An Ode to Compost- by Pooja Virani

Special Guest contributor Pooja Virani is a Peace Corps volunteer in Paraguay-

Remember that feeling you had the first time you were covered in cow manure? Well, I certainly do! It was disgust at that green slime running down my arm; disgust at that pungent odor permeating my clothes. Why was I covered in cow poop you might ask? Because I needed it for my abonero, my compost-pile. I have a large bin in my backyard (hopefully it's tall enough to keep the chickens out). I first put a layer of dry leaves to cover the bottom. Then I spread a layer of oh-so-sweet-smelling manure on top, after which I put another layer of dry leaves, followed by a layer of green leaves and rotten lemons, another layer of dry leaves, and finally kitchen scraps. I made sure to water the pile between every layer and add soil as well, just for consistency. The layers alternated between carbon-rich and nitrogen-rich organic matter, as to create the proper chemical reaction that will cause the pile to heat up. What was the point of spending all morning shoveling piles of shit, raking up leaves and rotten fruit, and hoisting buckets of water out of my well? What's the goal? Crumbly, sweet-smelling compost (and this time I really do mean sweet-smelling) – the best all-natural fertilizer you can give your garden. A supplement that puts carbon, nitrogen, and potassium into the soil, enriching it and helping fruits and vegetables grow faster, last longer, and taste better.

Since I was already covered in dirt and sweat by this point, I decided to experiment with manure tea. I put heaping piles of cow dung into an onion sack, tied it shut, and placed it in a bucket of water where it will steep for a week or two, resulting in rich, liquid fertilizer. There was one hitch with this plan. I was getting the cow poop from my neighbor, whose house I reached by hopping a barbed-wire fence. The problem I did not foresee was transporting this bag of manure back to my yard. Imagine the sight of me stumbling around, desperately clutching in both arms, trying to move a surprisingly heavy sack of shit. This brings us back to the point where we came in, the one where I was covered in shit. Oh well, all in a day's hard work!

P.S. Another problem I did not foresee was getting shit stains out of a shirt. I guess I'll have to keep that shirt aside for my "lifting piles of cow shit onto my abonero" days.

Want cheaper gas? USE LESS

Hello wonderful readers, 

The following comes from our dear friend Erin O'S. Please feel free to comment on it!

"Americans’ Diet-Pill Solution to High Gas Prices

I have received countless emails about not buying gas on Wednesdays, not buying from Exxon or not buying in large amounts, but not one suggesting that maybe we should just drive less. The best that these kind of group demonstrations can hope to accomplish is to show that a large group of people care about the price of oil. Not enough to alter their spending habits, but enough to drive a few extra minutes to the next station.  Without knowing it, they are actually crippling their cause by proving how truly dedicated they are to Big Oil’s product; that despite being upset with the situation, they are unwilling to alter their total consumption.  At the end of the day it's the consumers’ demand that keeps prices up.  Unless the government steps up to subsidize gas even more than it is now, the upward spiraling price of oil won't decrease until the demand falls off. (*note: except for elections, the price of oil almost always dips going into an election to make people happier with the incumbent party. But that’s another post for another day.)

The "don't buy on Wednesday" plans are American's diet-pill answer to the energy crisis. It's taking action that isn't that difficult, but doesn't really do anything either. It does make people feel like they're doing something, which eases their consciences enough so they can eat that forbidden bowl of ice cream or, in this case, take the scenic route home.

And yes, America is unique in that its cities and suburbs were developed later than most European or Asian cities, at a time when engines played a larger role in transportation that foot or horse traffic. (Something which was exacerbated by government-altered lower gas prices, btw.) So, naturally, not everyone can ditch a car for a bike or a pair of running shoes and places that are seemingly perpetually covered in snow and ice are not ideal for mopeds. I'm not saying that every person should switch over to a bike, and mass transportation cannot by any means get you everywhere you want to go- especially if you live outside a city- but that doesn't mean that everyone can't take steps. It isn't a huge lifestyle change to keep your car well-tuned, combine errands, obey the speed limit, carpool, or make your car lighter by emptying out your trunk.

The bottom-line to this is why not? Save yourself some cash (by paying less at the pump), get healthy (by upping your exercise), protect your national security (by reducing our dependence on unstable countries and unstable resources), preventing thousands of lung-related ER visits each year (by keeping chemicals out of our air) and do the environment a favor while your at it. You have literally nothing to lose and everything to gain. So why not?"

Good for Los Angeles, good for Giant!

Los Angeles has banned all plastic bags in grocery stores. You can bring your own or pay 25 cents for a paper or bidegradable bag.

Giant supermarkets have now switched, nationally, to only plastic bags like the ones below. It is a step in the right direction.

















In my next couple posts I will go back to the mission of taking on companies who don't measure up. First on my list- Fed Ex Kinko's...more to come...

The challenge

Watch it and take action! More on actions you can take to come...

Save the CRP Program!

Help save the CRP program! Copy the letter below, and send your own copy to your congresspeople and Mr. Schafer. The following are exerpts from article in the Baltimore Sun, link here.

The CRP (Conservation Reserve Program) program pays farmers around the mation to not farm certain portions of their land -- often, land that is not particularly productive, is hilly, or already wooded. Environmentalists like it because it protects habitat and reduces pollution, farmers like it because they are paid not to farm what is usually marginal land anyway, and wildlife is the biggest winner, with more acres on which to roam.

In recent years, farmers have been trying to opt out of the program early to increase acreage being farmed because of high corn and grain prices.

Congress and some farmers are pushing U.S. Ag Secretary Ed Schafer to let farmers out of their CRP contracts early so they can plant more acres. Environmental groups are urging the opposite, arguing such a release would be disastrous for the waterways.

Here's the full text of their letter to Schafer:

July 9, 2008

The Honorable Ed Schafer
Secretary of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20250

Dear Secretary Schafer:

We strongly urge you to reject proposals to allow the penalty-free early release of land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Early release of even a modest number of acres from CRP would waste the money American taxpayers have invested in restoring those lands to grassland or other cover and would eliminate the benefits to soil, water, wildlife and the public that the lands provide. A penalty-free early release of the magnitude you are considering – millions of acres – would deliver a devastating blow to the nation’s soil, water, and wildlife habitat, and significantly increase global warming. The resulting damages could cost taxpayers substantially.

The oldest of the farm bill’s voluntary conservation incentives programs, CRP is a federal program designed to reward farmers who take fragile land out of production and plant grasses or trees or restore wetlands on the land in exchange for rental payments and federal cost-share payments. Since its creation in 1985, CRP has been responsible for reducing hundreds of millions of tons of erosion each year, reducing pollution in our nation’s waterways. CRP is also an important reservoir for wildlife, and has had significant benefits for populations of ducks, grassland birds, and other species. Keeping land in CRP is also critical in the fight against global warming. Allowing millions of acres out of CRP prior to the end of the contract period would quickly erase many of the gains that have been made with CRP and will likely create new problems.

Because most CRP lands are marginal for cropping, even if all CRP acres were brought back into commodity production, the impact on aggregate commodity supplies and prices would be modest. On the other hand, the impacts to soil, water, wildlife, the public, and the recreational industry that has developed around wildlife such as pheasants and waterfowl produced on these lands would be substantial. We urge you to protect the taxpayers’ investment in soil quality, water quality, and wildlife habitat and not allow landowners to leave CRP contracts early without fully reimbursing the Treasury for the taxpayer-funded investment in those lands.

Sincerely,

Environmental Defense Fund
The Minnesota Project
Sierra Club
Center for Native Ecosystems
National Wildlife Federation
National Audubon Society
Partners for Sustainable Pollination
Environmental Working Group
Pollinator Partnership
Defenders of Wildlife
American Farmland Trust
World Wildlife Fund
American Rivers
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
American Bee Keeping Federation

Definitive Link Between Chemical Toxins and Health Problems

Higlights of article below, full text at http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/67238.

"If individuals and the public are properly educated about chemical toxicants, they will be empowered with the choice to make decisions to protect themselves and their offspring; without knowledge, the choice is precluded," says Stephen J. Genuis, a researcher in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Alberta, Canada. Genuis says recent research demonstrates a definitive link between chemical toxicants and potential health problems, including congenital defects and gynecological disorders. Nevertheless, Genuis stated, "There has been limited exploration of the relationship between contemporary chemical exposure and reproductive medical issues in mainstream obstetrics and gynecology literature. Credible scientific study is emerging, however, which raises disquieting evidence about the potential for environmental toxicants to profoundly affect the health and well-being of individuals at all stages of life."

Over the last half-century, more than 75,000 new synthetic chemicals have been introduced. An 'innocent until proven guilty' approach remains in effect for chemical agents; proof of safety is generally not required before products go to market. Adverse chemical agents may be inhaled in many homes, schools, and workplaces. Various personal care products inflict dermal exposure to chemical toxicants. Although small exposures may seem insignificant, many chemicals bioaccumulate (collect into larger amounts) within the human body. Chemicals can alter communication between cells and disrupt cellular and tissue regulation, often disrupting hormones. Individuals have differing genetic vulnerabilities and may exhibit differing responses to the same exposure. Doses of environmental chemicals asserted to be 'safe' are based on many assumptions and are typically derived from animal experiments. It is not ethical to intentionally expose a human to a potentially toxic substance in clinical trials, therefore the actual impact of chemicals on humans has not been evaluated and no claims to safety are warranted.

"Vociferous claims that insufficient proof exists to establish a link between common chemical exposure and harm as well as protestations by some industry that the benefits and expediency of chemical use outweigh the risks have contributed to confusion regarding chemical toxicity."

Legislation like the Kid Safe Chemical Act, recently proposed by Senator Lautenberg, is just the beginning. We all need to become more involved in approaching our legislators to regulate toxic chemicals. For a sample letter to your legislators, see "Inside MCS America: Activist's Corner" in the July issue of MCSA News or contact admin@mcs-america.org.

Biofuels caused global food crisis

This ought to be the end, I mean the END of the debate about biofuels.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/biofuels.renewableenergy

"Biofuels have forced global food prices up by 75% - far more than previously estimated - according to a confidential World Bank report obtained by the Guardian.

The damning unpublished assessment is based on the most detailed analysis of the crisis so far, carried out by an internationally-respected economist at global financial body."

"...The report points out biofuels derived from sugarcane, which Brazil specializes in, have not had such a dramatic impact."

So what is the problem with trade with Brazil again? ohhhh....they don't vote in the Iowa caucus!

Pentagon Fights EPA on Cleaning Up Pollution in DC Area

The following is my abridgment of an article from the Washington Post. The full version can be found HERE.

The Defense Department, the nation's biggest polluter, is resisting orders from the Environmental Protection Agency to clean up Fort Meade and two other military bases where the EPA says dumped chemicals pose "imminent and substantial" dangers to public health and the environment.

The Pentagon has also declined to sign agreements required by law that cover 12 other military sites on the Superfund list of the most polluted places in the country. The contracts would spell out a remediation plan, set schedules, and allow the EPA to oversee the work and assess penalties if milestones are missed.

The actions are part of a standoff between the Pentagon and environmental regulators that has been building during the Bush administration, leaving the EPA in a legal limbo as it addresses growing concerns about contaminants on military bases that are seeping into drinking water aquifers and soil.

Under executive branch policy, the EPA will not sue the Pentagon, as it would a private polluter.

"This is stunning," said Rena Steinzor, who helped write the Superfund laws as a congressional staffer, teaches at the University of Maryland Law School, and is president of the nonprofit Center for Progressive Reform. "The idea that they would refuse to sign a final order -- that is the height of amazing nerve."

Congress established the Superfund program in 1980 to clean up the country's most contaminated places, and of the 1,255 sites on the list the Pentagon owns 129 -- the most of any entity. Other federal agencies with properties on the list include NASA and the Energy Department, but they have signed EPA cleanup agreements without protest.

In dealing with cleanup efforts, some military branches have been more cooperative than others. The Navy has signed cleanup agreements for all of its Superfund sites, whereas the Air Force has not signed one in 14 years.

But Superfund sites are only one aspect of the Pentagon's environmental problems. It has about 25,000 contaminated properties in all 50 states.

Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said "I find it troubling, not only that the Department of Defense is in flagrant violation of final orders issued by the EPA, but that DOD is now attempting to circumvent the law and Congress' intent by calling on the Department of Justice and the Office of Management and the Budget to intervene," he said in a statement. "The EPA is the expert agency charged by Congress with enforcing our environmental laws, and the Administration needs to allow them to do their job to protect the public health and safety."

EPA spokeswoman Roxanne Smith said final orders were issued because the agency is worried about drinking water and soil contamination at Fort Meade, Tyndall and McGuire. "Under DOD's management, some of these sites have languished for years, with limited or no cleanup underway," she said.

Top 10 Cities for Design in America

The following is an article from BusinessWeek by Oriana Schwindt:

"What makes a city great is a topic guaranteed to spark heated debate. Now architectural firm RMJM Hillier has ridden into the fray with a list of 'America's Best Cities for Design,' produced with the American Institute of Architecture and Zogby International. American cities with more than 500,000 inhabitants were judged according to criteria such as the quality of public transit, the number of LEED-registered buildings (indicating sustainable design) and how many of the city's employees work within creative industries such as performing arts or publishing. Interviews with residents were also used to rate a city's design factor, which takes in elements of a city's architecture as well as its appeal as a home for creative types. Large cities such as Los Angeles feature in the top 10, along with smaller ones such as Portland, Ore. But Chicago's greening efforts and architectural innovation saw it take top prize."

The results were as follows:
10: Washington, DC
9: Philadelphia
8: Denver
7: Seattle
6: San Francisco
5: Portland
4: Los Angeles
3: Boston
2: New York
1: Chicago

A longer version of this article available HERE.

2008 International Year of the Reef

Hi all,

Sorry it's been so long since I've posted! But now I'm back to remind y'all that 2008 was declared the International Year of the Reef (IYOR)by the International Coral Reef Initiative. It's been a decade since the last IYOR (1997), but the mission is still the same: raise awareness about threats to coral reefs and educate people on how to protect coral reefs. Remember, coral reefs are vital to the health of the ocean, and in turn the planet.

In the spirit of IYOR, the following are a bunch of great links:

To learn more about what you can do in your everyday life to help protect coral reefs, visit http://www.iyor.org/resources/tips.asp.
To view a calendar of events celebrating/promoting IYOR, visit http://www.iyor.org/Calendar/events_list.aspx.
To view videos (TV ads airing in the U.S.) on ways to help reefs containing some nice wildlife footage visit http://www.iyor.org/TV/.
To meet the adorable Japanese IYOR mascots, visit http://www.iyor.org/focalpoints/countries/japan/JP_mascots.asp.
To learn more about World Water Monitoring Day on September 18th, visit http://www.worldwatermonitoringday.org/.
And mark your calendars! September 20 is International Clean-up Day! Last year on International Clean-up day, over seven million pounds of trash and marine debris were cleaned up in over 100 different countries. This year, you can help! Visit http://www.projectaware.org/americas/english/icd.asp to find out about volunteer opportunities in your area, or to start your own event! Keep in mind they have volunteer events for both land-lubbers and SCUBA certified individuals or dive-clubs.

Take your canvas bag...or make better plastic ones!!!

This video by the great Tim Minchin is a must-watch. "Take your canvas bags to the supermarket!"

It turns out that maybe some day plastic will be okay again....thanks do this genius of a kid! WOW!

Endorsement...

One of the largest and most influential environmental groups in the country has endorsed......Barack Obama.

Role Model, NOT Hypocrit

There are still a lot of those trashy Al Gore smear emails going around out there about his own energy use, but here are some helpful, de-bunking facts for everyone:


1. Al Gore has recently completed renovations to make his residence a model "green" home.

2. This plan has been in the works for a long time and has only recently been made public because of attacks by the right.

3. Gore's home meets Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, or LEED, standards established by the U.S. Green Building Council.

4. Al Gore's neighborhood council had zoning laws that previously prohibited the installation of solar panels. That has now changed and Al Gore has installed solar panels on his roof.

5. He has installed a geothermal system that will drastically reduce the cost of his water heating.

6. He has upgraded his windows and ductwork for maximum energy efficiency.

7. He has installed energy-efficient light bulbs.

8. He has created a rainwater collection system for irrigation and water management.

9. Al Gore drives a hybrid vehicle.

10. Al Gore's family has signed up for 100% percent green power through Green Power Switch.

11. Al Gore espouses a very consistent belief in purchasing carbon offsets to offset his family's carbon footprint. This is a concept the right-wing fails to understand and I suggest you do some reading before you discount it.

12. Al Gore flies commercial whenever possible. He is also an ex Vice President of the United States and receives numerous threats. Depending upon the security assessment and his schedule he is sometimes precluded from flying commercial.

13. Al Gore is an ex-Vice President who maintains his official office in his home for which requires adequate staff and space. He's has no other offices, making it unnecessary to use energy in separate locations.

14. The Gores' energy bills are in line with others in their part of the country. They live in the South, where extreme heat and humidity make air-conditioning the main drain on energy usage.

15. The Gores purchase, at great expense to themselves, "green" energy for their home (green energy costs 50% more than energy from conventional sources).

16. The Gores purchase carbon-offset credits to help mitigate the effect of their energy use on the environment.

17. One hundred percent of the profits from Al Gore's book and movie "An Inconvenient Truth" are going to a new bi-partisan educational campaign to further spread the message about global warming in addition to having a thousand people offer his slide presentation to groups around the world.

source- http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/8163-debunking-the-bunk-the-truth-about-al-gore-s-lifestyle

Ditch the Bottled Water!

For the Daily Dispatch Stephanie Nelson performed a cost-benefit analysis of the benefits of bottled water vs. using a Brita/PUR pitcher system vs. drinking plain old tap water. Highlights below:

“ The typical cost of the store-brand gallon of filtered water is about a dollar. The typical sale price of a six-pack of half-liter bottles is about $1, which is about one-third more expensive at $1.34 per gallon. By comparison, if you were to buy a pitcher water-filter system (such as PUR or Brita) your average cost per gallon of filtered water would be about 25 cents. The Brita company bases this cost estimate on the purchase of a $25 pitcher (one filter included), plus 5 replacement filters at $9 each, for a total yearly cost of $70. Each filter produces 40 gallons of water and the average Brita owner uses six filters in a year, to produce 240 gallons, which is the equivalent of using about two-thirds of a gallon per day. (Of course, your costs would be lower if you took advantage of Brita and PUR coupons that you can find on their Web sites and in the newspaper coupon circulars.) You could also buy the systems at household stores and use the 20 percent off coupon for the household store to buy the system. If your family uses two-thirds of a gallon of filtered water per day, your annual savings would be about $175, compared to using gallon jugs. That is also a conservative estimate; people that buy individual water bottles at the grocery store ($1 per six pack on sale) or individual water bottles at concession stands ($1 or more each) would save far more money by using a pitcher water-filter system. Shoppers who use filtered-water systems also help reduce the environmental impact of producing and disposing of plastic bottles. The Web site http://www.filterforgood.com/ (sponsored by Brita) encourages consumers to make a pledge to help reduce plastic water bottle waste. You will also be able to print a coupon for Brita products after you make your pledge, including $5 off the pitcher system or $1 off refills.

The Web site mentions a disturbing fact: Consumers send 38 billion plastic water bottles to landfills every year. Not only does that add trash to our environment, but it also takes 1.5 million barrels of oil to create that many bottles. Even though the bottles are recyclable, we do not manage to get them all to recycle bins. According to the site, last year the average consumer used 167 plastic bottles but only recycled 38 (28 percent). Shoppers can get $5 coupons for the PUR filter system or $2 coupons for the PUR refills at http://www.purwater.com/. Click on the Promotions link to sign up for coupons that you will receive by mail.”

To add to Ms. Nelson’s through research, I’d like to point out that in the U.S. bottled water isn’t even necessarily better, or "more pure," than tap water. Bottledwater.org says that the “Bottled water standard of quality . . . is as stringent as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) standards for public water supplies.” Bottled water legally only has to be equally as healthy or pure as your tap water, so if you're suspicious of your tap water, you should be equally as suspicious of domestic bottled waters. While I am sure that some bottled water companies exceed the standards for public drinking water, it is common knowledge that many bottled water companied simply bottle the tap water received by their plant.

What then, is the point of buying bottled water? Reduce your waste and improve your health by drinking tap water, or getting a pitcher or faucet filtration system.

Happy Earth Day

An Earth Day gift for you: a song by Tom Chapin. By the way, if any of you are parents or have any interaction with young children (I'd say 5-10 years old), I highly recommend Tom Chapin. He's got a lot of environmentally conscious, fun songs. Without further ado, I give you the Earth Day song (I forget the actual title):

One day she spun out of the Sun.
Did she know at the hour of her birth?
That she'd cool and she'd bloom and one day become
The garden we know as the Earth.

Happy happy Earth Day,
Happy happy Earth Day.
From the schools of leaping dolphins and the herds of kangaroo
Happy Earth Day to you.

We celebrate your waterfalls, your glaciers and typhoons,
The sweet smell of your meadows on rainbow afternoons.
The northern lights on starry nights and when the night is gone
The fiery magic of your dawn

Happy happy Earth Day,
Happy happy Earth Day.
From the fields of chirping crickets and the frogs of Blue Bayou
Happy Earth Day to you

From the highest Himalaya to the mountains under sea,
From the frozen tip of Greenland to the sands of Galilee.
We're gathering together to raise our voice in song
And pledge to keep you green and strong.

Happy happy Earth Day
Happy happy Earth Day.
Every time I smell a flower or feel the morning dew
Every time I see a baby learning something new,
I'm amazed again how blessed we are and it's all thanks to you.
Happy Earth Day to you,
Happy Earth Day to you.

Links

Happy Monday! Earth Day is tomorrow; I hope it's a happy and green one for all!

I've got three links for you:

myfootprint.org has revamped their questions to provide an even more accurate calculation of ecological footprints. If everyone lived like I do, we would need 2.97 Earths. The biggest part of my footprint is thanks to my food habits. This is a really interesting quiz, with useful results and tips on how to shrink your footprint!

walkit.com is a site much like the "directions" features of Google Maps or Mapquest, but for walkers. It shows you a map and tells you the distance, walking time, calories burned, and CO2 avoided. Unfortunately, it only offers the service for four cities so far, all in the UK. There's a button you can click to request a new city, and I've requested the city where I live. I hope it expands because this is a pretty neat tool!

metaefficient.com has reviews and news stories about environmentally friendly products.

Many thanks to Luai Lashire, who sent those second two links to us!

Do you know of any cool links? Comment, or email them to environmentaloutrage at gmail dot com!

Some of the Best Wildlife Footage Ever

The BBC's program "A Spy in the Jungle"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/spyinthejungle/video.shtml?prog1_3
Footage of tigers, elephants, monkeys, deer, and leopards

Paper Bleaching!

Think of all the paper you use every day. Toilet paper, office paper, Kleenex, paper towels, paper napkins, coffee filters, newspapers . . . it really adds up! Of course, we should use cloth alternatives whenever possible, such as cloth napkins and dishtowels. However, there are some times that a cloth alternative will just not work. Businesses in the take-out food industry need to be able to provide a disposable option, and there is certainly no substitute for toilet paper!

We can reconcile ourselves to this necessary paper consumption by choosing to buy better paper products. First, we can choose products that are made from wood that was logged in sustainably managed forests. Also, we can compost our paper waste when possible, instead of sending it to landfills. We can also take another important step, and buy non-chlorine-bleached paper.

Most of the paper we used is bleached to a bright white with chlorine. When wood pulp is bleached by chlorine, chemical reactions take place which produce dioxins, organochlorines, and a wide variety of other toxic chemicals. These toxins are released with wastewater into our rivers and streams, or into “containment” ponds that accomplish little in the way of containing the toxins. One website notes that “dioxins are now so widespread in the environment that virtually every man, woman, and child in America has them in their bodies. In fact, each day we ingest 300-600 times more than the EPA's so-called ‘safe’ dose. As they accumulate inside us to critical levels, the effects begin to show.”

Dioxins are bio-accumulative, and build up in organisms as you move up the food chain. They are also extremely carcinogenic, and have been linked not only to cancer but also to reproductive disorders and both physical and mental development problems in feti and children. Organochlorines are also bio-accumulative, and have been linked to a number of developmental and reproductive disorders, cancers, and failures of organ systems.

Lucky for us, every paper product we use has a chlorine-free alternative version on the market! Look for paper products that are labeled as “TCF” (totally chlorine free). Be careful that you don’t confuse TCF paper with paper labeled “ECF,” or “elementally chlorine free.” These papers do not use elemental chlorine, but they do use chlorine derivatives and are not as good for you and the environment. The Green Seal website has an extensive list of chlorine free paper products and brands available here.

I’ve overheard some discussion in the aisles of stores like Whole Foods about the color of paper products. I’ve heard people say they like their white paper towels and do not want to buy non-bleached paper because it just doesn’t seem “clean”. I’ve also seen enviro-litist people talking about how they only buy the brown, non-bleached products and would never dream of using white paper. To settle the debate I’d like to point out that brown paper products are not bleached, which is good for the environment. But, if you are not ready to give up your white paper towels and toilet paper, they make paper products that are both chlorine free AND white. Seventh Generation is one brand that offers white chlorine-free products. They use hydrogen peroxide and sodium hydrosulphite to bleach their papers, and the only by-products of this process are oxygen and water. Enjoy your white paper guilt free! And buy white, chlorine free office paper!

As a side note, chlorine is also used in many household cleaners. I won’t get into the dangers of traditional soaps, detergents, and disinfectants since we have already had a post on that subject; but I will remind everyone that buying alternative types of cleansers is important for the health of our families and the environment.

More info on paper bleaching can be found here.

DC Will Give You $50 to Plant a Tree!

This spring, Casey Trees and the district are teeming up to offer $50 rebates for planting large shade trees (such as oak, elm, or maple) on residential lots in DC. They'll also send you a free watering bag. How could you go wrong?
More info at:
www.caseytrees.org/pdfs/Spring%20Tree%20Rebate%20031208.pdf

Turn out the Lights: Office Bathroom Edition

I used to work in an office on a large, shared floor. The women's room there had about ten stalls, and there was almost always at least one person in there. Now, I work in an office on a smaller floor, and our bathroom only has two stalls. It's rare that someone else is in there when I enter or leave, so I always turn the light off. I kept hoping the rest of the women would catch on and turn off the light when they exited, but each time I went in there, the room would be empty and the light would be on.... sigh....

UNTIL TODAY! Finally, someone other than myself has taken up the fight! When I entered the bathroom today (in the afternoon, so I know I wasn't the first one in there), the light was off! VICTORY!

Anyway, the point is: the turn-off-the-light-if-no-one-is-in-the-room rule applies even to public rooms like your office bathroom.

Good for AU!

American University going greener!

Timely Musings on World Energy Use

Today I read an article about how the most recent report from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) could have miscalculated the ability of technological advances to help stabilize carbon dioxide emissions.

The IPCC was created to investigate global warming, and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore. Their findings were that “warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level.” In addition to researching the problem of warming they developed the most sophisticated climate models to date, and ran several scenarios. The goal was to determine what role governments would need to play to regulate carbon dioxide emissions and prevent catastrophe. These models were developed by top scientists, and basically are a carbon-focused version of the IPAT equation. In truth, there is nothing basic about them. They analyze the incredibly complex relationship between hundreds of different variables, such as variations in weather, changes in the economy, changes in energy consumption worldwide, re-forestation and deforestation, and the advances in technology that would increase energy efficiency.

           

The authors of the article I read today argue that “two-thirds or more of all the energy efficiency improvements and decarbonization of energy supply required to stabilize greenhouse gases is already built into the IPCC reference scenarios. This is because the scenarios assume a certain amount of spontaneous technological change and related decarbonization. Thus, the IPCC implicitly assumes that the bulk of the challenge of reducing future emissions will occur in the absence of climate policies. We believe that these assumptions are optimistic at best and unachievable at worst, potentially seriously underestimating the scale of the technological challenge associated with stabilizing greenhouse-gas concentrations.”

In layman’s terms, the authors suspect that the climate models estimated that better technology would make us far more efficient faster than it is reasonable to expect, and diminished the sheer amount of technological change necessary to curb warming. Therefore, the IPCC figured that the successor to the Kyoto Protocol would not need to be as strict as it should be to prevent serious losses due to the consequences of climate change. This is troubling because the U.S. is already balking at the IPCC’s allegedly watered-down recommendations.

Further challenges to the successor of Kyoto because there is still debate as to whether it is right for developed nations to require less developed nations to sign on to the next emissions protocol. Already countries such as the U.S. say they will not sign such an agreement unless the entire globe is willing to sign on, while developing nations argue that they will not be able to increase their standard of living and eradicate poverty under such strict emissions rules. This is a timely question while all our attention is focused on China and the upcoming Olympics. China’s rapid industrialization is bringing wealth and hope to China’s poor, however it is decimating their environment and ours. Every ten days a new coal-fired power plant opens in China, sending sulfur dioxide, mercury, and other biproducts of coal combustion around southeast Asia and to the western U.S. This pollution is causing acid rain to fall in the U.S., seriously damaging ecosystems. It also has major consequences for human health. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that over two million people suffer premature death each year because of poor air quality.

As time goes on it seems less and less likely that the global south will remain exempt from carbon dioxide emission regulations. Initially it was argued that even though nations like China and India were developing rapidly, it would be several years until these countries surpassed emissions giant the U.S., and could be exempted from the next major protocol. The IPCC forecasted that China would not pass the U.S. in total carbon emissions until 2020; however, China surpassed the U.S. in 2006, and by a whopping 8%. It appears that we have reached the point in world history where the relative wealth or development of a nation can no longer be taken into account when drafting carbon dioxide regulations. Furthermore, we can no longer ignore the global problem of air pollution. In the U.S., under the Acid Rain Program, we have reduced sulfur dioxide emissions by 40% (below 1990 levels) and the NOX Budget Trading Program has reduced NO_X levels by 74% (below 1990 levels). It is possible to achieve the same results overseas, but only if countries with the technology send it overseas, at a price developing countries can afford.

To bring this back to the Olympics, and the recent media coverage of protests, I’d like to point out that environmental abuses in China have garnered relatively little press. (One exception is this article from Fox News.) I understand that violations against the most basic human rights may take higher priority than the environment, but to me the right to breathe clean air seems to be one of the most important and basic human rights. Furthermore, I am disappointed by the lack of coverage of the IOC’s efforts to green (or in truth not green) the games. In 2004, China wanted to make “being green” one of the 3 main themes of this year’s games, but it seems to have fallen by the wayside. The Olympic Torch relay will release over 11 million pounds of carbon dioxide, and the air travel of athletes, coaches, and spectators will only add to the Olympic footprint. I am sure that with all the new buildings and other infrastructure being built for the games some sustainable technology is being incorporated, but I certainly haven’t read anything about it. I wish the media would broaden their focus on abuses in China’s strict society, and drop the environmentalists a bone.

New York Times article on China and coal: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbusiness/11chinacoal.html?pagewanted=all

EPA Clean Air Markets Division Annual Reports: http://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/progress/progress-reports.html

Eco-Week at AU

For those in the Washington DC area, here is the schedule for Eco-week at American University-

Here's the full schedule:

Mon. 8-9:30 "How to Live Sustainably in College" in the GARC (Letts Hall)

Tues. 7-8 Corporate Responsibility Panel in Ward 1

Wed. 5:30-9:30 Environmental Films in the Weschler Theatre

8 "Purchasing Campaign Successes" and update from Bill Mayer (the head librarian) and Chris Lewis (member of the Library Green Team) in the Weschler Theatre

Thurs. afternoon Quad events (tye-dying, popcorn machine, a rock climbing wall)

7-8 EJ Panel on Mountaintop Removal in the Battelle Atrium

9-11 Open Mics Open Minds in the Battelle Atrium

Sat. 9:30 Pontoon Ride and Picnic

If you are interested in going on the pontoon ride, we'll have a sign up at events during the week.

E-mail us at au_eco_sense@yahoo.com with any questions.

This message is forwarded from Eco-Sense- Scott

The Oil Economy Outrage

This post begins by exploring the relationship between the U.S. economy and worldwide oil consumption, and then explores the environmental implications of how we measure world economies today.

I believe this country is in a recession. I believe that the media’s effective dodging of the issue out of fear is only worsening the problem. And I believe it is going to get worse, and spread around the world. Why? For those of you who don’t realize, oil is the basis for our economy. It takes fossil fuel to create about 75% of the energy that runs everything. The mining equipment for ore runs on oil. The chainsaw to cut timber runs on oil. Machines running on gasoline plant and harvest the food you eat and the cotton you wear. Then, it takes more energy (provided by fossil fuels) to turn raw goods into the manufactured products we hold so dear. Fossil fuels ship these goods to the store where you buy them, and in most cases gasoline brings the items to your home. Finally, more often than not, it takes energy for you to enjoy these products. (Playing your new radio, watching the new plasma TV, running your new washer and dryer, etc.) Oh, and by the way, plastics are basically made of oil. In short, there is not a step in the creation of goods in which fossil fuel does not play a vital role.

What does this have to do with a recession? Fossil fuels are not a renewable resource. What we have on the planet right now is all we are ever going to have;* we are not getting any more. Now, I’m sure you studied supply and demand in school: when the supply of a good (fossil fuels) is decreasing (from powering our lives), and the demand is increasing (i.e. population expansion and industrialization in developing countries) the price is bound to go up. We’re in a recession? No wonder! We based our entire economy on a commodity that, even if the price dips for a short time, is destined to continue to become more and more expensive until we run out. What’s the answer? Increased energy efficiency and the expansion of renewable energy technology. Use less gas, people!

If we want to continue to have healthy and sustainable growth, we need to move away from an economy based on a resource that will run out. It is hard to put a definite answer on how long we have until fossil fuels effectively run out, but regardless of the time frame, we know it will happen eventually.** I do not see why the time frame should even matter. If we do not change over our economy now, we will be leaving the problem to our children, or at the least our grandchildren. Plus, making changes now while we have the benefit of making a gradual and planned transition will be significantly easier and cheaper than it will be in a few decades when it becomes a crisis.

Another reason to use less energy: every time you fill up your car or turn on a light, you are sending your hard earned money to the pocket of some oil company CEO. Just today an article was published reporting on Congress’s recent meeting with top oil execs. What transpired? Oil execs (who made $123 billion*** last year) deny that they are responsible for gas prices being so high. That is partially true. As previously mentioned, gas prices will consistently rise in the future. However, the billions of dollars in tax breaks given to oil companies also have something to do with gas prices. These tax breaks give the oil companies an artificial advantage over renewable energy producers. What’s to be done? Use less gas! The oil lobby is strong, and not filling up on Tuesday or Wednesday, or going to Shell vs. Mobile or Exxon vs. BP is not going to make them care about what the cost of gas is doing to American families. Doing any errands you can on foot or by bike, or buying more efficient appliances and vehicles is the most effective way to bring about change. Turning off lights that aren’t in use, or using better light bulbs will make a difference. Building your own solar generator for as little as $300 and using it to charge your laptop and cell phones will make a difference. I offer this from a purely economical stance; benefit to the environment, decrease of carbon emissions and healthier air to breathe aside. Take a stand, and stop the rich from getting richer.

While we’re on the topic, I would also like to question for a moment the idea that our GDP even needs to increase. Here in the U.S., we’ve been taught for years that economic growth, and an increase in GDP is not only a good thing, but absolutely necessary for us to continue to improve our quality of life and maintain our standard of living. We have been raised to listen to the news, hear that our GDP is up however many percentage points from the previous year, and thank our wonderful politicians and businessmen for bringing economic growth.

Now, GDP is not just a tool for measuring the “strength” of an economy. GDP is the estimated value of all goods and services produced over a period of time, most often a calendar year. That means that when the GDP goes up, it is because we have produced more goods and services than we did before. Do you recognize the environmental implications of this? If we produce more goods (and all services depend to some extent on goods) then we are using more stuff than the year before. Each year we are extracting more from the earth than the year before, and creating more trash. Of course, the environmental impact does not affect GDP for years or even generations. But are we so arrogant as to feel that we are entitled to extract everything we can from the planet, leaving the consequences to future generations?

Now, it may sound radical, but what if…. our GDP stayed exactly the same every year. Don’t panic! Most Americans (and other global citizens) turn a bit anxious and queasy at this proposition, but hear me out. If GDP is the same, and each year we produce the same amount of stuff as the year before, and items are recycled or safely returned to the earth, we have no global footprint. We live in harmony with the earth, and our economy acts more like a biological system. If efficiency of energy production, use, and recycling of materials increases, it is possible to even increase our standard of living while our GDP may stay the same.

Another flaw of GDP is the way it is currently calculated. Say a company manufactures a product, any product will do. The amount of product produced and sold counts towards the GDP. Now, say the factory has an accident, and a few thousand gallons of gasoline or some toxic chemical are released into the stream adjacent to the factory. The dollars that the factory spends on cleaning up the spill are also counted towards the GDP. Another example is a company that manufactures a faulty device that results in injury. The sale of the device counts towards GDP, as well as the medical costs of the injured. GDP does not distinguish between positive or negative goods and services. GDP should be calculated differently, so that dollars spent on fixing problems are subtracted from GDP. This has been proposed by many economists, and they suggest redefining GDP and changing its name to Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI).

For More Information:
Extremely important and influential (and unbiased) article “The End of Cheap Oil” http://66.102.1.104/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=cache:76wKCOFm9MkJ:www.nyswda.org/LegPosition/Documents/SAmerican.pdf
Excellent link on the economics of Oil: http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/Index.html
Good site discussing how long we have till we run out of fossil fuel: http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/fossilfuels.htm
Herman Daly’s seminal work on no-growth economies: http://dieoff.org/page88.htm
A scientist’s musings on the no-growth economy: http://scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=14&idContribution=1158
More on re-defining GDP and GPI: http://www.rprogress.org/sustainability_indicators/genuine_progress_indicator.htm
*Unless we perfect space travel, and go to another planet that has carbon-based life, and find that that life has not used up all their fossil fuels too. I mean it’s possible…
**Fossil fuels will not literally run out in the same sense that your car will run out of gas and stall. They will simply decrease in volume and increase in price to such a degree that they will effectively run out. At that point, it will be costly and difficult to switch over technology. If we can change the foundation of our economy now, we will be significantly better off in the long run.
***123 billion? Do you have any idea how much that is? To put it in perspective, it has been estimated that there are 100 billion STARS IN OUR GALAXY. A billion M&Ms candies laid out touching but not overlapping would cover over 6 ½ acres. (My own calculation.)

Earth Day

Earth Day

Hi, today, I am a friend of Scott and Katie, who have graciously allowed me to guest-blog, today. Personally, I think saving the environment is important. Hell, I would take a bullet for the environment, if asked. Seeing how Earth Day is coming rather quickly on April 22, I wanted to express some simple tips to help make the world a better place:

Stop eating. Why waste our precious resources? Remember, plants feel pain, too.

If you are going to protest for the environment, make sure to encourage the police to use biodegradable clubs when they beat you.

Walking around naked saves heavily on clothing materials, as well as uses less water and detergent. Unfortunately, your hospital and legal bills will probably increase.

Exercise is another waste of precious resources. Don't go to football practice, walk, have sex. Just sit there.

Pee down your shower drain. It will save a gallon of water. Pooping down your shower drain will result in hilarity.

Buy more expensive cleaning and paper products. Clearly, if it is more expensive, it must be more environmentally friendly.

Remember Al Gore is the greatest of all environmentalists! Especially when he’s flying his private jet.

Do you really need that daily shower? Really?

What car would Jesus drive? Probably a Hummer, because Jesus was sweet.

Recycled paper bags, while less effective, are more environmentally friendly condoms.

Don't conform. Refuse to pay people in cash or credit cards, because both use our plastic and paper resources. Who cares if people call you a "terrorist", even if you are one?

Remember, when other people are not environmentally perfect, make sure to call them out on it. You are, and they'll really appreciate the reminder.

Reading these helpful hints wastes electricity. Stop reading this, and turn off your computer and your lights, you callous bastard.

April Fools!

Better Business Tips

In my coming posts I will be re-focusing on the "quick fix" suggestions for business that can make a big environmental difference. Please send me any that YOU can think of at environmentaloutrage@gmail.com !

1. CVS Prescriptions- At least here in DC, CVS is the most popular place for everyone to get prescriptions. The medicine is put in a bottle, then inside a paper bag, then an informational paper attached to the front, and then usually put in a plastic bag. All of these paper bags they use to fill the hundreds of thousands of prescriptions CVS fills nationwide everyday have a very small red recycling logo on the bottom. Nobody sees it (well, ALMOST nobody...) and guaranteed the vast majority of people throw this paper bag in the trash. CVS- it's really simple, there is nothing on the side of the bag. In big bold letters it should say "RECYCLE THIS BAG." ALMOST everyone can recycle where they live these days, but one of the most common reasons people don't is because they never stop and think about whether a product they have been trashing for years might actually be recyclable! So let's start making it a little more clear...eventually people will catch on...YES, ANY paper can be recycled (that includes your junk mail, shopping guides, old newspapers, cardboard boxes...come on people!)

2. Grocery Stores- That goes for you too! Every plastic bag should be required to have "recycle this bag" printed on it, or preferably "recycle this bag at ----" and provide the location. The extra printing costs for grocery chains will be nearly invisible.

3. Printing, Copying, Office stores- Most copy centers use 25-35 % post-consumer waste (recycled) paper. Copy centers should regularly carry 100 % post-consumer paper and should always ask the customer which they would like to use. The difference in price to use this paper, when divided per sheet, would pass only about 1 extra cent on to the customer. Its small enough that the store can pick up that cost, but if not, there are certainly many who would pay 1 extra penny to have 100 % recycled paper. These stores should also all stock 100 % post-consumer waste paper in the shelves.

These are some starters. Please add your own in the comments!

Environmental Outrage: Tech Trash!

Hello faithful blog readers! I would like to begin by saying that the majority of this post is a summary of a fantastic National Geographic article available here, in case you’d like to go straight to the source. Their article is of course well researched and well written, while this post will be more sarcastic and snarky (and shorter). Choose what style fits you best!

In this day and age, it is almost impossible to live without some high-tech gizmos. I’m sure many of you out there will admit you “simply can’t live without your iPod.” (News flash: you can. Only a few years ago you didn’t have one, and you survived.) I’m mostly talking computers, TVs, and cell phones, which it really is hard to get by without. I admit that I no longer have a landline phone, and have what could be considered an unhealthy and dependent relationship with my laptop.

Have you ever given any thought as to what happens to your old electronics when they have out lived their usefulness, or have been surpassed by better, faster, and more powerful processors? EPA estimates that 30 to 40 million PC’s will be replaced each year for the next several years. Worldwide, an estimated 50 tons of electronic waste is produced each year. You should be aware that our tech trash contains many hazardous materials, which while safely sealed in a functioning device, can be released once the device begins to fall apart or decay. Quoting directly from Nat. Geo, “In the United States, it is estimated that more than 70 percent of discarded computers and monitors, and well over 80 percent of TVs, eventually end up in landfills [in the U.S.], despite a growing number of state laws that prohibit dumping of e-waste, which may leak lead, mercury, arsenic, cadmium, beryllium, and other toxics into the ground.”

For this reason electronics should never be discarded with other household waste. Of course, since you’re an environmentalist I’m sure you know all this already and take your electronics to a recycling center. But did you ever research what they do with them?

Nat. Geo. found that, “Dropping your old electronic gear off with a recycling company or at a municipal collection point does not guarantee that it will be safely disposed of. While some recyclers process the material with an eye toward minimizing pollution and health risks, many more sell it to brokers who ship it to the developing world, where environmental enforcement is weak.” Oh, and by the way, most other developed countries, including members of the EU, have agreed not to ship hazardous waste to developing countries through an amendment to the 1989 Basel Convention. Any ideas as to what major world power didn’t sign this accord? Hmm… who could it be. . . ? You guessed it: the U.S.

So which countries end up with our e-waste? Historically, China was the number 1 destination for e-waste, and continues to receive a lot of it despite new laws banning the import of toxic waste. As China cracks down on toxic imports Thailand, Pakistan, and Ghana are becoming the major destinations for tech trash. Sometimes items are re-sold overseas, but most often old computers and TVs cannot be used, and are salvaged for scrap metal.

Computer motherboards and wires contain metals like gold, platinum, and copper that can fetch decent prices as scrap. These items are heated so that the metals melt and can be separated from their plastic and silicon components. The heating releases toxic substances like lead and mercury as well as many known carcinogens into the air, where the scavengers and their neighbors inhale it. Nat. Geo describes that, “The air near some electronics salvage operations that remain open [in China] contains the highest amounts of dioxin* measured anywhere in the world. Soils are saturated with the chemical, a probable carcinogen that may disrupt endocrine and immune function. High levels of flame retardants called PBDEs—common in electronics, and potentially damaging to fetal development even at very low levels—turned up in the blood of the electronics workers.”

In Ghana, people (mostly children) rummage through landfills, dodging around pools of toxic sludge, pulling out odd pieces containing scrap metal. One scavenger is quoted in Nat. Geo. as saying, "The gas goes to your nose and you feel something in your head. . . Then you get sick in your head and your chest."

Now you may be thinking, other than the moral challenge caused by robbing the developing world of their natural resources, using them to increase our own wealth, and returning the toxic remains to the developing world, why should I, a citizen of the west worry? You should worry because, my all-American, Wal-mart patronizing friend, it will come back to bite you.** Nat Geo says, “In 2006, Jeffrey Weidenhamer, a chemist at Ashland University in Ohio, bought some cheap, Chinese-made jewelry at a local dollar store for his class to analyze. That the jewelry contained high amounts of lead was distressing, but hardly a surprise; Chinese-made leaded jewelry is all too commonly marketed in the U.S. More revealing were the amounts of copper and tin alloyed with the lead. As Weidenhamer and his colleague Michael Clement argued in a scientific paper published this past July, the proportions of these metals in some samples suggest their source was leaded solder used in the manufacture of electronic circuit boards.”

So, what can you do? Be sure to recycle your electronics, and research the recycling company you want to use. (And, if you find a company is shady, write them a nasty letter!) Check with the companies you bought your electronics from. Often they have legit recycling programs. Another thing you can do is look for non-profits that collect old electronics and refurbish them for people in need. Almost all police stations collect cellular phones to give to women’s shelters, and EPA offers a decent guide to electronics recycling and donations at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/recycle/ecycling/donate.htm. Also, Nat. Geo. named Creative Recycling Systems of Tampa as an excellent example of proper recycling techniques. Their website is http://www.crserecycling.com/. I emailed them for some price quotes and other info, I will update this post as soon as I hear back from them. And, lastly, you can lobby congress to encourage them to sign onto the Basel agreement.

*From the all-knowing wikipedia: Dioxins are known to increase the likelihood of cancer. Scientists are working to establish their exact toxicity, but a report from the US Environmental Protection Agency indicates dioxins are considered a serious threat to public health.
** I have no idea what goods Wal-Mart may or may not receive from China. I only name them because they exemplify to me the desire of the average U.S. citizen to want the lowest price possible at the expense of quality or safety.

Dirty "Cleaning"

Everyone likes to keep themselves and their houses clean, right? Laundry detergent, dishwashing detergent, deodorizers, disinfectants, toilet bowl cleaners, glass cleaners, furniture polish, all-purpose cleaners... the list goes on. Unfortunately, all mainstream versions of these products do more to make our world (and our health) dirty, than clean. They are toxic to people and to the environment.

Most commercially available cleaning products contain materials that are considered hazardous waste by the U.S. government. Hazardous waste use normally requires a license and some means of proper disposal, but use in households across our nation goes on unchecked, polluting our water supply, our air, and our bodies. Laundry detergent, for example, contains a chemical so toxic that it can be used as a pesticide. What's worse, the worst, most toxic chemicals may not be on the label-- the government protects the companies from revealing their "trade secrets." But that's only an issue if you bother to read the label- and can understand what each ingredient means and does! My guess is that most people (myself included) have been filling their houses with toxic chemicals with no idea what's in them.

One major concern is cancer. Before the industrial revolution, 1 in 8,000 people had cancer. Today that number is 1 in 3. We still don't know for sure which materials can cause cancer, but we have some idea. According to the EPA, toxic fumes released into our air due to cleaning products are three times more likely to cause cancer than other air pollutants. Air inside American houses is an average of two to five times (and can be up to 100 times) more polluted than the air outside, mostly the result of mainstream cleaning products- that means by simply breathing inside our homes, we're increasing our risk of cancer. Largely because of this, housewives have a 55% higher rate of cancer than women who work outside the home- and all thanks to chemicals we've used to keep ourselves "clean" and "healthy"!

Aside from containing probable carcinogens, known side effects of mainstream cleaning products are central nervous system damage, headaches, confusion, symptoms of mental illness, joint pain, chronic fatigue, birth defects, kidney and liver poisoning (sometimes damaging enough to cause death), allergic reactions, respiratory tract irritation and distress, and death for asthmatics. In Washington State, for example, 6% of janitors suffered injuries from cleaning products that were so bad they had to miss work. 10% of poison control calls deal with injuries due to cleaning products- mainly from children under six. Many chemicals in cleaning products can be stored in fatty tissues and passed on through mother's milk. Here is a full list of health and environmental effects of mainstream cleaning products.

And they do get into our environment, with staggering consequences. As of 2002, two thirds of our streams contained damaging pollutants from cleaning products. Chlorinated materials can form other compounds, like DDT, which are stored in fatty tissues of organisms, take a long time to be broken down, and are passed up the food chain in increasingly higher concentrations. Petroleum-based products (toilet cleaner, detergent, glass cleaner, etc) use non-renewable resources which cause impurities in our water supply. EDTA, a chemical found in all-purpose cleaners, binds to heavy metals in lakes, activating the metals.

Phosphates are one of the worst culprits in mainstream cleaning product pollution. They are ingredients in mainstream laundry detergent as well as a variety of cleaning products. They cause "algae blooms" which suffocate surrounding wildlife, killing off fish and shellfish populations, turning bodies of water the color of pea soup, and causing giant "dead zones" in which only the most primitive bacteria and algae can survive. From an anthropocentric perspective, they hurt local economies by eliminating incomes related to tourism, fishing, and shellfish sales. Phosphates are so dangerous that eleven states have banned them. This is great news for the environment, but most of the country still allows the use of this highly damaging ingredient! Here is more information on phosphates and other effects of mainstream cleaning products.

The moral of the story, folks, is that pretty much all mainstream cleaning products contain at least one ingredient which is considered hazardous waste. If you're not willing to contain this ingredient after use for disposal at a hazardous waste facility, you should probably be using something else to clean your toilet, windows, countertops, clothes, and dishes.

So what can we do?

As my Dad always taught me about capitalism, we can vote with our feet. Here is a list of biodegradable, environmentally safe cleaning products. Of course, this works best if you contact the companies whose brands you used to buy, and let them know why you're leaving. The good news is, many people are already doing this! The natural household cleaning market is growing by 18-25% each year. This is still only one percent of the total cleaning market, but it's progress!

We can contact our elected officials and ask them to support a ban on phosphate use, as eleven states have already done. We can also request that the government itself switch to use natural cleaning products. The city of Santa Monica did this in 1994, in 15 of 17 cleaning product categories, eliminating the purchase of 1.5 tons of hazardous waste per year, and saving itself 5% of its previous cleaning budget to boot!

We can urge our places of employment to switch to environmentally friendly cleaning products, especially by pointing out the savings Santa Monica's city government experienced when it did so.

We can tell our friends. There are some very simple cleaning solutions which involve environmentally safe products you and your friends probably have lying around your houses anyway. The Worldwatch site on cleaning products, which has been helpful throughout this post, contains some excellent and easy ideas for "greening" your cleaning routine. (It's at the bottom, titled "Simple Things You Can Do.")

Good luck!

Turn the lights off at night!

Not only do we waste massive amounts of energy during the day, but phony excuses to keep the lights on at night add up to a whole lot of waste…and carbon.

The culprit’s: Big box stores like Wal-Mart, Target, etc…, CVS, the vast majority of offices (especially skyscrapers- you have the red blinking tower for planes, so don’t use that excuse), government buildings,

1. Businesses who leave the lights on overnight. The most commonly stated reason is to fight crime…but does it really fool anyone into thinking there are people in the store at 3 am? If the lighting is for security cameras, surely there are more energy efficient options to light the camera’s path. This is all too common, especially in cities. According to one blogger “In the United States alone, businesses lose $5-10 Billion dollars per year on lighting their buildings at night. And for what? So I can look inside and see the diploma from Harvard on the wall?” Maybe we can start a running list of companies who are keeping the lights on overnight. Next time you see it, report it to environmentaloutrage@gmail.com .

2. Parking Lots. Despite the fact that much crime does happen in large parking lots at night, it is unnecessary to keep gigantic flood lights on the whole lot. Especially a company like Wal-Mart who, I’m pretty sure, could pay $10/ hour to a watchman to monitor each lot.
Apparently some empty office spaces keep the lights on at night “to advertise”…I guess for that drunk stumbling through the city streets at 2 am that, no doubt, will stop to write down the number for your office space because they can see how beautiful the room is from 5 floors down!

The effect:

Excessive energy usage the increases your bills at the same time as it pollutes the environment.
We can’t see the stars at night!!! Light pollution is the main cause.

Some suggestions:

* Motion-Sensor Lighting- this will solve the “late-worker around the office” problem as well as turn the lights in case of crime.

* Companies could charge more for energy used between certain hours.

* Office buildings should pay for someone to go through each floor turning off lights after everyone has left to eliminate the “I’m leaving them on for someone” excuse.

* Get a good security system! The light and the camera don’t respond to crime, security systems trigger an actual response. Having just enough light for the camera is more than sufficient.

* Some cities, in protest of the waste, have held a blackout, where the whole city turns the lights off for 30 minutes or an hour.

* Next time you have an encounter with a store manager of any sort, ask if they turn out the lights at night.

Great article and discussion of the issue here. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/turn_off_the_li.php

Where are all the bees?

Bees are incredible. They inhabit every continent except Antarctica. They are the original communists, living in large colonies where each bee has a specific task, which he performs to the benefit of the community at large. Bees communicate through dance. Bees perfected the technology used in helicopters before humans existed. Bees are inherently and aesthetically valuable simply for their bee-ness. More importantly, humans cannot live without bees: bees are pollinators.

"There's a widely stated phrase in agriculture that you can thank a pollinator for one out of three bites of food you eat," notes Dr. Claire Kremen, an assistant professor at University of California, Berkeley's Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management. She is one author of a study estimating the value of pollination by bees in the U.S. Of 115 crops studied, 87 (75.6%) depend to some degree upon animal pollination. Bees are also important pollinators in the wild, and pollinate (and therefore propagate) over 200,000 plant species worldwide. (Testimony before congress on the value of bees here.)

This is why a new and alarming trend has many scientists and agriculturalists on edge: since 1971 approximately half the honeybee colonies in the U.S. have vanished. In Europe, the trend continues. The BBC reports that of the 19 bee species in the UK, three are already extinct and a further nine are on the critically endangered list. An article in the Telegraph reads, “In Spain, hundreds of thousands of colonies have been lost and beekeepers in northern Croatia estimated that five million bees had died in just 48 hours this week. In Poland, the Swietokrzyskie beekeeper association has estimated that up to 40 per cent of bees were wiped out last year. Greece, Switzerland, Italy and Portugal have also reported heavy losses.” The decline in bees is so drastic that scientists have created a new term, colony collapse disorder, to describe the phenomenon.

Unfortunately, the honeybee crisis worldwide is not getting the press as it deserves, considering the severe implications it has for our country and the world in terms of food security. Albert Einstein speculated that if bees were to disappear, man would follow only a few years later. In a world where food shortages are already responsible for loss of life, and where climate change and habitat loss already threaten global biodiversity, we cannot afford to lose our bees.

Honeybees and other pollinating insects offer a free and vital service to humanity. In the U.S., many agricultural communities are already feeling the pressure. Some farmers rent hives from beekeepers for a period of a week or two, to pollinate their crops, as their native bee populations have died out. One study I read estimated that in China it costs 8 times as much for humans to manually pollinate crops than to maintain beehives on farms. That is not surprising when you consider that bees from one hive can visit a million flowers within a 154 square- mile area in just one day. Furthermore, 90% of flowering plants (that’s domestic AND wild) worldwide depend on bees for pollination.

So what is responsible for the missing bees? The jury is still out, and scientists speculate that it is not just one cause but a combination of the following:

1. Disease- In several studies of American bees, several diseased organisms were discovered, but no one disease was identified as responsible.
2. Habitat loss- Before the 1970’s, most food was grown on smaller, family-farms. In small farms, farmers often left borders of trees around their fields or property lines, providing habitat for bees (and preventing erosion). Once agriculture became mechanized, smaller farms were bought up, and large factory-farms were created. As small farms were bought up, these remaining wild areas were ploughed under, and the bees had nowhere else to go.
3. Pesticide use- Widespread pesticide use can be blamed for the decline of bees as well as several other insects, such as lightning bugs and butterflies. The aforementioned article in the Telegraph reports that in France in 2004, the government banned the pesticide Fipronil after beekeepers in the south-west blamed it for huge losses of hives. On passion-fruit plantations in Brazil, pollinating must be done by hand because pesticide use has completely destroyed the bee population.
   
   So, what can you do to help save the bees? You could write to the big factory farm companies, but changing your habits of consumption is probably the most effective action. An easy change to make in your daily life is to buy more organic produce. Organic food is grown without pesticides, and therefore does not pollute the earth and harm bees. You can also buy produce from local co-ops or at farmers markets. These small farmers use less aggressive farming practices, and leave bee habitat intact, or even keep their own hives. Most importantly, you can help spread the word! Our biggest weapon in saving the environment is knowledge!

Green Hotels

First of all, happy St. Patrick's Day! It's the greenest holiday since Earth Day! Say, do you think if we co-opted Earth Day into a drinking holiday it'd be more popular?

...I'm a little bit tired, as the opening paragraph's poor attempt at humor may suggest, so I'm going to try to keep this short and sweet. While trying to decide on a topic for this week, I checked out the link Elle Bee posted in her comment on the last post-- sure enough, dry cleaners popped up throughout my neighborhood, as did auto body shops and... hotels.

It makes sense, I suppose. Hotels are like hundreds of small apartments put together, but in which everything has to be washed, remade, scrubbed, cleaned, and changed daily. Cleaning chemicals and washing detergents are not good for the environment, and neither is the massive use of water and materials (soap, shampoo, conditioner, plastic for bottles, cardboard for boxes) that go along with such daily turnover. There are, however, things hotels can do to cut down their negative environmental impact. Before I list them, I'd just like to say that the Environmentally Friendly Hotels website is really useful and even has a hotel locater device, so you can be sure to stay at a green hotel during your next vacation.

Things hotels can do to be environmentally friendly:

1. Allow guests the option of re-using sheets and linens for multiple-day stays. Project Planet is one company that educates hotels on this issue and supplies signs to be placed in rooms encouraging patrons to re-use their linens. According to their website, every 100 guests who follow their program save 450 gallons of water and 3 gallons of detergent per day.

2. Use environmentally friendly cleaning products (I'd elaborate, but I think this is perhaps a topic which deserves it's own post).

3. Use packaging which is recycled and/or recyclable.

4. Become involved in programs like Good Earthkeeping, Energy Star, Water Wise, and Waste Wise.

5. Maintain active recycling programs.

6. Appoint an employee to be the point person for environmental issues at the hotel, and train all staff on environmental practices.

7. Purchase higher efficiency models of equipment needed to run the hotel (computers, monitors, copy machines, printers, etc.)

8. Turn off lights when not needed and remove unnecessary fixtures, or have auto shutoffs/occupancy sensors for lights in areas of sporadic use, including exterior lights

9. Landscape with drought tolerant plants, and use sprinkler timers to water between 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. to avoid excessive evaporation

10. Reuse cutlery, linens or glassware for rooms and room service instead of plastics.

11. Copy or print on both sides of the paper. Use recycled paper and soy-based inks.

12. Offer newspapers to guests only upon request.

13. Subsidize employee public transportation costs, or organize employee carpooling systems.

14. Use water-efficient faucets, toilets, showers, and washing machines.

Thanks to this website

The Dry Cleaning Outrage

This is going to a diversion from the recent, incredibly well-researched, thoughtful posts about environmental solutions to state a simple outrage. I live only about a block from the nearest dry cleaner, ZIPS. So when I pick up my dry cleaning, in no way do I need it in a very large plastic bag. I most certainly don't need a plastic bag around EACH item. The sheer amount of plastic used by every dry cleaner on a daily basis is astounding....and incredibly frustrating. ZIPS brags on their website that they have dry cleaned over 72.6 million linens. And that is ONE dry cleaning company, which is only regional. Each of those items come back to the customer not only with a plastic bag, but a metal hook. Since you had the linen at home before you brought it, you clearly already had a hook for it, so the new one is unnecessary. Of course you need one to bring it home on, but there is another, even profitable, option. Check it out!

Here are some of my suggestions for ZIPS and other dry cleaners-

1. AT LEAST have a plastic bag recycling center in a prominent place in your store.

2. Give customers the options as to whether they would like the plastic bags or not, ask whether they have their own bag to pick it up in.

3. Use the environmentally friendly (and business friendly) hooks!

4. DO NOT, DO NOT, DO NOT throw out plastic bags that people do not want.

5. Stop using "perc" (explained below)!

Even though all of this really annoys me, I have still been going to the dry cleaner to get my dress clothes done. Upon further research however, there are other options. This option might be costly and inconvenient, but it seems like there should be some more eco-friendly way to get the job done...maybe this.

Overall it actually seems like the most damaging thing that dry cleaners do to the environment is the use of a hazardous air pollutant called perchloroethylene. The dangers in "perc" and the alternatives can be found here.

I also encourage all of you to contact ZIPS asking them to change their policy, or find the address of a ZIPS close to you and bring in your letter to the manager. Or take the same action with any dry cleaner near you. That might be the best course of action, and most likely to get a response I would think. Give it a shot, and if you get a response, please send it to us at environmentaloutrage@gmail.com and we will post it here!