Update Week of 3/16

While our project began by examining what food hub model would be the best for the District of Columbia to implement, it has now evolved to answer a different question. As Blake and I delved deeper into the issues of food hubs, we found that the issue was not so much what model of food hub was best, instead, it was more important to determine how food hubs are working to overcome challenges.  Therefore, our research question has morphed into the following:  In order for a food hub to be successful in the District of Columbia, what challenges would it have to overcome? According to the USDA’s Resource Guide on Regional Food Hubs, all across the country food hubs are running into four major problems that will potentially undermine their longevity. These four challenges are: managing supply and demand, price sensitivity, access to capital, and managing growth. In order to assess how, or if at all, the already established food hubs or food hub-like entities within the District are experiencing these problems, we created a number of interview questions for the list of Food Hubs within or surrounding the District. Another set of interview questions was created for potential buyers from the food hub. This group included universities, restaurant chefs, and hospitals.  

At this point we have had three different interviews. One was conducted with Jay Heller, a chef within the District who has actively been trying to source food locally for a number of years, Benjamin Bartley, Arcadia Center for Sustainable Food and Agriculture’s Director of Food Access, and Amy Bachman, the Procurement and Sustainability Manager at DC Central Kitchen. Mr. Heller pointed out that one major issue from the buyer’s perspective is that price can be a major prohibition to chefs purchasing locally grown food. In addition, for those who are trying to purchase locally, they are experiencing fierce competition in the market. Mr. Heller believes that some type of cooperation needs to be set up among restaurant chefs in order to make sure there is equilibrium between the demand and supply side of local food.

Mr. Bartley and Ms. Bachman both highlighted that another major issue facing food hubs in the District is their inability to grow due to the lack of storage space available. Both entities are currently at capacity given the real estate the currently own. Both are also “renting” storage space from other entities in order to meet their demand, although they do not actually pay rent.  In order for both entities to grow, they underlined the need for affordable real estate. Renting or purchasing property in the District is known to be quite expensive. If the District wants to truly establish a successful food hub within its borders, it will want to look at how prohibitions due to high real estate prices can be assuaged. In order to get a better sense of what the other cities have done to overcome the issue of high real estate prices, we will speak with Greg Heller on March 26^th. Mr. Heller is responsible for setting up the new food hub within Baltimore. The Baltimore case is pertinent, because the land for the food hub was purchased from the city by the food hub for a minimal price of $500,000.

Finally, Blake & I have begun to discuss metrics on how to best measure the sustainability and success of food hubs. These talks are in the preliminary stages and will hopefully solidify further over the next three weeks. 

Op-Ed Critique

What’s the right temperature for the Earth? And what happens when countries disagree about what it should be? By Andy Parker and David Keith

In the Andy Parker’s and David Keith’s op-ed in The Washington Post, “What’s the right temperature for the Earth?” the authors clearly point out the flaws of an international system and the serious effect it would have on the governing of geo-engineering. The major question facing the international community should geo-engineering be put into service is: who will be in charge of the controls for the earth’s temperature system? As Parker and Keith argue, the fights over the climate change controls will most likely mimic climate change negotiations in that countries will not see eye to eye on the best set temperature for the Earth.  Just like in the climate change debates, countries constantly argue about who should cut their greenhouse gas emissions, by how much, and by when.

Using hypothetical examples based on facts, the authors create scenarios that are filled with just as much conflict as the current climate change negotiations. In their example, Russia wants to keep the temperature of the Earth a bit higher than say a country like Tuvalu. This is due to Russia benefiting from climate change in that much of Siberia is likely to melt. This will open vast amounts of land for Russia to then use for agricultural production.  However, the cooler the temperature remains the less likely it is that Tuvalu will be under water. As a result of the conflicting views on what the Earth’s temperature should be, the authors predict the potential for some serious international conflicts. Say, for example, rules are set up to govern the controls of the Earth’s temperature, but one country decides to take matters into their own hands. How will other countries react? In the authors’ point of view, the situation could become quite ugly, particularly if the conflict is between two nuclear powers. These hypothetical examples create a very persuasive argument as to why geo-engineering is not the temporary fix that some proclaim it to be. Instead, it will open up another can of worms in the realm of international relations.  

To peak the readers interest, the authors link their argument to the recent release of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences’ report on geo-engineering.  The authors further hook the reader by arguing that this reality is not off in the distant future, but more rapidly approaching us.  It very well could become a reality within our lifetime. It also engages the reader by showing that the issue of geo-engineering is no longer just a conversation happening on the fringe of climate change circles, but is rapidly coming to the forefront of discussions in relation to climate change. In addition, this op-ed by Parker and Keith teaches a potential op-ed writer that it is good to make a topic relatable to the reader. Not everyone may understand the workings & sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature, however, everyone knows the difference between setting their home thermostat at 64 degrees and 72 degrees. In addition, everyone understands the fights that can ensue should two people in the household disagree over what temperature to set the thermostat at. Overall, Parker and Keith wrote a strong op-ed piece.