Conservation 101: the Compete to Conserve Blog

photo credit: Davichi

It’s not your imagination. You are getting less for your money. A new Consumer Reports reader survey found that a growing number of products are being downsized by manufacturers to cut costs (theirs not yours), while package sizes are remaining the same, and, in some cases, are growing.

Companies say customers prefer downsized products to price hikes. And Consumer Reports’ own survey suggests consumers are split, with half saying they prefer paying more to getting less. One thing is certain: more packaging means more waste–not just in terms of trash, but also greater quantities of raw materials, fuel, and energy consumed while producing and shipping larger containers.

Unfortunately, this common industry practice is more than just deceitful. It makes it even harder for the average consumer to follow the first and most important of the three conservation Rs: “reduce.”

A sampling of recently shrunk packages: Hershey’s special dark chocolate bar, Hellman’s mayonnaise, Iam’s cat food, Kellogg’s Froot Loops cereal, and Dial bar soap.

Read the full story at: http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/food/news/2008/10/the-lowdown-on-downsized-products/overview/downsizing-ov.htm

This week, we’ve canvassed the blogosphere for a few savvy ideas for ”greening” your home:

1. The Budget Ecoist posted a product review on the Sweep Dreams Broom - a broom made of 100% renewable sorghum and bamboo and available in an assortment of colors.
2. Lighter Footstep recommended a programmable thermostat, which can save you $150 a year while you reduce greenhouse emissions.
3. Green Your Decor introduced an affordable, yet tasteful eco-friendly bed - the Hinode platform bed from Sachi Organics, which is handmade from locally sourced woods.
4. Green Vaccine shared a really great “green” vacuum cleaner find - the Miele Luna 34580.  Made from recyclable materials, this model is designed to last 10-20 years and is energy efficient.
5. Eco Friend unveiled their 20 top choices for green lamps and lighting solutions.

photo credit: Matt Callow

As pumpkin patches across the country hitch up their hayrides and welcome the harvest with visitors, eco-friendly sites are posting hints and tips to remind readers to choose and use their gourds wisely.

This isn’t going to be much different. In fact, in my search to find options of what you can do with pumpkins—aside from showing off your creative carving prowess—I found that many regions of the US and UK are promoting composting. Pumpkins in a landfill can produce weeds and, believe it or not, sprouts. Only to be covered with someone’s torn up sofa or old alarm clock.

Whether you put the post-holiday pumpkin into a curbside compost bin or into your home kit version, the gourd holds valuable nutrients that can make good fertilizer. In fact, one site even recommended that you just plant the jack-o-lantern shell into the garden, to decompose at will.

(more…)

photo credit: orangeacid

When we first moved into our flat in San Francisco, the backyard was so overgrown that we took bets on how many bodies were hidden in the brush. As the yard was slowly cleaned up—blackberry bushes and ivy vines cleared, along with the trees both predators had taken down—the skeleton of a once terraced landscape design started to appear. And that’s where the home improvement project paused.

Now a year and a half later, we are sizing up the options for creating our first “real” backyard. The yard needs to be usable and kid-friendly, but thinking realistically, it should also be pretty low-maintenance.

One obvious component will be grass—probably multiple sections of it. And with water scarcity still commanding the local headlines, one can’t help but consider the option of grass alternatives.

While the thought of Astroturfing our landscape is a bit horrifying, recent developments in synthetic grass tout more realistic products. Some even promise to look, feel and act just like natural grass—without the need for water, fertilizer, pesticides or mowing. 

(more…)

Painting is more fun with non-toxic paint.

I was a big fan of Home Depot’s Behr brand paints, until I learned that mainstream paints emit dangerous toxins called volatile organic compounds (VOCs). When it came time to repaint the rooms our house, I decided to use “green” paints that reduce indoor air pollution and are more environmentally friendly.

A friend who is a building contractor recommended we try “natural” paint. Seems easy enough, but the more I read, the more I realized I was green on the topic of green paint. (Eartheasy.com offers a great round-up of the types of non-toxic paints and who offers them.) I decided the best way to learn was to experiment, so I chose two types of non-toxic paints (natural and synthetic) in three brands: AFM Safecoat, Yolo Colorhouse, and BioShield. Here’s what I found:

AFM Safecoat Pros:

• Available at lots of green home improvement stores
• Zero VOC (be sure to ask your retailer to use tints without VOCs, too!)
• Low odor dissipated within two days–much faster than my old Behr paints
• Wide color selection (”Blue Wish” is the color shown in the photo above.)
• Good coverage
• Available in flat, eggshell, semi-gloss, and glossy finishes

Cons:

• Paint chips not easily available
  (I know they are wasteful, but they are handy. Instead, I had to wait until the paint chip book was returned by another customer and then check it out for three days. Eco-friendly, yes. Convenient, no.)
• Not an entirely natural paint

AFM Safecoat is my overall favorite of the three non-toxic paint brands I tried, the main two reasons being availability and color selection. I also liked that while it did give off an odor, it wasn’t the strong chemical-smelling odor found in standard high-VOC paints.

Yolo Colorhouse Pros:

• Paint chips and poster-size swatches made with real paint available for purchase
• Available at lots of green home improvement stores
• Zero VOC (be sure to ask your retailer to use tints without VOCs, too!)
• Low odor dissipated within two days
• Good color selection (though not as wide as AFM Safecoat)
• Available in flat, eggshell, semi-gloss, and glossy finishes

Cons:

• Fair coverage, it didn’t stretch quite as far as the AFM Safecoat paint for the same size room
• Not an entirely natural paint

I love the Yolo Colorhouse color choices, and the big swatch gave me a good sense of what the color would like in the room we painted (much better than a standard 1-inch paint chip). But the coverage wasn’t good enough to make it my top pick.

BioShield Clay Paint Pros:

• Water and clay based, so I consider it a “natural” paint
• Odor dissipated within four days (a little longer than the others, but faster than standard paint)
• Odor was earthy smelling, not like that chemical, solvent smell present in nail salons
• Excellent coverage, the same amount of paint stretched further than the others
• Free chips available to order online; a kit with real paint swatches of all their colors is also available for $12.50

Cons:

• Costs more than AFM Safecoat or Yolo Colorhouse paints: $44/gallon versus $38
• Not available at as many retail outlets (You can order online, though.)
• Color selection, while attractive, is limited compared to the other brands
  (Eco Home Improvement in Berkeley taught me how to blend two colors to achieve the shade I wanted, but I prefer to buy off the shelf.)
• Not available eggshell or gloss finishes (They do offer a trim enamel, but according to instructions, it requires sanding between coats–too fussy for me!)

I love the BioShield clay paint we tried. If I hadn’t been in a hurry to finish my work, I would have used it for all my walls, if not the doors and trim. But the hassle of ordering and waiting for color swatches, and then ordering and waiting for my chosen colors was not worth it for me. If you are a good plan-ahead type though, this brand of paints comes highly recommended.

If you can’t find these brands at your local retailer, you might consider trying Home Depot’s new zero-VOC paint called Freshaire Choice. You can order free color chips online and purchase the paint at your local Home Depot.

photo credit: How can I recycle this

BBC reporter Christine Jeavans swore off plastics for the month of August, chronicling her trials in a riveting blog. Her self-imposed rules allowed her to keep the plastics she already owns, but she gave up buying any new items made of plastic, in plastic containers, or wrapped in plastic.

It wasn’t easy. Or even realistic. Jeavans slipped up occasionally, and kept a tally of items. While she didn’t lead an entirely plastic-free month, she estimates that her family reduced their plastic consumption by 80 percent, compared to an average month in which she tallied their plastic usage.

Critics of her experiment point out that plastic is a highly convenient, economical material, which Jeavans acknowledges. Sometimes, plastic could even be considered environmentally friendly, because it extends the shelf life for many foods, thus reducing food waste, and its lighter weight (compared to paper) means it takes less fuel to transport.

Jeavans maintains the point of her exercise was not to demonize plastic, but to get people thinking about the consequences of mindless waste. It’s a topic I’ve been thinking a lot about lately. As it stands now, most of the responsibility for waste reduction falls upon individual consumers,  even though the majority of packaging waste comes industry, and consumers are often limited in their conservation choices. What are you supposed to do if your recycling center doesn’t accept plastic lids? Keep them in your basement until the neighbors call the fire department on you?

It’s important for consumers to reduce, re-use, recycle as much as possible, but on a macro level, manufacturers and producers should also think about the life cycle of each and every product they make. Otherwise there’s gonna be more junk than our basements or landfill can handle.

Jeavans wrote a BBC piece about the beginning of her journey and posted a short video:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7508321.stm

The BBC published her conclusions here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7591751.stm

The Barkingside 21 blog has a great post regarding “A Month without Plastic” and points us to two articles that suggest rising plastics costs may encourage landfill ming for materials:
http://barkingside21.blogspot.com/2008/08/month-without-plastic.html

photo credit: sutefani in orlando

My three-year-old is in the peak of her “Why?” phase. So when she asks why we have to turn off the water after washing our hands or brushing our teeth, I tell her that we don’t waste water. That, of course, prompts another “Why?” which gives me the chance to explain the interconnectedness of our consumption, the environment, and our own personal budget. (The answer, in case you were wondering, is because wasting isn’t good for the planet and because Mom can’t afford it.)

The same line of reasoning goes for food. That’s why I’m a major proponent of making a monthly menu and a grocery shopping list that I veer from only for fun treats that we consume right away. Since I began the menu/list plan, food rarely spoils in our home. I estimate I save about $25 a week (that’s $1,300 a year)–more if you consider what I’d spend eating out if I hadn’t bought wisely.

In an excellent article posted September 9, 2008, MainStreet.com takes this line of thinking one step further. Wasting food wastes more than food and money. It also wastes water:

“In the U.S., we throw away 30% of our food every year, according to the [Stockholm International Water Institute]. That wastes enough water to meet the needs of every household in North America for a year. It also wastes more than $48 billion a year, the report found.”

For the full MainStreet.com article and more money-saving tips, go here:
http://mainstreet.com/article/lifestyle/food-drink/save-money-food-help-save-world

photo credit: subewl

School is in session, and our family has gone from packing beach bags to packing lunches. Because one of my Compete to Conserve goals is to be more mindful of packaging waste, this seasonal switch has me obsessing over how much waste is created from just one child’s lunch. Add two adults, because we often pack our work lunches, and then multiply it by all the other packed lunches in the country and you’ve got a huge hunk of junk!

So how can you reduce packaging waste without driving yourself crazy? I don’t have an easy answer for that one. Convenience is what drives people to flock to disposable juice boxes and prepacked lunchables, not a villainous desire to destroy the planet. And many is the time that I long for their grab-and-go ease. That said, with a little planning and practice, packing a waste-free, or less wasteful, lunch can get easier.

Here are 5 things I do to make packing a waste-free lunch easier:

1. Make a monthly menu (1/2 hour at the onset saves me lots of time later).
2. Place plastic baggies and wrap in a hard to reach place to avoid temptation.
3. Assemble of stable of reusable, but replaceable (even the most mindful kids and adults occasionally lose things), containers, utensils, and cloth napkins (old washcloths or cut-up tees will do, too).
4. Pack fruit that doesn’t require packaging, such as apples, bananas, and oranges.
5. Go Ford-assembly-line style: Pack the same lunch for everyone in the family.

It’s definitely tempting to think that my kid’s lunch doesn’t make a difference, but then I remember that the New York State Department of Conservation says one child bringing a disposable lunch creates 67 pounds of trash a year.

If you are interested in packing waste-free lunches for your family, here are some more helpful resources:

San Mateo County’s Tips for a Waste Free Lunch at Home and at School
http://www.recycleworks.org/schools/lunch.html

“Back to School Lunch with Less Waste,” on Cheap Like Me
http://cheaplikeme.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/back-to-school-lunch-with-less-waste/

“Green Savings Tips for School Lunch,” on OrganicMania
http://organicmania.com/2008/04/02/green-savings-tip-for-school-lunch/

photo credit: Inferis

Last month, the California legislature missed an opportunity to do the right thing and phase out the use of BPA (bisphenol A) in baby bottles, cups, and baby food cans and jars sold in the state. Contrary to what the critics would have you believe, it would have banned the use of BPA only in products intended for anyone under the age of 3.

Senate Bill 1713, introduced by California State Senator Carole Migden, passed in the Senate, but even after several rounds of amendments and votes, failed to pass in the Assembly. This is a real shame. It had been hoped that the bill, if passed, would lead the way for other states to follow suit.

BPA, in case you haven’t heard, is a chemical additive found in clear, shatterproof plastics and in canned-food liners. It’s also a well-known endocrine disrupter that is linked to a variety of ailments, including infertility and breast and prostate cancer.

Would you want to give a known carcinogen to your baby? Remember, babies are in a state of rapid development, so environmental toxins can play a more harmful role in amounts smaller than is needed to harm adults. It’s no wonder that parental outcry has strong-armed manufacturers to produce alternative baby products that don’t use BPA. (With cups at least. So far, it seems, all cans of baby formula contain BPA. Powdered cans contain less, however.)

Most parents, i.e., voters, are overwhelmingly in favor of SB 1713. I know a few parents who are indifferent to it, but none who are clamoring to include even a suspected toxin in products that developing babies use every day. So who sank it? Primarily, the plastics industry. These are the same people who mailed a flyer misleading voters to believe that the BPA phase out would include a wide range of favorite consumer goods, even those intended for adults.

The American Plastics Council insists the amount of BPA that leaches from BPA-containing cups and bottles into food and drink is safe. Unfortunately, the tobacco companies, after decades of knowingly lying about the dangers of smoking, pretty much ruined the industry safety line for everyone. When companies talk about “acceptable levels of risk” these days, do you believe them unquestioningly?

Of course, the FDA, the European Food Safety Authority, and the Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology also claim BPA is safe. But even the American Plastics Council admits that the U.S. National Toxicology Program says there is “some concern” regarding BPA exposure in infants and children and that “more research is needed.” (That phrase always raises my eyebrows.) Non-Toxic Kids has a good graphic that shows that the “some concern” level is no cause for dismissal.

Both Canada and Japan have taken a “just in case” approach and moved to ban the use of BPA in baby products. Don’t our families deserve the same level of precaution?

What’s Next
The fight is not necessarily over. Senator Carole Migden will be replaced by Mark Leno in November. When I called her office, they suggested letting him know you support the proposed ban. He could draft a new bill if enough people voice their support.

More Resources:
“Caution Is the Right Reaction to Chemical,” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-fi-lazarus13-2008aug13,0,3672425.column

“California Assembly Rejects Two Bills on Chemical Bans,” The Sacramento Bee, August 19, 2008
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1167258.html

“BPA in Formula: This Is Not a Call to Panic,” on Enviroblog
http://www.enviroblog.org/2007/12/bpa-in-formula-this-is-not-a-c.htm

Lush employees go naked in San Francisco.

Who among us hasn’t done work in the buff? Pants sometimes take a backseat to meeting a deadline now that Blackberries, laptops, and home computers let many of us occasionally work from home. But going to work naked when you face hundreds of people a day? That’s what store employees of the cosmetic company Lush did last week to promote its “naked” package-free body and bath products.

Wearing nothing but aprons that read “Ask me why I’m naked,” employees at 27 stores across the U.S. handed out flyers that encouraged customers and passersby to consider the environmental impact of packaging. Yes, it was a publicity stunt, but it was a fun, good-natured way to inform people on an otherwise dismal subject.

The U.K.-based retailer says that packaging contributes 2 percent to global greenhouse emissions and plastic consumes 8 percent of the world’s oil resources. The State of California says that packaging makes up one third of the 66 million tons of waste Californians throw away each year.

Industry is the biggest offender of packaging waste, but consumers contribute to the pile, too. With that in mind, Lush sells many of its products, including shampoo, without packaging and in bars that are sliced to size. (Liquid shampoo, because it’s mostly water by volume, weighs more and takes more energy to transport. It also requires plastic packaging.) At a customer’s request, a salesperson will wrap bars in paper to take home. That, of course, defeats the idea of no packaging, so repeat customers often come in with a reusable baggie or soap dish.

More resources:

“Bare Facts on Packaging,” August 28, 2008, SFGate.com
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/chrongreen/detail?blogid=50&entry_id=29565

Use Less Stuff Report, for consumer tips and the latest research on waste reduction
http://www.use-less-stuff.com