Conservation 101: the Compete to Conserve Blog

Image courtesy VBS.tv's excellent 12-part video series.

Out in the beautiful deep blue waters of the Pacific Ocean swirls a giant mass of plastic trash. It’s huge, it’s gross, and it’s growing.

Some Say It’s Twice the Size of Texas

This giant plastic trash continent goes by many names: the Pacific Gyre, the Great Garbage Patch, and Garbage Island. And before the real estate speculator in you gets excited about the possibility of a new oceanfront property, you should know it’s not a single cohesive mass of trash, but rather billions and billions of plastic pieces, big and small, that float out to sea and collect in a large, shifting swirl, thanks to ocean currents.

For an eye-opening visual of this floating trash vortex, see VBS.tv’s excellent (but, parents be warned, foul-mouthed) 12-part video series. Each episode is about seven-minutes long: http://www.vbs.tv/shows.php?show=1154

What Goes Around, Comes Around

Unfortunately, the vast majority of plastics manufactured are not biodegradable. That means this patch of old bottles, toothbrushes, straws, nets, shoelace tips, wrappers, packaging, and more is here to stay. The pieces of plastic do, over time, erode into smaller pieces, which are then ingested by birds and fish, which then are ingested by us. Pause here to think not only how disgusting that is, but how harmful to our health it is to ingest known toxins and carcinogens.

What Can You Do to Stop the Great Garbage Patch?

There’s been some talk about cleaning the mess up, though due to the enormity of the task and small pieces, it may not be feasible. Think how hard it is to fish out a single speck of eggshell from a bowl of cracked eggs and multiply that by trillions.

The best way to help is to stop it from growing. And the best way to stop the Great Garbage Patch from growing is to reduce our consumption of plastics, non-biodegradable plastics, in particular.

I, for one, tuck a small shopping bag in my purse when I go out, just in case I make an impulse buy. For planned shopping trips, I bring my own bags. I carry a stainless steel water bottle with me instead of buying bottled water. I don’t use straws. I refill our hand soap dispensers. I avoid products with lots of wrappers. And, of course, I recycle what plastics can be recycled. It’s not the entire solution, but it’s a start. It’s also, honestly, a lot less convenient. But thinking of the huge floating plastic trash heap keeps me in line.

There are millions of ways to make a difference. I’ve heard of people bring their own food containers for takeout and bringing containers back to their neighborhood health food store for refills. If you have more ideas, please post a comment and share them here.

More resources:

Join the Stop the Great Garbage Patch cause on Facebook:
http://apps.facebook.com/causes/57731?recruiter_id=10314532

“Giant Plastic Soup Floats Out to Sea,” on frogblog:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2008/02/11/giant-plastic-soup-floats-out-to-sea/

“Is There a Solution to the Continent of Plastic that Pollutes the Pacific?” on Fat Knowledge:
http://fatknowledge.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-there-solution-to-continent-of.html

“Continent-Size Toxic Plastic Stew of Plastic Trash Fouling the Pacific Ocean,” San Francisco Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/18/SS6JS8RH0.DTL

1. 
   photo credit: cursedthing

   Buying in Bulk Saves Money
   We’re not just talking about buying giant boxes of food a warehouse store. (Although, if you eat that many Cheerios in a month, it can save you money.) We’re talking about the bulk bins at your local grocery store, where you can buy everything from rice, beans, flours, and spices to cereals, nuts, dried fruits, and pastas.
   You can save serious money shopping from these bins—10 to 30 percent off prepackaged prices.

2. Less Trash
   Compare the packaging of 10 cans of kidney beans to one bag. Or three 10-ounce boxes of cereal (three cardboard boxes and three un-recyclable plastic liners) to one bag and a twist tie. You can also reuse your bulk bin bag and twist tie to reduce your waste even more.
   If you’re super-attached to your old cereal boxes, save them and place your reusable bag inside.
3. Less Goes to Waste
   When you buy from the buy bins, you can buy the exact amount you need, so less is likely to spoil and go to waste.
4. Food Often Tastes Better
   Canned beans, for example, are more convenient, but once you get into the rhythm of pre-soaking beans and cooking them the night before, you’ll find beans from the bulk bins taste much better. They harbor none of the metallic aftertaste found in canned beans.
5. A Chemical Found in Most Canned Foods Is Linked to Cancer
   Unbelievable as it sounds, it’s true. Most food and drink cans are lined with a plastic resin that contains a chemical compound called bisphenol A (BPA). Due to a growing concern about the harmful health effects of BPA, it is being banned from baby bottles in Canada and many plastic-bottle manufacturers are voluntarily phasing it out of their products. The makers of cans, however, have not felt the wrath of consumers yet, so most plan to continue using it.

   More resources on BPA in cans, and, if you can’t buy fresh, who offers BPA-free cans:

   “BPA Danger May Be Greater in Tin Cans Than in Water Bottles,” TreeHugger
   http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/bpa-danger-from-cans.php

   A list of companies that use BPA in cans, from Organic Grace
   http://organicgrace.com/node/316

   “Where to Find BPA-free Cans,” Julie’s Health Club
   http://featuresblogs.chicagotribune.com/features_julieshealthclub/2008/06/where-to-find-b.html

photo credit: ..· ✈Katherina ➳·..

As host of the 2008 Summer Olympic Games, China missed key opportunities to leave a meaningful, lasting environmental legacy.

In a recently released report, Greenpeace commends China for living up to many of its environmental promises. But, the watchdogs note, a lack of transparency and independently verified data made evaluation difficult. And many solutions, especially those relating to Beijing’s air quality, are temporary fixes that will not continue after the games, and therefore not be of real benefit to the people of Beijing.

Here’s a quick look at Beijing’s missed opportunities:

• Waste management
  Instead of moving toward a zero-waste policy, polluting incineration was encouraged and more landfill was created.
• Car ownership
  While four new rail lines were added to boost public transportation infrastructure, little was done to curb private car ownership. About half a million cars were added to Beijing’s roads last year, a pace that is expected to continue.
• Air quality
  Dramatic quick fixes like temporarily halting industrial production and banning most private cars from the road may improve air quality for the games, but they are not lasting, cost-effective solutions. A better approach would be to enforce stricter emission standards for manufacturing, make public transportation viable for more riders, and move away from reliance on coal-burning energy plants.
• Water conservation
  Water-saving technologies used at the Shunyi Olympic Rowing and Canoe Park could have been more widely adopting to prevent and further strain on Beijing’s dwindling water supply.
• Air-conditioning and refrigeration
  Most of the cooling technologies used eschew ozone-depleting CFCs, but many use climate-boosting hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Because most of these systems are new and will likely not be replaced for some time, it represents a failure to leapfrog to more-efficient, greener technologies.
• Building construction
  Green building techniques were encouraged but non-binding, limiting their implementation.
• Sponsors
  Electronic companies Lenovo and Panasonic provided equipment containing known toxic substances like PVC and BFR.

More resources:
Greenpeace’s full report:
http://www.greenpeace.org/china/en/news/green

“IOC Could Have Done More,” TreeHugger
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/07/beijing_ioc_get_mixed_report_greenpeace.php

You Can Order These Come from Trees Stickers, Too

I was at a super-cool wedding reception at the St. George Spirits Distillery in Alameda, California, when I came across a sticker on a restroom paper-towel dispenser that reminded me, “These Come from Trees.”

The sticker says the simple reminder saves 100 pounds of paper every year! Usually the stickers are put up by patrons, but management typically doesn’t mind the stickers because less paper towels used saves them money. In this way, the “These Come from Trees” people claim to be the world’s first guerrilla public service announcement.

You can order stickers yourself and put them up wherever you go. Get 20 for $5 (to cover printing and shipping) at:

http://thesecomefromtrees.blogspot.com/

photo credit: (nutmeg)

A new report from the environmental watchdogs at Greenpeace says that Beijing has lived up to many (though definitely not all) of its green promises made in its bid to host the 2008 Summer Olympics.

As the Olympic Committee has noted, part of its selection decision was based on the hope that sustainable development would benefit China as it continues its crash course in rapid development. While there are many areas that could have been improved, sustainable development advocates are hoping that Beijing’s environmental successes will serve as a blueprint for other developing cities in China and around the world.

Greenpeace found that “Beijing achieved and in some cases surpassed original environmental goals but missed some opportunities that could have ensured a better short- and long-term environmental Olympic legacy for the city.”

Here’s a quick look at Beijing’s laudable green triumphs:

• A Shift Away from Polluting Fossil Fuels
  New Olympic venues showcase an array of sustainable energy technologies, including solar hot water, geothermal heating and air-conditioning, and solar photovoltaic systems. And wind power from a new nearby wind power station will provide enough energy to meet the annual demands of 100,000 families.
• New Energy Efficient Upgrades
  More than 32,000 household-heating systems have been upgraded from coal to electricity. And more than 50,000 large-scale boilers have been upgraded to be more energy efficient.
• Stringent Vehicle-Emission Standards
  Ahead of what was originally promised, new vehicles must now meet EURO IV emission standards, which are among the strictest in the world.
• Improved Public Transportation
  Four new rail lines have been added in Beijing. A fleet of new, natural-gas buses are running during the games. And fares have been reduced to encourage ridership, which now averages 19.5 million a day. (Olympic ticket-holders can ride free, for 51 days.)
• Improved Wastewater, Water Reuse, and Sewage Systems
  Drinking water now meets World Health Organization (WHO) standards and new reusing technologies should help with increased water demand. Rural sanitation construction is set to protect groundwater supplies. And the government has cracked down on illegal construction, farming, and mining, which pollutes waterways.
• Sponsors Going Green, Too
  Coca-Cola’s nearly 6,000 refrigeration units are HFC-free. (Hydrofluorocarbons replaced ozone-depleting CFCs in refrigeration units in the U.S. in the 1980s, but have since been pinpointed as a source of global warming because of their heat-trapping properties.) And Samsung is providing cell phones that are free of polluting polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and bromide flame retardants.

Overall, Greenpeace commends China and the city of Beijing for its efforts and for demonstrating that, given the political will, it is possible for a rapidly developing city to leap ahead of polluting technologies. But for any of the green initiatives to have any meaningful and lasting impact for China after the games, the country must engage in long-term energy reforms and move away from its dependence on hyper-polluting coal as an energy source.

Read the full Greenpeace report at:
http://www.greenpeace.org/china/en/news/green

photo credit: apert

Thanks to enormous human intervention and tens of millions of dollars spent, the California condor population is at 279, up from just 21 in 1982. But according to a new report released by California Audubon, this recovery effort requires “constant and costly human assistance” that is unsustainable and unrealistic unless lead is banned from ammunition.

Lead Is Bad News for Condors and People Alike

Lead poisoning from spent ammunition is what drove North America’s largest birds to the brink in the 1980s, and it continues to sicken and kill the last surviving California condors. Condors, as a scavenging species, feed on carcasses, so the killed game remains left by hunters are integral to condor survival. Unfortunately, when the carcasses contain lead-bullet fragments, condors inadvertently ingest lead. The consequences are deadly.

(It’s also worth noting that the lead fragments in shot game are highly toxic for humans and at least 48 other species, including Bald and Golden eagles.)

Tiny Lead Fragments Cause Birds to Starve

What happens to the majestic birds after ingesting lead fragments isn’t pretty. Lead poisoning paralyzes the birds’ digestive systems and they are doomed to slowly starve. So poisoned birds are trapped, confined, and injected twice a day with a chemical to rid the body of lead. Sometimes the treatments don’t work, and birds die despite conservationists’ best efforts.

Copper Bullets Cost More and Are Not Always Available

Efforts to encourage voluntary replacement of lead ammunition and to remove or bury kills have been largely unsuccessful. Not all hunters are aware of the environmental harm lead bullets wreak. Habits are hard to break. And higher costs and lack of widespread availability of alternatives, such as 100-percent copper bullets, also hamper compliance, even on ranges where lead ammunition is already banned.

Today, human assistance acts as a costly band-aid to the problem. California condors are provided lead-free food at man-made feeding stations, hindering their ability to forage. They are also regularly monitored, trapped, tested, and treated for frequent lead poisoning, which lessons their fear of people and man-made structures. As a result, the birds risk electrocution from sitting on utility lines and frequently feed harmful “microtrash” (nuts, bolts, rags, bottle caps, etc.) to their young chicks.

Removing the Source of Lead Is the Condors’ Only Hope

As long as lead exposure continues, recovery efforts are doomed. Researchers hope that a successfully enforced ban on lead ammunition across Western hunting ranges would allow the California condor to survive without human assistance.

More resources:

Audubon California
View the complete report as a downloadable PDF:
http://ca.audubon.org/AOU_CONDOR_REPORT_Aug08_final.pdf

The Audubon California page below hasn’t been updated to reflect the passage of CA bill AB821, but it provides a good summary of recovery efforts and information on where to find alternatives lead bullets:
http://ca.audubon.org/California_Condor.html

The American Fisheries Society on the impact of lead in shooting and fishing sports (downloadable PDF)
http://www.fisheries.org/afs/docs/fisheries/fisheries_3305.pdf

U.S. National Park Service
http://www.nps.gov/pinn/naturescience/leadinfo.htm
Lead v. Copper Bullets Quicktime movie

photo credit: Mark Sadowski

The flap over Beijing’s air pollution levels during the 2008 Summer Olympics has us wondering: what are the real implications for athletes? And what do air pollution levels mean for the rest of us?

Most people will tell you they can feel the effects of a particularly smoggy day, but air pollution is of particular concern to athletes, especially those who participate in endurance sports like long-distance running and cycling.

Athletes Take in More Air

Athletes breathe in up to 20 times more air than sedentary individuals, which means they breathe in up to 20 times more pollutants. When pollutants make up a higher percentage of air, it also means less oxygen is taken in, which could affect an athlete’s performance.

Once air pollutants (called “particulate matter” or PM for the tiny harmful particles and liquid droplets that make up pollution) are in the lungs, they cause irritation and inflammation and can exacerbate existing heart, pulmonary, or respiratory conditions such as asthma. Common reactions are coughing, breathing difficulties, eye irritation, chest pain, and darkened mucous secretions. More serious reactions include asthma attack, heart attack, even death.

The Worst Pollution Is the Kind You Can’t See

The most harmful particles measure less than 10 micrometers in diameter and are called PM10. (For size reference, a human hair measures about 70 micrometers in diameter.) High PM10 levels are particularly dangerous because the particles are small enough to lodge deep in the lungs and sometimes even enter the bloodstream.

When you hear reporters talk about air pollution levels, they are usually talking about the amount of PM10 in the air. That’s how Chinese officials are measuring their success at reducing air pollution during this week’s Olympic events. Beijing’s goal is to reach 50 micrograms of PM10 per cubic meter. A typical day in Beijing can measure 250 micrograms, so it’s a laudable, if difficult to achieve benchmark. (A typical day in London measures 21 micrograms.)

How to Reduce PM10 Levels

So what can you do to reduce PM10 in the air? Most PM10 comes from cars, power plants, and factories, so you can make the biggest impact by driving less and using less electricity. Perhaps the even bigger lesson in Beijing, however, is that voluntary measures have great limitations. It wasn’t until severe restrictions were placed on drivers, utilities, and manufacturers that air quality improved.

The International Olympic Committee is hoping that many of Beijing’s green measures will improve the environmental quality of life after the games are over. How Beijing fares will serve as a lesson for the rest of world.

Basic Information on PM from the EPA
http://www.epa.gov/oar/particlepollution/basic.html

photo credit: rabble

Earlier this week, we talked about BPA. Short for bisphenol A, BPA is a chemical compound that is linked to cancer, infertility, and other health problems. Unfortunately, it’s all around us. In hard plastic bottles, dental sealants, canned food and drinks, and more.

Considering its ubiquity, you’re unlikely to eliminate your exposure to BPA. Here’s what the average person can do to at least reduce exposure:

1. Buy fewer canned goods
   Buy fresh or frozen vegetables. Buy beans from the bulk bin. Acidic foods like tomatoes tend to leach more BPA from can liners, so buy them in glass jars or cardboard boxes. (Try Pomi-brand tomatoes from Parmalat.) Buy soda in glass bottles. (Or drink less soda!) Avoid canned infant formula. Powdered infant formula containers may contain a bit of BPA, but less than the cans.
2. Avoid drinking from clear, hard plastics
   The Klean Kanteen is stainless steel and works as a great sports bottle. Nalgene is working to phase out BPA, but we can’t recommend them until they do. Use glass baby bottles, now available from Evenflo and Dr. Brown’s. Playtex offers BPA-free plastic sippy cups (look for opaque plastic). A detailed list of BPA-free bottles and sippy cups can be found at: http://safemama.com/2007/11/22/bpa-free-bottle-and-sippy-cup-cheat-sheet/
   
3. Ask your dentist and health care providers about BPA
   Consumer demand will pressure providers to offer BPA-free alternatives.
4. Tell manufacturers and elected leaders you don’t like being exposed to BPA
   Again, public pressure is the only way to force change. Canada is moving to ban BPA from baby products. San Francisco recently banned BPA from baby bottles, sippy cups, and other children’s products. California is considering similar legislation. There’s little action on removing BPA from can liners, however, so let your leaders know that you want it eliminated there, too.

More resources:

Simple Steps to Avoid BPA from the Natural Resource Defense Council
http://www.simplesteps.org/content/view//4708/37?gclid=CPGwsYbZ8pQCFRwvagodSnwFqg

BPA in Your Body from Enviroblog
http://www.enviroblog.org/2007/09/bisphenol-a-in-your-body.htm?gclid=CLGzz-DY8pQCFRIuagodakPgpw

photo credit: pfly

You don’t mess with the mama bear. That’s what my husband says when I get angry about an issue that could adversely affect our children. It’s also a major reason there is a rising public outcry over bisphenol A, or BPA, for short.

What Is BPA?

BPA is a chemical compound found in most plastic baby bottles, clear plastic sports bottles, infant-formula cans, drink and food cans, plastic utensils, dental sealants, hospital incubators, dialyzers, and more. It’s also linked to a number of health problems, including (but not limited to):

• Infertility
• Breast cancer
• Prostate cancer
• Insulin resistance (a common precursor to Type II Diabetes)
• Early puberty
• Chromosomal abnormalities that can cause miscarriage and birth defects

BPA is so widely used that even those who compulsively avoid BPA-containing products are exposed to it. BPA’s annual production exceeds a billion pounds. It is found in waterways, sediment, estuaries, household dust, and air. In humans, it is found in breast milk, saliva, urine, cord blood, and amniotic fluid. Many researchers say even low level doses of BPA can have a negative effect on developing systems. So, as with most toxins, BPA is of most concern to pregnant women, infants, and very young children.

If BPA Is Potentially Harmful, Why Is It Used at All?

BPA is added to hard plastics to make them less likely to shatter. Anyone who’s ever dropped and broken a glass in the sink is likely to see the merits of a shatter-proof material. In canned foods and drinks, BPA is used as a liner to prevent the ingredients from reacting to the metal in the can.

What’s Being Done About BPA?

Both the U.S. Federal Drug Administration and European Food Safety Authority insist that BPA is safe in the levels that a typical adult, child, or infant consumes. Their Canadian counterparts at Health Canada feel differently, however, and say it may pose a risk to infants. They suggest reclassifying BPA as “toxic” to human health and the environment. Canada is moving to ban BPA from baby bottles and other infant products.

In the U.S., BPA remains unregulated and the FDA is unlikely to take any action. Consumer demand, though, is driving change. Many of the most popular makers of baby bottles now offer BPA-free plastic and good old-fashioned glass bottles. Nalgene, the makers of clear plastic sports bottles often used by hikers and other cyclists, are promising to offer a BPA-free version soon too. And stores like Wal-Mart and Toys ‘R Us are demanding alternatives from their suppliers. (People tend to get angrier when babies’ health is involved, so traction on removing BPA from canned food and drink liners is going slower.)

More resources:

“BPA Q&A,” The Globe and Mail, April 28, 2008 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080423.wbpadiscussion/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home/?pageRequested=all

“Timeline: BPA from Invention to Phaseout,” Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/reports/bpatimeline

“A Survey of Bisphenol A in U.S. Canned Goods,” Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/reports/bisphenola

photo credit: cursedthing

Those who feel a keg party is a true act of eco-consciousness now have vindication. The Princeton Review has just released its annual college rankings, and two schools have made both the “Green Rating Honor Roll” and “Top 20 Party Schools”: Arizona State University (Tempe) and the University of New Hampshire (Durham).

The Princeton Review bases many of its rankings, including the Top 20 Party Schools, on surveys collected from 120,000 students at 534 colleges and universities across the United States. It worked with ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing agency, to develop its first ever “Green Rating,” which instead relies on information provided by the institutions.

The Princeton Review began the Green Ratings in response to a growing interest in sustainability among parents and prospective students. The company reports that 63% of those surveyed in its annual “Colleges Hopes & Worries Survey” say they would value knowing each school’s commitment to the environment.

Do Higher Bottle-Recycling Counts Boost Schools’ Rankings, Too?

Schools were judged by their overall commitment to environmental responsibility, how healthy and sustainable campus life is, and how well students are prepared for “employment and citizenship in a world defined by environmental challenges.” They answered questions on everything from energy use, recycling, food, buildings, and transportation to academic offerings (availability of environmental studies degrees and courses) and action plans and goals concerning greenhouse gas emission reductions.

The Princeton Review’s “2009 Green Rating Honor Roll”

The following 11 colleges (listed in alphabetical order) each received a Green Rating score of 99, which is the highest possible score:

1. Arizona State University at the Tempe campus
2. Bates College (Lewiston, ME)
3. Binghamton University (State Univ. of New York at Binghamton)
4. College of the Atlantic (Bar Harbor, ME)
5. Emory University (Atlanta, GA)
6. Georgia Institute of Technology (Atlanta, GA)
7. Harvard University (Cambridge, MA)
8. University of New Hampshire (Durham, NH)
9. University of Oregon (Eugene, OR)
10. University of Washington (Seattle, WA)
11. Yale University (New Haven, CT

For details on the Green Rating Honor Roll, its methodology, and other notable schools, visit http://www.princetonreview.com/green.aspx?uidbadge=%07