security

Small Pacific islands vulnerable to rising sea levels won a symbolic victory at the United Nations on Wednesday with the passage of a resolution recognizing climate change as a possible threat to security.

The non-binding resolution, passed by consensus by the General Assembly, may help put climate change on the agenda of the more powerful U.N. Security Council, which deals with threats to international peace and security.

Climate Bill Earmarks $500M for Clean Coal ‘Admin Expenses’

Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) has been trying for the past year to get Congress to set up an independent corporation dedicated to clean coal development. He introduced the Carbon Capture and Storage Early Deployment Act (HR 6258), which provoked some hearings in 2008, but it went nowhere and died. So this spring he reintroduced the bill, virtually unchanged (HR 1689).

What happened next is further proof of the enormous leverage Boucher wields as a coal state Democrat in shaping national climate legislation.

His bill was incorporated wholesale as pages 52-75 into the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES), the climate bill Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey are shepherding through the House.

Changing Climate Likely To Make ‘Super Weed’ Even More Powerful

Researchers at the University of Delaware have discovered a new reason why the tall, tasseled reed Phragmites australis is one of the most invasive plants in the United States.

The UD research team found that Phragmites delivers a one-two chemical knock-out punch to snuff out its victims, and the poison becomes even more toxic in the presence of the sun’s ultraviolet rays.

Forest carbon market already shows cracks

A forest carbon market is emerging in anticipation of a global, U.N. climate deal in December in Copenhagen, expected to allow rich countries to pay to protect rainforests as a cheap alternative to cutting their own greenhouse gases.

Officials in Papua New Guinea (PNG) have underlined how things may go awry.

Reuters has uncovered evidence of a multi-million-dollar offer of assistance from carbon brokers to a government agency, and confusion over whether offset sales were from valid projects.

…But development and environment groups have long warned that suddenly placing a big value on rainforests could spur friction and even conflict in some developing nations, because of uncertain tenure rights, corruption and inadequate policing.

This piece originally appeared in Climate Progress.

Photo credit: Flickr/Inju.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Climate Change at 2:38 PM)

Collaborative solutions that will make our communities resilient in the 21st century don’t need to wait for some version of the future, or conform to some outdated hippie ideal. Case in point: the community kitchen. This smart, practical program promotes local food security, not only by ensuring that participants have access to affordable food, but also by completing the picture — giving people the time, equipment, guidance and assistance necessary to prepare healthy meals in a busy world.

Photo credit: Karen M. Winston

Here’s how it works: first, a community of people plans a menu. They work together, or elect an organizer, to procure food. Sometimes the members themselves simply divide the cost, enjoying the savings that come with purchasing food staples in bulk. Sometimes the group gathers donations, or makes use of food from local food banks or similar institutions. No matter where the food originates, however, one important detail sets the community kitchen apart from soup kitchens or other feeding programs: the practice of preparing and sharing food communally. The people who will eat the food are the same people who help to cook the food, and by those rules, all participants are equal.

One Kitchen in Action

I recently had the pleasure of joining the Rainier Valley Community Kitchen, which recently started here in Seattle. The neighborhood-based group meets monthly to cook a variety of freezer-friendly dishes in massive quantities, so that participants, who pay $25 apiece (if they can) to attend, each take home four- to five-person servings of each dish. This particular community kitchen is sponsored by Seattle-based co-op PCC, which allows kitchen organizers to purchase ingredients for their menus from the market at cost.

About a dozen of us met in the commercial-sized kitchen at the Rainier Valley Community Center. The menu for the month had been planned in advance: Thai coconut curry soup, vegetarian risotto, potato-cheese croquettes and vegetarian minestrone soup. Sacks of vegetables spilled onto the counters amid bulk tubs of cheese and spices and massive cans of coconut milk. We divided into teams around each recipe and set to work chopping, peeling, sautéing and boiling. Even in a big kitchen, that many people working at once creates a kind of friendly mayhem, and of course there were spills, misplaced tools, and corresponding solutions improvised at the last minute. Still, by the time two hours had passed, the finished products tasted good, the kitchen was clean, and we had more than enough for each of us to fill a shopping bag to the brim with steaming containers to carry home.

More Than Meals

Photo credit: Kala Mayer

Cooking several family meals’ worth of food on such an affordable budget, and with such minimal time spent in the kitchen, is reward enough for most. But the dozen or so people who frequent the Rainier Valley kitchen describe reasons for coming that transcend economy. People like to cook together, and they enjoy turning cooking into a learning experience, whether their aim is to learn basic cooking skills, new recipes, ideas for healthy menu planning, or even topics entirely unrelated to food. When your hands are busy, discussions seem to flow more easily, even among relative strangers.

“I think it’s an entry point for community organizing,” says Diane Collis, manager of Vancouver, B.C.-based Fresh Choice Kitchens, the community kitchen program of the Greater Vancouver Food Bank Society. “We can talk about politics and nutrition, what doctor did you use when your kid was sick – all sorts of things go on in community kitchens that aren’t about cooking. It’s about social support.”

At Fresh Choice, Collis helps provide informational materials, health and safety training and other support for the large network of community kitchens in the Greater Vancouver area. She has also helped develop community kitchens outside her hometown, extending her reach from other Pacific Northwest cities like Seattle, to as far away as Australia. When she first started working on the program 13 years ago, it was known as the Vancouver Community Kitchen Project, and it was an initiative designed specifically to serve low-income residents by helping them stretch their food budgets while creating healthy meals. In 1999, they turned recipes from the project into a cookbook, which they sold in local retail stores.

“It attracted different people than we originally thought it would,” Collis says, “and it became obvious that community kitchens could benefit anyone – young people, old people, people living with health concerns. We started to market community kitchens more broadly.”

Photo credit: Karen M. Winston

Now, she says, British Columbia’s many community kitchens have adopted a wide variety of focuses: for example, teaching new immigrants about English and Canadian culture through food; specific dietary management of chronic diseases like diabetes; baking techniques; kid-friendly foods; ethnic foods; nutrition. Collis has even seen Vancouver agencies use the community kitchen model for job training, allowing participants to earn their food-safe certifications while cooking for local day care programs, and sending them on to jobs in cafes, restaurants and institutions. “Community kitchens are grassroots programs,” she says. “They are supposed to reflect the needs of the people who are involved.”

Food and Security

Community kitchens are also resilience-building institutions, contributing to the food security of a neighborhood or social group. Not only does the practice encourage new relationships and foster useful knowledge of basic cooking, nutritious meal planning and health safety, but also, it teaches very practical skills that protect participants in an emergency situation. “People who are involved with community kitchens become used to working with others in a way that is shared equally, and benefits everyone,” says Collis. “Someone who is involved with a community kitchen would find it much easier to pull their neighbors in; they’ll understand how to scale recipes to accommodate the larger group, and they’ll have comfort in community organizing. It’s a basic skill that dates back to people in the agricultural era of the 20s and 30s – they used to stretch their food all the time. When there’s an earthquake, we might get so much food from the state, but if everyone pitches in and understands sharing, we can make the food last long enough to sustain ourselves.”

Read other related posts in the Worldchanging archives:

Lunch at the Langar: Exploring a Free Kitchen in Delhi

Seattle to the World: Fare Start

Food and Community

Recession and Innovation

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Julia Levitt in Features at 6:00 PM)