The signs in Whole Foods about the cost of paper make it tempting (and Whole Foods will take back and claim to recycle plastic bags), but, if you haven't remembered your reusable bags, try to avoid the plastic anyways.
]]>There is a whole body of various environmental derived theories of spirituality and ethics, but I'm not going to write about those. They mostly extend the ideas of rights or inherent value from just humans to other sentient beings or just to all of life, or even to landscapes as they existed before humans. The problem with these sorts of theories is that they tend to blow up a big beautiful romantic bubble of idealism that is popped the first time someone gets a roach infestation. It's fine to try regard all life as being equally deserving of legal rights as ourselves, but for many people that perspective is distant from why we should bend over and pick up some trash or stand up and turn off a light.
]]> The environment is an example of a commonly held property, where anyone benefits by hurting the property, but where all suffer if everyone harms the property. Once I own a car, it is both quicker and cheaper for me to drive than to use mass transit. But if everyone keeps driving more and more, the atmosphere will be so full of carbon dioxide and the roads full of empty cars that we are all harmed. But even if I can just convince everyone else to stop driving, my own driving is still cheaper and quicker than public transit for me.This is a class of decisions called the "Prisoner's Dilemma" There is an interesting article on some current research on this in the May 2007 Scientific American. It is quite a puzzle to economists why people choose actions that are personally disoptimal but optimal if the whole group chooses the same way.
The missing ingredient here is that people aren't that different, and we know that we aren't that different, and therefore we use a rule of thumb for deciding between A and B, "Do I want to live in a world where everyone chooses A or where everyone chooses B." Obviously, people don't use this principal all the time, but the experiments described in the links show pretty conclusively that people are using it, and I think that this principal of reasoning is crucial to the changes we need to make to fit everyone on the globe in the upcoming decades without massive social breakdown and without totally ruining the environment (being humans, we have already missed the window on not messing up the environment; that alternate history of maxing out at 3 billion humans and launching the first star ships in the year 1990 is not the kind of species we are; we wait until the precipice of disaster before changing our behavior).
I think that thinking about things, "Do I want to live in the world with everyone doing A or doing B?" is a pattern of decision making that we can teach and spread. Do I want a lot of trash in these woods? No. So I'll pick up the trash I see. Do I want yummy, tasty tuna to become extinct? No, so I won't eat it until it is being harvested in a sustainable fashion. Assuming everyone else makes the same choices, I'll walk through litter-free paths and my grandkids will get to enjoy tuna. And having that assumption while I'm deciding will make my decisions better.
The moment of choice is a somewhat mysterious thing to science. Choices are somehow not quite in the realm of modern physical theories. There's not really a water-tight definition of what a choice is, and we are all aware of the chain of cause and effect that go into our habitual choices. "I feel lonely when I'm the only person in a house, and so I feel better when I turn all the lights on." "I don't want to use these scuffed shoes, ... those jerks in junior high school...." So when we are making a choice, we are aware both of our limitations and our freedom. In this we share the same experience as all people making a choice, so it seems quite reasonable to make a part of our decisions that we are deciding for everyone. We aren't deciding for everyone, but we are a part of everyone, and we are deciding our part. Given that people do decide this way anyways, I think that it is time to make this perspective part of our toolkit for reasoning about choices.
What do you think?
]]>Are mothballs safe to use? If not, are there any environmentally friendly alternatives?
See the responses from E Magazine by clicking on the link below.
]]> Is there any proof linking human breast cancer to exposure to chemicals in the environment? Or do researchers think most cases of breast cancers are genetically inherited?A groundbreaking research study coordinated by the non-profit Silent Spring Institute and recently published by the American Cancer Society found that synthetic chemicals have likely played a large role in the rising incidence of breast cancer throughout the world over the last half-century. The study identified 216 man-made chemicals—including those found in everyday products like pesticides, cosmetics, dyes, drugs and gasoline (and diesel exhaust)—that have been shown to cause breast cancer in animals. Researchers believe these substances, many of which “mimic” naturally occurring hormones once inside the body, are also to blame for the increasing prevalence of human breast cancer.
According to epidemiologist Devra Lee Davis of the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health and one of the lead researchers on the new study, the more hormones cycling through a woman’s body during her lifetime, the more likely she is to develop breast cancer. Synthetic chemicals that mimic hormones magnify the risk, as the body doesn’t know the difference between its own real hormones and other introduced chemicals. Only one in 10 women who develop breast cancer inherits a defective gene from their parents, Davis adds, meaning that in 90 percent of breast cancer cases studied, external non-genetic agents (e.g. synthetic chemicals) contributed to the development of the cancer.
Another telling clue is the fact that the breast cancer risk of adopted children parallels the risk of the family they grew up in, not that of their biological family, as proven by analyzing medical records from Scandinavian countries that keep detailed registries following people from birth to death. “What we understand is that if cancer runs in your family it could be because your family had similar eating patterns, similar lifestyle patterns as well as lived in the same area,” says Davis. “It’s really important that we take another look at…the kinds of chemicals that we are using everyday,” she adds. “We think that there are alternatives that can be used.”
The U.S. government has been reluctant to institute new restrictions on the production of highly profitable synthetic chemicals, but European regulators are taking the issue very seriously. The European Commission’s new Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Program calls on chemical manufacturers selling anywhere in Europe to re-register and re-evaluate the potential health hazards—including cancer risks—of their products. Environmental and public health advocates hope that American chemical companies will follow that lead with chemicals sold here.
In the meantime, consumers can help prevent cancer by buying and eating organic foods, avoiding pesticides and other synthetic chemicals whenever possible, using non-plastic containers to reheat and store foods (some plastics are thought to leach cancer-causing chemicals into food when heated), and supporting government regulation and more research on synthetic chemicals and their effects.
CONTACTS: Silent Spring Institute, www.silentspring.org; European Commission’s REACH Program, ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm.
Are mothballs safe to use? If not, are there any environmentally friendly alternatives?
Even though they are not as popular as they once were, mothballs are still used by many people to keep stored clothes, furniture and carpets free of hungry pests like moths. But the very ingredients that make mothballs so effective as household pesticides—namely naphthalene or paradichlorobenzene (PDB)—also make them dangerous to any person or animal who breathes the fumes or ingests them directly. Such chemicals are often listed as primary offenders when household air is tested for indoor air pollution.
Exposure to naphthalene or PDB can induce relatively minor human health problems such as nausea, vomiting, headache, coughing, burning eyes and shortness of breath. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer considers both naphthalene and PDB to be hazardous carcinogens as well. These chemicals, which are also found in some dry cleaning agents as well as household air fresheners and solid toilet-bowl deodorizers, have been found to nearly double the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma—a cancer of the blood—for those who come into frequent contact with them.
So what’s a conscientious homemaker to do? For starters, removing all mothballs and their flakes from the home is a good first step. Experts suggest donning gloves and even perhaps a mask before manually removing intact mothballs. Affected clothing can be machine-washed and dried several times, preferably on high heat settings. If the smell of mothballs continues to linger, any such clothes can be ironed—also with high heat settings, which tend to break down the active chemicals quicker. Sunlight also breaks down naphthalene and PDB, so leaving any affected items outside on hot sunny days may also help.
Carpets and upholstery co-mingled with mothballs should be vacuumed thoroughly, with vacuum cleaner bags containing mothball traces emptied immediately outdoors. If the mothball smell lingers after vacuuming, a professional cleaning might do the trick, although such services can introduce other harmful chemicals, such as the carcinogen perchloroethylene, into the household as well. (ChemDry and Zoots both offer in-home carpet and upholstery cleaning services that do not rely on harmful chemicals.) After any kind of mothball removal effort, the cleaned house or closet should be aired out, ideally with one or more fans blowing as much fresh outdoor air through as possible.
As to alternatives for keeping moths and other critters away from clothes and other valuable fabrics, Care2.com’s green home guru and author Annie Berthold-Bond suggests using home-made sachet pillows filled with a dried herb mixture combining two parts each of rosemary and mint, one part each of thyme and ginseng, and eight parts whole cloves. The herbs can be mixed and combined in the center of a bandana or handkerchief that is then tied with a ribbon and placed among the stored items. Also, Richards Housewares makes Moth-Away Herbal Moth Repellant, a pre-packaged product that makes use of a similar formula. It’s available from planetnatural.com and other online environmental product websites.
CONTACTS: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Napthalene page, www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/naphthal.html; PlanetNatural Moth-Away page, www.planetnatural.com/site/moth-away.html.
Wednesdays from 7-8:30, July 18 to August 15
CCAN’s Takoma Park office,
6839 Eastern Ave, Takoma Park MD 20912
If you have a great phone voice and think you can pitch CCAN, please volunteer for our membership drive phone bank. Our goal is to reach 500 members by August 15, and we need your help! If you have never phone banked with us before, don’t worry, we’ll get you fully trained. DINNER AND FUN INCLUDED! Just contact Susanna at susanna@chesapeakeclimate.org and let her know which of the following dates would work best for you: July 18, July 25 (tentative), August 1, August 15
Take our 4 question Volunteer Survey
Get credit for your volunteer time!
Many companies offer benefits for their employees who do volunteer work. We want to help you get the credit you deserve. Often times companies need nonprofits to register as a charity; if so, contact Susanna at susanna@chesapeakeclimate.org and let us help you get set up.
For more information email Info@chesapeakeclimate.org or call 301-270-3722
]]>The Chesapeake Climate Action Network will once again open to the public Maryland's only 95-percent renewable energy household. The home, owned by Mike Tidwell of Takoma Park, is equipped with energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs, and is powered by photovoltaic solar panels, a solar hot-water system, and a corn-burning home-heating stove.
The house has been featured in magazines, newspapers, and TV and radio stations (including NPR) all across the United States and Europe, and was recently featured on the Voice of America all across the world. One of the most newsworthy aspects of the home is the fact that all of these energy changes were made for the cost of just a cup of coffee a day!
]]> Come learn how you, too, can affordably reduce your home fossil fuel use by 50-90 percent and so help fight global warming. As a special feature, we'll also have two hybrid cars and an electric truck for you to view and learn about their affordable, climate-protecting features. And as a new feature, we'll show you how to landscape your yard with native plants and water them with rain barrels that catch rooftop runoff.Plus, there will be a solar food cooker on display (free solar-baked cookies) and an ingenious barbeque grill that runs on corn kernels. We'll be selling energy-saving compact fluorescent light bulbs for a big discount. We'll also have lots of free literature on the rising threat of global warming and steps you can take to help save the planet.
Come see solar panels! View electric, biodiesel, and hybrid cars firsthand! Eat solar-baked cookies and barbequed veggie burgers from a grill that burns corn kernels! Learn how to landscape your yard with native plants! Buy wind power certificates and energy-saving light bulbs! Test drive a tofu-powered lawn mower! And more!
As a part of CCAN's summer membership campaign, we are giving away a free Energy Audit at the open house! It's just one of the ways we can say thank you for supporting our work. And, if you haven't joined yet, join now and you also have a chance to win a free green cleaning from Green Clean USA! Click here to enter!
DIRECTIONS:
By Metro: Take the red-line train to Takoma Station and walk east along Carroll Ave. toward downtown Takoma Park. After three blocks, turn left on Willow Ave. We're the fourth house on the right. Five-minute walk from the Metro.
By bike or car from DC: Take 16th Street north to Aspen. Turn right on Aspen and follow under the Metro Bridge. Take your second left after the bridge onto Willow Street. At the first light, turn right on Carroll Ave and take an immediate left onto Willow Ave.
By bike or car from the Beltway: Exit at New Hampshire Ave heading south. Take a right on Piney Branch and a left on Carroll Ave. Follow Carroll till you're almost in downtown Takoma Park and take a right on Tulip Ave. Take your next left onto Willow Ave and we're the third house on the left.
PARKING:
Please park in the parking lot at the corner of Willow Ave. and Carroll Ave., just four houses down from the expo.
For more information call 301-270-3722.
]]>Make the Ride-Ons come every 15 minutes instead of 30 minutes, and they'd start to look useful for a day of errand running. I have to say that since the fares are payable by Metro Smartcard, I've been riding them a lot more often.
]]>It's easy to see why hardcore environmentalists would disapprove of them conceptually because of the disincentive to change our own consumptive behaviors. But on a practical level, they are a step in the right direction... aren't they?
Help us frame the debate. Please comment on carbon offsets and whether you think they are a good or bad thing.
]]>It's true that biofuels are a clean energy source we can get behind but we can't go all willy nilly on biofuels without addressing CONSUMPTION of all that is unclean.
This blog is awesome by the way.
]]>According to Gary Gerber of the Berkeley, California-based Sun Light & Power, not long after Ronald Reagan moved into the White House in 1980 and removed the solar collectors from the roof that Jimmy Carter had installed, tax credits for solar development disappeared and the industry plunged “over a cliff.”
Federal spending on solar energy picked up under the Clinton administration, but trailed off again once George W. Bush took office. But growing climate change worries and high oil prices have forced the Bush administration to reconsider its stance on alternatives like solar, and the White House has proposed $148 million for solar energy development in 2007, up almost 80 percent from what it invested in 2006.
In the realm of research and development, enterprising engineers are working hard to get solar power’s costs down, and expect it to be price-competitive with fossil fuels within 20 years. One technological innovator is California-based Nanosolar, which replaces the silicon used to absorb sunlight and convert it into electricity with a thin film of copper, indium, gallium and selenium (CIGS). Says Nanosolar’s Martin Roscheisen, CIGS-based cells are flexible and more durable, making them easier to install in a wide range of applications. Roscheisen expects he will be able to build a 400-megawatt electricity plant for about a tenth of the price of a comparable silicon-based plant. Other companies making waves with CIGS-based solar cells include New York’s DayStar Technologies and California’s Miasol .
Another recent innovation in solar power is the co-called “spray-on” cell, such as those made by Massachusetts’ Konarka. Like paint, the composite can be sprayed on to other materials, where it can harness the sun’s infrared rays to power cell phones and other portable or wireless devices. Some analysts think spray-on cells could become five times more efficient than the current photovoltaic standard.
Environmentalists and mechanical engineers aren’t the only ones bullish on solar these days. According to the Cleantech Venture Network, a forum of investors interested in clean renewable energy, venture capitalists poured some $100 million into solar start-ups of all sizes in 2006 alone, and expect to commit even more money in 2007. Given the venture capital community’s interest in relatively short-term returns, it’s a good bet that some of today’s promising solar start-ups will be tomorrow’s energy behemoths.
For more information
• Sun Light & Power
• Nanosolar
• DayStar Technologies
• Miasol
• PowerFilm
• Konarka
Dear EarthTalk: Do buildings with various “green” features cost more to build and operate than traditional buildings?
It is difficult to do an apples-to-apples cost comparison of a “green” structure against one that is not due to differences in design, materials and other factors, including the location. But the general consensus is that a green building might well cost slightly more up front, but it will very likely reap the rewards of lower operating costs going forward.
The U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program is the standard-bearer used today in evaluating the relative green-friendliness of building projects. A 2004 nationwide study conducted by Greg Kats of the research and consulting firm Capital E found that structures that qualified for the lowest LEED rating (“LEED Certified”) cost builders less than one percent more up-front than equivalent non-green buildings. For projects with more ambitious green features that qualified for higher LEED ratings (silver, gold and the highest, platinum), the cost premiums went up from between 1.9 percent and 6.8 percent, still surprisingly low.
What surprised Kats even more, though, was the value of the payback. Overall, Kats found that the average cost premium for building green was about $4-5 per square foot, while the financial benefits derived over 20 years from incorporating sustainability features—such as lower energy and water bills—was in the range of $49-65 per square foot, or about 10 times the value of the initial investment. Another 2004 study by Lisa Matthiessen of the consulting firm Davis Langdon came to similar conclusions. According to Matthiessen, incorporating sustainability elements in a project’s design from the get-go—not layering them on later in the process—is essential to keeping the costs down.
Despite these financial benefits, Kats points out that there is unfortunately a “consistent disconnect” in peoples’ minds between the higher up-front costs of building green and the ensuing savings in operating costs. He says that overcoming this is fundamental to understanding the value of green building.
And, of course, money is not the only issue. Transitioning to a greener built environment is important for the conservation of natural resources as well as for reducing pollution. According to statistics gathered by the U.S. Green Building Council, the 76 million residential and five million commercial buildings in the U.S. collectively consume 65 percent of America’s electricity, 37 percent of its energy, 25 percent of its water supplies and 30 percent of its wood and materials. Likewise, buildings account for 35 percent of the nation’s solid waste, 36 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, 46 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 19 percent of nitrous oxide emissions and 10 percent of fine particulate emissions.
Sustainable buildings, such as those that qualify for LEED certification, consume fewer resources, generate less waste, cost less to operate and provide healthier living and working environments for everyone—both indoors and out.
For more information
• U.S. Green Building Council, www.usgbc.org; Capital E’s “Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits,” www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F3481.pdf.
Got an environmental question? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php
Check this out: Wisebread.com.
(Thanks, Chris.)
]]>A more complex analysis is available at Marginal Revolution.
Closer to home, Maryland is discovering corn to be a major cash crop.
The Baltimore Sun recently reported that rising corn prices will be good for MD grain farmers but hard for farmers growing livestock and raising poultry- since corn is a major feed supply.
Maybe we'll see an agricultural shift, since the outlook for the next decade keeps corn prices high.
]]>There are 9 categories altogether this year– only one of them focuses specifically on the environment. But it's heart-warming to see the long and diverse list of nominees. ( I think it's twice as long as last year.) There are many write-ins coming in as well.
]]>It'll make ya feel good....
]]>No peace on earth without wind farms and 100 mpg cars
Check it out.
]]>