That plant you despised could become your dinner

ADAM Grubb makes a beeline for a plant clumping in the mulch, behind a park bench, next to the barbeque area.

“This is mallow,” he explains, “which is related to the marshmallow plant and to okra. You can eat the leaves, the seeds and the flowers. It’s eaten widely around the world, especially in the Middle-East.”

We’re in a small, typical park in Brunswick. Mr Grubb, from Very Edible Gardens, runs regular edible weeds walks, in which he traces an extraordinary, wholly overlooked fact.

“The vast majority of herbaceous annual weeds – the most common plants that pop up without invitation – are edible. And a lot of them are medicinal,” he says.

Most can act as substitutes for our normal leafy greens. Mr Grubb also suggests blending them with fruit to make green smoothies.

But it so happens that today in the park, we find mallow, with its seeds, and salsify, a starchy root that looks like a white carrot. “They could be the foundational parts of a meal,” he explains. Nearby we identify five more edibles, side-by-side: milk thistle, dock, dandelion, wild lettuce and cleavers.

At the moment, Mr Grubb is up to his elbows researching edible weeds for a book he’s writing with Annie Raser-Rowland, who teaches workshops on the subject at CERES Environment Park. (While you wait for theirs, see this booklet by Pat Collins.)

Facts about all kinds of plants roll off his tongue – like these about cleavers: “Also known as sticky-weed or goosegrass, it’s in a lot of ancient medicinal books as a lymphatic stimulator. Pliny the Elder said it’s good to improve one’s lankness and to keep from fatness,” he says. “You can also make a coffee substitute out of it.”

If that sounds obscure, here’s something more straightforward. “Remarkably, a large percentage of these wild plants are more nutritious than spinach,” he says. “They’re higher in vitamins A, C and E, higher in omega-3, and much higher in anti-oxidants.”

Aside from the nutritional benefits, there’s a practical plus to all this weed-eating. “Learning to see the benefits of these plants is revelatory, because it means you have to do less work in the garden. The only definition for a weed is a plant out of place. We can do the weeding in our minds,” he says.

Mr Grubb offers a word of caution, however: some are poisonous. The Greek philosopher Socrates was sentenced to death by drinking a cup of hemlock, which is common around Melbourne. “Don’t go eating anything you haven’t identified beyond doubt,” he says.

Ms Raser-Rowland says that from an ecological perspective, many weeds help repair damaged land. “They can stabilise and rebuild topsoil, trap nutrients and slow water movement,” she says. “In doing that, they create homes and food for birds, insects and other animals.”

She says the good things about backyard vegie patches, such as reducing transport and packaging, are magnified in the case of weeds.

“If these plants can produce food in our urban areas, with no need for labour or inputs pillaged from other ecosystems, it seems worth asking whether they have a role here – not an unchecked role, but a role.”

“There’s also something very, very reassuring in walking your territory and picking food. It has been the dominant activity of most of our human history, so perhaps that shouldn’t be surprising.”

Read this article at The Age online

How well are our cities working?

Here’s some encouraging news for city-dwellers: per person, since 2006, we’ve been consuming less energy and water, producing less waste and recovering more of it, and breathing cleaner air.

This information comes from the State of Australian Cities 2011 report, prepared by the federal government’s Major Cities Unit.

The study, which was first undertaken last year, compiles dozens of indicators regarding population, productivity, sustainability and liveability in urban areas.

Among its varied findings, the report reveals that while inner-city areas have become denser, it’s the outer suburbs that still accommodate most of the population growth.

Despite the gathering sprawl, average commuting times – longest in Sydney (35 minutes) and Melbourne (31 minutes) – remained steady in the decade to 2006.

The report also shows that public transport use is on the rise. The average distance travelled by vehicle peaked early last decade and has fallen slightly since then. Nevertheless, the total “vehicle kilometres travelled” in our cities continues to increase, because we have more people and more freight altogether.

So how should we judge these facts about our cities?

Alan March, senior lecturer in urban planning at University of Melbourne, says the analysis lacks a yardstick. “I don’t see a forward projection there, which is the point of ‘sustain’ in sustainability: a sense of how we’re going to deal with a low-carbon or a low–fossil fuel future,” he says.

He’s also troubled by the scant attention given to inequality and disparities in service provision. “The way cities operate is crucial to the difference between the haves and the have-nots, which is clearly increasing in Australia,” he says, citing, for example, the need for everyone to have a primary school within walking distance.

“I put that under the social sustainability mantle – if you let some people get a long way behind then it’s much harder to bring them back later. In many ways it’s much less efficient.”

And while a reduction in energy, water and waste per person is heartening, it’s the total eco-impact that counts. With a growing population, cutting overall consumption is a bigger challenge. When it comes to housing, that could entail retrofitting and adapting the housing we have, rather than building new.

Dr March argues that governments need to switch investment away from roads and into public transport, and pay heed to other concerns, including habitat loss and the way we feed our towns.

“We need to take our food supply into account,” he says, “particularly all the knock on effects when you relate it to oil-scarce economies and the large distances involved. Food should be weighing more heavily on our minds.”

In the same way, he says, we must assess our cities’ ability to withstand crises. “The evidence is conclusive that we’re going to have more extreme weather events. We’re also becoming increasingly aware of the fragile nature of the world economy.

“One of the big movements in sustainability now is thinking about the resilience of places, not just to natural disasters, but also to things like economic shocks, terrorism, or pandemics,” Dr March says.

“We have very vulnerable single-service systems, like our water and electricity supply. We know they’re not resilient and therefore not particularly sustainable if something goes wrong with one key element of that chain.”

Read this article at The Age online

The eco-standard of houses will be made public at sale or lease

IF you buy a car, you can easily find out its fuel efficiency. But what about a house? The ongoing costs and eco-impacts of existing buildings vary widely, but it’s hard for would-be buyers or renters to know what we’re in for.

In early 2009, state and federal governments agreed that a dwelling’s energy, greenhouse and water performance should be publicised at the point of sale and lease. Since then, however, not much has happened.

The policy is known as “residential building mandatory disclosure”. The name may be uninspiring, but if the reform is handled well, it could prompt a big change in household energy and water consumption.

While the details haven’t been set, the approach will be broader than the current star ratings. As well as the building fabric, it is likely to cover heating, cooling and hot water systems, together with lighting, clothes drying, rainwater tanks and water fittings, and a list of recommended upgrades.

Tim Adams, president of the Building Designers Association Victoria, says the scheme shouldn’t be compared to fuel efficiency in cars; rather, he likens it to a roadworthy certificate.

“We have consumer protection measures in place for all sorts of products. Mandatory disclosure should be seen as a kind of roadworthy check – and in this case we’re talking about protecting investments of several hundred thousand dollars,” he says.

“Unfortunately, we have a large quantity of building stock that was built before any energy efficiency provisions began. This is a way of informing us what the costs will be in our next house.”

Mr Adams argues that it will help people better judge the worth of the homes they’re inspecting.

“We’ve been lazy due to the cheapness of coal-fired electricity and natural gas,” he says. “In the future, when energy isn’t as abundant or cheap, we’ll need to be increasingly aware of these issues so we can value houses properly before we buy or rent.”

So how will it work?

In July, the federal government released a regulatory impact statement and sought feedback on different designs for the scheme. It detailed six proposals, ranging from a comprehensive, independent assessment, to an optional, self-assessed checklist.

The scheme’s success will depend on the quality of information required. The more rigorous options would be the most useful for buyers, but cost more upfront.

Some environment groups have criticised the report’s modelling, arguing it failed to factor in the health benefits of higher standards, or the avoided expense of new electricity infrastructure.

In its submission, the Association of Building Sustainability Assessors proposed a hybrid option, in which householders could choose among three tiers. Only people who opt for the most comprehensive version would be eligible to receive the highest rating.

Mr Adams’ association, which also accredits sustainability assessors, supports a system of compulsory self-assessment, at a minimum. The weaker proposals, such as an optional tick list, would be a waste of time. “The information needs to be consistent and people should be obliged to provide it,” he says.

“It’s in nobody’s interests to end up with the status quo. We need to do something about climate change and energy efficiency, so we need to start making some progress.”

Once the various governments agree on the scheme’s design, it will be up to the states and territories to enact the rules.

Read this article at The Age online

Living ponds or pools are good for your garden

WITH the cost of electricity and water rising, conventional swimming pools are becoming more resource-sapping than refreshing.

But landscape designer Phillip Johnson believes there are several smart ways to keep water bodies in our gardens – from natural pools to seasonal ponds and billabongs – if only we think a little differently.

“If you have water in your front or backyard, you’re bringing back habitat and biodiversity. And it helps cool down that space as well,” he says.

The first thing to do, he argues, is to think of stormwater as a valuable resource. Because of climate change, south-east Australia is expected to receive less rainfall overall, but more severe storms.

“Every property and road has been designed to drain water as fast as possible, and that contaminated water gets into our creeks and rivers,” Mr Johnson says. “If you can slow the stormwater, catch it and clean it, whatever leaves your place will be in much better condition.”

To help do that, he designs dry creek beds or swales running from rainwater tank overflows or downpipes. “When it rains, the dry creek bed comes alive and feeds into a billabong, water feature, or natural pool, which works as a reservoir for flood mitigation,” he says.

“In a natural system, billabongs exist on the edge of a creek. When it floods, it fills up this little wetland to the side. They’re really rich in biodiversity and create great habitats for frogs.”

Unlike conventional pools, Mr Johnson’s natural pools don’t rely on chlorine or salt to keep the water clean, but rather, use biological filters to aerate the water. An energy-efficient pump moves the water through a “regeneration” zone. “We learn from nature, where water often passes through river gravels and plants that absorb nutrients,” he explains.

Installing natural pools, and converting existing ones, has become a significant part of his business, but he maintains that you don’t have to spend big bucks or install a complex system. “You can do this yourself, but you’ve got to do your research.”

At her house in Northcote, permaculturalist Kat Lavers took the straightforward approach. She simply dug a hole and dropped in an old bathtub with the plughole blocked.

“We filled it with water from our tank and put rocks in there to create niches and different microclimates for plants that need a shallower depth,” she says.

“We also collected water from a nearby freshwater dam, which contained lots of critters like small shellfish, freshwater snails and maybe even dragonfly larvae. It added a diversity of life into our pond – and that means mosquito larvae don’t breed in large numbers.”

The plants in the pond also help inhibit mosquitoes by aerating the water and reducing the nutrient level. You can grow edible plants there, such as land cress and some kinds of mint. Water chestnuts will thrive in a boggy spot at the edge of a pond.

“The most obvious benefit of having a pond is beauty, but it goes beyond that,” Ms Lavers says. “It provides a reliable water source for lots of critters – some of them slugs and snails, but also really helpful ones like dragonflies, hoverflies, honeybees and lots of creatures that help to minimise the work you need to do in the vegie garden.”