Friday, June 8, 2007
If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, leave the room immediately...
This website is supposed to be about practical steps we can take to green up our household (and not so much about my ill-informed sociopolitical blahblahblah) so today let's take a look at CFL's, or Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs. You know what I'm talking about, those white corkscrew thingies that are in stores everywhere now. They're going to save the world, or at least moderately improve the world, while massively assuaging upper-middle-class eco-guilt. It's win-win! And it's very easy to do!
(This is a timely subject for our household because owing to some infernal synchronicity I can't even guess at, all of our lightbulbs blew more or less simultaneously and the house is now shrouded in darkness. Or possibly they blew one at a time, in the usual lightbulb blowing fashion, and I've been too lazy to notice and replace them until critical lightbulb failure mass was achieved. Whatever. It's dark in our house.)
Here's the basics, from energystar.gov:
If every American home replaced just one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified bulb [ie, a CFL], we would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars.
So that's good.
Other pros: they lower your heating bill. You save money!
Con: you save money in the long run. In the short run you pay so unbelievably much for a single 60-watt replacement bulb that you say to yourself, Gadzooks (or some stronger oath), can that possibly be right?
Decidedly con con: CFL's contain mercury, which is bad. Mercury is the stuff in your salmon that's slowly killing you. And being an element and all, Mercury does not biodegrade into non-toxic form once released into the environment. (That's why it got into your salmon to begin with.) These lightbulbs have to be handled carefully and disposed of properly.
Let's say that again, because the manufacturer, packager, marketer, and distributor will quite possibly forget to mention it. These lightbulbs have to be handled carefully and disposed of properly!
In Indiana, it is not legal to dispose of fluorescent lights as general waste.* Fortunately for us, Indianapolis has a year round toxic recycling program. Go Indiana!
Indianapolis Tox Drop Centers
Also, not safe for mom and baby! If a CFL hits the floor, open the window, clear the room, and follow these simple instructions for safe cleanup:
1. Open a window and leave the room (restrict access) for at least 15 minutes.
2. Remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner.
-Wear disposable rubber gloves, if available (do not use your bare hands).
-Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard.
-Wipe the area clean with a damp paper towel or disposable wet wipe.
Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.
3. Place all cleanup materials in a plastic bag and seal it.
-If your state permits you to put used or broken CFLs in the garbage, seal the CFL in two plastic bags and put into the outside trash (if no other disposal or recycling options are available).
-Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.
4. The first time you vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the vacuum bag once done cleaning the area (or empty and wipe the canister) and put the bag and/or vacuum debris, as well as the cleaning materials, in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal disposal.
So that's a pain in the ass. But then, so is the melting of the polar ice caps (unless you're a big speculator in Ohio beachfront property.) It's important not to get hysterical about this. It would take 100 broken CFL's to equal the amount of mercury in just one of those old glass thermometers everybody had (and that clumsy little kids like me used to break on a regular basis.) But still, poison is poison, so treat them with respect.
*True Fact: At the 2007 Indianapolis Earth Day festival kickoff ceremony, it was announced that WalMart was giving out free CFLs at a booth. An older gentleman in the crowd started heckling the speaker about what a pain they were to recycle. Okay, fair point. People need all the facts. But dude! You're heckling an Earth Day Festival!
(This is a timely subject for our household because owing to some infernal synchronicity I can't even guess at, all of our lightbulbs blew more or less simultaneously and the house is now shrouded in darkness. Or possibly they blew one at a time, in the usual lightbulb blowing fashion, and I've been too lazy to notice and replace them until critical lightbulb failure mass was achieved. Whatever. It's dark in our house.)
Here's the basics, from energystar.gov:
If every American home replaced just one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified bulb [ie, a CFL], we would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year, more than $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars.
So that's good.
Other pros: they lower your heating bill. You save money!
Con: you save money in the long run. In the short run you pay so unbelievably much for a single 60-watt replacement bulb that you say to yourself, Gadzooks (or some stronger oath), can that possibly be right?
Decidedly con con: CFL's contain mercury, which is bad. Mercury is the stuff in your salmon that's slowly killing you. And being an element and all, Mercury does not biodegrade into non-toxic form once released into the environment. (That's why it got into your salmon to begin with.) These lightbulbs have to be handled carefully and disposed of properly.
Let's say that again, because the manufacturer, packager, marketer, and distributor will quite possibly forget to mention it. These lightbulbs have to be handled carefully and disposed of properly!
In Indiana, it is not legal to dispose of fluorescent lights as general waste.* Fortunately for us, Indianapolis has a year round toxic recycling program. Go Indiana!
Indianapolis Tox Drop Centers
Also, not safe for mom and baby! If a CFL hits the floor, open the window, clear the room, and follow these simple instructions for safe cleanup:
1. Open a window and leave the room (restrict access) for at least 15 minutes.
2. Remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner.
-Wear disposable rubber gloves, if available (do not use your bare hands).
-Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard.
-Wipe the area clean with a damp paper towel or disposable wet wipe.
Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder.
3. Place all cleanup materials in a plastic bag and seal it.
-If your state permits you to put used or broken CFLs in the garbage, seal the CFL in two plastic bags and put into the outside trash (if no other disposal or recycling options are available).
-Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.
4. The first time you vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the vacuum bag once done cleaning the area (or empty and wipe the canister) and put the bag and/or vacuum debris, as well as the cleaning materials, in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal disposal.
So that's a pain in the ass. But then, so is the melting of the polar ice caps (unless you're a big speculator in Ohio beachfront property.) It's important not to get hysterical about this. It would take 100 broken CFL's to equal the amount of mercury in just one of those old glass thermometers everybody had (and that clumsy little kids like me used to break on a regular basis.) But still, poison is poison, so treat them with respect.
*True Fact: At the 2007 Indianapolis Earth Day festival kickoff ceremony, it was announced that WalMart was giving out free CFLs at a booth. An older gentleman in the crowd started heckling the speaker about what a pain they were to recycle. Okay, fair point. People need all the facts. But dude! You're heckling an Earth Day Festival!
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
The Minefield Whine
Usually when I go to the grocery store I don't want to give it all that much thought. I think about it before I go--i.e., we make a meal plan for the week and make out a grocery list. But when I go, I want to go in and get it over with, and have it not be too much of a hassle. It's a chore and I hate it and often I'm chatting on my cell phone the entire time. The only time I'm focusing on the drudgery of it is if someone's in my way (annoying), someone that works there wants to chat (annoying), if the potatoes have *dirt* on them (annoying) or the produce is bad quality, if there aren't enough available plastic bags in the produce section or meat section (I don't like getting raw meat germs on my hands and my stuff if I can help it) or if they don't have something I'm looking for. Other than that, I don't want to have to worry about the packaging, think about what I'm buying, talk to anyone or wait in any freaking lines. Maybe that sounds princessey, or very American, but whatever. It is so.
This last weekend I made my first trip to the grocery store after reading up a *little* on plastics and food storage. In other words, not enough to make informed decisions, but just enough to make me tense and annoyed. Baby steps!
First stop was the produce department. I usually get bagged salad and bagged broccoli, because I don't like to have to wash stuff. Both items are, of course, in plastic bags and they're damp. So wet food contained in plastic is not optimal. And I put everything but everything that's loose in plastic bags. In Texas they often offer either plastic or brown paper bags in the produce section, but I haven't seen that in Indiana. I wonder if they would mind if I brought my own? At this point, already I'm feeling discouraged and kind of annoyed. I mean, come on--does it really make enough of a difference that I should actually make changes? I'll have to read more.
Next stop was the meat department. Even the Laura's brand of organic, no-hormone meats are packaged on styrofoam and wrapped in plastic. That's supposed to be bad. I guess I could go to the meat counter and ask them to wrap it in butcher paper instead. Is that stuff coated in plastic? I'll have to check into that.
Then it was on to the canned goods, some of which have plastic linings, the turkey for sandwiches that is, of course, all in plastic. We can go with aluminium cans for sodas (or stop drinking sodas, which would be the better option), but do they have plastic lining, too? And the bottled water is just all plastic. But is it the bad plastic?
At the checkout, I had everything packed in plastic, as usual. I've been doing this because we use the bags for picking up dog droppings when we take the dog for a walk (we meaning "Jamie), so the former theory was, they're needed and used. But I've noticed some of our neighbors have dog crap retrieval devices that are probably a billion times more eco-friendly, so we're going to look into that.
So now I'm thinking I need to figure out this plastic stuff ASAP, so I can get back to the way things were. I have phone calls to make!
This last weekend I made my first trip to the grocery store after reading up a *little* on plastics and food storage. In other words, not enough to make informed decisions, but just enough to make me tense and annoyed. Baby steps!
First stop was the produce department. I usually get bagged salad and bagged broccoli, because I don't like to have to wash stuff. Both items are, of course, in plastic bags and they're damp. So wet food contained in plastic is not optimal. And I put everything but everything that's loose in plastic bags. In Texas they often offer either plastic or brown paper bags in the produce section, but I haven't seen that in Indiana. I wonder if they would mind if I brought my own? At this point, already I'm feeling discouraged and kind of annoyed. I mean, come on--does it really make enough of a difference that I should actually make changes? I'll have to read more.
Next stop was the meat department. Even the Laura's brand of organic, no-hormone meats are packaged on styrofoam and wrapped in plastic. That's supposed to be bad. I guess I could go to the meat counter and ask them to wrap it in butcher paper instead. Is that stuff coated in plastic? I'll have to check into that.
Then it was on to the canned goods, some of which have plastic linings, the turkey for sandwiches that is, of course, all in plastic. We can go with aluminium cans for sodas (or stop drinking sodas, which would be the better option), but do they have plastic lining, too? And the bottled water is just all plastic. But is it the bad plastic?
At the checkout, I had everything packed in plastic, as usual. I've been doing this because we use the bags for picking up dog droppings when we take the dog for a walk (we meaning "Jamie), so the former theory was, they're needed and used. But I've noticed some of our neighbors have dog crap retrieval devices that are probably a billion times more eco-friendly, so we're going to look into that.
So now I'm thinking I need to figure out this plastic stuff ASAP, so I can get back to the way things were. I have phone calls to make!
Plastic vs. Glass (in which I seem to digress but then tie it up neatly in the end)
A 2001 article by the Chairperson of the Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board in India.
Hazardous Hues: Plastic vs Glass
One tradeoff I wonder about is the increased weight of glass vs. plastic. If you went back to using glass containers instead of plastic, how much additional fuel would you have to burn to ship all that extra weight (including reshipping lost inventory from increased breakage)? Would that be better or worse in terms of greenhouse gas production? According to this brochure by the Glass Packaging Institute (of course there's a Glass Packaging Institute!),
A Danish Ministry of the Environment(the Danish government’s equivalent of the U.S. EPA) study conducted in 2000, and revised in 2001, concluded that on a kilogram for kilogram basis, glass is the most environmentally friendly package across the board when considering greenhouse effects, acidification and eutrification.
However, I don't know if that takes into account greenhouse gasses created by shipping, or if that is only looking at production processes. I can't find the 2000 study online. Ah well.
As an aside, let me say that eutrification is a very cool word! Apparently eutrification is when there's too much organic stuff in the water, from fertilizer runoff and the like. That can cause algae blooms, which are bad (algae and algae-eaters feel free to disagree!)
One thing that causes eutrification: dog poo! One solution to dog poo getting into the water: pick it up and put it in a little plastic baggie!
From some random teacher's resource:
E coli bacteria is a form of pollution that affects the bays around Australian cities. One big reason for E coli pollution is cat and dog poo, which ends up on the streets and footpaths and gets washed down the drains after rain, and eventually finds its way into our creeks, rivers and oceans. Many people do not carry a little plastic bag with them when they take the dog for a walk. Plastic is good for something after all!
So, see? Back we come to plastics, and our now familliar theme of inescapable tradeoffs. After all, who wants to carry around dog poo in a glass jar? Not me, that's who not.
Hazardous Hues: Plastic vs Glass
One tradeoff I wonder about is the increased weight of glass vs. plastic. If you went back to using glass containers instead of plastic, how much additional fuel would you have to burn to ship all that extra weight (including reshipping lost inventory from increased breakage)? Would that be better or worse in terms of greenhouse gas production? According to this brochure by the Glass Packaging Institute (of course there's a Glass Packaging Institute!),
A Danish Ministry of the Environment(the Danish government’s equivalent of the U.S. EPA) study conducted in 2000, and revised in 2001, concluded that on a kilogram for kilogram basis, glass is the most environmentally friendly package across the board when considering greenhouse effects, acidification and eutrification.
However, I don't know if that takes into account greenhouse gasses created by shipping, or if that is only looking at production processes. I can't find the 2000 study online. Ah well.
As an aside, let me say that eutrification is a very cool word! Apparently eutrification is when there's too much organic stuff in the water, from fertilizer runoff and the like. That can cause algae blooms, which are bad (algae and algae-eaters feel free to disagree!)
One thing that causes eutrification: dog poo! One solution to dog poo getting into the water: pick it up and put it in a little plastic baggie!
From some random teacher's resource:
E coli bacteria is a form of pollution that affects the bays around Australian cities. One big reason for E coli pollution is cat and dog poo, which ends up on the streets and footpaths and gets washed down the drains after rain, and eventually finds its way into our creeks, rivers and oceans. Many people do not carry a little plastic bag with them when they take the dog for a walk. Plastic is good for something after all!
So, see? Back we come to plastics, and our now familliar theme of inescapable tradeoffs. After all, who wants to carry around dog poo in a glass jar? Not me, that's who not.
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Biodegradable Plastics (and bonus rambling nonsense!)
Here's a cool article on biodegradable plastics.
Yay for biodegradable!
They can already make them out of plants and bacteria, but unfortunately, they're two to ten times more expensive than traditional plastic.
Also, the article doesn't say this, but one additional problem with subsituting plant based products for petroleum based products is that it crowds out land currently used for agricultural use. This pushes up the cost of food, which makes life harder for the world's poor. This is already happening as governments push for (and subsidize)the increased use of biofuels like ethanol.
(There are never any easy answers for this stuff.)
The article does make an interesting point that consumers don't currently bear the full cost of the plastic they use. Or, at least, they don't see it. The long term costs of dealing with non-biodegradable plastic are either unknown, or hidden away in local taxes where they aren't identified as such, or else passed on to future generations. Therefore consumers can't "rationally" compare the costs of petroleum plastic bags vs. biodegradable plastic bags when choosing in the market. Is that a good argument for government intervention to shape consumer behavior (through subsidies to bioplastic producers, or a tax on petroleum plastics perhaps)? And then once consumers (are forced to) use them, economies of scale would kick in and lower the price anyway?
The free market guy in me is very skeptical of that kind of thing. On the other hand, I think the free market ethos doesn't always apply when there are environmental effects on third parties to consider (externalities, as the economists, of which I am not one, like to say). Burying our grandchildren in plastic is a hell of an externality.
(But then, so is bidding food away from third world families. Is the West morally obligated to subsidize the world's poor to prevent them from bearing the burden of our own environmental cleanup? A burden on those least able to shoulder it? Well, great. Now I sound like a pinko commie. But to put it mildly, I am skeptical of wealth transfers as well. Really very way skeptical.)
Yay for biodegradable!
They can already make them out of plants and bacteria, but unfortunately, they're two to ten times more expensive than traditional plastic.
Also, the article doesn't say this, but one additional problem with subsituting plant based products for petroleum based products is that it crowds out land currently used for agricultural use. This pushes up the cost of food, which makes life harder for the world's poor. This is already happening as governments push for (and subsidize)the increased use of biofuels like ethanol.
(There are never any easy answers for this stuff.)
The article does make an interesting point that consumers don't currently bear the full cost of the plastic they use. Or, at least, they don't see it. The long term costs of dealing with non-biodegradable plastic are either unknown, or hidden away in local taxes where they aren't identified as such, or else passed on to future generations. Therefore consumers can't "rationally" compare the costs of petroleum plastic bags vs. biodegradable plastic bags when choosing in the market. Is that a good argument for government intervention to shape consumer behavior (through subsidies to bioplastic producers, or a tax on petroleum plastics perhaps)? And then once consumers (are forced to) use them, economies of scale would kick in and lower the price anyway?
The free market guy in me is very skeptical of that kind of thing. On the other hand, I think the free market ethos doesn't always apply when there are environmental effects on third parties to consider (externalities, as the economists, of which I am not one, like to say). Burying our grandchildren in plastic is a hell of an externality.
(But then, so is bidding food away from third world families. Is the West morally obligated to subsidize the world's poor to prevent them from bearing the burden of our own environmental cleanup? A burden on those least able to shoulder it? Well, great. Now I sound like a pinko commie. But to put it mildly, I am skeptical of wealth transfers as well. Really very way skeptical.)
The Link That Started All This...
(Aside from our church involvement, that is. UU is very environmentally conscious.)
This was emailed to me courtesy of Jason. It's a decidedly alarming article about plastics, the gist of which is that they're everywhere, they're not going away, and it's possible that they're not entirely benign when ingested.
Bon apetit!
Our Oceans Are Turning Into Plastic. Are We?
This was emailed to me courtesy of Jason. It's a decidedly alarming article about plastics, the gist of which is that they're everywhere, they're not going away, and it's possible that they're not entirely benign when ingested.
Bon apetit!
Our Oceans Are Turning Into Plastic. Are We?
Sunday, June 3, 2007
8 Ways to Avoid Chemicals from Plastic Bottles and Cans
This is from The Green Guide. Jamie questions from a public health standpoint if advising people to can their own food is riskier, due to human error causing food poisoning, than just injesting the chemicals. I'm not going to can my own food because it's such a pain in the ass.
1. If you already own polycarbonate bottles, including the Nalgene bottles popular on college campuses, labeled #7 on the bottom, wash them by hand with mild dishwashing soap, not in the dishwasher, to avoid degrading the plastic and increasing leaching of BPA.
2. Even plastic does not last forever. Look for cracks or cloudiness on your reusable clear plastic bottles.
3. Use glass baby bottles or plastic bag inserts, which are made of polyethyelene, or switch to polypropylene bottles that are labeled #5 and come in colors or are milky rather than clear.
4. Choose soups, milk and soy milk packaged in cardboard "brick" cartons, by Tetra Pak and SIG Combibloc, which are made of safer layers of aluminum and polyethylene (#2) and also recyclable.
5. Choose canned foods from makers who don't use BPA, such as Eden Foods (www.edenfoods.com), which sells certified organic canned beans and other foods.
6. Eat fresh foods in season and save the canned foods for convenience or emergencies. The exception is some canned fruit such as that found in smaller fruit-cocktail cans, which do not require a liner, according to the Can Manufacturers Institute.
7. Buy or can your own fruits and vegetables in safe glass jars.
8. Some wines have been found to contain up to six times the BPA of canned foods. While most wines probably don't, it's another good reason to drink in moderation.
1. If you already own polycarbonate bottles, including the Nalgene bottles popular on college campuses, labeled #7 on the bottom, wash them by hand with mild dishwashing soap, not in the dishwasher, to avoid degrading the plastic and increasing leaching of BPA.
2. Even plastic does not last forever. Look for cracks or cloudiness on your reusable clear plastic bottles.
3. Use glass baby bottles or plastic bag inserts, which are made of polyethyelene, or switch to polypropylene bottles that are labeled #5 and come in colors or are milky rather than clear.
4. Choose soups, milk and soy milk packaged in cardboard "brick" cartons, by Tetra Pak and SIG Combibloc, which are made of safer layers of aluminum and polyethylene (#2) and also recyclable.
5. Choose canned foods from makers who don't use BPA, such as Eden Foods (www.edenfoods.com), which sells certified organic canned beans and other foods.
6. Eat fresh foods in season and save the canned foods for convenience or emergencies. The exception is some canned fruit such as that found in smaller fruit-cocktail cans, which do not require a liner, according to the Can Manufacturers Institute.
7. Buy or can your own fruits and vegetables in safe glass jars.
8. Some wines have been found to contain up to six times the BPA of canned foods. While most wines probably don't, it's another good reason to drink in moderation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)