Conservation 101: the Compete to Conserve Blog

photo credit: hlkljgk

Saving fuel is on nearly everyone’s mind these days, and one area that sucks up a lot of petroleum and energy is food production and transportation.

According to Sustainable Table, a study done in 2000 estimated the food industry claims about ten percent of the energy used annually in the US. About 40 percent of that energy is expended making pesticides and artificial fertilizer. Another 23 percent goes to processing and packaging.

This doesn’t even touch on the energy used to transport food (and keep it cool en route). The Center for Sustainable Systems at the University of Michigan estimates that the average US food product travels about 1500 miles before it is consumed—that’s a lot of fuel and refrigeration.

(more…)

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: otisarchives3

California hospitals will spend about $100 billion before 2013 in order to meet state seismic safety standards.  On top of that, the nation-wide mortgage and credit crisis more or less doubles that $100 billion price tag in the event that these hospitals do not have the cash on hand.  With construction expenses reaching an all-time high, a 100-bed hospital may spend close to $100 million to build a replacement facility.  That same facility will be lucky to break $50 million in revenue (revenue, not profit) in any given year.

This incomprehensible financial dilemma, only five years away but the result of a shifting in the earth’s core somewhere around Northridge in January 1994, is yet another example of inconsistent public policy concerns converging in the health care sector.  If this $100 billion expense was not bad enough, hospitals now face increasing pressure to be more “green”.

Caught in the middle of a financial crisis, a healthcare crisis, a gas crisis, an ever-present earthquake crisis, and now an environmental crisis, will tomorrow’s hospitals in California be yesterday’s 8-track tapes?  While the ultimate fate of California’s hospitals has yet to be written, there are a handful of facilities throughout the state actually trying to be both seismically sound and green.

(more…)

photo credit: chispita_666

Skeptical that your dishwasher is more energy and water efficient than washing by hand? To test this theory, Leah Ingram of The Lean Green Family suggests stopping up your sink as you hand-wash dishes and then measuring the water you’ve collected. It’s likely more than you think.

Ingram is right. In my test, I used 8.25 gallons on a day’s worth of dishes (breakfast, lunch, dinner) for a family of four. My methodology? I quickly rinsed our dishes, turned off the water, scrubbed, and then rinsed off the soap. I’m not sure I would have saved water even if I had filled the sink first, as the sink itself would have required a good scrubbing and rinse, too.

Considering the average standard dishwasher built since 1994 uses 9 gallons a load, and I can fit two day’s of dishes in one load, I can cut my water usage, not to mention my water-heating, by more than half. Good-bye dishwashing gloves!

They’ve Done Studies
I’m not the only one who found dishwashers come out on top. Researchers at the University of Bonn in Germany studied 113 people across seven countries and found that new, energy-efficient dishwashers use only half the energy, one-sixth of the water, and less soap than hand-washing. The study also notes that dishwashers get dishes cleaner, too.

More resources:
Energy Star Dishwashers

American Council for and Energy Efficient Economy

Waterwise a water-industry organization in the UK

Water Usage Calculator

photo credit: jsgphoto

I hate washing dishes. My husband hates washing dishes. And as soon as they are old enough, our two children will likely hate washing dishes too. Yet for years, I dutifully hand-washed our dishes, believing it to be more energy- and water-efficient.

Then I came across The Green Book: The Everyday Guide to Saving the Planet One Simple Step at a Time by Elizabeth Rogers and Thomas M. Kostigen, which suggested that new energy-efficient dishwashers beat hand-washing dishes, well, hands down.

For me, this was a revelatory moment, akin to when Woody Allen’s character in Sleeper awakens in the future only to learn that chocolate is good for you and exercise bad! Still, I was skeptical, so I researched the debate myself. Here’s how you can make the dishwasher come out ahead:

Old Dishwashers Bad, New Dishwashers Good
If your dishwasher is more than 10 years old, you might be better off hand-washing. But according to Energy Star’s downloadable guide (PDF), a new Energy Star-rated dishwasher, can save you an average of $40 in utility costs and 4,945 gallons of water a year over doing dishes by hand.

Run Only Full Loads
Your dishwasher uses the same amount of water and energy whether it’s full or not, so maximize your resources.

Scrape before You Load
We run our dishwasher every other day. To avoid crusted-on food that requires (ugh!) rewashing, we wipe them rather than rinsing, which wastes water.

Skip the Heated Dry Cycle
The dishwasher water is hot enough to evaporate quickly—about 15 minutes in our house—and you’ll save on electricity usage and costs, too.

Use Eco-Friendly Detergent
Seventh Generation and Trader Joe’s, among others, offer automatic dishwasher detergent free of phosphates that can cause algae blooms in lakes that can suffocate acquatic plants and animals; free of chlorine bleach, which creates dangerous toxins that are linked to (scary!) cancer, birth defects, and developmental and reproductive disorders; and free of dyes and artificial fragrances that can irritate children and sensitive adults. While they might not save you energy, you’ll get bonus eco points for choosing them.

Even before Pacific Gas and Electric’s great CFL giveaway, not to mention the point-of-purchase rebate, I was stockpiling the replacement to Edison’s creation in my linen closet. But while it made perfect sense to me to retire the out-of-date and energy-sucking technology of the incandescent bulb, I wondered…Does it make sense to throw away perfectly good light bulbs? I mean, the ones in my lamps and light fixtures were still in working order. Doing their jobs steadily. And since incandescent bulbs aren’t recycled, I would just be adding to the great landfill in, uh, South San Francisco.

The CFL isn’t without controversy. Much hype has flooded the airwaves and Internet about the mercury and lead found in these bulbs. According to the EPA, “over 670 million mercury-containing bulbs are discarded each year,” ultimately to landfills or the incinerator with other municipal waste. While some argue that the amount is miniscule and harmless, others counter that any amount of mercury disposed in an improper way can find its way into the food chain—Tuna, and fish like it, won’t be the only items on the “watch the mercury” list. The EPA estimates that these discarded bulbs release approximately 2-4 tons of mercury per year.

In response to the mercury concern, many states have set up authorized facilities for recycling CFLs and other fluorescent lamps. California’s Universal Waste Law calls for recycling them within one year of collection. If broken, they must be treated as hazardous waste.

Arguments that incandescent bulbs also release mercury into the environment, albeit indirectly, have also been made. An article in US News and World Report notes that chances are at least 50 percent that incandescent bulbs in the US come from coal-powered plants, where mercury isn’t the only likely pollutant. But this was little consolation in my decision-making process.

The benefits of CFLs, saving energy and costs long-term, were clear. They are most certainly the “wave of the future,” given that the US has followed Australia and the EU in proposing a ban on incandescents in the near future. Not to mention that improvements have been made so CFLs can better mimic the warm light of tungsten, or the bright blue of daylight, rather than the sickly green light of traditional fluorescent.

But still, my existing bulbs worked just fine.

So, after swapping out bulbs in a few key, frequently-lit locations, the ongoing plan is to incorporate CFLs as the need arises—in other words, when the old bulbs die. This way I feel less wasteful, but I make the move I planned to make. I had every intention of adopting the bulbs immediately. It was just….