Building With Cob Made Our Ancestors Cooler

Cob Cottage in Rosedale Neighborhood
Austin, Texas (courtesy of Mina Loomis)

I spent childhood summers with my grandparents in their 1846 home in the city of Aguascalientes, Mexico. They had no air conditioning but didn’t need it because their house had two-foot thick adobe walls. Humans have been using adobe and cob since prehistoric times to build shelters, particularly in climates with extreme temperatures.

Cob is a building material made from a mix of clay, sand, straw, water and earth, similar to adobe. It's not only fireproof and resistant to earthquakes, but it's also inexpensive and uses locally available materials. Most importantly, cob has high thermal mass that makes it easier to keep cob buildings warm in the winter and cool in the summer.

Read the rest of the article in the Austin Post.

Is It Local?

Like one of those characters in Portlandia who demand to meet the chicken they’re about to eat, I've started visiting organic farms across Central Texas. This past weekend I journeyed to Indian Hills Farm in Smithville. While organic farms are a recommended visit for all local-food junkies, Indian Hills is a great mini-vacation for anyone, regardless of your food persuasion.


Read the rest of the article in the Austin Post.

Helping People Fix Bikes: Ramon Martinez Brings a New Bike Co-Op to Austin

Ramon Martinez, founder of Bici Lbre in Los Angeles
and HOPE Likes Bikes in Austin

Sometimes, you have to leave Austin to re-discover Austin. Last week, I flew back to Los Angeles for my little sister’s college graduation. (My own graduation happened fourteen years ago.) Even though the San Gabriel Valley, just east of the city, brings up stark visions of thick smog, stucco strip malls, and tangles of freeway overpasses, I was looking forward to a few days off and cooking by Mom.

My first day there, I had plans to hang out with my brother. I met him at Bici Libre in downtown Los Angeles, where he volunteers as a bike mechanic. Bici Libre is a community bike workshop space (or bike co-op) – with the help of volunteers they fix bikes and teach people how to fix their own, for a suggested donation.

Bici Libre also reclaims abandoned bicycles and redistributes them, as well as provides education workshops, to underserved communities throughout the L.A. County. This non-profit organization is a project of the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition (LACBC).

Read the rest of the article in Latinometro.

Losing Our Trees

Heritage Trees in Downtown Austin  (Cesar Chavez & San Antonio)

Recently, I joined a collective effort to Save the Heritage Trees in the Heart of Austin, Texas.

Their Facebook page states the following:

"STOP property developer Trammell Crow from cutting down our heritage trees in the heart of downtown Austin, [at the corner of] Cesar Chavez and San Antonio. Sign our petition at http://www.change.org/petitions/we-the-people-vote-for-trees

On Thursday May 24, 2012 Austin City Council voted for big business. City Council voted 7 to 0 allowing a waiver to the Heritage Tree Ordinance so that the property developer Trammell Crow could remove seven heritage trees from the development site at the Green Water Treatment Plant in the very heart of downtown Austin, TX.

These seven heritage trees (six live oaks and one 33" caliper pecan tree) are next to the sidewalks and can easily be saved by incorporating them into the design of the landscape. The trees are within a stones throw of Austin City Hall and the Margret Hofmann oaks on Cesar Chavez.

We are committed to following in the footsteps of Austin's Tree Lady, Margret Hofmann, who fought for the heritage tree ordinance as a council member in the 1970's. She was a pioneer in her dedication to trees, and her tireless efforts contributed enormously to the beautiful green city we enjoy today."

I was inspired to cover this story for the Austin Post, in an articled called "City Ignores Its Own Heritage Tree Ordinance: Sets Bad Precedent," exploring some of the deeper issues, as well as similar cases that have happened in the past. Zoila Vega-Marchena, Ph.D. was gracious enough to gather a great deal of information on behalf of Michael Fossum, Executive Director of the Austin Heritage Tree Foundation. I included excerpts in my article, but I wanted to include the entire information somewhere on the internet, for others to see.

A quote from the Austin Heritage Tree Foundation on the importance of saving the trees for Austin's well being:

"The Austin Heritage Tree Foundation supports the “save the trees” petition, but we are not officially involved. We strongly oppose the removal of these trees, and we believe that some of these trees can be accommodated into the design, and the remaining trees can be transplanted. We ask for Trammell Crow to realize how important these trees are to the community and to actively work with the City Arborist, the City of Austin, and the community to save all of these heritage trees and the protected tree left on site.

Only about 5% of all of the trees in Austin are heritage trees, but a healthy distribution is 10%. This is the result of decades of trading and sacrificing heritage trees to save smaller trees on the development site, and the result of removing healthy heritage trees and mitigating by planting new young trees.

Heritage trees are the workhorses of the urban forest. On average, it takes about 75 years for a live oak to reach 24 inches in diameter, and 130 years to reach 30 inches in diameter. These numbers are typical of other tree species and are not particular to slow growing live oaks. It’s hard to grow heritage trees nowadays because of current climate conditions, inferior nursery trees stock, poor soils and low soil volume. Soil is a critical factor.

A heritage tree is special not only because of the tree, but because of the soil it is growing in. That soil is good to promote growth. Removing heritage trees and placing development on that area robs us of the last pieces of good soil left. New trees are planted in compacted soils in parks that see high human traffic. New trees are also planted in sidewalks and are given very insufficient soil volume.

On average, the former Urban Forestry manager estimated that trees on downtown sidewalks die in 10 years, and in 15 years anywhere else, partially due to the harsher conditions by the street (heat from the asphalt), but mainly to outgrowing their small soil volume allocated for the roots. There are techniques that can be used to improve this, but Austin doesn’t use them.

But street trees will never grow to be heritage trees. Street trees are disposable decorative trees. Texas has lost 10% of its trees due to the drought. Many of those were heritage trees. Austin can’t afford to lose anymore heritage trees.

The Heritage Tree Ordinance has saved thousands of heritage trees since it was approved in February 2009. The City of Austin has required more than 3,000 applicants to abide by its rules, and all of these applicants, without a single exception [up until the Trammell Crow development case] have never been given a variance to remove a heritage tree. They have all designed around the trees to save them on site. That is a 100% success rate. Only 5 cases have gone to the public process. Out of those 5 cases, only 1 was an actual case of requesting a variance. 2 of the 4 cases were trees that were not in good shape, one case was retracted, and the last one was a retroactive case because the developer damaged the roots of the trees.

The one public case was the 2011 Bowie St. case, Perry Lorenz’s Land and Endeavour development. The Planning Commission asked the developer to submit proof that they had tried to design around the tree and couldn’t (a requirement of the Heritage Tree Ordinance). The developer showed a design that saved the tree on site. The issue was the garage footprint, and saving he tree caused the design to require an additional parking level for their multilevel garage, something that the developer didn’t want to do.

The development surpassed by magnitudes the number of parking spaces required by the City, even more since the developer had obtained CURE that allow him to have 60% of the City parking requirements, in exchange for some voluntary affordable housing or open green spaces, which the developer refused to give.

Finally, the developer choose to transplant the tree on site, from the location with the rich soil that promoted that heritage growth to a spot in the lot near the creek, next to the garage. A new home for the tree, maybe not as good a home as its previous home, but the tree will still be alive if taken care of. The City Arborist approves the transplanting plans and requires 5 years of irrigation. Survival rate is estimated to be high by some provided that good care is provided, but there is no actual scientific data to substantiate any survival rate at all. But, at least, the heritage tree was not removed."

CASES OF MASSIVE TREE REMOVAL BY AUSTIN DEVELOPERS:

1. 2012: Green, a Perry Lorenz’ and Trammell Crow development. 6 heritage trees and 1 protected tree. Perry Lorenz and Trammell Crow development. TC is directed, but NOT required to work with City Arborist. The community would like to see the design alternatives considered by Trammell Crow, but the ESGRO is not releasing any information because they are determining is it is public.


2. 2007: Grayco development at Lakeshore and Arena, a PUD. City of Austin staff approved the site plans in 2007. City Council attached a covenant in 2007 to protect all of the heritage trees at Lakeshore that were historical because they were donated by LCRA a few decades earlier. There was some stipulation in the covenant that a couple of the trees were going to be removed and that other trees could be removed under some specific situations. [Austin Heritage Tree Foundation hasn't] been able to find the covenant yet. The buildings were demolished years ago, but due to the down turn in the economy, there was no new development until 2012. The case was grandfathered since the site plans were approved before the Heritage Tree Ordinance was approved.
   
   However, Austin has had a Protected Tree Ordinance since the 1970s, and when the 2007 deal was done, all of the trees in the 4 blocks were approved to be removed with only 10% more mitigation than required by code. The developer promised to provide green spaces and environmentally sensitive. A few weeks ago, without the public knowing, 3 of the LCRA historical heritage trees were removed and 2 were transplanted. They were in the way of the new driveways of the new development. Most of the trees in the 4 blocks were removed or are being removed. These magnificent healthy and large trees (some of then heritage trees) are being removed and piled up on the site. Many are still standing, to be removed later, but are being hit by machinery and their roots are exposed by the dozers passing by. It;'s pure tree torture an if trees were rocks, and not living organisms. Over 100 trees were removed from the site, only a few trees were saved. The mitigation was minimum.
   
   Most developments were like the Grayco one before the Heritage Tree Ordinance was approved. It’s easier to take down all of the trees and regrade the lot, and plant new little trees later. But the soil is compacted and the soil volume allocated not enough. Developers try to pile as many young trees as possible because its’ cheaper to mitigate by planting caliper inches than paying the mitigation fee, so the trees get planted too close to even grow past 15 years.
   
   
3. 2008: A good example is Pecan grove at Barton Springs Rd., now the Lofts. Another Perry Lorenz development. Marcia Ball advocated against the lofts and the java coffee shop because of the excessive amount of trees removed. Many arborists evaluated the old pecan trees and assessed most of them to be healthy, but one arborist didn’t, and with that bad arborist report, the City arborist granted the tree removal permits due to poor health and safety issues. There were negotiations back and forth, there was the commitment from the developer to transplant 5 trees, then a storm blew the top of those trees, and the developer never transplanted anything. The centerpiece pecan tree in the courtyard is declining. www.atwhatcostthemovie.com

FUTURE CASES: The electric plant redevelopment and the Seaholm redevelopment, both Perry Lorenz projects. The many trees that will be removed to put the trail in Shoal Creek at 5th St. (all trees and all vegetation will be removed to put walls and gabions instead of leaving the creek banks, under the excuse of reducing flooding and erosion, not really needed since trees hold the soil in place and there is only erosion in a few spots).

Loquats Gone Wild

Excerpt from original article in the Austin Post:

Two of our loquat trees yielded more fruit than we knew what to do with. So we looked up a recipe for chutney and canned as much of it as possible. Turns out, loquats were going wild all over Austin this year. I tried giving away loquats, but I discovered that many people didn’t know what they were. Those who seemed most interested in our fruit were Mexican neighbors who knew loquats as “nísperos.”

When Earth Day Was Every Day and Everyone Walked

The Big K, Greenwich, NY, James Howard Kunstler, 2010

Ever since March, my calendar began filling up with Earth Day activities. Lectures, demonstrations, mixers and, of course, the big 2012 Austin Earth Day Festival at the Historic Browning Hangar at Mueller. I was all set to go on Sunday, but as I was having coffee that morning in my kitchen, with the French doors swung wide open letting in the cool backyard breeze, I thought about a few things.

The radio was tuned to KMFA, one of my favorite stations because the commercials are generally non-intrusive, classical music keeps me and my dogs sane, and the station has innovative programming so you are not stuck listening to the same old Mozart, Beethoven and Bach over and over.

A commercial came on announcing a store that was locally and independently owned, selling 100 percent cotton and organic clothing. (Would have been better if they were sustainable and fair-trade as well!) Not too long ago – maybe some time before World War II – these qualities weren’t luxuries, or options for the eco-conscious. These were part of normal everyday life.

Read the rest of the article in the Austin Post.

Pantene Nature Fusion vs. Ancient Ayurvedic

The Ecoloxica blog spun off my original blog, Chronicles of Undercover Mexican Girl, when I realized I was frequently writing about my adventures in sustainable living, whether it was growing my own organic garden, eating locally, reducing household and office waste, using products that had a low impact on the environment and a positive impact on my health, and generally learning how to be more resourceful. It was also during this time that I began learning how fellow bloggers who focused on a particular niche were often invited to review products, so I was honored when I was contacted to review Pantene's new Nature Fusion collection...just in time for Earth Day 2012!

Pantene uses natural, renewable resources in its product packaging to help reduce its environmental footprint. The Pantene Nature Fusion collection, which combines Pro-V science with naturally-derived Cassia in a more sustainable bottle, is the first hair care brand to use renewable, sugarcane-based plastic in its product packaging.

Lately, the first thing I do when I evaluate a personal care product is to read the label and look for the following ingredients: sodium laureth sulfate and "fragrance." The toxicity of both of these ingredients is debatable and somewhat controversial. Sodium laureth sulfate, or sodium lauryl ether sulfate (SLES), is a detergent and surfactant found in many personal care products such as soaps, shampoos, and toothpaste - it's basically what creates the foaminess.

Some products containing SLES have been found to also contain low levels of 1,4-dioxane, with the recommendation from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that these levels be monitored. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies 1,4-dioxane to be a probable human carcinogen at concentrations significantly higher than those found in commercial products. So what does this mean? It means that even if SLES is found in products like Pantene's Nature Fusion collection, the levels are probably too low to cause any health damage.

At any rate, I decided to give Nature Fusion a try. While I'm a geeky environmentalist, I'm still a girl at heart, and because my hair is extremely thick and frizzy, I always enjoy trying hair products that will smooth out my hair, making it look and feel silky. Although my hair did not remotely resemble the television commercial models' long, perfect hair, after using Nature Fusion shampoo and conditioner - without any blow drying - my hair did feel incredibly soft. Shortly after I washed my hair, I went to have lunch with a Latina blogger friend. Without mentioning to her that I had tried a new hair product, she commented that I smelled as if I'd walked out of a natural herbal, beauty store.

But many dedicated environmentalists, including me, choose not to take a chance and opt instead for products that do not contain any SLES whatsoever. One online resource for locating these types of products is the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep® Cosmetics Database. Because I'm also a fanatic of using locally manufactured products, I've developed an affinity for the Ancient Ayurvedic shampoos sold at Austin's Herb Bar, which use a pure herbal formula, contain no sodium lauryl sulfate, fragrance, sulfites, or artificial colors, and are vegan and have not been tested on animals.

Another ingredient that I avoid is the ever vague "fragrance." The presence of fragrance is usually an indicator of phthalates, which are not only used to soften plastic, but are also one of the oily substances used in cosmetics, perfumes, and many beauty products. Phthalates are labeled on common household products as "fragrance." If you want to learn more about phthalates and plastic, read my article reviewing Bag It, the documentary.

With all that said, not every single personal care product is absolutely perfect. Ancient Ayurvedic products still come in a regular plastic container. The largest size comes in an 8-oz. container, and it doesn't foam up like regular shampoo, so you have to use it very sparingly (otherwise you will be going through lots of plastic bottles). Mine lasts about four to six months, if I alternate with other shampoos, and I only shampoo my hair every 2 or 3 days. (Shampooing your hair every day causes damage anyway - although there is nothing wrong with rinsing it with plain water  on a daily basis, unless your local water is harsh with minerals and chemicals.) Also, it's significantly more expensive. The 8-oz bottle of Ancient Ayurvedic is $20.

According to The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), plastics make up more than 12% of the municipal solid waste stream in landfills in the United States, a dramatic increase from less than 1% five decades ago. The largest category of plastics waste are found in containers and packaging such as soft drink bottles and shampoo bottles, and only 8% of the total plastic waste generated in 2010 was recovered for recycling.

The use of sugarcane-derived plastic in Pantene's new Nature Fusion packaging is one step towards reducing its environmental footprint. The old Nature Fusion bottle used 100% petroleum-based plastic. The new bottles use 59% plant-based plastic plus 41% petroleum-based plastic. Sugarcane-derived plastic is effectively chemically identical to traditional plastic. According to Pantene, the only way to differentiate it is through carbon-dating.

NATURE FUSION'S SUSTAINABLE PRODUCTION PROCESS:

Sugarcane-derived plastic has a positive carbon footprint, meaning that it reduces the CO2 in the atmosphere by using as much as, or more, than it releases.

The facilities that make the sugarcane ethanol operate almost exclusively on renewable energy that comes from the sugarcane by-products.

Sugarcane-derived plastic uses less fossil fuels and has a lower potential to cause global warming*:

It uses less of the planet’s non-renewable resources than traditional petroleum-based (HDPE) plastic

Its production process uses over 70% less fossil fuels than traditional petroleum-based (HDPE) plastic

Its production process releases over 170% less greenhouse gases than traditional petroleum-based (HDPE) plastic

*When compared ton per ton (or gram per gram) to petroleum-based plastic.

With all these facts, the choice is now yours. Which shampoo will you choose?