Conservation 101: the Compete to Conserve Blog

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!?!

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: 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

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

photo credit: rabble

Earlier this week, we talked about BPA. Short for bisphenol A, BPA is a chemical compound that is linked to cancer, infertility, and other health problems. Unfortunately, it’s all around us. In hard plastic bottles, dental sealants, canned food and drinks, and more.

Considering its ubiquity, you’re unlikely to eliminate your exposure to BPA. Here’s what the average person can do to at least reduce exposure:

1. Buy fewer canned goods
   Buy fresh or frozen vegetables. Buy beans from the bulk bin. Acidic foods like tomatoes tend to leach more BPA from can liners, so buy them in glass jars or cardboard boxes. (Try Pomi-brand tomatoes from Parmalat.) Buy soda in glass bottles. (Or drink less soda!) Avoid canned infant formula. Powdered infant formula containers may contain a bit of BPA, but less than the cans.
2. Avoid drinking from clear, hard plastics
   The Klean Kanteen is stainless steel and works as a great sports bottle. Nalgene is working to phase out BPA, but we can’t recommend them until they do. Use glass baby bottles, now available from Evenflo and Dr. Brown’s. Playtex offers BPA-free plastic sippy cups (look for opaque plastic). A detailed list of BPA-free bottles and sippy cups can be found at: http://safemama.com/2007/11/22/bpa-free-bottle-and-sippy-cup-cheat-sheet/
   
3. Ask your dentist and health care providers about BPA
   Consumer demand will pressure providers to offer BPA-free alternatives.
4. Tell manufacturers and elected leaders you don’t like being exposed to BPA
   Again, public pressure is the only way to force change. Canada is moving to ban BPA from baby products. San Francisco recently banned BPA from baby bottles, sippy cups, and other children’s products. California is considering similar legislation. There’s little action on removing BPA from can liners, however, so let your leaders know that you want it eliminated there, too.

More resources:

Simple Steps to Avoid BPA from the Natural Resource Defense Council
http://www.simplesteps.org/content/view//4708/37?gclid=CPGwsYbZ8pQCFRwvagodSnwFqg

BPA in Your Body from Enviroblog
http://www.enviroblog.org/2007/09/bisphenol-a-in-your-body.htm?gclid=CLGzz-DY8pQCFRIuagodakPgpw

photo credit: pfly

You don’t mess with the mama bear. That’s what my husband says when I get angry about an issue that could adversely affect our children. It’s also a major reason there is a rising public outcry over bisphenol A, or BPA, for short.

What Is BPA?

BPA is a chemical compound found in most plastic baby bottles, clear plastic sports bottles, infant-formula cans, drink and food cans, plastic utensils, dental sealants, hospital incubators, dialyzers, and more. It’s also linked to a number of health problems, including (but not limited to):

• Infertility
• Breast cancer
• Prostate cancer
• Insulin resistance (a common precursor to Type II Diabetes)
• Early puberty
• Chromosomal abnormalities that can cause miscarriage and birth defects

BPA is so widely used that even those who compulsively avoid BPA-containing products are exposed to it. BPA’s annual production exceeds a billion pounds. It is found in waterways, sediment, estuaries, household dust, and air. In humans, it is found in breast milk, saliva, urine, cord blood, and amniotic fluid. Many researchers say even low level doses of BPA can have a negative effect on developing systems. So, as with most toxins, BPA is of most concern to pregnant women, infants, and very young children.

If BPA Is Potentially Harmful, Why Is It Used at All?

BPA is added to hard plastics to make them less likely to shatter. Anyone who’s ever dropped and broken a glass in the sink is likely to see the merits of a shatter-proof material. In canned foods and drinks, BPA is used as a liner to prevent the ingredients from reacting to the metal in the can.

What’s Being Done About BPA?

Both the U.S. Federal Drug Administration and European Food Safety Authority insist that BPA is safe in the levels that a typical adult, child, or infant consumes. Their Canadian counterparts at Health Canada feel differently, however, and say it may pose a risk to infants. They suggest reclassifying BPA as “toxic” to human health and the environment. Canada is moving to ban BPA from baby bottles and other infant products.

In the U.S., BPA remains unregulated and the FDA is unlikely to take any action. Consumer demand, though, is driving change. Many of the most popular makers of baby bottles now offer BPA-free plastic and good old-fashioned glass bottles. Nalgene, the makers of clear plastic sports bottles often used by hikers and other cyclists, are promising to offer a BPA-free version soon too. And stores like Wal-Mart and Toys ‘R Us are demanding alternatives from their suppliers. (People tend to get angrier when babies’ health is involved, so traction on removing BPA from canned food and drink liners is going slower.)

More resources:

“BPA Q&A,” The Globe and Mail, April 28, 2008 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080423.wbpadiscussion/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home/?pageRequested=all

“Timeline: BPA from Invention to Phaseout,” Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/reports/bpatimeline

“A Survey of Bisphenol A in U.S. Canned Goods,” Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/reports/bisphenola