Conservation 101: the Compete to Conserve Blog

photo credit: rick

Last week, city planners met with the San Francisco Transit Authority to consider congestion pricing, and now initial plans are out. “Drivers could pay $3 to enter, leave or pass through parts of San Francisco during morning and evening commutes under a proposal designed to push motorists out of their cars,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported Wednesday.

For a map of the areas that would be affected by congestion pricing, go to: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/26/MNS614C8S1.DTL&hw=congestion+pricing&sn=003&sc=570

photo credit: kke227

This Tuesday, San Francisco officials will consider the feasibility of congestion pricing as part of an ongoing effort to ease traffic and reduce pollution in some of the city’s busiest areas.

Congestion Pricing a Tough Sell

Congestion pricing, which requires motorists to pay a toll to drive in heavily trafficked areas, is already at work in London and Stockholm. But starting congestion pricing in the United States is a tough sell: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg had suggested charging drivers $8 to enter certain parts of Manhattan, but his ambitious plan was killed the the New York state Assembly in April.

The idea of congestion pricing has the support of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, as well as some of the 11 elected county supervisors who make up the San Francisco County Transportation Authority’s board.

But when city planners present various pricing and zone scenarios to the board this Tuesday, a wide-ranging group that includes business owners and motorists will be ready to voice their dissent. Even San Franciscans who might otherwise support the idea of congestion pricing may be leery of imposing an obstacle to business in these challenging economic times.

Voice Your Opinion on Congestion Pricing

The public is invited to attend meetings in San Francisco to learn more about the city’s congestion pricing plans, Tuesday, December 2, 2008, and Monday, December 8, 2008. City planners are also hosting an online meeting Friday, December 5, 2008, for those unable to attend the other sessions in person. For details and to register for the online event, visit: http://www.sfcta.org/content/view/302/148/

Local thoughts on San Francisco’s congestion pricing study that kicked off last year:

“Congestion Pricing in the News,” Transbay Blog, September 17, 2007:
http://transbayblog.com/2007/09/19/congestion-pricing-in-the-news/

“Baby, You Can Charge My Car,” SFist, September 19, 2007:
http://sfist.com/2007/09/19/baby_you_can_ch.php

photo credit: stevelyon

CEOs of some of the world’s most prominent companies are floating the idea that the U.S. “consider raising taxes on gasoline,” according to Real Time Economics on The Wall Street Journal Online.

Idea “Tucked Away”

The idea, which according to Journal editors was “tucked away” in a proposal on long-term tax policy, came about during a two-day session this week in which nearly 100 CEOs of global companies gathered to define the priorities they believe President-elect Barack Obama and the new Congress need to tackle when they take office in January. (Finance and the U.S. economy; energy and the environment; health care; and America’s role in the global economy were the four key issues the CEO Council discussed, underscoring that there will be no dearth of work Obama’s administration will face.)

Proponents of raising the gas tax say that it will lower gasoline consumption, encourage both the production and market for fuel efficient vehicles, lower imports, and decrease polluting emissions.

Critics argue that increased taxes unfairly burden consumers, especially the poor, and that reduced consumption hurts industry. (I haven’t found anyone yet that says pollution is good, but I’m sure there’s someone out there!)

Support Gaining Steam?

Raising the gas tax, of course, is nothing new. But until now its support has been limited. Because most Americans are dependent on cars to get to work, school, and every else, opponents have been able to build a broad coalition that makes politicians think that championing the cause would be certain political death.

But now something different is happening. There is an increasing awareness of the interconnectedness of energy use, economy, the environment, and public health. And when CEOs of companies that collectively employ 5.9 million people and $2.2 trillion in annual revenues say officials should consider raising the gasoline tax, my bet is that this idea won’t go away quietly this time.

The Wall Street Journal will report results of the CEO Council Monday, November 24, 2008.

More resources:

The Wall Street Journal CEO Council:
https://ceocouncil.wsj.com/index.html

photo credit: otisarchives3

Hospitals use a lot of energy, and not surprisingly the healthcare sector ranks second in energy intensity.  Hospitals use 836 trillion BTUs of energy annually (over 2.5 times the energy intensity and CO2 emissions of commercial office buildings), produce 28.575 million tons of CO2 and over 30 lbs of CO2 emissions per square foot on an annual basis.  It would logically follow that Hospitals have at their disposal myriad resources to make a change toward sustainability.  Regrettably, this is not the case.

While my approach in trying to make a difference and improve our environment has been deliberately non-partisan, at some point it is necessary to take a definitive stand on something, even if that “something” is mired in controversy.  Working in hospital administration these past six years, I fear that the healthcare system in California today is so dysfunctional that it borders on the edge of cataclysmic failure.  Surprisingly, this systemic problem has not received the necessary attention a crisis of such magnitude should mandate. (more…)

1. Compost Your Jack-o-Lantern
You can also save, wash, and roast the pumpkin seeds for a treat.

photo credit: tanakawho

2. Buy a Second-Hand Costume (and Donate It or Use It Next Year)
You can pick up high quality next-to-new costumes at Goodwill, Salvation Army, and other second-hand stores for less than $5. Sure beats paying $40, and you’ll conserve resources in the process. Don’t let your costumes’ lifecycle end there: pass them to a friend next year or donate to a retail charity and use your donation as a tax deduction.

3. Buy Less Individually Wrapped Candy
Let’s face facts: are you really going to get 400 trick-or-treaters? If you’re buying candy to satisfy your own sweet tooth, skip the small individually wrapped candies and opt for something with less packaging.

4. Turn Out the Lights
It adds ambiance to the night and saves energy, too.

5. Look for Any Opportunity to Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Be mindful of your consumption during holidays when our desire to celebrate often leads to falling off the conservation bandwagon. Reuse costumes and decorations where you can. Recycle plastic cups, use compostable utensils, or use your regular flatware. Question whether you really need the Halloween merchandise that’s pushed at us each year. And just because something’s small doesn’t mean it can’t make a difference–I’ve even recycled tiny cardboard candy boxes from the kids’ treat bags.

More conservation ideas for Halloween from some of our favorite bloggers:

“Turning Halloween into Zero Waste Hallo-green,” My Zero Waste, October 16, 2008:
http://myzerowaste.com/2008/10/turning-halloween-into-a-zero-waste-hallo-green/

“Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas, Oh My!” Low Impact Home, September 30, 2008: http://lowimpacthome.org/2008/09/30/halloween-thanksgiving-christmasoh-my/

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/

photo credit: :: Suwaif ::

MPG, or miles per gallon, is a major selling point for cars, but as the website RealClimate pointed out recently, there’s a lot of confusion as to what MPG really means for consumers and for public policy.

Take RealClimate’s example:

Which driver will reduce fuel usage and emissions more?

A. The driver swapping an old 12 MPG SUV for a hybrid 18 MPG SUV

B. The driver swapping a 25 MPG compact for a new 46 MPG Prius

I subtracted 12 from 18 and got 6; then subtracted 25 from 46 and got 21 and compared the two. I assumed the correct answer is A. WRONG! The correct answer is B, the driver swapping the old SUV for a hybrid. (Of course, a driver who swaps a gas-guzzling SUV for a compact hybrid would reduce his/her own fuel usage and emissions the most.)

The mistake, which the writers assure me is common, arises because most people think of numbers linearly and assume that a reduction in MPG has a similar impact on fuel usage. It doesn’t. Assuming a driving distance of 100 miles, example B saves just 1.8 gallons (100/25 - 100/46 = 1.8), while example A saves 2.8 gallons (100/12 - 100/18 = 2.8).

This is an important point, because it demonstrates that efficiencies gained at the low end of the scale can have a much bigger impact than efficiencies gained at the higher end.

Read RealClimate’s column at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/09/the-mpg-confusion/

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/

photo credit: Peter.Lorre

I really hate leaf blowers.  But since Compete to Conserve is non-partisan, I would be remiss not to provide some objective background information.  “A leaf blower is an engine-powered, hand-held maintenance tool used in lieu of a rake or broom to remove leaves and debris from a lawn or garden by blowing them away.”  A leaf blower is basically a high-speed fan which creates an air current up to 200 miles per hour.  The air then pushes the objects in its path (i.e., leaves) in the intended direction.

Leaf blowers generally come in one of two forms:  (1) the blower (used simply to blow materials); and (2) the blower/vacuum (as its name suggests, it combines the blower function with a vacuum feature, and sometimes even a mulching feature).  Both forms of leaf blowers are designed as hand held units, backpacks or the “walk behind” version (mounted on wheels).  The power behind the leaf blower can be electric (corded or rechargeable/battery operated) or gas.

I am not alone in my crusade, and it really is not hard to find information against leaf blowers.  In my opinion, the three main arguments are:

Leaf Blowers Are Loud

Some critics of leaf blowers argue that the decibel level of a leaf blower can damage hearing.  To others, it is really a matter of what time in the morning the leaf blower is first activated.  Have you ever tried to get the attention of a person bearing a leaf blower if he or she was not facing you?  Of the 40 million United States citizens suffering from hearing loss, 25% of the cases can be attributed to Noise Induced Hearing Loss (”NIHL”).  Even one bad sound experience can lead to NIHL.  Typical conversations occur at 60 decibels.  Leaf blowers operate at about 115 decibels (the same as a chainsaw or rock concert).  The recommended standard for permissible exposure time at that level is less than 30 seconds.

Leaf Blowers Are Toxic to the Air

Leaf blowers generate as much emissions in just one short hour as a brand-new automobile on a 350-mile road trip.  Additionally, in urban settings, leaf blowers fail to single out the solitary, fallen leaf, but instead send debris, soil, dust, pollen and/or mold into a newly created swirling vortex of toxic air.

Leaf Blowers Violate Newton’s Third Law of Motion (aka Leaf Blowers Are Stupid)

In trying to promote the idea of global sustainability through conservation on an individual and accessible level, somehow I keep coming back (far too often perhaps) to Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion:  “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”  Leaf blowers do little more in an urban setting than transfer dirt and debris from private property onto public or other private property.  Newton believed that whenever two objects interact, the force directed on one must equal (but in opposite direction) the force directed at the other.  When matched against the monstrous force of a leaf blower, the helpless leaf has no choice but to react, and metaphorically speaking, run to the nearest lawn or street.

Living in an urban setting, I am baffled whenever I see a leaf blower being used to move dirt from one person’s lawn to another lawn, or worse, into the street.  This solitary act is the origin, and perhaps only reason, why I really hate leaf blowers.  Without disregarding the importance of noise pollution and air quality, I  think this most common use of a leaf blower in an urban setting is just plain stupid.

Thankfully, many cities are banning leaf blowers or limiting the hours of use.  In Los Angeles, if a neighbor refuses to control a leaf blower on his or her property, residents can report a “blower in progress” by caling 877-275-5273 (make sure to select “1″, however, for non-emergent crimes).  More information can be found at www.zapla.org (zero air pollution Los Angeles).  ZAPLA’s mission statement is “to encourage compliance with leaf blower bans and restrictions by providing facts, opinions, and access to sources and to resources.”  Happy to know these resources exist, clearly I am not alone on this position.  And while I am somewhat passionate about my disliking of leaf blowers, I think treehugger.com hates them even more, calling leaf blowers a few years back the “scourge of humanity“.

For more information visit:

www.wisegeek.com/what-are-leaf-blowers.html

www.spokanecleanair.org

www.dangerousdecibels.org/hearingloss.cfm

www.zapla.org

www.lowes.com

www.treehugger.com/files/005/09/leaf_blowers_sc.php

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