Whomping Willow

Changing Our Actions Begins with Changing Our Ideas

Although consciousness of environmental issues, primarily the need to conserve energy, is spreading in the United States and throughout the world, many citizens of the US seem to adopt one of the following mindsets:  that there are much more resources still available than most of us presume, that problems aren’t as serious as scientists and other authorities claim, that their own actions will not make a real difference, or that it is not their responsibility and that others will eventually fix the problems we are currently having - others with the time, and the power.  Needless to say, this is a real problem since the US is largely responsible for the consumption of natural resources worldwide.  As Mackin pointed out, these ideas, or the denial of the severity of environmental issues, seem to stem from the fact that the US has such a powerful economy, that in this country many of us never perceive any shortages, of anything really.  Assuming you have the money, you will have and can get everything you need here, so because these problems aren’t real to many people until they experience them themselves, it makes perfect sense that the mindset of the general public in America is stuck where it is.

According to a recent article in the NY Times, everyone in Japan, including the government, businesses, and citizens, is extremely concerned about energy conservation and reducing consumption in general.  In 2004, Japan consumed less than a quarter as much energy as America did, and the population is about 40% that of the US.  Japan is currently producing all sorts of energy-saving appliances and cars, which are catching on domestically, and are largely responsible for the reduction of their energy consumption over the past few years. So why is Japan so far ahead of us?  The reason is likely because of the small size of this country, along with the fact that Japan’s access to resources is extremely limited (making them very dependent on other countries) which people realize means that conservation is crucial to maintaining a strong economy and a high standard of living.  This point shows that when people have to deal with these problems, or must be aware of them for their own livelihood, then they are aware of them.  Fortunately, the concern about the availability of resources in the future is increasing everywhere because these problems are becoming real; everything is starting to be affected, and the awareness that this is happening is indeed spreading. Since countries like Japan are setting an example and beginning to make technological innovations to save energy, hopefully we will begin to see a similar shift in ways of thinking, and acting, here in the US.  Hopefully we can find ways, as Japan has, to adapt our economy to our own changing needs, as well as the changing needs of the world.     

 

Buy from Local, Small Business

It has always been my opinion that to support unique local businesses (ex - Skylight instead of Starbucks) maintains the character and charm of towns such as Chapel Hill. I don’t want my town to look like every other! Local businesses also tend to be much more customer-friendly and personal, and I guarantee that if you start going to one local coffee shop regularly, the employees will learn your name and your favorite drink in no time. But in class yesterday, we hit on another great reason not to buy from chains and superstores - the preservation of precious resources.

In our country, one of the most effective ways for ordinary citizens to make a difference is through our decisions as consumers. Therefore, it is our responsibility as environmentally aware community members to choose very wisely. In our discussion yesterday we briefly touched on the impact that superstores are having on our land usage; as a reminder, the average superstore takes up about 16 acres of land. Local businesses typically take up a lot less space, and even though they might not have what you’re looking for, chances are they will be willing to order it if you ask. In addition to wasted land resource, we are all familiar with the accusations that have been made against corporations such as Wal-Mart with respect to the way they treat their employees, and this is obviously not worth supporting, either.

Buying from local farms is a great way to help out the environment and your community, as well. If the produce you buy is grown locally then it doesn’t have to travel as far to get to you, meaning that you are helping to save energy, both from the power it takes to move the trucks and to keep the food refrigerated. So check out the Farmer’s Market, to begin with. And you can buy Maple View’s milk products right from the grocery store, which is especially great because their milk comes in glass bottles that you can bring back to the store for a partial refund when you’re through. After all, reusing is much better than recycling.

Call to action: get great HAIR!! :-)

Most hair care experts, depending on different hair types and textures, recommend that a healthy head and scalp be shampooed between one and four times a week and that the shampooing be followed up with a conditioning.  However, what most people, and even many hair experts, do not know is how harsh the chemicals in most hair products, especially shampoos, can be to hair, scalp, and the environment. With these products being used so frequently by ALL Americans, it would be advantageous to use safer products.

Most commercial brands of shampoo include harsh, synthetic chemicals like Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate ( , Ammonium Laureth Sulfate (SLES), and Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) and even severe drying agents like alcohol, fragrance, and even lye (Sodium Hydroxide). Sulfate products are used because they provide a quickly foaming detergent that is cheap and therefore can be used in high concentration in shampoos. However, these are the same ingredients that can be found in high concentrations in other hard cleaning products such as garage floor cleaners, car wash soaps, and laundry detergents. These products can increase the skin permeability, allowing harsh chemicals, such as Dioxane, a known carcinogenic byproduct of SLS, to enter through the skin. 

Another downside to these harsh chemicals is how they can negatively affect the environment. Often time, many of the ingredients in your shampoo that you don’t understand non-biodegradable compounds such as petrochemicals, chemicals products made from raw petroleum materials, which can cause long lasting damage to the environment when released into the air, land, and water.
So alternatives are better for both your hair AND the environment?

Organic shampoos and conditioners!  I can say from personal use of organic products, such as those made by Giovani and Aubrey organics, that they have made my hair feel softer and healthier and are less caustic to my scalp; along with the added benefit of being completely biodegradable and environmentally friendly. Most are affordable enough for even us poor college students and are available at organic food stores and healthy living stores such as GNC and The Vitamin Shoppe. So give some a try, I mean, who doesn’t want beautiful healthy hair and a green green planet?

Brazil’s Compensation Fund

Brazil recently proposed plans for a project that will allow rich nations to compensate for developing nations’ efforts to reduce carbon emissions from deforestation, which is responsible for nearly a quarter of the world’s total carbon emissions. The project will focus on slowing down the rate of deforestation and land-clearing in Brazil’s Amazon rainforest, which has already lost “an area twice the size of Germany” due to deforestation. The idea is for rich nations to contribute money to a fund for developing nations who have achieved a drop in the environmental impact of their deforestation industries. The money will only be accessible to developing nations “after they prove they have slowed initial deforestation rates.”

The project developed as a way to address certain issues in 1999’s Kyoto Protocol, which allowed developing nations to essentially be exempt from the Protocol’s requirements because they were not significant contributors to carbon emissions. With the new plan, developing countries will have monetary incentive to reduce their emissions. Critics of this new plan argue that participating nations should not be paid for their emissions cuts, and instead should be included in the Kyoto Protocol requirements. Proponents of the plan claim that it will benefit both developing nations–who will gain resources–and developed nations–who will meet their requirements in the Kyoto Protocol.

Call to Action: Stop being lazy and RECYCLE!!!

 I think I can safely say that almost everyone knows how to recycle. It is one of the easiest and cheapest things that we can do in an attempt to protect our environment and make it a more clean, safe place. That being said, why is everyone not recycling??? Recylcing itself is free in most places. I know the dorms on campus have recylcing containers right outside and provide a bin for recyclables in every single room! Most apartment complexes also offer easy access to recycling disposal centers! Additionally, North Carolina offers 247 curbside pickup services that will come and take your recycling once a week. Yet this service only boasts a 56% participation rate, something we can call horrendous for how easy it truly is. Additionally, there are 181 recycling centers around North Carolina alone where you can go and drop off your recyclable goods if none of the above services are available to you.

Let us all make a concerted effort to start to recycle and push those around us to do it also. Go out and buy a recycling bin from your county or just go get a few small, cheap trashcans to sort your recyclable goods inside your house/apartment/dorm. It is just as easy to throw a can into the recycling bin as it is to throw it in the garbage can. If they are pre-sorted, you don’t have to pick through it at the containers. Trust me it’s easy! We can all strive to walk that extra bit to find somewhere to throw our garbage away in a place where it can be reused. Stop the laziness and start the recycling!

Charitable Conservation

With rapid and continual development in South America, many environmental problems have arisen. Among these is the rapid deforestation of habitats that are rich in biodiversity. South American countries have witnessed severe areas of deforestation in recent decades while trying to expand their economies. One such area is the Pantanal, the largest wetlands region in the world, that expands into parts of Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay. The British charity organization World Land Trust has provided hope in the conservation of part of this area in Paraguay with its purchase of nearly 10,000 acres of wetland area in the northern part of the country. The World Land Trust aims to protect biologically diverse habitats in different parts of the world. The area they are protecting this time is home to 117 different species of mammals and 600 species of birds. As a consequence of the deforestation and development in the region, much of the wetland habitat has been destroyed and the biodiversity has been severely threatened. They hope to preserve the habitat for these species.

The Paraguayan organization Guyra has partnered with the World Land Trust to ensure the preservation of the wetlands. This goal of this organization is to preserve the habitat needed for the birds of the country to survive. Their work takes place throughout the country, with one of their specific stations located in the Pantanal wetlands.

This preservation provides hope for the environmental community in that an international conservation charity has been able to successfully partner with a local organization to preserve the biodiversity of a region in the developing world.

California Bans Purchase of Dirty Power

The state of California is making an effort to curb emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming by banning companies from buying from high polluting sources. The new standard is to encourage investment in cleaner sources like wind and solar. There are hardly any coal – fired plants in the state but 20% the states supply of electricity comes from other western states that generate energy by using coal plants. Many states use coal because it is cheaper, more prevalent, but releases the highest levels of carbon dioxide. Governor Schwarzenegger “[has] made a commitment in the state to clean up the environment, and the commitment extend to what they buy from other states.” This is only one of the reforms that officials have been working on. Last year the governor signed a bill that was the nation’s first cap on carbon emissions that expel from refineries, utilities, and manufacturing plants in the state.

I thought this was interesting because we just finished reading “Americans and Their Land” this past week that discussed California’s extravagant use of resources and emitting of pollutants over the years. This article gave a brownie point to California for at least addressing their problem and attempting to change their habits of consumption and waste emissions. California is most populated state in the nation so; it’s nice for them to take the initiate to be the catalyst for change

 

Public Policy to reduce waste

We can reduce waste by using our own coffee cup, but not always is up to us the waste management. Can we decide if Subway give three package for our sandwich. In some way we can, by acting as responsible consumers (sending e-mails or calling to the company; or simply not buying their products). But sometimes is not so easy and we have to accept what market offers.

In addition, not all the people know this problem, or they think that the problem is not serious enough to worry about it.

Thence, we have two options: we can live consumers and “the invisible hand” of the market stimulate an environmental friendly behavior, or we can persuade people and industries to behave correctly through public policy.

The European Community chose the second option via the DIRECTIVE 94/62/EC, that aims to “harmonize national measures in order to prevent or reduce the impact of packaging and packaging waste on the environment and to ensure the functioning of the Internal Market.”

What is DIRECTIVE 94/62/EC?

It is a Directive that covers all packaging placed on the market in the Europe Community and all packaging waste, whether it is used or released at industrial, commercial, office, shop, service, household or any other level, regardless of the material used. It requires Member States to take measures in order to prevent the formation of packaging waste, and encourage packaging reuse systems.
“It contains provisions on the prevention of packaging waste, on the re-use of packaging and on the recovery and recycling of packaging waste.”

Goals of the Directive

All the states must meet the following targets, by no latter than 2008:

• at least 60% by weight of packaging waste to be recovered or incinerated at waste incineration plants with energy recovery;
• between 55 and 80% by weight of packaging waste will be recycled;
• the following recycling targets must be met for materials contained in packaging waste: 60% by weight for glass, 60% by weight for paper and board, 50% by weight for metals, 22.5% by weight for plastics and 15% by weight for wood.

This year, the European Parliament and the Council are supposed to set targets for 2009-2014 period.

Controversy

The genuinely objective of this directive is reduce all the one-time-use package that is possible to reduce. However, some NGOs , as Ecologistas en Acción, said that these is not what is happening now. Since the directive is to vague many states are implementing collection and recycling schemes that helps to reduce waste, but are not the best solution.

The best strategy that states, and people too, have to take is reducing; reuse and recycle are secondary options (3R concept said -1st Reduce, 2nd Reuse, 3rd Recycle, what you couldn’t reduce or reuse). According to Ideas, the countries chose this policy because of the pressure that companies, as Coca-Cola, McDonald’s, PepsiCo, etc, does via groups as EUROPEN or ERRA.

Conclusion

Despite the controversy, public policy is useful and necessary. Lobby groups try to defend their own interest always. That’s why public policy is essential. The fact that the EC Directive doesn’t work as it should doesn’t mean is usefulness, it means that we have to do more efforts and improve the legislation.

Consumer pressure is a way to act on behalf of the environment, but not enough. May be, some companies introduce environmental policies in order to appeal responsible consumers. Merely, the big changes are made by public policy. And public policy is made by concerned citizens and voters.

So, the conclusion is that we have to pressure as consumers (choosing the best products we can) and as citizens voting and demanding our representatives for effective legislation (in favor of the society and not private interests).

National News: Chemical Plant Releases Toxic Gas Cloud

On Thursday afternoon in La Porte, TX, a DuPont chemical plant leaked a large cloud of gas from a unit producing sulphuric acid, CNN reports. Reports state that for approximately ten minutes a gas called oleum, a fine mist of sulphuric acid, leaked from one of the plant’s stacks blanketing the area including a nearby highway. A shelter-in-place order was enacted for all nearby resident and district schools while Highway 225 was shut down. The plant’s safety supervisor, Ken Martin, had this suggestion for affected citizens: “The thing I would recommend people do if you thought you were exposed to a significant amount of it or your vehicle, something like that, wash it off this afternoon.” So far, no one has been reported injured.

This article piqued my interest on two levels. First, I thought this incident is a nice example of why oil drilling and other ecologically unsound activities must be kept out of protected wildlife areas. There is no such thing as a fool-proof system to keep environmentally destructive activities safe, there will always be entropy in the system waiting to bugger everything up. If we don’t have the skills or the technology to keep our cities and residential areas free from contamination, how can we expect to preserve natural spaces? Another striking aspect of this article is the discrepancy between the advice given by DuPont’s safety supervisor and the article’s writer. Ken Martin suggests that residents who have been exposed to the toxic gas will be alright as long as they take a shower sometime later that day and wash their cars.

On the other side of the spectrum, the article warns the reader that, “Oleum causes respiratory problems if inhaled. Symptoms include breathing problems and a burning sensation in the throat. Anyone experiencing symptoms is encouraged to see a doctor,” and then goes on to explain how to properly secure one’s house with tape and plastic sheeting. Who is to be believed here? Is the corporation downplaying the possible dangers of this horrific accident to maintain their image? Or is the media trying to be sensational by fear mongering? I would wager both.

Policy Update - CHP

As many of our nation’s boilers approach their 30 year mark, a window of opportunity is opening for these antiquated machines to be replaced with a cleaner and more innovative technology. Combined Heat and Power (CHP), also termed cogeneration, is a method of generating thermal energy (heat) and electricity (power) in a single on-site process, offering improved efficiency, greater reliability to the power grid, and reduced levels of harmful air pollutants. Recent innovation in policy and technologies, coupled with rising energy costs and a heightened environmental awareness has brought significant attention and interest to the market for this technology, but delayed utility and regulatory conformity seriously jeopardizes the role that CHP may play in the future of US energy consumption.

Investor-owned utilities argue that a significant increase in distributed electric generation stands to undercut utility profits and cause rate hikes for all power users, and therefore have worked tirelessly to restrict large-scale industrial CHP projects. As a result of aggressive utility practices, the last CHP-friendly piece of legislation to pass on the federal level was the Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) of 1978 (which set the mandate for investor-owned utilities to purchase surplus electricity produced by distributed generators). Needless to say, the barriers still facing CHP are numerous, including:

1) Lack of a standardized interconnection policy. The term interconnection simply refers to the point of connection between an electricity producing facility and the utility power grid. However, because a surge of energy efficient distributed generation systems entering the electricity arena challenges the traditional notion of monopoly-controlled centralized generation, the process of making that connection is far from simple. Varying approaches by state, and often by utility service territory make interconnecting an unpredictable, time-consuming and often unaffordable venture.

2) Permitting process neglects to credit CHP for efficiency gains. Federal air quality regulations (propagated by the Clean Air Act) have ironically created the framework for a permitting process that discourages the implementation of CHP by (1) basing emissions limits on an input-of-fuel-basis, a method that fails to acknowledge the efficiency gained by recovering waste heat; (2) not acknowledging CHP for emissions offsets including reduced emissions from central generators, application of thermal energy, and the use of opportunity fuels (i.e. burning on-site waste product that would otherwise end up in landfill); and (3) requiring pollution control requirements that do not take into account the size of a generating unit, presenting smaller generators with prohibitively high compliance costs.

3) Regulated electric market allows for prohibitive rates, tariffs, and fees. Since the deregulation scare of the early 1990’s, state utilities commissions have recently shifted focus away from the public interest to center in on protecting return on investments for their utilities. Taking advantage of this fact, utilities often implement discriminatory rate structures to keep other industries out of the market.

Several non-profits are currently lobbying on the national level for the removal of these barriers, and two house bills—the Energy Technology Transfer Act and the Global Warming Reduction Act—include measures to encourage the use of CHP. This is a start, but there is much more to be done to let CHP rise to its full Btu and natural-resource-saving potential!