Endangered by factors such as global warming and pollution (see Sunscreens Killing the Coral Reef, posted on July 5^th), coral reefs are also the victims of another modern plague: rampant consumerism.

photo credit: robertpaulyoung

The United States is the biggest offender, importing about 80% or 400,000 pieces of coral yearly—much of which is used for jewelry and home décor. Indeed, the high demand for, and increasing rarity of, precious red and pink coral is such that jewelry and art pieces made from these corals can sell for as little as $20, or as much as $20,000.

According to a recent report in the journal Science, if the onslaught on coral reefs continues unimpeded, over 98% of the world’s coral reefs could be destroyed by 2050. This would pose a bleak future for the myriad of aquatic life and people who depend on them for their livelihood.

To increase people’s awareness about the need to protect these beleaguered creatures, the ocean conservation organization SeaWeb launched the Too Precious to Wear campaign this past January. The campaign’s launch also marked the start of the 2008 International Year of the Reef—a year-long series of programs and events focusing on coral conservation.

Too Precious to Wear advocates stricter control of the global coral trade, emphasizing the importance of industry and consumer responsibility. The campaign represents a collaboration of scientists, industry leaders, fashion and home designers, as well as celebrities. Tiffany & Co., which hasn’t used real coral in its jewelry for the last six years, voiced its support of the campaign with CEO Michael J. Kowalski declaring “there are much better alternatives that celebrate the beauty of the ocean.” The company’s line of jewelry with a coral-branch motif is one option. Other alternatives include environmentally friendly home décor items such as Pottery Barn’s resin-sculpted coral candle-holders and home designer Michael Aram’s Coral Reef Collection, available in select department stores nationwide.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus, founding partner of the Too Precious campaign, argues that “it is up to each of us to make sure corals are protected. If we take good care of the ocean, the ocean will take care of us.” To find out more how you can do this, see

Too Precious to Wear:

http://www.tooprecioustowear.org/_science/overview.html

2008 International Year of the Reef:

http://www.iyor.org/

E-waste, or electronic waste, consisting of old computers, cell phones, TVs, VCRs and other discarded electronic equipment, has become one of the largest sources of solid waste generated by our high-tech, consumer-driven society.

photo credit: bdunnette

The ever-growing pile of e-waste shows no signs of abating anytime soon. For while we covet the latest electronic equipment on the market, the minute we obtain that new computer or cell phone, it has already become obsolete, soon to be replaced by a newer, sleeker version already being developed. And, when the newer model hits the market, we “throw away” our old equipment and the process begins anew.

The problem with this seemingly endless cycle is that e-waste—which contains valuable metals such as silver and gold as well as toxic chemicals such as lead, mercury and cadmium—is difficult to dispose of efficiently and safely.

Currently, only about 20% of e-waste is recycled. The rest sits in storage and domestic landfills, or it gets shipped off to China, India and other developing nations in Asia and Western Africa where it’s disassembled—often in a very dangerous and crude manner—and its parts sold for scrap.

Efforts to stem the tide of this “noxious clutter” (as National Geographic writer Chris Carroll put it) include the 1989 Basel Convention, a 170 nation-accord mandating that nations must be informed of incoming shipments of hazardous e-waste. In response to criticism that the Basel Convention wasn’t stringent enough, the 1995 Basel Ban was instituted, forbidding shipments of hazardous e-waste entirely.

However, illegal shipments abroad continue. The 2002 documentary Exporting Harm: The High-Tech Trashing of Asia showed the harmful effects of e-waste dumping in places like the town of Guiyu in Guangdong Province in China. In Guiyu, both residents and the land tested positive for high levels of the toxic chemicals that leach into the ground and infiltrate the air once electronic equipment is dismantled. In his January 2008 National Geographic article, “High-Tech Trash,” Chris Carroll wrote of e-waste in Ghana being “flushed into the Atlantic” after it’s stripped of its valuable parts. And, in September of this year, a Government Accountability Office report, criticized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to prevent e-waste exports, particularly those of cathode-ray tubes (CRT) used in computer and TV screens, a responsibility allocated to the organization in January 2007.

Stressing the importance of accountability to combat the export and accumulation of e-waste, electronics manufacturers and governments (especially in Japan and Europe) have instituted “green design” and “take back” initiatives that not only restrict the amount of chemicals that go into electronic equipment to begin with but also promote responsible recycling by establishing e-waste collection points.

In the United States, where the infrastructure for “take back” and “green design” is not federally regulated or mandated, the responsibility for e-waste recycling rests with organizations like the EPA as noted above, as well as with state governments and individual companies.

In initiating and enforcing responsible e-waste recycling, the states of California and Massachusetts—who were the first to ban cathode ray tube monitors (CRT) from landfills—lead the way. Of course, many of the special e-waste recycling programs charge a fee, though a fairly nominal one. For example, in California, depending on the size of the computer or TV screen, the charge is about $6-$10.00.

Creative Solutions is one of a handful of U.S. companies who recycle electronics for a wide variety of “small, mid-size and Fortune 100 companies, government agencies, non-profit organizations, educational institutions and concerned citizens.” ReCellular, Inc., a Michigan-based reseller and recycler of mobile phones, sends its obsolete phones to Sims Recycling Solutions, an Australian firm with branches in the U.S., so that phones can be safely and efficiently recycled. Even the United States Postal Office is developing a free national collection program for small electronic items. The program was tested in select cities throughout the summer with the intention of implementing it nationwide this fall.

To find out more on how you can do your part to curb the e-waste cycle, see

Greenpeace “Guide to Greener Electronics”: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/toxics/hi-tech-highly-toxic/company-report-card

ERecycle.org—a “California partnership between government, manufacturers, retailers, and the environmental community”–offers a wealth of information about where and how Californians can recycle their electronics:

http://www.erecycle.org/search.asp

Earth 911 provides information on what items are recyclable and where they can be recycled:

http://earth911.org/electronics/

When considering chic alternatives to paper gift wrap, or even the standard-issue cloth shopping bag that has become de rigueur for all eco-minded consumers, try experimenting with the Japanese tradition of furoshiki.

Furoshiki—literally “bath (furo) spread (shiki, a form of shiku=to spread)”—originated as a way to carry one’s clothes to, and mark one’s territory at, the public bathhouse. The centuries-old custom gradually developed into a stylish and functional wrapping technique, consisting of a square cloth made of silk, cotton, rayon or nylon tied in various styles and shapes to wrap gifts, clothes and other items.

More recently, the Japanese government introduced a campaign to promote furoshiki as the embodiment of the “3Rs” of environmental awareness: reduce, reuse and recycle. Indeed, the versatile cloth can artfully arranged as a shopping bag or purse; as a carryall for your lunch or picnic nosh, doing double duty as a placemat or tablecloth; and as gift wrap, serving as a second gift.

In 2006 the then-Japanese Minister of the Environment, Yuriko Koike, designed the “mottainai furoshiki” as part of the government’s campaign to raise awareness of waste and its impact on the environment. Printed on cloth made from recycled PET bottles, Koike’s “mottainai furoshiki” capitalized on the Japanese concept of mottainai—the idea that it’s a pity for “something to go to waste without having made full use of its potential.”

According to Koike, “furoshiki is so handy that you can wrap almost anything in it regardless of size or shape.” It may be handy but to the uninitiated, it can seem a bit complex. To help modern furoshiki users master the numerous style and shape options, the Japanese Ministry of the Environment published an official “How to” guide.

Furthermore, Koike declared, “As my sincere wish, I would like to disseminate the culture of furoshiki to the world.” As part of that mission, officials attending this summer’s G8 summit in Hokkaido, Japan, received—among other environmentally friendly souvenirs—reversible furoshiki wrapping cloths.

In the United States, the technique of wrapping with furoshiki has been featured on The Martha Stewart Show and Good Morning America, where San Franciscan Vicki Mihara Avery demonstrated the green wrapping technique in 2007.

To check out different kinds of furoshiki, visit http://www.ecoshikis.com/ and http://furoshiki.com/home.php. Or, see Gift Wrapping With Textiles: Stylish Ideas from Japan by Chizuko Morita.

You can also make your own furoshiki: head to the fabric store to choose your own cloth, or use a scarf or shawl you already own.More

Extolled for its taste, as well as its health benefits, tea is more popular than ever. And, whether you prefer your tea black, green, red, white, hot or iced, loose or bagged, this primeval beverage of conspicuous consumption is also “greener” than ever.

photo credit: BotheredByBees

Taste Not Waste

The fundamental maxim of many tea purists that whole loose leaf tea trumps tea made with tea bags is hotly debated. Purists claim loose tea releases the full flavor and benefits by allowing the tea leaves to brew “unfettered” in the pot, whereas the traditional paper tea bag, filled with “tea dust,” or the dregs of the leaves, results in an inferior cuppa.

Recently, the flavor debate has taken on an added dimension with growing environmental concerns about the waste associated not only with tea bag use but also with tea packaging in general.

According to Culinate blogger Mark Douglas, “More than one million tons of excess waste could be eliminated each year by not having the following three items associated with an average tea bag: the paper wrapping around the individual bag, the string attached to the bag, and the little paper tab attached to the string.” Douglas learned that astounding fact in a 2006 “Tea Education” episode of The History Channel’s Modern Marvels series. As a prime example of waste prevention, the episode featured the tea company Celestial Seasonings, which manufactures its tea bags without strings, tags or individual wrapping, and consequently saves over 3.6 million pounds of waste each year.

If the potential for waste alone causes you to rethink your tea bag use, but nevertheless lament the loss of convenience the tea bag provides, take heart. Reusable stainless steel tea infusers like the Teastick and teapots with built-in infusers or plungers may be an option. Furthermore, Mighty Leaf Tea, Numi Organic Tea and Seattle-based Choice Organic Tea all offer something called a “T-sac filter,” made with chlorine free, unbleached filter paper from manila hemp, which, according to Choice Organic, is “an environmentally-safe and convenient alternative for perfectly brewing loose leaf teas or herbs.”

For diehard tea bag users, other green options exist. Besides using unbleached paper tea bags, reusing and recycling are key. In a novel approach, artists of the South African company Original T-bag Designs take used tea bags (with the leaves removed), dry and iron them and then paint the bags, transforming them into greeting cards, notepads, journals, ornaments, candles, coasters, trinket boxes, and tea light holders.

Old tea bags (sans the staples) make good compost too, providing nutrients and acidity to your fertilizer mix. The U.K. company Teabagbin markets a nifty way to collect your used tea bags for compost. Its self-proclaimed “stylish little container made from high grade steel or plastic sits happily next to the kettle and swallows up used teabags keeping your kitchen mess free,” and answers the proverbial question of “What do you do with yours? [tea bags that is]”

Traditional paper tea bags aside, the newest and hottest trend on the market is pyramid-shaped tea bags made from silk, muslin or nylon. The science behind these “gossamer mesh” objets d’art is that they allow the whole leaf tea leaves—not the “tea dust” usually stuffed into a compact paper tea bag—room to brew. Companies such as Tea Forte and even Lipton have developed their own versions of the triangular-shaped bags, thus bringing quality (though more expensive) tea to the masses.

Despite the hype, the nylon versions of these bags have come under fire from environmentalists who claim that they are not biodegradable. There are biodegradable corn fabric pyramid bags but questions of quality and environmental friendliness remain (some of the bags are apparently made from genetically modified corn).

Naysayers will rightly point out that all tea—bagged or loose—comes in containers that create unnecessary waste. However, companies such as Republic of Tea sell their tea in recyclable tin canisters. Los Angeles-based eco-chic designer Dana Morgan of Green Carpet Event suggests another way to reuse old tea tins: as vases. And, in October 2006, the specialty tea and coffee shop Oxalis in Bath, England, urged customers to bring their own bag or container from home in order to reduce waste. As an added incentive, customers who brought their own containers received a discount of 15 pence (about 25 U.S. cents) per 100g of tea.

Sustainability, Fair Trade and Organic

Cups of tea are also greener as a result of sustainability initiatives across the globe. For those who like a little sugar in their tea, 2007 saw the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Global Environment Facility (GEF) launch a project to use waste from the East African sugar industry to generate electricity across the tea-producing region.

In an effort to replenish the resources it uses in packaging, tea company Good Earth donates a portion of its profits to tree-planting projects sponsored by American Forests, a nonprofit conservation organization. Tea giant Lipton has pledged that its Yellow Label tea bags on the European market will be certified by the Rainforest Alliance by 2010 and on the global market by 2015. And in May 2008, British tea company PG-Tips announced its partnership with Rainforest Alliance, unveiling a plan to supply 1,200 McDonald’s outlets with tea certified by the environmental nonprofit.

Moreover, the popularity of Fair Trade Certified and organic tea products has skyrocketed in recent years. Launched in 1997, the Fair Trade movement promotes free trade and “the use of sustainable farming methods that are safer for humans and the environment.” There are now a wide variety of brands that the environmentally friendly consumer can choose from, thereby making saving the environment and enjoying your afternoon cuppa mutually inclusive.

For more on tea and the environment, see

Boughton, Ian. “Cuppas with a Conscience.” Caterer & Hotelkeeper 198. 4527 (15-21 May 2008): 50-1.

Budgar, Laurie. “Has new tricks.”Natural Foods Merchandiser 27.12 (Dec.2006):22-3.

“Making a difference.” Bath Chronicle (26 Oct. 2006): 14.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Its-All-in-the-Tea-Bag—How-to-Be-Environmentally-Responsible-with-Your-Tea-Bags&id=202998

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568610/Nylon-teabags-set-to-let-the-flavour-flood-out.html

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/the-tea-bag-basks-in-its-moment-to-simmer/

The Olympic flame for the 2008 Beijing “Green Games” has been extinguished, but amid the reports of silver iodide missiles being shot into the sky to prevent and promote rain on demand, was something a bit more mundane: the debate over the use of disposable wooden chopsticks.

photo credit: Dan4th

As the world’s largest producer of disposable chopsticks—about 63 billion a year—China is at the forefront of the environmental brouhaha over the cheap, one-use utensils or yicixing kuaizi, as they are known to the Chinese.

In 2006, the country responded to claims of deforestation and waste caused by rampant disposable chopstick use by imposing a 5% consumption tax as well as a 30% price increase on the chopsticks. The move sent shock waves throughout Japan, the largest importer and consumer—at about 98% of the market and 30 billion pairs a day—of waribashi, as they are known in that country. The Japanese countered fears of a shortage of their beloved waribashi by declaring they could turn to cheaper (but lower quality) suppliers like Vietnam or Indonesia (something that hasn’t happened). They also cut back on indiscriminate use of the chopsticks. In convenience stores across the nation, customers were only given a pair of disposable chopsticks if they asked for them; in some stores, a nominal charge (about 4 U.S. cents) was added.

Lian Guang, founder and president of the Wooden Chopsticks Trade Association in China’s Heilongjiang Province, said in a recent Wall Street Journal article that, contrary to popular belief, disposable chopsticks do not cause deforestation. In fact, disposable chopsticks were invented by the Japanese in the late nineteenth century as a way to use up wood scraps. Guang and other advocates also argue that the chopsticks, typically made from bamboo, white birch and poplar, are the products of fast-growing trees. Moreover, they point out that disposable chopsticks are cheap and convenient, making them easily available to all; hygienic, helping stem the tide of epidemics like Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS); and economically beneficial, providing over 100,000 jobs in China alone.

These claims notwithstanding, the lead up to the Beijing Olympics saw Greenpeace China launch a “Say No to Disposable Chopsticks” campaign that resulted in over 300 Beijing restaurants jettisoning disposable chopsticks in favor of reusable plastic ones. It’s a campaign that has been joined by Chinese pop musicians and others throughout the country and has spearheaded a “Bring Your Own Chopsticks” (B.Y.O.C) movement urging diners to cut back on disposable chopstick use by bringing their own set of chopsticks from home.

The environmental movement against disposable chopsticks has gained momentum in other countries too. This summer in Taiwan, a country which goes through 5 to 6 billion pairs of the utensils a year, about 10,000 convenience stores and supermarket chains banned free disposable chopsticks. Even in Japan, where the tradition of waribashi is deep-rooted, the government recently approved an ambitious plan to cut refuse production by 60% and “to promote a recycling society,” which included an appeal to citizens to bring their own chopsticks while dining out. The Japanese government also plans to explore the possibility of collecting the disposable chopsticks and turning them into biofuel.

In the West, where the popularity of Asian food has skyrocketed in recent decades, there is an increasing awareness of the environmental concerns surrounding disposable chopsticks. At the vanguard of this movement is third-generation Japanese-American Donna Keiko Ozawa. Her “Waribashi Project: San Francisco,” which premiered in conjunction with United Nations World Environment Day in 2005, featured sculptures made out of 180,000 disposable chopsticks. According to Ozawa, “While also being a pan-Asian icon in modern consumerist society, waribashi, disposable chopsticks, pose a great problem to our environment through deforestation and destruction of forest habitats.”

And, while Ozawa and a growing number of others promote the B.Y.O.C. movement as part of the push to eliminate the use of disposable chopsticks, it is uncertain how many people here—and elsewhere—will ultimately choose to “take up their own sticks” in the battle to go green.

For disposable chopsticks in the news, see:

Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120243065514952215.html?mod=todays_us_page_one

National Public Radio

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19203227

Recycling International

http://www.recyclinginternational.com/search/search_result.aspx?keywords=disposable%20chopsticks

Reuters

http://search.us.reuters.com/rsearch/rcomSearch.do?blob=disposable%20chopsticks&WTmodLoc=ussrch-top-quote

World Watch: Life-Cycle Studies

http://0-web.ebscohost.com.ignacio.usfca.edu/ehost/detail?vid=15&hid=15&sid=6ab9250d-cff4-4b7b-aab9-7c4ba9d1b7f3%40sessionmgr7&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=eih&AN=19247888

Inter Press Service/Global Information Network

http://0-proquest.umi.com.ignacio.usfca.edu/pqdweb?index=5&did=1146211681&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1219788560&clientId=16131

Donna Keiko Ozawa’s “Waribashi Project: San Francisco”

http://www.well.com/user/indigo/donna/waribashi/mainpage.htm

Cow manure is the latest, and perhaps most unlikely, weapon in our arsenal to fight global warming.

photo credit: law_keven

Emitting methane (CH₄), a greenhouse gas with 20 times the ability of carbon dioxide (CO₂) to trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere, cow manure can be pretty noxious stuff. However, through a process known as biogas recovery, or anaerobic digestion, the biogas (manure-generated methane) can be “captured” and used to produce heat, hot water, or electricity.

This is hardly a new technology—it has been used on a smaller scale in countries such as India and China for ages—but more recently, it has been used to greater commercial success in European countries such as Germany, Denmark, Italy, Austria, and Sweden. In Sweden, where 7,000 cars and buses run on biogas, the process has even gone so far as one company, Svenska Biogas, boiling cow intestines to extract the maximum amount of biogas.

The United States, too, has jumped on the “cow power” bandwagon or the “manure pit” brigade. Thirty-one states, along with the District of Columbia, have enacted Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) programs mandating that a certain percentage of a public utility’s electricity come from a renewable energy source. Biogas, along with solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and small hydroelectric power, has been identified as an eligible renewable resource.

As a result of these statewide mandates, many U.S. companies are working with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in an effort to implement this technology and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which rose 14.7% from 1990-2006 according to a recent EPA study.

While the agricultural sector accounts for only 6% of that total, the annual greenhouse gas emissions from a 3,500-cow dairy are equivalent to the yearly emissions of 5,000 cars on the road. Put in other terms, there are about 8.5 millions cows in the United States, and according to the environmental non-profit organization Sustainable Conservation, biogas has the potential to power a million cars.

Not only cars but also homes can be powered by biogas. In California, the largest dairy state with almost two million dairy cows and also one of the world’s leading carbon emitters, the 5,000-cow Vintage Dairy in western Fresno County could power about 50,000 homes in its vicinity. In 2007, Vintage Dairy owner David Albers, who founded the environmental company BioEnergy Solutions, landed a long-term contract with Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) for a biogas pipeline project which, says Albers, will go a long way to achieving the state’s RPS goal of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2010.

In addition to the potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and providing an extra source of revenue for dairy farmers, advocates of “cow power” cite improved water quality and odor control. Biogas recovery helps protect streams and groundwater from untreated sewage runoff and is less odoriferous than traditional manure management systems.

This technology can be expensive though. California cheese company owner John Fiscalini spent $3 million on a biogas recovery, or an anaerobic digester, system for his 3,000-cow business. Many dairy businesses are, however, eligible for grants to help defray the costs. Fiscalini, for example, received a total of $720,000 as part of a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Grant.

And, conversely, the anaerobic digester systems can be polluters themselves. Such has been the cause for concern at Fiscalini’s operation located in California’s Central Valley, a so-called “non-attainment area for ozone.” When methane gas is extracted from manure, it releases nitrogen oxide (NO_x), which contributes to the smog in any given area but particularly in “non-attainment” areas like the Central Valley. Because of this danger, the allowable emissions for anaerobic digester systems have been set to 9 parts per million. Despite Fiscalini’s “advanced emission control engines,” the system could eventually fail the strict standard for air quality control during the 60-day testing period.

Studies are being conducted to determine why even the newer anaerobic digesters often have problems meeting the current air quality control standard. In the meantime, the dairy industry argues that this harsh regulation unnecessarily prevents the widespread implementation of a promising renewable energy source.

Only the future will tell if this technology will be able to move forward and if that sweet smell of cow manure that assails your nostrils as you walk through the countryside will be powering your car or your home.

To find out more about biogas technology, see

The AgSTAR Program

http://www.epa.gov/agstar/

The California Energy Commission

http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/renewable/biomass/anaerobic_digestion/

BioEnergy Solutions

http://www.allbioenergy.com/

Sustainable Conservation

http://www.suscon.org/biofuels/biomethane.asp

Other resources:

Holland, John. “Fiscalini plan to turn methane into energy runs into air problems.” The Modesto Bee 12 July 2008 < http://www.modbee.com/ag/v-print/story/357872.html>.

“Cow methane: A trump card in the fight against global warming?” CNN.com. 5 Oct. 2007<http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/10/05/cow.methane/>.

photo credit: House Of Sims

Heralded as the epitome of sleek and modern, the idea of the paperless office or even the paperless society has been around since computers first appeared on the scene. And yet, we are still using paper—and a lot of it. According to Lyra Research, about 15.2 trillion pages are printed worldwide, a number that will reportedly grow 30% over the next ten years.

For its proponents, going paperless means less clutter, improved efficiency, lower costs and environmental benefits. Indeed, the idea of eliminating the mounds of papers that inevitably accumulate as we go about our daily lives certainly sounds appealing. And, electronic junk mail, while similarly distracting (and generally more pornographic), seems more easily discarded than traditional paper junk mail that often requires a thorough going-through before tossing it into the trash or recycle bin. So, too, the technical capabilities of document management systems and flash drives have made it easier to store and manage large and numerous files rather than have hard copy printouts. This rings true in business and private life, as anybody with a digital camera can attest. Electronic technology is also faster—no more “snail mail” or worries about the ever-increasing postage rate.

As for the environmental benefits, going paperless means the ultimate in waste and natural resource prevention. According to the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC), the U.S. alone manufactures 90 million tons of paper each year, and the annual consumption rate is about 100 million tons. Most of this paper production—an estimated 25% of the annual U.S. timber cut—remains virgin fiber, with only 35% of current consumption using recycled fiber.

Despite all of these advantages, the paper just keeps piling up. Why? (more…)