Conservation 101: the Compete to Conserve Blog

photo credit: miss_rogue

Wrap rage, the anger, frustration, and, sometimes, injury that occurs when opening a new package will hit its annual peak this December. Instead of kissing under mistletoe or roasting chestnuts, millions of consumers will instead spend time untwisting sharp, poky twist ties and slicing through airtight plastic clamshell packaging that seems better suited to seal off biological weapons than iPods.

For people trying to conserve resources, wrap rage is particularly vexing because, in the end, they’re left with piles of waste that can be neither reused (how many twist ties can one family really use?) or recycled (just because there’s a recycle symbol on a plastic bag doesn’t mean your local recycling facility will accept it). Paying customers are also annoyed knowing that much of this packaging is produced to deter shoplifters. (It’s also designed to make shipping and stocking more efficient.) Remember the terrible wasteful 6×12-inch cardboard box CDs used come packaged in? Consumers complained enough to rid the industry of the boxes. Now a new generation is aiming to put an end to wrap-rage packaging.

Some, fed up with overconsumption and inspired by the “reduce” movement, say that the best way to avoid wrap rage is to not buy anything–or at least not buy anything overpackaged or sealed in a clamshell. That would mean swearing off all electronics and many toys. So while there are merits to this argument, like other abstinence-only pledges, it may not be realistic. The cultural traditions and comforts of giving and receiving gifts during the holidays run strong.

One happy medium suggestion is to reduce the number of gifts you buy this season. Faced with economic uncertainty, many consumers are already pledging to buy less this year (much to the dismay of retailers). In light of mindful holiday buying, Amazon.com is hoping its “Frustration-Free Packaging Initiative” will lure shoppers fed up with overpackaging.

The Seattle-based online retailer has teamed with toy maker Mattel, electronics manufacturer Transcend, and Microsoft to sell 19 products that use less packaging and are easier to open. Amazon says, for example, the Fisher-Price Imaginext Adventures Pirate Ship “is now delivered in an easy-to-open, recyclable cardboard box. The new packaging eliminates 36 inches of plastic-coated wire ties, 1,576.5 square inches of printed corrugated package inserts and 36.1 square inches of printed folding carton materials. Also eliminated are 175.25 square inches of PVC blisters, 3.5 square inches of ABS molded styrene and two molded plastic fasteners.” Transcend memory cards will be shipped in recyclable cardboard rather than plastic clamshells.

Nineteen is an awfully small number of products to choose from. And it won’t end wrap rage overnight. But it’s a start.

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/

photo credit: Harris Graber

It’s come to our attention that a growing number of parents throw out their children’s trick-or-treat bounty when the kids aren’t looking. (Thanks to One Mom’s Musings for tipping us off.)

It’s a troublesome over-consumption paradox. Parents and neighbors buy lots and lots of candy. Children are encouraged to gather as much candy as they can. And then parents throw it out? That’s an enormous waste and a significant addition to overcrowded landfills. At least unwanted Christmas gifts can be returned to the store or schlepped off to Goodwill for reuse.

As a nation, it’s time for us to ask: Won’t somebody please think of the children? And the landfill?

This Halloween, if your children collect more candy than you think they should eat in a year, follow the lead of our forebearers: eat the candy yourself. Or bring it to the office to share with coworkers. It’s the responsible thing to do.

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

photo credit: clownfish

Bleak economic news may be grabbing the headlines, but according to the National Retail Federation, U.S. consumers are set to spend more than ever this Halloween: $5.77 billion, a modest increase from last year’s $5.07 billion.

Sixty-five percent of us are planning to celebrate Halloween by buying candy, wearing a costume, hosting/attending a party, or decorating the house, which gives a good indication of what the nation’s trash collectors will be picking up Monday after the holiday weekend.

The most money will be spent on costumes (net average of $24.17 per person), followed by candy ($20.39), decorations ($18.25), and then somewhat surprisingly, greeting cards ($3.73). (I have to confess, I have bought Halloween cards in the past. If you sell it, they will come, I suppose.)

Here are some more estimates according to the NRF’s Halloween Consumer Intentions and Actions Survey published September 30, 2008:

• Average per person spending (2001): $41.77
• Average per person spending (2008 estimated): $66.54
• Biggest spenders by age: 18-24-year-olds at $86.59 per person
• Biggest spenders by region: Northeast at $70.84 per person
• Least likely to party: Only 30% of those in the West plan to attend/host a party

photo credit: hfb

Given that you can’t enter a store between August and October without seeing an array of fake plastic spiders, severed rubber fingers, sexy angel/devil/cat/nurse leotards, and cheek-pinchingly-cute baby costumes, it’s not surprising that many American consumers believe Halloween is the second biggest retail spending holiday of the year. It is not. The National Retail Federation, an industry trade organization, says:

“Though growing, Halloween remains the sixth-largest spending holiday after: Winter Holidays ($457.4 billion estimated), Valentine’s Day ($13.70 billion), Easter ($12.63 billion), Mother’s Day ($13.80 billion), and Father’s Day ($9.01 billion). Because it is not a gift-giving holiday or an apparel holiday, it ranks lower than other annual holidays in terms of spending.”

The retail industry does not measure holidays in terms of waste, but I think it’s safe to say Halloween can earn a second place title in that category. Overall, consumers are making more purchases (costumes, candy, decorations, food and beverage, etc.) in smaller dollar amounts than they typically make for Mother’s Day (flowers, a gift). Collectively, that adds up to lots more trash.

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: salsaboy

“Can’t we just throw away these banana peels?” my exasperated husband asks as I point him to our new compost container. “Do we really have to keep our trash in the fridge?”

Composting doesn’t come easily in our household. While it’s a natural circle-of-life for people living off the land, for most apartment dwellers and urbanites, composting is like de-feathering our own poultry. Messy, smelly, and hard. We know our great-great-great grandparents did it on the farm, but they probably would have preferred the convenience of plastic sacks and trash chutes, too.

“All this stuff is biodegradable, so what difference does it make?” my resident conservation skeptic presses. Now I love the idea of composting as much as the next person, but I don’t think it should be done at the expense of one’s relationships. So I wave off the occasional eco-transgression for the benefit of family harmony.

Still, I’d like to participate our our city’s composting program more, so I’ve created quick cheat sheet to help convince even the most stubborn of skeptics. Please feel free to share with your own:

10 Reasons Why Composting Matters

1. Composting diverts valuable materials that would go wasted in landfill. According to the EPA, 23% of the U.S. waste stream is food and yard waste.
2. We’re running out of safe places to stash our trash–whatever is diverted for re-use or recycle is good.
3. Biodegradation occurs slowly, if at all, in most landfills.*
4. Burning trash creates air pollution and is illegal in many municipalities.
5. Building a new landfill is expensive, up to $10 million, according the the U.S. Department of Energy.
6. Food and yard waste are the largest producers of landfill methane emissions. These emissions are toxic and can explode if not managed properly. Reducing landfill means reducing these emissions.
7. Compost adds nutrients to soil and helps it retain water, helping growers conserve water.
8. Compost can prevent soil erosion.
9. Compost can clean contaminated soil by absorbing hazardous materials like volatile organic compounds, heating fuels, heavy metals, and more.
10. Compost can reduce or eliminate the need for fertilizers and pesticides that are costly and harmful to people and the environment.

*Landfills are tightly packed places, designed to prevent harmful waste from seeping into ground water. In landfill, biodegradable materials do not get the conditions they need to biodegrade: air, moisture, and helpful living organisms. In landfill excavations between 1987-1995, University of Arizona researchers found still-readable newspapers dating back to the 1940s and intact hot dogs and heads of lettuce from the 1960s!

More resources:

An easy-to-understand primer on landfills on the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Kids site:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/saving/recycling/solidwaste/landfiller.html

The EPA on composting’s environmental benefits:
http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/composting/benefits.htm

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: charles chan *

When I first moved to Los Angeles from New York City,  I was taken aback by the taste of the tap water.   After being spoiled by the refreshingly crisp taste of NYC tap water, I couldn’t bring myself to drink the water in LA, except under dire circumstances.  I resorted to purchasing bottled water - large jugs that I would refill at the Glacier water stand in front of the local supermarket or 24-packs of bottled water (yes, shame on me).

I’m not proud of the water habit I acquired in my new habitat and have recently opted to use a Brita filtration system at home in lieu of purchasing bottled water.  Little did I know, however, that while I was eliminating a large chunk of plastic bottle waste, I began amassing new plastic waste! 

I was unaware that Brita (owned by Clorox) does not have a recycling program in place in North America as it does in Europe, which means that every used-up filter cartridge across the United States and Canada ends up in landfills.  The amount of waste resulting from this cartridge pile-up seems quite staggering when you consider the fact that Brita has the #1 market share of pour-through filter cartridges in the U.S. and Canada.  It is also the #1 faucet-mount filter in Canada and the #2 faucet-mount filter in the U.S (according to Clorox’s 2007 Annual Report).

Since Brita filters are recycled in Europe through its own private collection and recycling system, it should be possible for Clorox to implement a similar system here, right?  So, what can we do?

For those of you that enjoy Brita-filtered water, but are hesitating to throw your filters away into your trash can, check out this organization I found - TakeBackTheFilter.org - and join their campaign to urge Clorox to develop a take-back recycling program.  You can sign their petition; write a letter to a Clorox executive; or send in your used filter cartridges that they are collecting to deliver to Clorox en masse at some point in the future.  How cool is that!?!