photo credit: sutefani in orlando

My three-year-old is in the peak of her “Why?” phase. So when she asks why we have to turn off the water after washing our hands or brushing our teeth, I tell her that we don’t waste water. That, of course, prompts another “Why?” which gives me the chance to explain the interconnectedness of our consumption, the environment, and our own personal budget. (The answer, in case you were wondering, is because wasting isn’t good for the planet and because Mom can’t afford it.)

The same line of reasoning goes for food. That’s why I’m a major proponent of making a monthly menu and a grocery shopping list that I veer from only for fun treats that we consume right away. Since I began the menu/list plan, food rarely spoils in our home. I estimate I save about $25 a week (that’s $1,300 a year)–more if you consider what I’d spend eating out if I hadn’t bought wisely.

In an excellent article posted September 9, 2008, MainStreet.com takes this line of thinking one step further. Wasting food wastes more than food and money. It also wastes water:

“In the U.S., we throw away 30% of our food every year, according to the [Stockholm International Water Institute]. That wastes enough water to meet the needs of every household in North America for a year. It also wastes more than $48 billion a year, the report found.”

For the full MainStreet.com article and more money-saving tips, go here:
http://mainstreet.com/article/lifestyle/food-drink/save-money-food-help-save-world

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/

Extolled for its taste, as well as its health benefits, tea is more popular than ever. And, whether you prefer your tea black, green, red, white, hot or iced, loose or bagged, this primeval beverage of conspicuous consumption is also “greener” than ever.

photo credit: BotheredByBees

Taste Not Waste

The fundamental maxim of many tea purists that whole loose leaf tea trumps tea made with tea bags is hotly debated. Purists claim loose tea releases the full flavor and benefits by allowing the tea leaves to brew “unfettered” in the pot, whereas the traditional paper tea bag, filled with “tea dust,” or the dregs of the leaves, results in an inferior cuppa.

Recently, the flavor debate has taken on an added dimension with growing environmental concerns about the waste associated not only with tea bag use but also with tea packaging in general.

According to Culinate blogger Mark Douglas, “More than one million tons of excess waste could be eliminated each year by not having the following three items associated with an average tea bag: the paper wrapping around the individual bag, the string attached to the bag, and the little paper tab attached to the string.” Douglas learned that astounding fact in a 2006 “Tea Education” episode of The History Channel’s Modern Marvels series. As a prime example of waste prevention, the episode featured the tea company Celestial Seasonings, which manufactures its tea bags without strings, tags or individual wrapping, and consequently saves over 3.6 million pounds of waste each year.

If the potential for waste alone causes you to rethink your tea bag use, but nevertheless lament the loss of convenience the tea bag provides, take heart. Reusable stainless steel tea infusers like the Teastick and teapots with built-in infusers or plungers may be an option. Furthermore, Mighty Leaf Tea, Numi Organic Tea and Seattle-based Choice Organic Tea all offer something called a “T-sac filter,” made with chlorine free, unbleached filter paper from manila hemp, which, according to Choice Organic, is “an environmentally-safe and convenient alternative for perfectly brewing loose leaf teas or herbs.”

For diehard tea bag users, other green options exist. Besides using unbleached paper tea bags, reusing and recycling are key. In a novel approach, artists of the South African company Original T-bag Designs take used tea bags (with the leaves removed), dry and iron them and then paint the bags, transforming them into greeting cards, notepads, journals, ornaments, candles, coasters, trinket boxes, and tea light holders.

Old tea bags (sans the staples) make good compost too, providing nutrients and acidity to your fertilizer mix. The U.K. company Teabagbin markets a nifty way to collect your used tea bags for compost. Its self-proclaimed “stylish little container made from high grade steel or plastic sits happily next to the kettle and swallows up used teabags keeping your kitchen mess free,” and answers the proverbial question of “What do you do with yours? [tea bags that is]”

Traditional paper tea bags aside, the newest and hottest trend on the market is pyramid-shaped tea bags made from silk, muslin or nylon. The science behind these “gossamer mesh” objets d’art is that they allow the whole leaf tea leaves—not the “tea dust” usually stuffed into a compact paper tea bag—room to brew. Companies such as Tea Forte and even Lipton have developed their own versions of the triangular-shaped bags, thus bringing quality (though more expensive) tea to the masses.

Despite the hype, the nylon versions of these bags have come under fire from environmentalists who claim that they are not biodegradable. There are biodegradable corn fabric pyramid bags but questions of quality and environmental friendliness remain (some of the bags are apparently made from genetically modified corn).

Naysayers will rightly point out that all tea—bagged or loose—comes in containers that create unnecessary waste. However, companies such as Republic of Tea sell their tea in recyclable tin canisters. Los Angeles-based eco-chic designer Dana Morgan of Green Carpet Event suggests another way to reuse old tea tins: as vases. And, in October 2006, the specialty tea and coffee shop Oxalis in Bath, England, urged customers to bring their own bag or container from home in order to reduce waste. As an added incentive, customers who brought their own containers received a discount of 15 pence (about 25 U.S. cents) per 100g of tea.

Sustainability, Fair Trade and Organic

Cups of tea are also greener as a result of sustainability initiatives across the globe. For those who like a little sugar in their tea, 2007 saw the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and Global Environment Facility (GEF) launch a project to use waste from the East African sugar industry to generate electricity across the tea-producing region.

In an effort to replenish the resources it uses in packaging, tea company Good Earth donates a portion of its profits to tree-planting projects sponsored by American Forests, a nonprofit conservation organization. Tea giant Lipton has pledged that its Yellow Label tea bags on the European market will be certified by the Rainforest Alliance by 2010 and on the global market by 2015. And in May 2008, British tea company PG-Tips announced its partnership with Rainforest Alliance, unveiling a plan to supply 1,200 McDonald’s outlets with tea certified by the environmental nonprofit.

Moreover, the popularity of Fair Trade Certified and organic tea products has skyrocketed in recent years. Launched in 1997, the Fair Trade movement promotes free trade and “the use of sustainable farming methods that are safer for humans and the environment.” There are now a wide variety of brands that the environmentally friendly consumer can choose from, thereby making saving the environment and enjoying your afternoon cuppa mutually inclusive.

For more on tea and the environment, see

Boughton, Ian. “Cuppas with a Conscience.” Caterer & Hotelkeeper 198. 4527 (15-21 May 2008): 50-1.

Budgar, Laurie. “Has new tricks.”Natural Foods Merchandiser 27.12 (Dec.2006):22-3.

“Making a difference.” Bath Chronicle (26 Oct. 2006): 14.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Its-All-in-the-Tea-Bag—How-to-Be-Environmentally-Responsible-with-Your-Tea-Bags&id=202998

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568610/Nylon-teabags-set-to-let-the-flavour-flood-out.html

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/27/the-tea-bag-basks-in-its-moment-to-simmer/

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

Slow Food Nation '08 in San Francisco.

Slow Food Nation ’08 came to a close in San Francisco yesterday, leaving, organizers hope, very little waste.

Festivals, fairs, amusement parks, and sporting events are notorious for the amount of garbage left in their wake. Along with porta-potties and drunken dudes, trash is an unfortunate reality associated with otherwise joyous county fairs and street fairs. That’s what made Slow Food Nation’s commitment to zero waste such a welcome relief. (”Zero waste” strives to eliminate waste, regarding trash as a resource that can be reused or re-purposed.)

Bins, Staff Made Zero Waste Easy

The weekend-long festival was like Disneyland for foodies with a conscience. Featuring a farmers’ market, a bevy of speakers, a large “Victory Garden” of fruits and vegetables growing outside City Hall, and lots of “slow food” from local restaurants, Slow Food Nation also sported plenty of easy-to-find bins for separating waste into three categories: recyclables, compostables, and landfill. Vendors were careful to offer only items that could be composted or recycled.

The festival also hired a helpful, energetic, friendly staff to help festival-goers place the right items in the right bins. Contamination continues to be the bugaboo of recyclers, so adding a human element no doubt aided organizers’ efforts.

Who Else Is Moving Toward Zero Waste?

Of course, while Slow Food Nation as an organization goes to great pains to not be elitist, the festival was clearly populated by people who already have an interest in sustainability and zero waste practices. More interesting, and maybe even more valuable, would be seeing these efforts in practice at events like the Sonoma County Fair or a 49ers’ game, where larger and more diverse population segments come together.

The Sonoma County Fair did host a “sustainability pavilion” this year, but the fair’s sustainable efforts seemed to end there. When I attended, garbage bins were overflowing with heaps of non-biodegradable utensils and food scraps and food-soiled papers that could have easily been reclaimed and composted.

Still, bit by bit, various festival organizers across the country and trying to make love for a good party compatible with zero waste. Alameda County, across the Bay, employed zero waste practices in its last county fair. Walworth County, Wisconsin, published a case study on their efforts to encourage less waste. And this year’s Silver Lake street fair in Los Angeles worked to get vendors to switch to biodegradable carryout containers and to get people to “think before you toss.”

More resources:

Slow Food Nation ‘08:
http://slowfoodnation.org/

Case Study: Walworth County Fair, Wisconsin:
http://www.besmart.org/publicplacerecycling/Case-studies/Walworth-County-Fair/wc-fair.html

“‘Wasted’ at the County Fair,” on Mom Goes Green:
http://www.momgoesgreen.com/%E2%80%9Cwasted%E2%80%9D-at-the-county-fair/

“The Greening of a Los Angeles Street Festival,” August 24, 2008, The Los Angeles Times:
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-me-sunsetjunction24-2008aug24,0,1134965.story

“Slow Food Brings Many Issues to the Table,” August 29, 2008, San Francisco Chronicle:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/08/29/MNKQ12K54L.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

photo credit: Photocapy

Whether you’re painting or just passing by a recently painted surface, the smell is unforgettable: strong, deep, “chemical-y,” often lasting for days. Paint fumes are caused by something called volatile organic compounds (VOCs), a major source of ozone creation and indoor air pollution. It’s also a major reason I’m willing to live with a wall color I hate longer than anyone should have to. Fortunately, consumer demand for no- and low-VOC paint is growing, and so are the choices.

You can buy no- and low-VOC paints online, at green building suppliers, and at most major paint retailers (including The Home Depot, which began offering its Freshaire Choice line this spring).

How “Natural” Differs from No- or Low-VOC

No- and low-VOC paints fall into two basic categories: those made with synthetic ingredients and those made with natural ingredients such as water, clay, bee’s wax, milk protein, plant oils, and mineral oils. (The latter are often referred to as “natural paints.”)

No-VOC (also called zero-VOC) and low-VOC paints made with synthetic ingredients more closely resemble the performance of traditional polluting paints (durability, consistency) and offer a wider variety of finishes (flat, eggshell, satin, semi-gloss) than natural paints. They cost less than natural paints—typically $30-$40 a gallon compared to $40-$60 or more a gallon—but more than standard paint, which can cost as little as $20 a gallon. You’ll also find no- and low-VOC paints at more retailers.

Why Choose No-VOC over Low-VOC?

The difference between no-VOC and low-VOC is not as simple as you’d think. According to EPA rules, a paint may be labeled no-VOC if it contains less than 5 grams of VOCs per liter. That means some no-VOC paints have no VOCs, but some do.

Kelly Moore’s Enviro-Cote, for example, contains 15 grams of VOCs per liter, even though it’s labeled no-VOC. While I myself don’t consider it a true zero-VOC paint, it’s still quite low when compared to traditional paint base, which can contain 100 grams or more per liter.

Low-VOC paints contain a lower amount of VOCs than traditional paints do (less than 200 grams per liter, under EPA rules). If you’re looking to reduce indoor air pollution, it’s best to go with a no-VOC paint.

Beware: Color Tints Can Add VOCs

Color tints, which you’ll most likely be using, can add even more VOCs, so check that your supplier uses no-VOC tints.

Where to find no- or zero-VOC synthetic paints:

American Formulating and Manufacturing (AFM offfers truly zero-VOC paint)
http://www.afmsafecoat.com

Yolo Colorhouse (truly zero-VOC)
http://www.yolocolorhouse.com

Home Depot (Freshaire Choice line only; truly zero-VOC)
http://freshairechoice.com

Kelly-Moore (Enviro-Cote line only; contains small amounts of VOCs)
http://www.kellymoore.com

Sherwin-Williams (Harmony line only; contains small amounts of VOCs)
http://www.sherwin.com

Benjamin Moore (EcoSpec line only; contains small amounts of VOCs)
http://www.bejaminmoore.com

Where to find natural, nontoxic paints (truly zero-VOC):

Bio Shield
http://www.bioshieldpaint.com

Old Fashioned Milk Paint Company
http://www.milkpaint.com

Anna Sova Luxury Organics
http://www.annasova.com