The disposable economy from houses to shoes to greenhouses.

For decades our economy has been driven by consumption. Consumption of increasingly disposable goods. This may be unavoidable for some classes of products but why does every thing from shoes to houses to greenhouses have to be disposable?

This post was inspired by this article in the guardian. I can understand that for many electrical goods it might make sense to make them disposable. Given the rate of progress in computing power and all. But why shoes? Why are we putting up with poor quality expensive shoes that fall apart. Even when we spend extra money on what we think are items that will last they don’t. My dad has shoes he still wears that he bought when he was my age. Hiking boots that he bought when he was half my age are still in perfect working order*.

Bought in Scotland in 1979ish these boots have been up and down a host of snow and ice climbs throughout Europe. Still in perfect working order. Many modern boots have the soles peeling off them in one of two years.

With houses its even worse.

I imagine we are pretty similar to the UK where 50% of the UK’s carbon footprint is from the construction and maintenance of buildings. Which kind of puts the fixation on food miles into perspective. Post WW2 houses were built to last about 50+ years. I have been told by multiple builders and engineers that in Australia the new standards only require a domestic life span of 25+ years or even less at 20+ years. Which is interesting given the number of new suburban houses purchased with 30 year mortgages. Worse many houses built over the last decade are already showing signs of significant failure. There is also a trend to live in bigger houses. This doesn’t worry me so much. Yes it consumes more resources but a big energy efficient house built to last has a smaller environmental footprint than the more modest standard suburban brick box that will be demolished in less than 25 years.

This is the type of damage that you get from poor footings. Scrimping on the amount of concrete used in the footings means that they are not up to the job of resisting the expansion and contraction of the ground between winter and summer. Particularly between a drought year and a wet year. As little as 5% more concrete can double the life expectancy of a slab.

At Fish Farmers we are acutely aware of this problem.

Stand alone Aquaculture and hydroponics have a huge environmental footprint.

Not least from their use of electricity which is why we are so proud of our integrated aquaponic systems where we get better than 70% electricity savings. There is also the massive embodied footprint in these structures. Our systems require less than 70% of the capital to construct than comparable stand alone systems. ie they are 30% cheaper to build. That capital saving also translates into a reduced embodied environmental footprint.

The embodied footprint in a standard hydroponic greenhouse is huge. That would not be a problem if they were a long lived structure. Unfortunately these structures and the equipment installed inside them tend to have relatively short life spans. That is why we have designed our systems to have a much longer lifespan than is standard industry practice. For example we have chosen a Black Polypipe piping system over cPVC not just because HDPE production is more benign but because the expected life span is over 50 years rather than 20. Similarly in the choice of liners we could use PVC liners as they are the cheapest but their life span is the shortest**. HDPE liners may last about 20 years but the liner of our choice is Teranap because it not only has an expected life span of more 50 years but it is very easy to repair. HDPE liners are relatively cheap but they are a dog to repair so if they get damaged it can be easier to just replace them. Similarly our choice of Greenhouse structure is being made with an eye on what is the total life cycle of the structure. Both its embodied environmental footprint and its operating environmental footprint. These choices make our systems more durable, more reliable while ensuring they have a smaller environmental footprint.

However they come at a cost.

For example we could get an Australian made pump that is guaranteed to last over 20 years with minimal maintenance. It costs about $17,000 and we need two of them. Contrast that with a Chinese pump at only $3,700 with an unknown life expectancy. This is why we need investors that are not just interested in a good return but whose values and vision align with our mission. The mission to provide solutions to farmers that make economic and environmental sense. That support may come from investors with a longer term view than standard venture capitalists or it may come from the general public. Either way we need the funds.

The agricultural industry is set to exponentially increase its environmental footprint. We have solutions that will help to prevent that. As investor and community awareness grows solutions like ours will become more attractive. Wouldn’t it be better to be building systems like ours to meet growing demand? Wouldn’t it be better to be building energy and resource efficient systems now? Wouldn’t that be a better alternative to replacing energy and resource guzzling stand alone systems in ten or fifteen years time?

With your help we could get ahead of the curve? The demand for hydroponic fruits and vegetables is huge. Likewise for fish. The industry is already building stand alone systems to supply that demand right now. We need your help to demonstrate our alternatives. Alternatives that are more profitable and have a massively reduced environmental footprint.

* Although they are seriously heavy compared to modern versions.

** Not to mention that there a number of human hormone analogues that leached out of flexible PVC liners over time.

The disposable economy from houses to shoes to greenhouses.