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!
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
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!
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!
Saturday, March 22, 2008
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
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
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
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:
"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:
- Disease- In several studies of American bees, several diseased organisms were discovered, but no one disease was identified as responsible.
- 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.
- 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!
Monday, March 17, 2008
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
...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
Thursday, March 13, 2008
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!
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!
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Pharmaceuticals in our Drinking Water
On Monday, one of the cover stories in the Express (a publication of the Washington Post) announced the alarming discovery of “six commonly used drugs” in the District of Columbia’s water supply. The discovery was the result of a study by the Associated Press, which found that pharmaceuticals were present in the water supplies of at least 41 million Americans. The drugs discovered in DC water included caffeine, naproxen, and ibuprofen. In many other cities across the nation other drugs, including sex hormones (from drugs like birth control and Viagra), were also found.
Reading this article made me very angry. Unlike the average express reader, I was not angered by the news that the water I drink could be harmful to my health; I had accepted that long ago. I was furious that what should already be common knowledge was presented as new, and that a public that should be better informed instead reacted with such surprise. I have known for years that our over-medicated species has been poisoning our waters, ourselves, and wildlife. I was disappointed that the AP article was narrowly focused on the effects these drugs could potentially have on human health, with only passing mentions of the well-documented ill effects drugs in small concentrations have on wildlife around the nation.
If you perused any of the articles covering this story, you will have read that when we take medications, ANY medications, the body does not metabolize the entire dose. What is left exits the body and enters the water cycle. Pharmaceuticals (as well as many other dangerous or toxic compounds such as flame retardants) enter the water system despite wastewater treatment, because current wastewater treatment practices do not remove them. A 2004 study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that between 11 and 17 organic wastewater-related contaminants (OWCs) remained in wastewater after treatment.
It has been proven that these chemicals have drastic consequences for aquatic life. The September 2007 issue of Environmental Health News summarized a paper by Filby et. al. which studied the effects of one estrogen found in wastewater (17α- ethinylestradiol) on minnows. They found that exposure to wastewater containing estrogen caused “male fish to start producing egg yolk,” effected the blood concentration of hormones, and changed the expression of genes necessary for synthesizing hormones. The minnows also experiences a “decrease [in] the size of testes and alter[ation of] secondary sex characters, including coloration and behavior.”
A 2004 study by Nash et. al. studied the effects of estrogen on zebra fish by exposing them to environmentally relevant concentrations of estrogen. Fish which were exposed for only 40 days did not suffer significant effects, but lifelong exposure caused complete population failure with no fertilization, as the exposure caused the males to lack functional testes and instead have either undifferentiated or inter-sex gonads.
In the media coverage of the AP study, it was frequently mentioned that the effects of drugs at such low concentrations had not been studied in depth in humans, which as far as I can tell is a fair assessment. Still, if one drug can render a fish sterile in 2-5 years (the lifespan of a zebra fish), I cannot imagine what 30 or more years of exposure to a cocktail of drugs could do to people or other wildlife, despite the low concentrations. And, by the way, you can’t escape by drinking bottled water. Most bottling companies filter their water using the same technology as the wastewater plants, and that “pure” spring they draw from is likely already contaminated.
Now I try to keep my blog postings as hopeful as possible, but unfortunately as of yet there is no cost-effective or practical solution. The only successful methods of removing these compounds during wastewater treatment, such as reverse-osmosis, are prohibitively expensive to be performed on all the wastewater generated in the nation. Furthermore, our still rapidly growing world population depends greatly on pharmaceutical birth control, which is more effective than other methods. In order to develop a solution, more research is necessary into improved wastewater treatment technology, and into better drugs that are more efficiently metabolized by the body or have fewer consequences outside it. And of course, little difference though it will make, I know I am going to be thinking a lot more carefully about whether or not I actually need that 4 pm Tylenol.
Another interesting study on the effects of chemicals on frogs can be found here.
And a side note: The antibiotics that end up in our wastewater (whether the penicillin you took for your last infection or the Clorox you used to whiten your towels) contribute to the evolution of drug-resistant strains of bacteria and viruses. While somewhat unlikely, it is possible that our over-zealous need to be “clean” could create a resistant and deadly strain of germ.
Reading this article made me very angry. Unlike the average express reader, I was not angered by the news that the water I drink could be harmful to my health; I had accepted that long ago. I was furious that what should already be common knowledge was presented as new, and that a public that should be better informed instead reacted with such surprise. I have known for years that our over-medicated species has been poisoning our waters, ourselves, and wildlife. I was disappointed that the AP article was narrowly focused on the effects these drugs could potentially have on human health, with only passing mentions of the well-documented ill effects drugs in small concentrations have on wildlife around the nation.
If you perused any of the articles covering this story, you will have read that when we take medications, ANY medications, the body does not metabolize the entire dose. What is left exits the body and enters the water cycle. Pharmaceuticals (as well as many other dangerous or toxic compounds such as flame retardants) enter the water system despite wastewater treatment, because current wastewater treatment practices do not remove them. A 2004 study by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that between 11 and 17 organic wastewater-related contaminants (OWCs) remained in wastewater after treatment.
It has been proven that these chemicals have drastic consequences for aquatic life. The September 2007 issue of Environmental Health News summarized a paper by Filby et. al. which studied the effects of one estrogen found in wastewater (17α- ethinylestradiol) on minnows. They found that exposure to wastewater containing estrogen caused “male fish to start producing egg yolk,” effected the blood concentration of hormones, and changed the expression of genes necessary for synthesizing hormones. The minnows also experiences a “decrease [in] the size of testes and alter[ation of] secondary sex characters, including coloration and behavior.”
A 2004 study by Nash et. al. studied the effects of estrogen on zebra fish by exposing them to environmentally relevant concentrations of estrogen. Fish which were exposed for only 40 days did not suffer significant effects, but lifelong exposure caused complete population failure with no fertilization, as the exposure caused the males to lack functional testes and instead have either undifferentiated or inter-sex gonads.
In the media coverage of the AP study, it was frequently mentioned that the effects of drugs at such low concentrations had not been studied in depth in humans, which as far as I can tell is a fair assessment. Still, if one drug can render a fish sterile in 2-5 years (the lifespan of a zebra fish), I cannot imagine what 30 or more years of exposure to a cocktail of drugs could do to people or other wildlife, despite the low concentrations. And, by the way, you can’t escape by drinking bottled water. Most bottling companies filter their water using the same technology as the wastewater plants, and that “pure” spring they draw from is likely already contaminated.
Now I try to keep my blog postings as hopeful as possible, but unfortunately as of yet there is no cost-effective or practical solution. The only successful methods of removing these compounds during wastewater treatment, such as reverse-osmosis, are prohibitively expensive to be performed on all the wastewater generated in the nation. Furthermore, our still rapidly growing world population depends greatly on pharmaceutical birth control, which is more effective than other methods. In order to develop a solution, more research is necessary into improved wastewater treatment technology, and into better drugs that are more efficiently metabolized by the body or have fewer consequences outside it. And of course, little difference though it will make, I know I am going to be thinking a lot more carefully about whether or not I actually need that 4 pm Tylenol.
Another interesting study on the effects of chemicals on frogs can be found here.
And a side note: The antibiotics that end up in our wastewater (whether the penicillin you took for your last infection or the Clorox you used to whiten your towels) contribute to the evolution of drug-resistant strains of bacteria and viruses. While somewhat unlikely, it is possible that our over-zealous need to be “clean” could create a resistant and deadly strain of germ.
Monday, March 10, 2008
TAMPONS
This past Saturday, March 8, was International Women's Day. I asked my boyfriend, "What are you doing for me today?" He studied abroad in Cuba, which, like all communist countries, actually celebrates the holiday. Apparently, it didn't make a big impression on him, though. "Treating you well, just like I do every day" he replied. "Aw, that's sweet," I said, "but in Poland they give the women flowers."*
Clearly, I had to find another way to celebrate. So I put on my comfiest pj's, curled up in bed and read a large portion of Our Bodies Ourselves. One section discussed menstrual products ("sanitary napkins"), and touched very briefly upon their environmental impact, which is huge.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is a post about menstruation. PERIODS! TAMPONS! PADS! BLOOD! VAGINA! Ok, I think I've gotten it all out of the way. Hopefully, some of you are still with me, especially the ladies, since this is an International Women's Day special just for us (fellas can read if they want.... if they all haven't abandoned ship by now). I know this is a topic that's considered taboo or at least impolite, embarrassing, or awkward--but it's precisely because people find it hard to talk about that menstrual product activism hasn't taken off. It's because it's not a "sexy" cause that the fairly easily relieved environmental impact is still so great. So let's talk about it.
If you use 20 pads or tampons per period, and have your period once a month from age 12 to 47, that's 8,400 pads and tampons in your lifetime. There are three billion of us (women) on earth, and about 150 million of us in the United States... that's a lot of pads and tampons. Unfortunately, many tampons are flushed down the toilet, which means that tampons (and applicators) often litter the water of our beaches. Many tampon applicators are plastic, which means they don't biodegrade (mainstream tampons biodegrade in six months). Mainstream pads also come wrapped in plastic, and are lined along the bottom in plastic, which means they have a permanent place of honor in our landfills. In addition, those pads and tampons had to come from somewhere- cotton farms that could be left as forests or used to grow corn for biofuel or any number of other products, lessening the burden on the land.
Furthermore, we have the issue of dioxins. The wood pulp used to make mainstream tampons and pads is bleached early in the process. There is no reason for this use of chlorine, which then pollutes the earth, except to make the tampons and pads seem "clean" and "fresh"- the irony is delicious, no? The bleaching process leaves behind dioxins as a byproduct- dioxins are considered by the FDA to be likely cancer-causing agents. The bleach-dioxins add to the dioxins already in the cotton from pesticide use during growth. Our vaginae (Blogger is telling me the Latin plural is correct for vagina) are more sensitive and absorbent than most other parts of our bodies. Why expose them to poisons when we don't have to- why take risks we can easily avoid?
Oh, and did I mention pads increase the risk of yeast infections?
Now, before I talk about solutions, I feel I should 'fess up to something: I am a part of the problem. Yes, I am a mainstreamer, a Tampax and Always woman. I'm helping fill the landfills and possibly poisoning my body in the process. But, after researching these solutions, I am resolved to try at least one of them. Who knows, perhaps in a couple months I'll be able to write an entry about how each possible "solution" to the menstrual product environmental problem feels and functions. I'm all for saving the environment, but I also like wearing bathing suits and playing soccer.
Before I get into each possible solution, here's the link to the Our Bodies Ourselves page about these products. One other note: props to my housemate Emily for having tried many of these products and telling me all about them.
1. The solution that requires the least change but also creates the least change (but a lot better than no change!) is using organic 100% cotton tampons and pads. This gets rid of the chlorine/dioxin problem, and the plastic applicators, wrap, and lining. It doesn't reduce our use of cotton, but it minimizes the environmental effects post-use, because they're 100% biodegradable. Emily says they work well and she's never had a problem with leakage (which I thought might be a concern because there's no plastic lining on the bottom). The pads are a little thicker than mainstream pads, and the cotton can start to separate a little if you've been wearing it for a while or moving around a lot. The tampons are a little drier than mainstream ones. But hey, they're less likely to give you cancer! I saw an Amazon.com listing for a 12 pack of 20-tampon boxes (that's 240 tampons) for about $50. That's a good deal, and let's be honest- we've got pretty good biological evidence that we'll use them all eventually. I'll probably choose to buy some organic cotton tampons and pads, just as a back up in case the other "solutions" I try don't work out in all situations. The devil you know, right?
2. Reusable pads. An example of this is GladRags. They're made out of cloth (you can even make them yourself from old clothing!) and consist of an outer layer that's shaped vaguely like a mainstream, winged pad. the "wings" snap together under your underwear, holding the pad in place, and there's a slot into which you can insert little cloth fillers (about the size and shape of panty-liners). You can put a different number of fillers in (or none) depending on how heavy your flow is that day. There is a bigger reusable pad for overnight. When you want to change it, you just wash out the main pad and the fillers. Apparently they're really comfortable, although they are thick, because they wrap all the way around to snap underneath. Bonus for gardeners and people who don't share bathrooms with others who might get freaked out: if you soak the pad in water in a jar or something before washing it, you can use the menstruation-water to fertilize your garden. It looks like the day pads are around $10-15 each, and the overnight pads are $15-20. You can also make some for yourself for FREE (my favorite word!), if you're up for an environmental craft project. They last for five years, at least. Reusable pads sound really cool to me, especially since you can make them out of recycled materials, but... I do my laundry as rarely as possibly, so I don't know if this is a good choice for me.
3. Cups. Check out keeper.com for more details (and nifty visuals)- Keeper is the most common brand of menstrual cup. It a gum-rubber or silicone (for those allergic to latex) cup with a little stem coming out the bottom. You fold the cup twice, insert it in your vagina, then pull gently down on the stem. It suctions in place and you can even use it while you're swimming. The cup holds about an ounce of fluid- and most women only menstruate four or five ounces. The website says you might end up changing it twice a day (just pull it out--upright--then tip it over into the toilet), but I'd probably empty it each time I was in the bathroom. You can wash it with soap and water, and between periods you can store it in a little cloth bag they give to you. I have no idea how this feels, but the website mentioned that some women choose to cut off up to half of the "stem" for comfort. The Keeper costs $35, lasts for ten years, and is available on their site or in Whole Foods and other stores. I think this is the one I'm going to try first.
4. The Sea Pearl. This is a reusable tampon made out of a sea sponge. Unfortunately, our seas are even more polluted than our land, and that pollution can become concentrated in organisms like sea sponges. Our Bodies Ourselves said that because of this, many women who us the Sea Pearl choose to boil it in water for ten minutes before first use. Elle Bee (EO's resident environmental scientist), please tell me- does that actually work? Does boiling things remove pollutants? Apparently the boiling makes it slightly smaller and less flexible each time you do it. You can clean them by boiling them, soaking them in vinegar, or some other options. They last about six months, and cost about $5 each from GladRags. I don't know anyone who's personally tried sea sponge tampons. I probably won't try it, because of the pollution thing.
That's all I've got. Remember to check out the Our Bodies Ourselves page for more info on these products, as well as others I didn't mention because I'm getting tired. I hope you had a happy International Women's Day!
*Please note: my boyfriend is awesome and this story about him is merely for comedic effect.
Clearly, I had to find another way to celebrate. So I put on my comfiest pj's, curled up in bed and read a large portion of Our Bodies Ourselves. One section discussed menstrual products ("sanitary napkins"), and touched very briefly upon their environmental impact, which is huge.
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this is a post about menstruation. PERIODS! TAMPONS! PADS! BLOOD! VAGINA! Ok, I think I've gotten it all out of the way. Hopefully, some of you are still with me, especially the ladies, since this is an International Women's Day special just for us (fellas can read if they want.... if they all haven't abandoned ship by now). I know this is a topic that's considered taboo or at least impolite, embarrassing, or awkward--but it's precisely because people find it hard to talk about that menstrual product activism hasn't taken off. It's because it's not a "sexy" cause that the fairly easily relieved environmental impact is still so great. So let's talk about it.
If you use 20 pads or tampons per period, and have your period once a month from age 12 to 47, that's 8,400 pads and tampons in your lifetime. There are three billion of us (women) on earth, and about 150 million of us in the United States... that's a lot of pads and tampons. Unfortunately, many tampons are flushed down the toilet, which means that tampons (and applicators) often litter the water of our beaches. Many tampon applicators are plastic, which means they don't biodegrade (mainstream tampons biodegrade in six months). Mainstream pads also come wrapped in plastic, and are lined along the bottom in plastic, which means they have a permanent place of honor in our landfills. In addition, those pads and tampons had to come from somewhere- cotton farms that could be left as forests or used to grow corn for biofuel or any number of other products, lessening the burden on the land.
Furthermore, we have the issue of dioxins. The wood pulp used to make mainstream tampons and pads is bleached early in the process. There is no reason for this use of chlorine, which then pollutes the earth, except to make the tampons and pads seem "clean" and "fresh"- the irony is delicious, no? The bleaching process leaves behind dioxins as a byproduct- dioxins are considered by the FDA to be likely cancer-causing agents. The bleach-dioxins add to the dioxins already in the cotton from pesticide use during growth. Our vaginae (Blogger is telling me the Latin plural is correct for vagina) are more sensitive and absorbent than most other parts of our bodies. Why expose them to poisons when we don't have to- why take risks we can easily avoid?
Oh, and did I mention pads increase the risk of yeast infections?
Now, before I talk about solutions, I feel I should 'fess up to something: I am a part of the problem. Yes, I am a mainstreamer, a Tampax and Always woman. I'm helping fill the landfills and possibly poisoning my body in the process. But, after researching these solutions, I am resolved to try at least one of them. Who knows, perhaps in a couple months I'll be able to write an entry about how each possible "solution" to the menstrual product environmental problem feels and functions. I'm all for saving the environment, but I also like wearing bathing suits and playing soccer.
Before I get into each possible solution, here's the link to the Our Bodies Ourselves page about these products. One other note: props to my housemate Emily for having tried many of these products and telling me all about them.
1. The solution that requires the least change but also creates the least change (but a lot better than no change!) is using organic 100% cotton tampons and pads. This gets rid of the chlorine/dioxin problem, and the plastic applicators, wrap, and lining. It doesn't reduce our use of cotton, but it minimizes the environmental effects post-use, because they're 100% biodegradable. Emily says they work well and she's never had a problem with leakage (which I thought might be a concern because there's no plastic lining on the bottom). The pads are a little thicker than mainstream pads, and the cotton can start to separate a little if you've been wearing it for a while or moving around a lot. The tampons are a little drier than mainstream ones. But hey, they're less likely to give you cancer! I saw an Amazon.com listing for a 12 pack of 20-tampon boxes (that's 240 tampons) for about $50. That's a good deal, and let's be honest- we've got pretty good biological evidence that we'll use them all eventually. I'll probably choose to buy some organic cotton tampons and pads, just as a back up in case the other "solutions" I try don't work out in all situations. The devil you know, right?
2. Reusable pads. An example of this is GladRags. They're made out of cloth (you can even make them yourself from old clothing!) and consist of an outer layer that's shaped vaguely like a mainstream, winged pad. the "wings" snap together under your underwear, holding the pad in place, and there's a slot into which you can insert little cloth fillers (about the size and shape of panty-liners). You can put a different number of fillers in (or none) depending on how heavy your flow is that day. There is a bigger reusable pad for overnight. When you want to change it, you just wash out the main pad and the fillers. Apparently they're really comfortable, although they are thick, because they wrap all the way around to snap underneath. Bonus for gardeners and people who don't share bathrooms with others who might get freaked out: if you soak the pad in water in a jar or something before washing it, you can use the menstruation-water to fertilize your garden. It looks like the day pads are around $10-15 each, and the overnight pads are $15-20. You can also make some for yourself for FREE (my favorite word!), if you're up for an environmental craft project. They last for five years, at least. Reusable pads sound really cool to me, especially since you can make them out of recycled materials, but... I do my laundry as rarely as possibly, so I don't know if this is a good choice for me.
3. Cups. Check out keeper.com for more details (and nifty visuals)- Keeper is the most common brand of menstrual cup. It a gum-rubber or silicone (for those allergic to latex) cup with a little stem coming out the bottom. You fold the cup twice, insert it in your vagina, then pull gently down on the stem. It suctions in place and you can even use it while you're swimming. The cup holds about an ounce of fluid- and most women only menstruate four or five ounces. The website says you might end up changing it twice a day (just pull it out--upright--then tip it over into the toilet), but I'd probably empty it each time I was in the bathroom. You can wash it with soap and water, and between periods you can store it in a little cloth bag they give to you. I have no idea how this feels, but the website mentioned that some women choose to cut off up to half of the "stem" for comfort. The Keeper costs $35, lasts for ten years, and is available on their site or in Whole Foods and other stores. I think this is the one I'm going to try first.
4. The Sea Pearl. This is a reusable tampon made out of a sea sponge. Unfortunately, our seas are even more polluted than our land, and that pollution can become concentrated in organisms like sea sponges. Our Bodies Ourselves said that because of this, many women who us the Sea Pearl choose to boil it in water for ten minutes before first use. Elle Bee (EO's resident environmental scientist), please tell me- does that actually work? Does boiling things remove pollutants? Apparently the boiling makes it slightly smaller and less flexible each time you do it. You can clean them by boiling them, soaking them in vinegar, or some other options. They last about six months, and cost about $5 each from GladRags. I don't know anyone who's personally tried sea sponge tampons. I probably won't try it, because of the pollution thing.
That's all I've got. Remember to check out the Our Bodies Ourselves page for more info on these products, as well as others I didn't mention because I'm getting tired. I hope you had a happy International Women's Day!
*Please note: my boyfriend is awesome and this story about him is merely for comedic effect.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Environmentally Friendly Paving
Green building is finally gaining momentum, especially in DC! They are retro-fitting existing buildings with green technology and even going for LEED certification in new buildings. (Of course, I haven’t seen any advertisements for green features in the hundreds of new, over-priced luxury condos around DC, but it’s a start!)
While meditating on two projects close to my heart, the new School of International Service building at American University, and the new Nationals Baseball Park, I began to wonder why green building is making such advances, while green pavement still has not caught on.
Pavement, asphalt, black top, concrete: all are bad news for our planet. Surfaces paved with traditional asphalt and concrete are impermeable to water. Any rain that falls onto this kind of pavement does not percolate down into the ground, but rather runs over the pavement and into down storm drains. On the way it picks up litter, pesticides, and toxic heavy metals from the tires that run over it all day. All of this bad stuff ends up in our waterways, and even drinking water. In case you thought otherwise, stormwater that runs through a “modern,” separated municipal system is not treated before it enters our lakes and streams. Stormwater coming from a system that operates combined sewer overflows is treated, but during a high-volume even can be even worse for the environment and human health, as it releases raw sewage into our streams and waterways with the stormwater.* EPA calculates that in the United States, stormwater runoff from residential, commercial, and industrial areas is responsible for 21% of impaired lakes and 45% of impaired estuaries. In the Mid-Atlantic region alone, stormwater is responsible for over 4,000 miles of impaired streams.
Not only does stormwater pollute ponds and creeks (and eventually major rivers and the oceans), but it also disturbs the local water cycle. When the water runs directly from the pavement to streams, local flora and fauna are deprived of this vital resource. Furthermore, areas with many acres under pavement, such as cities, can greatly affect the water table beneath them, depriving humans of necessary water.
What, you may ask, is the solution? On the market right now are pavements that allow water to pass through them. In fact, porous pavement has been around since the 1970’s, although it still isn’t widely used. This kind of pavement solves many of the problems caused by traditional pavement. Litter remains on the street to be picked up, instead of in streams where it can hurt wildlife. The water percolates naturally through the soil, which filters out most of the heavy metals, chemicals, and bacteria. Porous pavement helps prevent environmental degradation by acid rain, because the soil is a natural buffer, and neutralizes almost all of the acid. Water naturally enters the water table, giving plants, animals, and even humans more reliable access to water. And, best part of all, no puddles!
Porous concretes and asphalts look almost identical to their impermeable counterparts, and are cheaper to install for most construction projects. This is because although the porous material itself is slightly more expensive, it does not require the costly drain and sewer infrastructure of traditional pavement. Many studies have also found that the porous pavement wears better than traditional pavements, and needs to be replaced less often.
So, with all this new information in mind, why haven’t porous pavements caught on? I suspect it is because of ignorance of stormwater problems and their solution. You can do your part by being an advocate of porous pavements in your community. For more information, visit http://www.stormcon.com/sw_0305_porous.html.
* More than 27 billion gallons of raw sewage and polluted stormwater discharge out of 460 combined sewage overflows (“CSOs”) into New York Harbor each year. Scary? That’s just New York . . . CSOs are a major problem for water quality. While it may seem unbelievable that in this day and age raw sewage is still discharged into rivers, about 40 million people live in cities with combined sewer systems, and CSOs are a major water pollution concern for 772 cities. CSOs annually result in an estimated 850 billion gallons of untreated wastewater and stormwater being discharged into U.S. waterways. (See the EPA’s CSO report here.) According to the DC Water and Sewer Authority, 2,489 million gallons of raw sewage and stormwater are discharged annually from the District of Columbia. (More about DC WASA and combined sewer overflow here.)
While meditating on two projects close to my heart, the new School of International Service building at American University, and the new Nationals Baseball Park, I began to wonder why green building is making such advances, while green pavement still has not caught on.
Pavement, asphalt, black top, concrete: all are bad news for our planet. Surfaces paved with traditional asphalt and concrete are impermeable to water. Any rain that falls onto this kind of pavement does not percolate down into the ground, but rather runs over the pavement and into down storm drains. On the way it picks up litter, pesticides, and toxic heavy metals from the tires that run over it all day. All of this bad stuff ends up in our waterways, and even drinking water. In case you thought otherwise, stormwater that runs through a “modern,” separated municipal system is not treated before it enters our lakes and streams. Stormwater coming from a system that operates combined sewer overflows is treated, but during a high-volume even can be even worse for the environment and human health, as it releases raw sewage into our streams and waterways with the stormwater.* EPA calculates that in the United States, stormwater runoff from residential, commercial, and industrial areas is responsible for 21% of impaired lakes and 45% of impaired estuaries. In the Mid-Atlantic region alone, stormwater is responsible for over 4,000 miles of impaired streams.
Not only does stormwater pollute ponds and creeks (and eventually major rivers and the oceans), but it also disturbs the local water cycle. When the water runs directly from the pavement to streams, local flora and fauna are deprived of this vital resource. Furthermore, areas with many acres under pavement, such as cities, can greatly affect the water table beneath them, depriving humans of necessary water.
What, you may ask, is the solution? On the market right now are pavements that allow water to pass through them. In fact, porous pavement has been around since the 1970’s, although it still isn’t widely used. This kind of pavement solves many of the problems caused by traditional pavement. Litter remains on the street to be picked up, instead of in streams where it can hurt wildlife. The water percolates naturally through the soil, which filters out most of the heavy metals, chemicals, and bacteria. Porous pavement helps prevent environmental degradation by acid rain, because the soil is a natural buffer, and neutralizes almost all of the acid. Water naturally enters the water table, giving plants, animals, and even humans more reliable access to water. And, best part of all, no puddles!
Porous concretes and asphalts look almost identical to their impermeable counterparts, and are cheaper to install for most construction projects. This is because although the porous material itself is slightly more expensive, it does not require the costly drain and sewer infrastructure of traditional pavement. Many studies have also found that the porous pavement wears better than traditional pavements, and needs to be replaced less often.
So, with all this new information in mind, why haven’t porous pavements caught on? I suspect it is because of ignorance of stormwater problems and their solution. You can do your part by being an advocate of porous pavements in your community. For more information, visit http://www.stormcon.com/sw_0305_porous.html.
* More than 27 billion gallons of raw sewage and polluted stormwater discharge out of 460 combined sewage overflows (“CSOs”) into New York Harbor each year. Scary? That’s just New York . . . CSOs are a major problem for water quality. While it may seem unbelievable that in this day and age raw sewage is still discharged into rivers, about 40 million people live in cities with combined sewer systems, and CSOs are a major water pollution concern for 772 cities. CSOs annually result in an estimated 850 billion gallons of untreated wastewater and stormwater being discharged into U.S. waterways. (See the EPA’s CSO report here.) According to the DC Water and Sewer Authority, 2,489 million gallons of raw sewage and stormwater are discharged annually from the District of Columbia. (More about DC WASA and combined sewer overflow here.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)