
For the sake of a bad pun, Sasquatch leaves a big footprint. Since 2002, the indie-rock festival held at the Gorge on Memorial Day weekend has brought such top-notch talent as Björk, the Beastie Boys, Modest Mouse, the Flaming Lips, and dozens more. But between the fuel used by artists and fans driving several hours to the Gorge, not to mention the energy used to power the amphitheater, Sasquatch has also been responsible for its fair share of pollution.
According to Elie Rothschild of the San Francisco–based group Carbon Harmony, last year's two-day festival put 1,400 tons of carbon emissions into the earth's atmosphere, and the 2006 fest, one day longer, about 3,000 tons. These emissions add up to what is called a "carbon footprint," essentially the measure of an individual's or business' contribution to global warming.
Compared to enterprises like the Ford Motor Company, Sasquatch's footprint is relatively minor. But it was eye-opening to founder Adam Zacks when it occurred to him that his festival was encouraging thousands of people to get in their cars and drive hundreds of miles. Last year, Sasquatch joined a growing number of companies (Pepsi-Cola, Dell, and Whole Foods among them) by going "carbon neutral." The festival is doing it again this year, but taking it a step further: aiming to be carbon negative.
Akin to "sustainable" and "green," the term "carbon neutral" is largely a public relations tool. Critics argue that it means exactly what it says: not doing anything to hurt the environment, but not doing anything to help it either. If a company decides to go carbon neutral, firms such as Carbon Harmony tally the size of its carbon footprint. Then those firms "offset" those emissions by investing an equal amount of the polluter's money in renewable energy sources. Sasquatch's offsets will go to Pacific Northwest cattle farms that convert animal waste into electricity.
But carbon neutrality does nothing to reduce emissions per se—hence the criticism from environmental groups like Friends of the Earth, which claims carbon offsets give people the gift of guilt-free pollution. "With something like Sasquatch, the best thing [carbon neutrality] does is create awareness of the issue," says David Willett, national press secretary for the Sierra Club. "If you've got a lot of impressionable young people going to the festival or checking out the Web site, it's giving them direct lines to this information."
Sasquatch's web site defines carbon neutrality as "a way to reduce the amount of carbon emitted in one place by eliminating it from another place. This produces a net carbon output of zero." But as Willett points out, this is PR-speak for "the pollution level stays the same." Even if Sasquatch 2008 reaches its carbon-negative goal by offsetting 125 percent of its carbon emissions, it will still produce more pollution than last year, simply by being one day longer. Willett does, however, offer a solid argument in carbon neutrality's favor: It creates financial interest in clean energy where there wasn't previously.
When asked what Sasquatch organizers could be doing to reduce on-site pollution, Willett advises that they offer incentives to attendees who carpool, pack their own food, and bring their own reusable water bottles. He also says the organizers could power the show with solar panels and biodiesel generators and purchase clean-power catering. Manchester, Tennessee's Bonnaroo, for instance, features one solar-powered stage, and all non-music generators are run on alternative fuels.
But the real work, Willett says, should be done by the people doing most of the polluting: the attendees. A quick scroll through the Web sites of similarly huge festivals, such as Bonnaroo and Coachella in Indio, California, provides a wealth of information on how each festivalgoer can reduce his or her environmental impact. They stress using air conditioning sparingly while driving to the festival, as well as putting your car in neutral while waiting in festival traffic. Anyone carpooling (defined as four or more to a car) to Coachella is eligible to win VIP tickets to the fest for life. Coachella also has recycling stations at which for every ten empty water bottles you deposit, you get a full one free, while Bonnaroo's Web site boasts that of the 593 tons of waste produced at the 2007 festival, 60 percent was recycled.
Meanwhile, Zacks says Sasquatch is encouraging carpools through a ride-share board (that information is available by clicking sponsor Esurance's link on the festival Web site). And last year, Zacks enlisted the help of activist group Global Inheritance, whose TRASHed store offered merchandise, such as skateboards autographed by the Beastie Boys, in exchange for a monetary equivalent in recyclable materials. (Unfortunately, all statistics on recycling at Sasquatch were lost when Live Nation took over the Gorge last year and fired its general manager.)
"The recycling issue has been a challenge because of the remote locale and [because there is] no existing recycling program in the area," says Zacks. "Last year, we bagged everything up and trucked it out to the nearest recycling center, burning fuel every step of the way. It's far from perfect, but it represents major progress over the last two years."





















Reader Comments
Cattle farms employ feed-lots. Feed lots are growing in size and grow to 100,000 head of cattle, for example. Feed lots efficiently concentrate cattle waste. Feed lots employ corn that becomes that waste. In fact corn, "...explains our cattle farm industry."
Corn requires roughly a half-gallon of fossil fuel to grow a bushel. Corn also requires more fertilizer and herbicide/pesticide than most other crops. Today commodity corn is approximately 40% tax-subsidized in this country. That commodity corn is not consumed by people without processing and proliferation of corn production is responsible for disappearing smaller more diverse crop and food-producing farms.
We overproduce corn too; a surplus supply of corn subsidizes other industries engaged in production of non-nutritional sugar substitutes (high fructose corn syrup), corn oils and starches that line Seven-Elevens wall-to-wall with diabetes-causing sodas and individually wrapped neon-colored plastic sugar and oil. And roughly 25-30% of the 10,000 items found in the average grocery store contain corn too.
But fatty corn-fed beef is also the primary ingredient in McSaturated Fat Burgers – a source of our national obesity and related threats we face, i.e., our health and economic healthcare provision. The cattle industry’s feed lots pen down cattle, in part, to prevent their exercising off that valuable saturated fat.
Feed lots also pump cattle full of antibiotics that eventually contaminate food/water systems. Antibiotics are made less and less effective via biotic mutations responding to overuse of antibiotics. The antibiotics are required because a corn diet screws up a cow’s digestive system which kills cows before it gets fat enough for slaughter. A cow’s corn diet creates an environment in cow’s stomach that establish our E. Coli threat too.
The organizer's promotion of spin-off industries (waste into electricity) supporting what I would describe as a model, “less than sustainable” is not an "all-good" model & without issues.
Thanks
- Scott Nodland
More info for any interested at www.kingcorn.net.
You have a valid point, but it's pointed in the wrong direction. Don't overlook the forest for the trees.
The agricultural industry has many many many issues.. and it's is absolutely true that vegetarian diets are better for the world.
That said, the fact is, dairy and cattle farms do exist. When they don't do anything to the waste, it becomes methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas that is about 20 times more powerful than CO2.
By installing this equipment to burn the methane and produce electricty, it not only oxidizes the carbon in the methane (CH4) into Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and water (H2O) to reduce the greenhouse gas effect, but it also reduces fossil fuel consumption by producing electricty from this renewable fuel (cow sh!t)
This isn't bull sh!t.
This is undeniably a good thing.
We are not funding new cattle farms or encouraging people to eat beef. Try to keep things in perspective before you diss. Just try to make things better. (That's what we're doing.)
John Humphrey
Chief Technology Officer
Carbon Harmony
A division of Sustainable Energy Partners LLC
http://carbonharmony.com
Http://separtners.com
email:
john@those sites
First, as clarification I regularly eat beef and I'd bet a beef dinner that I can eat more beef than you can; winner pays dinner (?) However, we will need to dine on grass-fed and grass-finished beef; I eat more of that than anyone I know who consumes corn-fed beef.
Second, your point: "...cattle farms do exist" is a valid point. My point: does it really make sense, for the long term, to focus development upon renewable energy source dependent upon cattle farms?
Moreover, I can conditionally agree with the technology of cow waste as a renewable fuel source as a lone-tree concept. My issues are more squarely aimed at the forest surrounding that tree.
That tree is dependent upon: tax-subsidized commodity corn production; subjecting animals to feedlot conditions; continuation of high saturated fat diets; contamination of food/water systems with antibiotics; etc.
It's the wisdom of developing dependencies upon a technology with "symbiotic" relationships with something, as a friend of mine would say, "with a lot of hair on it."
Thanks,
- Scott Nodland
http://www.foodrevolution.org/grassfedbeef.htm
I buy my grass-fed / grass-finished beef at Madison Market (The People's Co-op) at the crest of the hill on Madison Street in Seattle. The source is Skagit River Ranch, a cattle operation that engages a mobile slaughter facility in a semi-truck trailer driven out to the cow in the pasture. Pricy yes. Quality yes. And I sleep better too.
Thanks
- Scott Nodland
"Farmed animals produce about 130 times as much excrement as the entire human population of the United States, and since factory farms don't have sewage treatment systems as our cities and towns do, this concentrated slop ends up polluting our water, destroying our topsoil, and contaminating our air and meat-eaters are responsible for the production of 100 percent of this waste—" http://www.goveg.com/environment.asp
Thanks for the link and the personal advice.
Though ultimately it's not likely I'll become your ideal vegan instantaneously - I will reconsider it. A proper decision requires actually taking the time to look at the facts of the case, rather than relying on broad generalizations.
In the interim...
Not sure if you caught the difference between corn-fed feed-lot "factory cows" (your link speaks of those) and grass-fed/grass finished - pastured - cows (those cows I eat)?
My cow food is sourced from small mom & pop pastures vs. cow factory feed lots.
The technology I am "dissing", (actually I'm proposing the technology has a problematic symbiotic relationship to cow factories I am not associated with), does not chase around the pastures my cow food for its dung source - that would be far too inefficient. Instead the technology is dependent upon "factory cows" concentrated in pens in feed lots - (somebody else's cow food.)
My analogy is that grass fed beef, if you are set up for it -- have a local producer, buy in bulk, own a freezer -- is one way to make a substantial reduction in fossil fuel use.
At the current scale of production, it's the low-hanging fruit of energy savings. If a sizable fraction of Americans decided to eat this way, and significant negative spillovers became evident, I'd reconsider my calculation. But for now, a diverted small fraction of the cattle market into locally-marketed grass-finished beef looks like a winner to me.
I assume proper decisions require actually taking the time to look at the facts and alternatives, dialog on them, etc. - rather than rely on broad generalizations.
Because a company says a technology it sells is "a good thing" - does not mean it is so. Further, I might also suggest that because someone conjures up choices greener than my own, though not necessarily more viable, it does not mean the greenest choice is "a best thing" either.
Thanks
- Scott