News
Biosolids and Compost
Last week, the Organic Consumers Association took a stand outside the mayor’s office in San Francisco to protest the city’s recent free composting program. (Read the article from their site here). It might sound like an odd thing to protest, especially with all the amazing benefits of composting. The national group chose San Francisco to demonstrate against since it is one of the most “green” cities in the U.S. and they felt that it would reach the best audience.
This group claims that the compost that was handed out “usually includes a number of heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, pharmaceuticals, steroids, flame-retardants, bacteria (including antibiotic-resistant bacteria), fungi, parasites and viruses.” They cite an EPA survey that found heavy metals, steroids, anions, and pharmaceuticals in the biosolids from around the country
Many local governments have adopted the practice of turning biosolids into fertilizer to be sold or handed out for free. A biosolid is made from treated and processed sewage. The EPA claims that these biosolids contain “nutrient-rich organic materials”. Be careful to realize that when they say organic here, they do not mean certified organic, but organic as in organic chemistry. Read more about biosolids on the EPA’s website.
The reasoning for taking sewage and turning it into biosolids for farms and gardens sounds compelling at first glance. In the past, this sewage was dumped straight into lakes, streams, and other natural water sources. › Continue reading
In Response to WA State “Eco-Terrorist” Bill
image: flickr user steews4
Check out what TreeHugger.com has to say on the subject here.
Firstly, I would like to preface this blog by saying I would recommend people intent on their promotion of environmental awareness to stick to lawful means of expressing that activism. That said, I also believe there should be more of a discussion on the understanding, legally and culturally, of “eco-terrorism”. What is it? Why is it used? What purpose does it have? What results does it achieve?
A large part of activism is the spreading of awareness of issues. People are often desensitized to issues of environmental crisis in the face of sensationalized media overkill. I think that activists utilize their right to freedom of speech to express intense concern for issues and to spread awareness. The more common strategies do this without putting human lives at risk or result in the destruction of property. The umbrella labeling of all environmental activists as “terrorists” is absurd and rather slanderous, to be frank.
Green Police
If you watched the superbowl this past weekend, then you are probably familiar with the ‘Green Police’ ad by Audi touting their diesel A3 TDI. While the spot was quite amusing, it can also be a bit sad as that is what many people think of the green movement.
I don’t want to over dramatize it, because it was obviously poking fun a the extreme behaviors and righteousness of some in the eco friendly community, but it makes it easy for others to say: “see how silly all this green stuff is.”
With an EPA-rated 42 mpg on the highway and a 30% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, the new A3 TDI is one of the ‘greenest’ cars out there, but it still doesn’t take away from the fact that it is still a car and a major contributor to greenhouse gasses, pollution, energy and waste- even if you use biodiesel. If I was to really pick apart the commercial, its quite hilarious that one offender was arrested for requesting a plastic bag while the guy driving a car (a 5 seater all alone at that) would be praised. I mean what kind of backwards environmentalism is that?
Destroying Clothes- Brand Managmenent and the Apparel Industry
It really is quite a dilemma, the question of brand and style management and environmental stewardship has been at the forefront of controversy since the H&M and Walmart clothing destruction and disposal incident. This conjures up a similar dumpster diving topic of food disposal by grocery stores and restaurants, food safety concerns can pose some justification while the destruction of clothes can be more difficult to explain.
Given that people are dying of exposure around the world and there really doesn’t seem to be any cause to destroy perfectly good clothes, there are two issues one must consider- Brand management and the fragile economy of clothing manufacturing. In some ways they can be interconnected although one is detrimental to a company, the other can doom an industry.
Brand management to some is not an excuse, but in our society it is a necessity. Much like the regulation of food production to maintain pricing, people starve as a consequence, however, it is needed to maintain the industry. If a brand is de-valued, it can bring about the death of the company. If you had just purchased a new jacket at a store for $100, and then started to see that same jacket being worn by homeless, showing up in large quantities at second hand stores and charities, it would probably disappoint you or make you feel like you got ripped off (you paid decent money for something that others are getting at a heavy discount or even free). Not only does it sabotage the ’style’ (style inherently involves an exclusivity factor or comparison with ’stylish’ people), but it de-values the item knowing that you over-paid for it. This will cause a collapse in the brand as no one will want to pay that much for their items if they can get it cheaper elsewhere, or know that ’societal unsavory individuals’ will be wearing them at the same time.
The other, and probably least recognized issue is the affect on the clothing industry as a whole. This has been a particular problem in very poor regions of Africa and South America. The infiltration of charities giving away free clothes has destroyed any hope of a local industry and sadly closed down the manufacture of traditional style clothes. In areas of true extreme poverty, where the chance of death from exposure is a real risk, these practices have indeed saved lives. It is the collateral damage from an over-abundance of these items which has spread throughout these areas that wreak havoc on the local clothing industry.
Human Limits – What Can Your Body Take?
While perusing a recent issue of National Geographic Magazine, I found an interesting piece on the limits of human survival that I thought I would share. Goes to show that your body can take a lot more than you think it can when its pushing its limits of survival.
- 107.6 degrees F – Die from Heatstroke
Once your core body temp reaches 107.6 degrees, heatstroke becomes irreversible and fatal. - 40 degrees F – Die of Hypothermia
After 30 minutes in 40 degree water, you will perish of hypothermia. Since water can pull heat from your body more effectively than air, the higher you can float or the more of your body you are able to get out of the water, the longer you will last. - 300 degrees F – Die from Overheating
Heat from an enclosed fire or deep mine can begin to bake your body. In only 10 minutes, you will be meat loaf. Kids succumb much faster and in lower heat, just a few minutes inside a 120 degree car will prove fatal. - 15,000 feet – Die from Altitude
Fading consciousness will occur at elevations higher than 15,000 feet unless acclimated. Raised red blood cell counts and enlarged lungs common to highland dwellers ensure their survival in
these harsh altitudes. - 282 feet – Die by Drowning
The record for the deepest freedive is 282 feet. Without special equipment, most people will black out at depths deeper than 60 feet, however with training it may be possible to go deeper. - 11 minutes – Die from Lack of Oxygen
Without oxygen, you will loose consciousness after about 2 minutes. With training, some individuals have reached 11 minutes. - 45 days or 30% – Die of Starvation
Without food, you can last about 45 days before you will loose approximately 30% of your body weight and die. With this rapid weight loss, you are more likely to succumb to disease before starvation.
Chairitable Giving – How to Donate Money
Tis the season, and many of us are in the giving spirit. With so many good causes out there, selecting charities can seem a bit daunting.
It’s good to do a little research and ask some questions to find out a little more about the organization. There are some helpful guides which can give you financial breakdowns and spending habits of each charity from places like Charity Navigator and Charity Watch. Here are a few guidelines I use when selecting a charity or organization to donate to.
- Fund Allocation
One of the most important things to ask is how is my money being spent? When donating to a charity or cause, I like to see at least 80% of my funds going towards action. You will find some charities spending (in my opinion) too much money on administration, fund-raising and extraneous things. Before you give, try and find the percentages, most good charities will have it readily available. - Results
Where do these charities operate and do I see the effects of their work? Granted there are several charities that work ‘under the radar’, but they should still be held accountable. I like to see results when choosing a charity whether it be news coverage, events, preservation, laws passed, documented actions, etc. - Methods
How does your charity affect change? Make sure you are comfortable with the actions of your charity, and know what their methods are. Some groups can be more radical and aggressive, and indeed some charities could be viewed as terrorist groups. It is wise to know what your charity is doing and how they are doing it. - Transparency and Trust
How much do you know about your charity, and how easy is it to find out more? I like to know a lot about the groups I give to, from where they are based to how far they reach, what/who they help and how they help are all important to me. Some charities will allow you to even select exactly what you want your money to go to. - Ability to Affect Change
This is where the rubber hits the road and I want to know what is my Return on Investment (ROI) is going to be, because that is exactly what it is. I’m not giving money away, I am investing it in an idea. When looking at a specific cause, try and pinpoint organizations which are most able to impact it the best way. Sometimes it is a larger organization with lots of equipment and manpower, other times its the smaller guys who can mobilize quickly and effectively – choose the best tool › Continue reading
Carbon Trading Scams – Who are you paying to reduce your footprint?
Ever bought a plane ticket and seen the little banner that says ‘offset your carbon emissions here’, or seen a company claim to be ‘carbon neutral’? More often than not, they are buying carbon credits.
Carbon footprints are all the rage right now, so much so that a whole new industry is being built on carbon credits or carbon offsetting as companies attempt to reduce their carbon emissions to look more green. I liken this to a way for people to make money off of the environmental movement by making a commodity out of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and trading it on the open market. And its not just Carbon Dioxide, just about every harmful emission is traded to some extent. This is ridiculous in so many ways it makes my head spin.
This can be great for small, specialized use, such as paying extra on your electric bill to use [and pay for the production of more] renewable energy sources such as wind farms, but as so often happens, it has been abused.
Since there is no regulating body or standard, anything from a dead mango grove to your backyard garden can be traded on the market for a profit. From oil companies generating electricity from illegal natural gas flaring in Nigeria (and thus claiming $1.5 million in offset credits a year), to chemical companies building $5 million incinerators to claim $500 million worth of destroyed HFCs (that they created).
Where it really hits the fan for me is how it can justify people living the same way they always have, with a huge carbon footprint, they only have to buy their way out of it and can be ‘carbon neutral’. I liken it to buying a ticket into heaven by paying for absolution rather than changing ones behavior, by paying into the system, one is supporting the renewable energy movement, and therefore gets a wash.
5 Seemingly Gross Ways to Go Green
1. Don’t use toilet seat covers
Strange as it may sound, but these wafer-thin little pieces of paper do nothing for your touche. While they give you a feel-good barrier between you and a public toilet, it is basically only that. According to Dr. Sherry Marts, scientific director of the Society for Women’s Health Research, “It’s OK to sit down. Most organisms that cause STDs will not survive for long on a toilet seat.” When you really think about it, when else has a piece of paper that thin ever saved you from anything?
How much good would it do? I haven’t been able to find any definitive answer, but I would feel comfortable throwing out a number in the area of 50,000 trees a year.
2. Wash your hair less
Ask your hairstylist about this one, and you may be surprised what they tell you! Washing your hair everyday can actually be damaging and cause it to start out dry and quickly become greasy. Slowly begin to extend periods between washing so your scalp and hair can adjust until you reach 2-3 washings a month. Soap seems harmless enough, but with the amount we use and dump in our waterways today, it can be downright harmful to those little fishes. Given all that is in shampoo these days, I wouldn’t want to drink it.
3. Pee in the shower or outside in your garden
I’m sure we are going to ruffle some feathers with this one, but we are going to emphasize that urine is sterile! By reliving yourself in the shower, you are saving a toilet flush and the urine is going to the same place anyway (unless you have a specific greywater system, even better.) If you choose to pee outside, you are replenishing nature! Be sure to dilute it with water and hit different spots in your garden or it could be a bit too much fertilizer for your plants (try peeing directly on your compost if you have one to enhance it.)
› Continue reading
Tools for Sustainable Investing
One way I like to try and make a difference is supporting sustainable companies that I can feel good about. There are two ways to do this, one is by buying their products, the other is by investing in their future and showing your support and investing in their future. The second way also leaves you an opportunity to benefit from the success of that company.
I try and keep an eye out for new and sustainable companies, environmentally responsible stocks and mutual funds that promote eco-friendly and socially conscious values. Honestly this has paid off for me much better (especially in the long term) than most of my other stock or mutual fund picks. I recently found and interesting investing tool called the Dow Jones Sustainability Index (DJSI), which are a collection of global indexes tracking the financial performance of the leading sustainability-driven companies worldwide.
A partnership between the Dow Jones Dow Jones Indexes, STOXX Limited and SAM they provide asset managers benchmarks to manage sustainability portfolios. The nice thing is that you are able to access them as well for your investment decisions. You are able to look up companies and filter them by key factors outlined by the index.
For each company, the input sources of information for the Corporate Sustainability Assessment consist of the responses to the online questionnaire, submitted documentation, policies and reports, publicly available information and SAM Research analyst’s direct contact with companies. Each sustainability assessment is verified by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Organic Foods and Produce – Better For You?
There has always been an air of skepticism about the nutritional value of organic foods, are they better for you? I believe the question is aimed incorrectly or perhaps is the wrong question altogether. Factory farms, much of the food industry and even comedians Penn and Teller have all asked the question and now they have some firepower with a recent review published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. The article concludes:
“On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to differences in production methods.”
I have a few bones to pick with this study. One, the research used many old studies, from 1980 or earlier which may have flawed methodology since many studies performed since then have showed clear nutritional differences between the different growing methods*. Secondly, the study doesn’t look at differences in certain antioxidants and polyphenols – the new hot nutrients as of late (just look at the new Rice Krispies box) which are much higher in organically grown foods. The biggest of all is: does any of this really matter?
Margaret Southern makes a good point when she asks: “Isn’t it more about what’s not in the food than what is?” Not only that but how does the farming technique impact the land, water and communities near it? We don’t live in the time of family farming anymore, where individual farmers and their families cared about the land and the food they grew.
Cash for Clunkers – Eco Friendly or Environmental Mistake?
There has been a lot of news about the Car Allowance Rebate System or ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program, but the real question is will this benefit the environment? Conceived as a two-birds-with-one-stone program to boost our economy and remove older polluting cars from our roads, but is it working? The real answer is that we don’t know yet.
The original program developed by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California and Senator Susan M. Collins, Republican of Maine, required bigger improvements in MPG to qualify. Luckily it seems “the good judgment of the American people” has proved to exceed even the original requirements.
Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the average mileage of new vehicles purchased through the program is 9.6 miles per gallon higher than for the vehicles traded in for scrap. Buyers of new cars and trucks that get 10 mpg better than their trade-ins get the $4,500 rebate. People whose cars get between 4 mpg and 10 mpg better fuel efficiency qualify for a smaller $3,500 rebate.
-Associated Press
We should stop and recognize, however, that Miles Per Gallon (MPG) is not a very good indicator of actual fuel efficiency, especially at higher numbers. Look at the table below, and you can see that if you traded a car that got 40 mpg in for one that got 50 mpg, you would qualify for the higher rebate, however, it would be less efficient (less of an environmental impact) than moving from a 20 mpg car to a 25 mpg car.
Search
Recent Posts
Most Popular
See the latest in green power,
earth friendly energy.
Find Energy Efficient TVs,
Home Audio and Video
Electronics.
Save energy and time with
Format HTML; it will
indent HTML perfectly!
Planning a green wedding?
Look
up local wedding vendors
at One White Wedding.