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

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: ..· ✈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

photo credit: Nicholas_T

After looking into China’s Weather Modification program, and its Olympic Weather plans, I began to wonder what kind of effect such practices could have long term.

Putting aside the image of regional farmers equipped to work rocket launchers and anti-aircraft artillery—which leads to a whole different set of concerns—I wondered about the dangers of shooting silver iodide into the sky. Wasn’t anyone concerned about what kind of rain was coming back down?

Turns out, they are.

While researchers from organizations like North American Weather Consultants Inc (NAWC) claim that the silver iodide crystals are so dispersed only trace amounts can be found in test samples that fall to Earth, others are crying foul.

(more…)

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: Montrasio International

If provided with another chance, would China have wanted to host the Olympics this summer?  If China knew that hosting the Olympics in 2008 would actually have a detrimental impact on its economy while bringing to the international spotlight the country’s environmental and human rights practices, would we be watching Istanbul 2008?

The International Olympic Committee selected Beijing to host the 2008 Summer Olympics back in 2001.  In generating support for the Olympics in Beijing, China argued, in part, that 2008 would be the creation of the first “green” Olympics.  Cleaning up Beijing for the 2008 games, Chinese officials suggested, would be an inspiration to other Olympic venues.  Seven years later, air quality is still a major concern to the athletes.  And if air quality was not enough to keep China from “breathing easy”, in February the United States Olympic Committee announced it would bring its own food to the Olympics.  Perhaps inspired in part by the worldwide food contamination scare for U.S. domestic pets, the decision disappointed Beijing nonetheless.  Add to that the recent scrutiny of China’s human rights and political practices, is this really what China needs right now? (more…)

photo credit: linh.ngân

In the years approaching the 2008 Games, the Chinese government formed a Weather Modification office to address weather and pollution concerns. The goal: Create optimum conditions by making it rain when they want and keeping it away when they don’t.

When the country first started fooling with Mother Nature, back in 1958, the primary focus was farm regions, where drought lingered and crops suffered. But over the decades the techniques they developed have been used to fight fires, prevent hailstorms, replenish riverheads and reservoirs, sweep away pollution and ease a heat wave.

Does that mean the grey haze over George Hincapie and other Olympic cyclists or the rain that fell on beach volleyball competitors were signs of China’s weather control success? When you consider the clear skies over the Opening ceremony…maybe.

(more…)

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: otisarchives2

In the world of medical imaging, picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) are computers or networks dedicated to the storage, retrieval, distribution and presentation of images.  Typically PACS handles the gamut of medical imaging instruments, including Magnetic Resonance (MRIs, or imaging which uses a powerful magnetic field, radio waves and a computer to produce detailed pictures of organs, soft tissues, bone and virtually all other internal body structures), Positron Emission Tomography (PET scans, which accurately image the cellular function of the human body), and Computed Tomography (CT or CT Scan, which uses special x-ray equipment to produce multiple images or pictures of the inside of the body and a computer to join them together in cross-sectional views of the area being studied).

A PACS system usually includes a state-of-the-art Radiology Information System enabling images and data to be delivered to physicians anywhere in the world with access to a high speed broadband internet connection.  As the medium for medical imaging becomes more sophisticated, a PACS system is necessary to take full advantage of the higher level diagnostic studies.  Essentially, because the technological advances in MR, CT and PET imaging are so great, traditional “films” no longer suffice for an accurate patient study.

Translation: The radiology equipment in health care facilities has become so high-tech, doctors now need super-fancy machines to read the results. (more…)