Economic Intersections report, meet coastal resilience necessity


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

gear-grabOn first reading, I give Economic Intersections, the Make it Happen Rhode Island report from the RI Foundation and Commerce RI a B.

It’s mostly things we’ve heard before like tech transfer, support for manufacturing and regulatory reform. It has some very good, new areas of focus, and it has an interesting idea that doesn’t quite make the grade. But I’m writing this short piece because there is one, glaring, horrifying and totally irresponsible part that defies any kind of logic whatsoever, at least as it is presented in this executive summary.

Good

The best part of this is the new focus on food production. There is a clear understanding that this burgeoning sector represents an important part of our next economy, and the report recognizes many important factors in building out the industry. Farms and farmland now have much better visibility within the state’s economic apparatus.

Even better, there is a section focused on the “food-health nexus.” Simply having those two words together in a state-level economics report represents a giant step forward. Medical technologies, neuroscience and bioscience all still hold their places at the top of the economy the report envisions, but actual health and what makes it possible—good, fresh food—is in the mix. Yay!

Not So Good

The report devotes a section to making Rhode Island “stronger and more resilient.” In this area, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of expertise at the table, as evidenced by the goal of creating “scalable approaches to economic development through resiliency.”

Resilience doesn’t scale. Lack-of-scale is the essence of resilience. As I’ve written here many times, resilience is based on redundancy, which is inherently inefficient and therefore not scalable. Many small things within redundant networks so that when some of them experience catastrophic failures—as will certainly happen with greater frequency—the system continues to function through alternate paths. The only thing that scales is the network.

The intention is to spawn companies that develop approaches and technologies around community resilience, as if resiliency were a product. I think what they really mean is “protection from catastrophe,” which is different from resilience. And, certainly, there’s a market to be made in protection from catastrophe, because there will be no shortage of global warming-driven catastrophes.

Some might hold out hope that once the economic apparatus starts to examine resilience and systems-oriented approaches to the impacts of climate change, they may actually/accidentally start to pursue genuine resilience.

But don’t hold your breath. Here’s why.

Blind, Stupid, Irresponsible

I like the top-line idea here: promote access to water and marine-based businesses. When you’re the Ocean State, it’s kind of a no-brainer. But this section of the report has a glaring blind spot, a miss so incredibly stupid that it might be more irresponsible than the 38 Studios deal.

Nowhere in this section—even in this section of the full report—does one find the terms “climate change,” “global warming” or “rising sea levels.” It’s true that they throw a bone to the Coastal Resource Management Council’s current role in this area, but CRMC is conspicuously absent from the list of public entities in the plan moving forward.

The plan is heavy on access to the water and marketing. Which means, of course, building right at the water’s edge. Think “marina access to a mini-resort”.

This represents an irresponsibly short-sighted approach. Coastal properties already have almost no choice but the federal insurance pool, and these costs will certainly only go higher. It is only a matter of time before any coastal infrastructure gets destroyed.

To add insult to injury, the full report refers to New York City’s 2011 Comprehensive Waterfront Plan, and the last of its eight goals is “Increase Climate Resilience.” I mean…right?

This is the kind of pull-your-hair-out stupid that still permeates our econo-think. It’s possible that they never put two and two together to make four. Or it’s possible that “certain powers” deliberately excluded the TOTALLY FRICKIN’ OBVIOUS, SIMPLE LIKE FALLING DOWN CONNECTION HERE!

(As background, Gov. Carcieri’s administration actively worked to suppress any mention of solar power in the RIEDC’s 2009/2010 Green Economy Roadmap authored by yours truly. So this kind of move is nothing new.)

CONNECT. THE. DOTS!

I know this is complicated, so I’ll go step by step.

1. The report is called Economic Intersections, so it’s about connecting things that might be complementary.

2. One idea in the report is to develop marine-based businesses, following New York’s waterfront plan.

3. New York’s waterfront plan includes increasing the waterfront’s resilience.

4. Another idea in the report is to develop resilience.

It seems so elementary, so obvious that I’m embarrassed to have to spell it out like this, but…here goes:

Focus your resiliency efforts on the coastal impacts of global warming-driven sea level rise and catastrophic weather events so that your marine-based businesses can be, oh, I don’t know…resilient.

March Against Monsanto: Providence protests Frankenfood

frankefood rallyMillions of people this Memorial Day weekend enjoyed barbecues with all the genetically modified fixings. Most did so without a thought about how the world’s food supply is being forever altered for Monsanto’s personal profit. But not everyone spent the beginning-of-summer celebration stuffing their faces with Frankefood. On Saturday, more than two million people in 436 cities across the planet took to the streets to March Against Monsanto.

Here’s what the protest looked like in Providence – video by of Paul Hubbard and the soundtrack courtesy of Jared Paul, both local activists.

Cassie Tharinger Returns Cider to Rhode Island


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Cassie Tharinger and John Bunker
Cassie Tharinger and John Bunker
Cassie Tharinger (L) and John Bunker (R) under a Black Oxford apple tree (courtesy C. Tharinger)

Hard cider was once the Drink of Americans. Every farm produced it. John Adams drank a tankard of it every morning. Children drank a drink called ciderkin. And the famous apples of the Johnny Appleseed legend? Apples intended to be turned into hard cider.

Even Prohibition, which utilized the destruction of apple trees as a symbol of temperance, included a passage in the Volstead Act explicitly allowing farmers to make cider while the rest of the country went dry. That proved to be its undoing, decentralized as it was, America’s large industrial brewers quickly pumped beer into throats of the newly-populated cities, and cider’s popularity plummeted.

But Rhode Islander Cassie Tharinger sees fresh life in it; in the last 5-10 years, cider has been returning to the American drink list. Just as the craft brewing industry has revitalized American beer, the craft cider industry has an opening. Perhaps one better than the craft brewing industry, as no single cidery dominates the market as Anheuser-Busch InBev and MillerCoors do among breweries.

Ms. Tharinger, raised in Vermont, moved to Rhode Island about twelve years ago and worked at the Rhode Island State Council on the Arts, while hobby fermenting cider on her own time. She also became the fruit coordinator for Urban Greens, a harder task back before farmers’ markets began to spring up. It required her to take trips to Hill Orchards in Johnston, RI, where the owner, Allan Hill, taught her more and more about growing apples. With her hobby cider-fermenting on one hand, and this newfound passion for apples on the other, “I saw my interests dovetailing,” she says.

But most of Johnny Appleseed’s hard cider apple nurseries have long ago been cut down, despite what tales will tell you. So Ms. Tharinger moved to Maine for a year and a half to study under John Bunker of Fedco Trees, a large tree nursery that propagates old apple varieties. According to Ms. Tharinger, Mr. Bunker’s philosophy is that the study of apples is worthless without propagation.

At this point, it’s good to understand how apples spread. “Each new seed produces a new variety, your Granny Smith seed does not equal a Granny Smith apple tree,” she says. Instead, branches of one tree are grafted onto another tree, so on one tree, many varieties of apple might grow. Fedco Trees has a research nursery, which Ms. Tharinger runs. “It’s a repository of varieties,” she says. A living library of apples.

Now she had a plan: “to root cider in good orchard growing.” Armed with both an understanding of apple-growing and cider-brewing, she returned to Rhode Island to create a cidery based around an orchard. With American hard cider apple varieties hard to come by while demand is growing; and no existing importation trade for English, French, and Spanish cider apples; the potential cidery needs to grow its own cider apples, she reasoned. For the last six to nine months, Ms. Tharinger has been pursuing her dream; putting together a business plan, networking, and doing outreach for the cidery.*

Hard Cider
A couple of glasses of cider (via Mother Earth News)

But it’s never just that simple. With cider (except for that dark brown liquid previously known as “apple juice”) out of the American drinking landscape for the last 90 years, cidermakers have had to start pushing for better rules about what constitutes cider. The dream, pushed for by cider advocate Steve Wood of Farnum Hill Ciders, is a cider section in your local liquor store. The Cidermakers’ Conference, which recently held its second annual meeting, is pushing for a legal definition and regulation. While there is a federal license, few state ones exist; Massachusetts and Vermont are exceptions. Rhode Island has nothing about cider anywhere. Indeed, its laws aren’t conducive to starting a cidery.

“I’ve thought about going somewhere else, but this is home,” says Ms. Tharinger, visibly troubled. She says that not only is land expensive, but the poor small business environment is daunting.

A bill introduced by Representatives Teresa Tanzi (D – Narragansett, Peace Dale, Wakefield) and Jared Nunes (D – Coventry, W. Warwick) would allow farm wineries to sell at farmers’ markets. But the liquor lobby has come down hard against it, and Ms. Tharinger says that it’s hard to get farm wineries to advocate for the law; angering distributors could impact whether their products make it to shop shelves. But Ms. Tharinger thinks it’s a good move. She’s spoken to other cider start-ups, and selling at farmers’ markets is a way many get started, it’s where most of their selling happens.

Despite the obstacles, Cassie Tharinger sees the potential in starting a cidery here in Rhode Island. And after nearly a century of its absence, Rhode Islanders might just be a thirsty for a little cider.

______________________________

*Previously, this article incorrectly referred to the process of cidermaking as “brewing” rather than “fermenting” and in one instance referred to a “brewery” rather than a “cidery”. I have also corrected a mistake which claimed that European apple varieties were expensive to import; rather trade is non-existent.