Supplemental Information

"Though strong global demand and tight supplies are bringing misery to some poor countries, the price surge is a sign of improving conditions in emerging economies. That's because increased demand is caused in part to rapidly rising standards of living, according to David Malpass, president of economic research firm Encima Global."

http://www.jrf.org.uk/media-centre/minimum-income-2009
The author states that the cost of living is rising twice as fast as inflation, and it's getting harder to live on low incomes. Most of the budget is going to items that have risen sharply in price, such as food. Increasing unemployment rates and job loss affect people in ways that means they don't have even half the minimum income they need to survive. The minimum standard is there to help keep sight of what is unacceptable.
The article doesn't seem to address what exactly is acceptable, and why the standard can't be changed as more and more people are falling below the standard. Have their standards been set too high? What are those standards? Why can't they lower it, and why do they need to keep people above the standard of living? While it's unacceptable to live in poverty, I'm sure some things are okay to be sacrificed or compromised--taking shorter showers, or some luxury like tea or so...

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/aug/19/food-movement-rising-exchange/
It's basically about how the food we eat is cheap food, and even though it costs less, we are faced with the affects of diabetes and obesity. The cost of food versus the benefits of nutrition has caused us to become an unhealthy nation. With the poor they have no other choice and are extremely unhealthy, and with the more wealthy, they try to save a buck by buying processed food rather than fresh produce. While cheap food is the pillar of our economy, the standards of living call for nutritional value that most can't afford. The price rising cost of food makes it so that nutritional food like vegatables are more like luxuries rather than necessities, and our economy isn't any better as consumers buy it less and less and go toward the packaged goods.
It's the opposite of the statement at the beginning, I think, and while there is a demand to be healthier, no one will take initive, therefore the standard of living is lowering. Is the fact that Americans are buying cheap, unhealthy food and becoming obese with diabetes really "the standard of living rising"? We eat more than any other nation but I don't think we're better off, are we?

Links

Alpine Strawberries Mignonette
http://www.groworganic.com/renee-s-garden-strawberry-alpine-mignonette.html

Genovese Sweet Basil
http://www.seedsofchange.com/garden_center/product_details.aspx?item_no=PS15864

Community-supported agriculture

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community-supported_agriculture and http://www.localharvest.org/csa/

Community-supported agriculture (CSA) is a socio-economic model of agriculture andfood distribution. A CSA consists of a community of individuals who pledge support to a farming operation where the growers and consumers share the risks and benefits of food production. CSAs usually consist of a system of weekly delivery or pick-up of vegetables and fruit, in a vegetable box scheme, and sometimes includes dairy products and meat.

CSAs generally focus on the production of high quality foods for a local community, often using organic or biodynamic farming methods, and a shared risk membership–marketing structure. This kind of farming operates with a much greater degree of involvement of consumers and other stakeholders than usual — resulting in a stronger consumer-producer relationship. The core design includes developing a cohesive consumer group that is willing to fund a whole season’s budget in order to get quality foods. The system has many variations on how the farm budget is supported by the consumers and how the producers then deliver the foods. CSA theory purports that the more a farm embraces whole-farm, whole-budget support, the more it can focus on quality and reduce the risk of food waste or financial loss.

Advantages for farmers:

Get to spend time marketing the food early in the year, before their 16 hour days in the field begin

Receive payment early in the season, which helps with the farm's cash flow

Have an opportunity to get to know the people who eat the food they grow

Advantages for consumers:

Eat ultra-fresh food, with all the flavor and vitamin benefits

Get exposed to new vegetables and new ways of cooking

Usually get to visit the farm at least once a season

Find that kids typically favor food from "their" farm – even veggies they've never been known to eat

Develop a relationship with the farmer who grows their food and learn more about how food is grown

Variations

As you might expect with such a successful model, farmers have begun to introduce variations. One increasingly common one is the "mix and match," or "market-style" CSA. Here, rather than making up a standard box of vegetables for every member each week, the members load their own boxes with some degree of personal choice. The farmer lays out baskets of the week's vegetables. Some farmers encourage members to take a prescribed amount of what's available, leaving behind just what their families do not care for. Some CSA farmers then donate this extra produce to a food bank. In other CSAs, the members have wider choice to fill their box with whatever appeals to them, within certain limitations. (e.g. "Just one basket of strawberries per family, please.")

CSAs aren't confined to produce. Some farmers include the option for shareholders to buy shares of eggs, homemade bread, meat, cheese, fruit, flowers or other farm products along with their veggies. Sometimes several farmers will offer their products together, to offer the widest variety to their members. For example, a produce farmer might create a partnership with a neighbor to deliver chickens to the CSA drop off point, so that the CSA members can purchase farm-fresh chickens when they come to get their CSA baskets. Other farmers are creating standalone CSAs for meat, flowers, eggs, and preserved farm products. In some parts of the country, non-farming third parties are setting up CSA-like businesses, where they act as middle men and sell boxes of local (and sometimes non-local) food for their members.

Shared Risk

There is an important concept woven into the CSA model that takes the arrangement beyond the usual commercial transaction. That is the notion of shared risk. When originally conceived, the CSA was set up differently than it is now. A group of people pooled their money, bought a farm, hired a farmer, and each took a share of whatever the farm produced for the year. If the farm had a tomato bonanza, everyone put some up for winter. If a plague of locusts ate all the greens, people ate cheese sandwiches. Very few such CSAs exist today, and for most farmers, the CSA is just one of the ways their produce is marketed. They may also go to the farmers market, do some wholesale, sell to restaurants, etc. Still, the idea that "we're in this together" remains. On some farms it is stronger than others, and CSA members may be asked to sign a policy form indicating that they agree to accept without complaint whatever the farm can produce.

Six Degrees of Separation 1

3 objects I'd possibly like to research:

Car
My mom drives me to school every day, and I ride the car to go everywhere like to the store (even on the weekends). So I wonder where the car comes from, and its impact on the environment.

Computer
I use the computer for homework, art, chatting, etc. I know the recycling of computers have a major impact on environment and economy too, what with needing to be sent to China to be taken apart. So I want to research the full impact of computers on the environment and people, before and after its creation.

Tablet
I draw a lot, and oftentimes on the weekends my sister and I use my tablet to draw on the computer. It's a simple slab of plastic, but I'm sure a lot goes into making it and sending it to where I am.

1 Reflection From Monday

I read comics. Comics come from stores. The stores get them from factories/publishers. Factories cut trees to get paper and materials to make the comic. Publishers get the content from editors, who get it from artists/writers. Artists/writers get supplies from art stores. Art stores get supplies from other factories, who get their materials from elsewhere (I don't know where).

So a lot of trees are cut down to print books, and a lot of gas is used to get places/make deliveries. Cutting down trees means less trees to take in CO2, and gas emissions release CO2. So the comics I read contribute to pollution and reduce the ways to prevent it.