Conservation 101: the Compete to Conserve Blog

photo credit: colmsurf

The surfing community may be split but the new rule is clear: as of March 1, 2009, tow-in surfing will be allowed during high surf advisory days at Mavericks, California’s most famous big-wave spot, just off the coast of Half Moon Bay.

Finally, a Compromise

The Los Angeles Times reports that surf traditionalists, who prefer to paddle on boards to catch waves, object to the noise, polluting exhaust, and surf-chopping wakes that personal motorized watercraft create. (It’s worth noting that the craft disturb marine wildlife, too.) But a new generation of big wave surfers depend on the crafts to take them to catch enormous waves that surf photographers and spectators love. It’s taken seven years for federal officials, after listening to extensive public comments, to reach a compromise that will satisfy both camps, at least some of the time.

The new rules ban personal motorized watercraft — lifeguards excepted — from three designated and newly expanded marine sanctuaries along California’s northern and central coasts. The vehicles will be allowed high surf advisory days, so that tow in surfers can take advantage of the coast’s highest waves, typically December through March.

No More Chumming and Dumping Untreated Sewage

Additional new rules include a ban on chumming for great white sharks around San Francisco’s Farallon Islands so that tourists in dive cages can get up close to the fish (yikes!), and a ban in protected areas on dumping partially treated sewage water from ocean liners.

Read the plans in full at: http://sanctuaries.noaa.gov/jointplan/

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

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: 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: photohome_uk

The choking exhaust you smell when a tour bus is idling is small when compared to the massive toxic emissions that come from idling tankers and container ships at our nation’s ports. So it’s with welcome relief that Newsweek reports that America’s biggest ports, Los Angeles and Long Beach, have kicked off new plans aimed at reducing pollution. About 44 percent of the country’s international cargo–cars, clothes, cosmetics, you name it–comes through these two ports alone, so the effects could be significant.

Newsweek says:

“The constant stream of diesel ships and trucks emits a noxious mix of sulfur and nitrogen oxides and particulate matter that permeate nearby neighborhoods. In the L.A. area, studies attributed 120 premature deaths each year to the docks, mostly from heart and lung ailments; the cancer risk nearest the ports is almost twice the already-elevated risk in the region. Worse, while the chances of contracting cancer are dropping overall in L.A., they grew in port areas by 15 percent between 1998 and 2005. ‘It sticks out like a sore thumb,’ says Barry Wallerstein, executive officer of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), which oversees pollution-control planning in the L.A. area.”

The plans include shifting idling container ships from “bunker fuel” to cleaner burning marine diesel or even electricity while docked. The alternative fuels are more expensive, but plan supporters say lower fuel prices don’t take into account the high health care costs associated with pollution-related illnesses. The Coalition for Clean Air, for example, says that measures that allow shipping growth to continue while capping emissions at 2001 levels can save $1.4 billion in health care costs and productivity over 20 years.

More resources:

For the full Newsweek article, “The Greening of America’s Two Biggest Ports,” September 9, 2008:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158126

The California Progress Report on legislation that would help pay for port pollution reduction:
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/08/major_legislati_1.html

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

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