Urban Ecoist

Are you recycling? Good. But part and parcel of living a little more lightly is a little step I call “pre-recycling.”

Essentially, what I am talking about is how the products you buy are packaged. Some things are more recyclable than others. Some packaging is simply excessive. Some packaging may look like it would be recyclable, but try finding a convenient way to do it. And then of course, some packaging is, well, dangerous.

What you should do first is to check out what your curbside recycling picks up. Where I live, for example, we have a pretty good curbside system, but then I live in Portland, Oregon, which is really into the whole green living thing. When I lived in Chicago, the city was just starting to pick up recyclables in “test” neighborhoods. When I visited relatives in Kissimmee, Florida, there was no such thing as curbside recycling pick up. However, the city did have drop-off bins around the area.

Recycling has become fairly ubiquitous, so with a little effort and research, you can find a place that will recycle whatever you have that can be recycled. However, as it is always easier to put your recycling out weekly at your home or business, I suggest getting to know exactly what your curbside service picks up and what it doesn’t.

That said, glass is a great material to recycle. It is immensely recyclable, and can be recycled countless times. Unlike paper which can only be recycled so many times before ending up as scratchy tissue paper. Another great thing about glass jars is that you can easily re-use them. When shopping, I look for products in glass jars. I store leftovers in them, I put cut flowers in them, I store seeds, I use them for paints, nuts, bolts, nails — you get the picture. Instead of wrapping things up in cellophane, try putting your scraps and leftovers in glass jars. It’s also better than buying plastic containers for storage, as you have already bought the glass jar when you bought pasta sauce.

Metal is also quite recyclable, but some tins are lined with plastic and some of that plastic has bisphenol-A and other not so nice chemicals involved in the lining process. Still, metal is a good choice for packaging that you can easily recycle.

Plastics get a little tricky. You have to really look at the packaging to determine if your recycler takes that particular plastic or shape of plastic container. For example, when I first moved to Portland, yogurt containers and similar plastic “tub” style were not picked up curbside, but then about five or six months ago, that changed. But still, the clear plastic containers that are more of a hinge-style, usually marked #1 or #6, that cookies from a chain stores’ bakeries come in, or fresh produce in some stores, are not picked up. So, I try not to buy anything in those containers, which is difficult. I do store them in bins in my basement to recycle at a local facility that does take plastics of all kinds, separated, of course.

Always avoid single-serving packaging, and equally excessive packaging. And if you really want to be hard-core, write the company and let them know why you are not buying their product based on packaging. You would be surprised how many companies just need a little nudge in the right direction. And with the current “climate” in the US (and elsewhere) to be “greener”, many companies are already changing or have changed packaging options to either be more recyclable or more easily recyclable or simply just less packaged.

recycling, packaging, excessive packaging, recycle, recyclables, recyclable, Portland, Oregon, Florida, Chicago, glass, plastics, plastic, plastic #1, #6, shopping, consumerism, consumption, metal, bisphenol-A, green

I found it somewhat depressing today when I checked out a local farmers’ market schedule. I am lucky enough to live in a city where it seems every neighborhood has its own market, but I am not lucky enough to live in an area with plentiful year-round markets. No matter, as I urge you today to get out there and get some fresh local veggies and fruits before the farmers market “season” ends.

But for the most part, it is late spring and summer in which farmers markets offer the most, both in variety and quantity. But don’t let fall’s cooler days and nights fool you. Many veggies are just coming into season now. Pumpkins are obvious, sure, but think apples, squash (butternut and acorn), brussel sprouts, mushrooms, sweet potatoes, garlic and pears, and trust me, tomatoes are still coming into their own. Seriously, fall is a great time of the year. Which makes me sad that so many farmers markets tend to shut down by mid-October.

Not familiar with farmers markets? Be prepared for a lot of strollers and dogs, slow people, and unfortunate fashions, but also for fresh produce, flowers, meats from local farms, cheeses, baked goods, honey, jellies and preserves, salsas, and all kinds of that grandmotherly stuff that a “tourist” would buy. Not that farmers markets are tourist hotspots, but rather i mean those first-time visitors to the market.

And I am not being mean when I call them tourists…Everyone should check out a farmers market. It’s a great way to support your local economy rather than Monsanto or Cargill. The produce is most likely picked that day, and you can even start asking obnoxious questions of the farmer him or herself. You will also find a larger selection of organically grown produce than at your local national chain grocery store.

If you need to find a farmers market near you, I would recommend checking out your local paper or city website. Also, a good online resource is Local Harvest. You can type in your city or zip code and find not only farmers markets, but also co-ops and sustainable and locally-sources restaurants in your area.

farmers markets, farmers market, farmers’ market, local produce, local farmer, local farms, Local Harvest

Greenpeace has just released it’s updated ninth edition of the Guide to Greener Electronics. As this site is not Flash-enabled, I cannot embed the neat-o graphic to give you a quick view of which companies are making the grade in responsible manufacturing as well as disposal and recycling of their obsolete gadgets.

© Greenpeace / Will Rose

Oddly, as I traded in a Nokia (which leads the rankings) for a Motorola cell phone, I find myself on the lower end of the responsibility scale. Same with my Xbox 360. Luckily, the Dell laptop I use and the Apple desktop are in the middle in the rankings, but that really doesn’t make me feel any better. I hate my Dell, but I love my Xbox. What is an ecoist-nerd to do?

Let’s first look at Motorola. Here is the Greenpeace summary of the company’s efforts.

Motorola drops to 15th place, scoring 3.7 points, losing points because although its models of chargers are certified as Energy Star compliant in March 2007 – this is not since the latest energy efficiency standard for chargers (v.1.1) came into effect, which was in January 2005; it therefore scores no points on this criterion. In the U.S, all Motorola’s mobile phone chargers exceed ENERGY STAR Tier 2 requirements by more than 50 percent in sleep and standby/no-load modes – but what about chargers sold outside the US? On the other energy criteria Motorola scores relatively well for disclosing greenhouse gas emissions, committing to cuts and reporting a 5.4% renewable energy use (as proportion of all electricity purchased) in 2007. Motorola scores better on the chemicals and e-waste criteria. The company has launched 55 models of mobile phone with BFR free circuit boards. However, Motorola is the only mobile phone brand to still fail to commit to eliminating all BFRs and PVC with a timeline, in all of its products. On waste issues, Motorola provides a take-back and recycling service in 73 countries, representing over 90% of global mobile phone unit sales. It reports a global take-back rate of 3% of total handsets sold in 2005.

I do have to wonder how the “take-back” percentage is figured out. Is it just what Motorola itself takes back or any of the phone recyclers? I know that when I switched over to Credo Mobile, I was sent an envelope to recycle my old phone. Let’s say that is also a Motorola, but if I am sending it to a third-party recycler, would that phone be counted by Motorola in it’s “take-back” numbers?

Now, Microsoft.

Microsoft is in 17th position with a miserable score of 2.2 points, mainly on toxic chemicals criteria. The company provides a timeline of the end of 2010 for eliminating phthalates. On e-waste, Microsoft scores only on its weak support for Individual Producer Responsibility. On energy, the company only scores for reporting its total carbon dioxide equivalent emissions, from its own operations and although it now has a Climate Change Policy it makes no reference to specific reduction targets for greenhouse gases.

Perhaps Microsoft has been spending too much of its efforts in its lame ad campaigns, instead of making the company more environmentally responsible? The Seinfeld ad was just stupid, and watching Bill Gates “adjust” himself was just disturbing.

Good thing I have put off buying that Wii. Check out Nintendo’s scoring.

Nintendo remains in last place with a pitiful 0.8 points out of 10, scoring zero on all e-waste criteria. The company has banned phthalates and is monitoring use of antimony and beryllium and although it is endeavouring to eliminate the use of PVC, it has not set a timeline for its phase out. Nintendo discloses carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from its own operations and commits to cutting CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gases by 2% over each previous year. However, Nintendo admits that an increase in business led to a 6% rise in CO2 emissions in 2006.

If you would like to explore the Guide to Greener Electronics yourself, you can visit the Greenpeace website here.

This guide and many like it underscore the problems with the end-life issues with the electronics that we all have and love. I will discuss more about the problem with e-waste in the next few days.

© Greenpeace / Natalie Behring

Greenpeace, Guide to Greener Electronics, Motorola, Nokia, Microsoft, Dell, Apple, Wii, Nintendo, Xbox, Xbox 360, e-waste, toxic substances, recycling, environmentally responsible computing, cell phone recycling, take-back

Just a quick note on cutting your electricity bill. This one is so obvious, and yet so many of us overlook it.

vampire electronics

Chart by Good magazine, if you click on this, you can view it more clearly and in-depth.

You know, your DVD player, your tv, your cell phone charger, even your microwave are known as vampires, a clever little term for anything plugged into the wall that “sucks” electricity while not technically on or in use. How often do you use these electronics compared to how much they draw wattage from your power connection should be an indication that you should be turning them off.

Don’t beat yourself up over this waste. I do it, too. As I write this, I notice that my DVD player is in “stand-by” mode because I have it plugged into a power strip that also runs my TV and my cable box. I think that I should unplug it from the power strip that I try to turn off when not watching TV, and instead manually plug the DVD player into the wall when needed. You see what I am doing there? I’m reducing my electric bill. Sure, it’s only a few pennies this month, but over time and with the ever increasing price of power, it will only be better for not only my wallet, but the Earth. Ding! Less electricity needs less coal.

California has a great website, Energy Quest, for a little interaction with virtual vampires. I know it’s designed for kids, but I like it, so what does that say about me, I don’t know, nor do I care. It’s kinda fun in a nerdy sort-a way.

Here’s a link.

As an example, my boyfriend always leaves his computer, monitor, modem and printer on. It drives me crazy. I went through the vampire scenario in the above link and found out that having the average price for electricity in the US, he is wasting nearly twenty dollars a year on those electronics IF he had them in stand-by — which he doesn’t. He was happy with the $20, saying “hey, it’s a pizza.” Now, when I tell him how much he is really wasting…

electricity, vampire electronics, DVD player, TV, microwave, California, Energy Quest, US, average price

Wow, try saying that one three times fast…

I ran across this little story in one of last month’s Newsweek magazines. My not-so-green secret is that I get a lot of magazines in the mail. I do recycle them, but with printing, shipping and the paper stock involved, it is still a bit of a waste, I admit. But then again, I would be using electricity to read magazines online, so either way I am screwed. And I only get magazines so I have something to read on the bus, which is better than driving my car…

But I disgress.

Anyhoo, this article in the August 2, 2008 Newsweek featured news on pollen and pollen-producing trees and plants, like ragweed — the bane of many an allergy sufferer, myself included. It seems that just one more depressing effect of global warming is that plants and trees will produce more pollen in a warmer world. Not only that but with the spring warm-up coming sooner and sooner every year, trees are pumping out pollen earlier and the allergy season is thus extended by cutting into what we used to call winter.

Here are some selected quotes:

Global warming and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels appear to supercharge the growth of ragweed. And not only does ragweed grow larger and produce more pollen, its pollen is more allergenic, studies show.

Oh, great. Super-pollen. I cannot wait to experience that.

To test his ragweed hypothesis, [Lewis] Ziska [a weed ecologist with the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Crop Systems and Global Change Laboratory] planted the weed in three plots: a rural farm, a semi-rural county park and downtown Baltimore. The urban plot’s ragweed produced four times the pollen count of the rural site. “Cities already have more carbon dioxide than rural areas and are hotter,” Ziska says. “Cities are a surrogate for global warming.”

Maybe that is why I supposedly “grew into” bad allergies. I lived out in the country during most of my childhood.

Allergists are also worried. One new concern: a startling rise in the amount of tree pollen. Warmer temperatures in Europe are causing birch trees to bloom earlier, prompting an earlier and perhaps longer allergy season. Studies at Duke University show that elevated carbon dioxide increases pollen production of loblolly pines. Allergists suspect that record pollen counts are contributing to the onslaught of new allergy and asthma patients. “I’m seeing an epidemic of new cases,” says New York City allergist Clifford Bassett.

So much for being a tree-hugger, right?

If plant biomass increases due to elevated CO2 and global warming, fungi may proliferate as well, they suspect. Fungal spores are problematic because they affect air quality indoors as well as out. Higher temperatures will lead to increased use of air conditioners, which spread spores if improperly maintained. Heavier rainstorms and floods predicted under climate-change scenarios will also increase indoor dampness, allowing fungal spores to proliferate in homes and buildings, according to the 2007 study “Climate Change, Aerobiology, and Public Health in the Northeast United States.”

So, mushrooms will become the new enemy? I wonder when the Republicans will start exploiting that fear…

The article also mentions that us city-dwellers suffer the double whammy of increased smog due to ground level ozone — couple that with more powerful and just more pollen, and yeah, maybe it is time to look for a pleasant little cottage out in the country. Also, poison ivy was discovered to produce more potent poison when hit with increased levels of CO2. And finally, if I haven’t freaked you out enough, warmer temperatures usually result in more insects, such as stinging insects, like yellow jackets. In many places, like Alaska, rising temperatures are bringing in new insect populations. Reports of severe stings from yellow jackets and their equally-stinging cousins have increased 600 per cent since 2000 up in the 49th state.

All the more reason to try and mitigate this whole global warming issue. Unfortunately, no one seems to be all that concerned about it in the US Government. Maybe we should change the government…

Newsweek, allergy, allergies, asthma, pollen, pollen counts, global warming, CO2, yellow jackets, allergic reactions, Alaska, rural, urban, smog, ozone

Something that would make me laugh if I were not one of the millions of guinea pigs in the experimentation is how so many items that we use in our day-to-day lives are presented as safe until years later new research proves quite the contrary.

One thing I do not understand is how the government agencies that are in charge of protecting the public seem to overlook proper and long-term testing of certain chemical compounds. Everyday it seems that there is a new chemical that is starting to show it’s true dangerous nature, and this week, Bisphenol-A, has made the news. Unfortunately, despite new and growing evidence that plastic #7 can be detrimental to your health, the Food and Drug Administration has decided to wait until more proof of possible danger before the agency will ban the chemical or even limit it’s use.

Here’s the thing. The FDA says that the bisphenol-A present in many of the plastics marked #7 and in the plastic lining of cans is in such low amounts that it cannot harm us. Huh. You would think that any amount of potential harm would throw up a red flag as if the research cannot determine the health risk, how can the same research prove what a safe level is?

Last year, I did a little research on Proctor and Gamble’s environmental and health record. It seems that P&G had been under fire for nail polish that contains dibutyl phthalate. P&G claimed that it only used the phthalates in low enough levels that posed no human harm. Besides, phthalates don’t bioaccumulate so you simply pass them in your urine. I know that should ease my mind, but it just doesn’t.

And the same thing is going on with bisphenol-A.

Here’s a breakdown of the bisphenol-A (BPA) debate going on right now. New research shows a connection between BPA and such maladies as heart disease and diabetes. Granted, our society has high occurrences of both diseases in our general population, but another study showed that BPA can affect a hormone that protects humans from diabetes.

My opinion usually runs along the lines of better safe than sorry. BPA is widely used in those re-usable water bottles as well as bottles used to feed babies. Also, BPA is used in the lining of aluminum cans for soda, and even other canned goods. Many manufacturers of baby products are starting to phase out BPA. Start phasing out the use of BPA in your own life, just to be sure. In case years from now, the FDA does finally find conclusive proof that BPA is dangerous at any level.

Graph: BPA is at unsafe levels in one of every 10 servings of canned foods (11%) and one of every 3 cans of infant formula (33%)
(Courtesy of Environmental Working Group)

Ways to avoid BPA (condensed from a US News article):

A word from the Environmental Working Group.

Nestlé, makers of Good Start and Mam brands, repeatedly told EWG researchers that its powdered formula cans contain no BPA. Nestlé’s emails to parents repeat this claim, but the company has failed to document this in writing or provide information on their alternative to EWG, despite our numerous requests to the company. In any case, EWG cannot recommend Nestlé baby formula due to the company’s long history of ethically suspect infant formula marketing practices in the developing world. Nestlé’s claim that it uses BPA-free packaging, if true, would be welcome news, because it suggests that other manufacturers could switch to safer packaging materials and reduce babies’ BPA exposures.

Powdered formula sold by Enfamil and Similac are reduced-risk choices, because only the metal tops and bottoms of their packages – not the cardboard sides – are metal and lined with BPA-based plastic. Earth’s Best Organic and PBM (which make dozens of store brands) are more of a concern: they are sold in an entirely metal can, which means the formula has more contact with a BPA-coated surface.

bisphenol-A, BPA, plastic, #7, baby bottles, baby formula, canned goods, health, heart disease, diabetes, FDA, hormone, Environmental Working Group, Nestle, Enfamil, Similac, Earth’s best Organic

So, Greenpeace is campaigning against the Kimberly-Clark Company. Supposedly, Kimberly-Clark is using virgin cut trees from the Canadian Aboreal Forest. K-C makes disposable products like Kleenex, Huggies, Scott and Viva paper towels, Kotex, Depend[s], and my favorite toilet tissue, Cottonelle.

Since I usually trust Greenpeace to get their facts straight before they go public with a boycott, I participated in the campaign last year. Now, Greenpeace is releasing video of wood stockpiles that are headed for the Terrace Bay Pulp mill in Ontario, right at the tippy-top of Lake Superior. The wood stockpiles contain logs from the Ogoki Forest, which is one of the last stands of virgin boreal forest left in Canada.

First, let’s look at the problem of logging in the boreal forest. It is a unique ecosystem that has developed over a very long time, in such that this type of forest cannot repair itself without losing its unique composition of conifers and other softwoods. You see, when the boreal forest is cut down and replanted, the trees that start to grow are not the same trees that grew there before. Or in order to prevent deciduous hardwoods from taking over, chemical herbicides would have to be used, thus degrading the forest environment. The planted trees will just not take to the new regular pattern of distribution and cannot compete naturally with hardwoods (maybe something to do with a warmer world since the boreal forest established itself). But also, it is the nature of the boreal forest to reseed itself in fires, as with the jack pine. Furthermore, the boreal forest depends heavily on decomposition of trees and other plantlife. If you take out too many trees, the soils will suffer.

Not to mention, all the logging trucks and logging roads, the erosion, the possibility of accidents or spills with gasoline and oil, the loss of habitat for the woodland caribou…

So…Terrace Bay Pulp, Inc. sells nearly half of their pulp (from this virgin cut old-growth) to Kimberly-Clark. This is from Business Net.

Now that the mill is again producing, Terrace Bay Pulp will ship at least half the output to key customer Kimberly-Clark, which had a long-term fiber agreement after spinning off Neenah Paper into a standalone company. The rest of the output will be marketed mostly in North America and perhaps see some tonnage exported to Europe, contacts said.

As a city-dweller, an Urban Ecoist if you will, it is important to recognize that every product that you use is sourced somewhere and in some fashion. It is our collective responsibility to see that the products we do purchase and use are not from a critical ecosystem or harvested in a harmful manner. Do you necessarily need Greenpeace to find these things out for you? No, but it is nice that someone is looking out for the collective good.

Secondly, the problem with Kimberly-Clark is a little problem I like to call greenwashing. I checked out the K-C website and looked into their sustainability reports. Oh, yeah, they talk about how they are getting wood from responsibly-cut forests, and claim that 97% of their fibre is coming from certified forests. The certification they recognize come from one of five organizations that do this certification stuff. If you want to read the whole document that I am getting this from, click here.

Now, here is the kicker. The document states that K-C give preference to fibre coming from forests certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), but if you look at the clever little pie chart only 6.1% of the fibre K-C is using is FSC-certified. What gives, K-C? Six percent shows a preference?

FSC is considered by many to be the superior of the certifiers when it comes to sustainable harvests in our world’s forests. You can read more about the difference between FSC and the American Forest & Paper Association’s Sustainable Forestry Initiative, which is the second-ran in terms of certifications.

greenpeace, Kimberly-Clark, paper, wood, trees, forest, logging, Kleenex, Huggies, Scott, Viva, Kotex, Depends, Cottonelle, Terrace Bay, sustainable, responsible harvesting, lake Superior, Ogoki Forest, Canada, Boreal forest, Forest Stewardship Council, Sustainable Forestry Initiative, FSC-certified

When I lived in Chicago, Illinois, I never saw the stars. I would have to rely on my camping trips into Wisconsin and Michigan in order to see the constellations. I had grown up in the country during my later childhood years, after my parents had enough of Detroit, Michigan, so seeing stars and a dark night sky were taken for granted. Until I moved to a place where you couldn’t see them, that I realized how important the night sky was to me.

I now reside in Portland, Oregon, and I am ever so happy to report that the night sky is visible here in the middle of the city. I get excited when something astronomical comes my way, but the years of deprivation makes me aware that not everyone is lucky enough to see the stars.

This is what the United States looks like at night. Here is a link to the map if you want to view it closer up. It is quite sad, in my opinion. Imagine living in Los Angeles and never being able to see the dog star or the Belt of Orion. I did live in SoCal for two years, and yeah, it kinda sucked. Imagine living in LA for your entire life…

Whether you have experienced or even heard of light polution, also sometimes called luminous pollution, the United States has only recently taken any action on the growing problem of light pollution. This past spring, some members of Congress sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency to urge some action on the issue. True, it is only a letter, but it’s a first step. In case you missed the memo, the US Congress works at a snail’s pace.

And light pollution is also wasteful. All of those watts of wasted, space-bound lighting, i.e. electricity is generated by coal and oil, which in turn pollute the environment and cause all those other things like greenhouse gases. Oh, yeah, and light pollution is the subject of research that is reporting detrimental health effects on animals and humans due to the overabundance of artificial light.

We can do our individual part to reduce our local light pollution. Obviously, if you switch to CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps), you will reduce the wattage needed for your outdoor/indoor lighting. Here is something from the Starry Night Lights.

Each one of us can contribute to the reduction of Light Pollution in our own ways. First, by making sure that our exterior lighting is ordinance compliant lighting. By this, is meant that they only light the ground beneath them… and never shine across onto a neighboring property… or into the night sky. Secondly, by making sure that your outdoor lights are only on when needed. By this, is meant that they’re only on when there is activity in the area. Dusk to dawn lighting is to be strictly avoided. Thirdly, reduce the wattage of your bulbs. The human eye is remarkable in its ability to adapt to the amount of light present. Too much light can be overwhelming and glaring… actually reducing visibility. Even a small reduction in wattage will reduce light pollution. You might be surprised with how well you can see at night with a reduced wattage.

If you are really serious about this, you can contact your local business and commercial neighbors to urge them to reconfigure their lighting practices around their property. I know that the word “community organizer” has come up in the news as a derogatory term as of late, but action in your own community is an effective way of promoting change and better responsibility on the part of everyone.

Waste is waste, after all, even if it is something as seemingly intangible like light.

More links to organizations that address light pollution.

International Dark Sky Association

Sensible and Efficient Lighting to Enhance the Nighttime Sky

Campaign for Dark Skies

light pollution, Chicago, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, constellations, dog star, belt of Orion, stars, night sky, skies, pollution, luminous pollution, wattage, waste, health, United States, Starry Night Lights, International Dark Sky Association, coal, oil, environment, animals, humans, Congress, Los Angeles, Detroit

The wonderful thing about Urban Ecoists is that we are not only concerned about the immediate eco-system around us, but we see the macrosystem as it is all inter-related. Healthy forests and rivers means healthy cities. Despite the fact, that we urbanites live in cities, we love our wilderness. And we love the myriad creatures that inhabit those places. We see protecting that wilderness and the organisms that dwell there as a sacred (not a word I use often) responsibility.

Too bad we don’t have an open season for this species…

In such, do you know what your lame duck president and his hench men are trying to do before they leave office? Well, I could never cover it all in this little blog, but today I will urge you to submit your comment during this next week to the Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne regarding proposed changes to the Endangered Species Act. The public comment period ends September 15, 2008.

The changes in a nutshell are a good start at gutting the very things that have made to the Endangered Species Act a success. I will not bore you with all the details, I will let the Center for Biological Diversity do that for me, but essentially, the ESA works because any federal agency, such as the Office of Surface Mining, would have to work with the Fish and Wildlife Service to make sure that any new mine approved by the OSM would be environmentally-sound and not pose a danger to any, well, fish and wildlife. Do you like how I chose agencies whose names tell the story for me? A good writer is an efficient one, ask Hemingway. Not that I am comparing myself to Hemingway, oh, never mind. I’m lazy, there I said it.

Anyhoo, the new rules could lighten up on having “interagency checks and balances.” Also, the period for scientists to evaluate a project is cut by a third and automatically okay’d if the science doesn’t make the deadline. There are some other scary changes, too, like re-defining or limiting what effects would be considered harmful, and the like. Check out the Center for Biological Diversity’s website to find out more and to take action by emailing in a pre-written letter to Secretary Kempthorne and the Department of the Interior. I always like to email the [sic]President as well when it comes to these sorts of things. He whose name must not be named’s email is comments@whitehouse.gov.

Endangered Species Act, Dirk Kempthorne, Department of the Interior, Office of Surface Mining, Fish and Wildlife Service, Center for Biological Diversity

We hear a lot about carbon footprints, but what is your water footprint? I am a pretty low carbon girl, but wow, I was humbled by my estimated water consumption, i.e. footprint. And the biggest cause of my gigantic water footprint is my carnivorous nature. Meat is by far the largest component of my water footprint, and if you are also a meat-eater, I bet that your water footprint is equally large.

Much like the carbon Footprint calculator, you can enter in some numbers at Waterfootprint.org to determine your own water use.

The water footprint website is a great resource to educate yourself on how your favorite beverages, foods, clothing, industrial products consume water. So it is not necessarily how much water you personally use, it is much more about how the products you consume in turn consume water. For example, do you like beer? It takes seventy-five litres (19.81 gallons) of water to produce that pint (technically 16 ounces, but most bars serve a 14 ounce beer as a “pint”) of delicious ale or lager. But why so much water, you be asking? It takes a lot of water to grow barley, hops, and the other ingredients that go into beer. Not a beer drinker? That six-ounce glass of milk or juice takes even more water — roughly 44 gallons of water for a glass of orange juice, 50 gallons for apple juice, and almost 53 gallons for a glass of milk.

To really freak you out, one kilogram or 2.2 pounds of beef takes 15,500 litres or 4100 gallons of water. So if you ate an eight ounce steak last night needed almost 950 gallons of water to end up on your plate. Honestly, if the sheer volume of water needed to produce meat for consumption is not a strong argument for going vegetarian, I don’t know of a better one.

Granted, not everyone is willing to cut meat from their diets, and that is alright, but just remember that meat should be viewed at as a luxury, not a right. In the United States, we are a country of meat-eaters and until something major happens, that is not going to change. But what can change is how much meat we do consume and which meats we eat. Chicken requires only a quarter the amount of water as beef.

And I don’t mean to preach to anyone about eating meat or what not, but let’s use today’s topic as a jumping off point to discuss water consumption. Here is a map of the world in terms of water use.

Check out the Water Footprint website to calculate your own footprint and use that as a starting point to evaluate how and where you can cut back on your own water consumption.

I tend to focus on water resource issues, so I am sure I will revisit this topic in the future.

water, water consumption, water footprint, carbon footprint, beef, meat, vegetarian, beer, milk, juice, United States, chicken, diet, water resources, water issues

If you are a good little Urban Ecoist, you should be starting to harvest some pretty nice tomatoes right about now. Remember, even if you don’t have a yard in your urban environment, tomatoes are easy to grow in pots outside your door, on a balcony, or you can find a community garden to rent a plot. So you have no excuse to not grow your own tomatoes. And of course, I know you are growing them organically, because you are a smart, attractive, sexy gardener that eschews chemicals.

When I chose the tomatoes I am growing, I experimented with a few different hybrids. One is an “ultra early,” one is a extra-early, and then I tried a “determinate” and an “indeterminate.” What does all that mean? The “earlies” refer to when the tomatoes will be ready for picking, and the determinate versus indeterminate refers to how the tomatoes will come in, all at once or little by little. If you plant a good variety, as well as some fun heirlooms, you will have yourself a nice little harvest for the end of July and into September.

Of course, there is always that week or two when you feel like you are literally swimming in tomatoes, but if you don’t mind doing a little prep work, you can convert all of that lycopene-y goodness to salsas, marinara sauces, or you can “can” those puppies for those long winter months. Personally, I give tomatoes away to my neighbours, but as I now live in Portland, Oregon, where everybody seems to have a vegetable garden, I will try my hand at canning for the first time this year. If anyone has any advice, by all means, please let me know, and I will pass it on to my awesome, kickass readers!

Anyhoo, I did have another idea for all my little urban ecoists. Use your tomatoes to clean your face. Click on that last sentence to see how to do it. It’s simple. Tomatoes have really good acidic qualities, and can act as a toner for your skin. They are also great at clearing up blackheads. I have great skin (thanks to some good genetics that run through the Mcgrew and Neile Families), but heck, even I get blackheads on my nose. I tried those stupid Biore strips, I tried all kinds of mud and peel-off masks, and frankly, I have never had better results than from tomatoes. Crazy, I know, but effective.

garden, gardening, urban, community garden, tomatoes, salsas, Portland, Oregon, toner, skin care, DIY, blackheads

It is that time of year when the little kiddies are sent off to school, and that means that parents are buying the usual pencils, paper, crayons, markers, rulers, etc. But are you aware of where some of those supplies come from companies with very different ways of looking at the world? Let’s look at pencils today.

What a better way to discuss a renewable resource like wood with kids than by teaching them about something so ubiquitous as that ol’ number 2? First of all, what kind of wood is used in pencils, and where does that wood come from? Forest Ethics has just released a report card for pencil companies, and which pencil you purchase can make a difference.

Most pencils are made from soft woods such as cedar, and a large amount of cedar is found on the West Coast of the US. Some pencil companies are definitely ahead of the curve when it comes to working with sustainably harvested wood to make their pencils. Two good choices for pencils are ForestChoice, from CalCedar, and Greenline Paper Company’s Eco-Writer. ForestChoice uses Incense-Cedar from Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified forests, which has ten principles and fifty-six criteria for determining the environmental impact of the wood harvested from certain forests. The Eco-Writer pencil is made from recycled materials, and attempts to avoid using wood at all.

Some pencils to avoid for being less envir-aware are the Green Apple line of pencils from Red Apple School Supplies. Though the Green Apple’s are made from recycled cedar, it is not clear where that cedar is coming from in the first place. Also, the pencils are made in Japan, so the shipping involved may undermine whatever benefits the pencil offers. Another less-than-awesome choice is Papermate’s Earthwrite pencil line. True, the Earthwrite’s are made from recycled or reclaimed wood, but that wood may be coming from forests that are clear-cut out of the Sierra Nevada, which are under threat. Although Earthwrite does use some FSC-certified wood, it is not clear if all the wood is sustainably-harvested.

A couple of companies to avoid altogether include the pencil giant, Dixon/Ticonderoga. This company did at one time offer pencils made with FSC wood, but no longer. I say we start emailing them and bugging them to make this a priority, or simply stop buying the D/T pencils and maybe they will get the message. Another “evil-doing” (Sorry, I watched Bowling For Columbine last night, and George Bush’s favorite term is my new fav, too) company is USA Gold. I just checked out the Mega Brands website (the USA Gold parent company), and it lists the USA Gold pencil as “are made from sustained yield cedar.” However, ForestEthics gives USA Gold an “F” for using wood from Sierra Pacific Industries, which ForestEthics calls out for using wood from non FSC-certified forests.

In all fairness, I did pop by Sierra Pacific Industries website to see how they deal with the whole sustainable forests issue. SPI says that it is a voluntary partner in the Sustainable Forest Initiative, which they say is similar to FSC. If you want to read a bit more about this he said, she said bullsh*t, you can read this San Francisco Chronicle article from earlier this year. It does seem that there is some debate as to what constitutes sustainable forestry. Perhaps I will revisit this another day.

ForestEthics, sustainable forestry, pencils, back to school shopping, ForestChoice, CalCedar, Greenline Paper Company, Eco-writer, Forest Stewardship Council, FSC, Green Apple, Red Apple School Supplies, Papermate, Earthwrite, Sierra Nevada, Dixon/Ticonderoga, USA Gold, Mega Brands, Sustainable Forest Initiative, SFI, Sierra Pacific Industries, SPI

I live in Portland, Oregon, and it is a lovely city. Very lush, with verdant landscapes and plenty of slugs to eat their way through it.

I can honestly say that I have never seen so many slugs before, in such abundance and especially size. One night, under the light of my headlamp, I swear I saw a five inch long slug. It was disgusting, but as I cannot kill the little guys, I had no idea what to do, or if I had to do anything at all.

Well, come to find out I did indeed have to do something. The slugs, my friendly, slimy neighbors, were going to town on some foxglove in my garden. I moved the foxglove, and mulched with stones. Too extreme, but effective. I have plenty of Foxglove around the backyard, and the slug issue is not yard-wide. However, I started noticing the same tell-tale slugs bite marks on my strawberries. It was a new patch that I had planted this past spring, and as the problem was earlier this season, I had to take some action. Ain’t no slug gettin’ my berries before they are even berries!

So, I consulted an organic gardening book. And slugs hate caffeine in the form of coffee grounds. I collected a weeks worth (maybe two) of grounds, and I set to work. I used a big spoon and laid out a two to three inch wide band of coffee grounds around the perimeter of my strawberry patch.

The effects were immediately noticeable. It took about two weeks before I would say the slugs skipped dining on my berries (and peas, as I tried as well).

America!

slugs, Portland, Oregon, garden, urban, coffee grounds, organic gardening, strawberries, peas

Wow, this blog has been dormant for quite some time, and oddly, just when being green and sustainable and eco-friendly and zero-emissions and composting and stuff is getting hot. Ew, kind of a bad pun there, with global warming and all, but you’ll see that I am full of bad puns.

Welcome to the first day of Urban Ecoist’s new life.

About me, the writer, your host: I live in Portland, Oregon. If you didn’t know, Portland is a very green and “green” city (I could add one more green referring to the populace’s penchant for pot, but I won’t — oops). LIving in Portland is like a test case for how a major American city can be environmentally sensitive and responsible.

Personally, I am a bit of a granola. I am not wearing hemp, but I do own a bamboo shirt. Not a hippie, but close in some aspects in terms of stereotypes. I was raised by grandparents that went through the Depression, so recycling and gardening was a big part of my childhood and teenage years. For me, this stuff is the ways things are and have been, but like everyone, there are always new ways to help out our environment. Adapting is what we do, and it is interesting how we are all adapting and going to adapt to this sudden realization that Earth is a closed ecosystem and we have the power to muck that up.

Anyhoo, here is my first shot at becoming Urban Ecoist. Living in a city may result in apartment living or renting a house. It is hard to install more efficient appliances and such when you don’t own your residence. Here is what I did as soon as I moved into the house I am currently renting. It’s easy and it will save you water.

Ta Dah!! The incredible low-flow toilet.

You can easy take a half-gallon milk jug or something similar and watertight, fill it with water, and sink it in your toilet’s water tank. By displacement, you effectively reduce the use of a half-gallon of water used in each flush.

Rubber bricks that do the same trick are available at hardware stores, but why not use something you have around the house already. You can add more bottles if you are totally serious about this, but be careful about decreasing the pressure of the flow too much. It may have messy consequences…

Portland, Oregon, sustainable, ecofriendly, environment, urban, zero emissions, low flow toilet

Saw this over at Treehugger and couldn’t help but repost it.

A lion that was raised by humans, but was released into the wilds of Africa, reunites with his former handlers a year later.::LiveLeak.com

[Via ::Reddit]

family, reunion, video, lion