Sustaina Speaks

On-Hold Hell, or On Hold? Hell!

2008-01-08T11:22:00.000-06:00

Sometimes technology drives me crazy! I am on hold and have been for 54 minutes, so I decided to vent here, rather than scrrreaming at the person who will eventually answer this call, assuming that person even exists. This might just be a cruel joke, or one of those weird psychological games. You know the kind I mean. A person is asked to wait in a room for some reason, and as he sits there, the canned music gets louder and louder and louder. Some fiend wants to know how long the person will endure the torture before he walks out. My current experience is doubly tortuous, because if I “walk out” on this phone call, I know I will have to call again and start at the end of the queue.

I have now been on hold for exactly one hour with no respite from some strange, repetitive music which seems to have a demonic, clapping choir in the background. Why not play Mozart?

I am not going to scream at the tech! I am NOT going to scream at the tech! I am NOT going to SCREAM at the tech!

I finally talked to a web tech named Gene. He was brusque, uncommunicative, and he kept repeating computer gibberish…but I did not scream at him. He was having a great time pretending to be helpful, while I was grinding my teeth and trying not to growl audibly. I am sure he realized that if I had known what he was talking about, I would not have needed him. What a prince of a fellow! Now I will have to call again and hope to talk to a sensitive, caring person who speaks English, instead of computer-ese. Back to the end of the queue!

Big feet? Me?

2007-12-14T08:30:00.000-06:00

I just took one of those quizzes which determine what my "footprint" on the Earth is. My result was scary, and not at all what I expected. According to Consumer Consequences, if everyone lived my lifestyle, we would need the resources of 4.3 Earths to support us. This is based on a complicated calculation which concludes that, to accomplish sustainability, each person should use only the resources available on 4.5 acres of land.

Apparently I am using more than my share of many natural resources, and I am generating too much garbage too rapidly. In my own defense, I live in a state in which the idea of recycling has just begun to enter the consciousness of the mainstream. I recycle what I can in my city, which includes aluminum, #1 and #2 plastics, and paper and cardboard. I have no place to take glass, other plastics, or anything else.

Recently American Public Media reporter Tess Vigeland issued an interesting challenge to her readers. She challenged us to carry our garbage with us for a week. The point, of course, is to realize how much trash we each generate and attempt to lower our individual amount. I may try it.

Here are the rules:

(1) If you recycle or compost it, it does not count.

(2) Trash generated in restaurants or at work counts, so watch those paper napkins and Styrofoam cups. Paper towels in restrooms also count. (Tess carries a cloth napkin with her. Resourceful girl!)

(3) If it is going to smell, put it in a plastic bag (preferably one you have saved from its previous use).

(4) No pet waste.

I will let you know how I progress, but I am not starting until 2008. I know. If I were a truly sustainable person, I would carry my garbage through the holidays. Not going to happen.

You can take the quiz yourself at http://sustainability.publicradio.org/consumerconsequences/

O Tannenbaum!

2007-12-07T10:29:00.000-06:00

O Christmas tree! O Christmas tree!
You bring us all both joy and glee.

It is time to put up the Christmas tree. I always approach this task with mixed emotions. It’s a dreary chore, a sentimental joy, and an environmental quandary. Putting lights on a tree takes hours, but since no one does it to my satisfaction, I am stuck with that boring job. Unpacking our special ornaments evokes memories of previous holidays. When the boys were little, they insisted on doing this. The lower half of the tree would be covered with ornaments, while the top was virtually bare. Now the ornaments are evenly distributed, but the tree lacks the pizzazz it had then. The environmental question is, of course--real tree or artificial?

I am sure that Mark Carr had no idea what he was starting in 1851 when he began selling fir trees at Christmas on a lot in New York City. Today 32 million trees are grown and sold each year in the United States by 22,000 tree growers. In addition, twelve million artificial trees were shipped from China last year. Christmas trees, of one sort or another, are big business.

How “green” is your tree? Most environmentalists agree that celebrating with a real tree is the way to go, but a tiny faction maintains that artificial trees have ecological advantages, too.

Natural trees benefit the environment from the day they are planted until the holiday festivities are over and even after they are recycled. Ornamental trees, which are farmed as agricultural crops, absorb carbon dioxide and other pollutants and emit oxygen while they are alive. An acre of growing trees produces enough oxygen for 18 people, so the one million acres of ornamental trees growing in the United States will supply 18 million people.

Ornamental tree farms provide habitat for wildlife. Most farms are located on agricultural land retired from other uses, so that they often form a green belt between forests and tilled fields. Many types of wildlife--birds, small game, deer, and occasionally mountain lions--feed and nest in these areas. Harvested trees, which are usually about eight years old, are replaced with saplings, so that this habitat is always maintained.

Natural trees are biodegradable and easily recycled. A National Christmas Tree Association survey discovered that 93 percent of real trees are recycled in some way. Many cities collect trees to make mulch, which is then used in parks and public areas to protect plants and prevent the growth of weeds. In some areas trees are used to make barriers to prevent soil erosion. Anglers sink them in lakes and ponds to provide safe places for fish to feed and lay eggs. Wildlife refuge managers pile them up to make winter havens for small animals. Some people tie their old trees near feeders to encourage birds. I throw mine down in the gulley behind my house, so that little animals will have a place to hide from the prowling cats and foxes in the neighborhood.

The one drawback to using real trees is that growers often apply pesticides, fungicides, and herbicides which are toxic to wildlife. These chemicals eventually find their way into watersheds both where the trees are grown and where they are discarded. Some poisonous chemicals cling to branches after the trees are cut and sold, and so make their way into someone’s home. This will become less of a problem in the future, as many growers implement more environmentally-friendly farming practices. One system promoted by leading agricultural education centers is called Integrated Pest Management. IPM relies on diligent inspection, non-toxic remedies, and selective pruning to get rid of varmints.

An artificial tree may seem like a better choice for the holiday celebration. Since a plastic tree will be re-used for years, several living trees will be saved from the saw. The manufacture and distribution of an artificial tree from petroleum-based products will cause a small amount of carbon dioxide to be released into the atmosphere one time, while a living tree sucks much more CO2 out of the air over the course of its lifetime.

This rationale is a gross simplification. Artificial trees are made from PVC (polyvinyl chloride) which generates several carcinogens during its production. Lead and other chemicals, which are added to the PVC to make it pliable, have been linked to liver, kidney, neurological and reproductive system damage. When the labels warn consumers to avoid inhaling any dust which might come from the tree, they are referring to lead and chemical dust which may fall on the floor or on the presents under the tree.

Eighty-five percent of the artificial trees bought in the United States are made in China. As a general rule, I avoid buying anything made in China, because of the lack of labor standards and worker protections in that country. In the case of artificial trees, I do not like the idea of Chinese children working in factories to make artificial trees and American children running to those trees on Christmas morning to open their gifts. I particularly do not like the fact that children in both countries are probably inhaling lead dust. Call me a rank sentimentalist.

I am still faced with the task of putting a tree up in my living room. Left to my own devices, I would buy a small potted Norfolk pine, hang a few glittery balls on it, and be perfectly happy. When I broached that idea to my sons several years ago, I was vehemently voted down. Nothing will do, but that we have a monster tree like the ones they remember from their childhood. Well, we do have all those ornaments…

O Christmas tree! O Christmas tree!
Much pleasure dost thou bring me.

Intriguing gifts

2007-11-29T10:18:00.000-06:00

Thanksgiving is over. The Christmas season is officially underway.

Did you shop on Black Friday? I assiduously avoid all stores that day, but I have a friend who was at the mall at 4:00 a.m. What possible bargain or treasure could have prompted her to do that? I have another friend who never begins shopping until December 23rd on the theory that if she cannot get it then, she does not really want it.

I fall somewhere in between the two extremes. Actually, my favorite method of shopping has nothing to do with malls and crowds. I curl up in a big chair in front of a fire wearing comfy sweats and house slippers while my favorite holiday music by Mannheim Steamroller plays. Close at hand I have my laptop, my gift list, my credit card, my address book, and a mug of hot chocolate with marshmallows. After a couple of hours of leisurely perusing the internet, not only is my shopping done, but the gifts are winging their way to the recipients. No stress, no lines, no fake Santas.

In recent years I have tried to avoid giving people “things.” I certainly do not need more of anything, and no one in my family does either. I am not referring to children, who obviously need toys and books and underwear. I mean adults, who already have too many toys and books and…well, some adults might need new underwear. My husband’s mother always gives him underwear, a type of present I believe falls somewhere on the gift rating scale between a vacuum cleaner and a set of tires. I don’t care how necessary something is. A gift should be fun or interesting or unusual.

One of my favorite gifts has all of those attributes and it is appropriate for all ages. The Defenders of Wildlife organization sponsors a Wildlife Adoption Center (http://www.wildlifeadoption.org/), at which imperiled animals of all types can be “adopted” for amounts as low as $20. I am particularly interested in wolves, and it is possible to adopt a single wolf, a wolf family, a wolf pack, or a wolf mom and pup. The money raised by these adoptions is used to protect the Yellowstone and Alaskan wolves. Other animals are also available—penguins, eagles, snow leopards, tigers, pandas, jaguars, bears, whales, bison, and many others. I give the teenage members of my family their school mascot, if possible. I even gave my grown son who coaches football a tiger, the mascot of his team.

Another of my favorites is the Seva Foundation (http://www.seva.org/), which provides tax-deductible “gifts of service” to aid people in ten countries, including the United States. It was founded in 1978 by group of doctors working for the World Health Organization. The foundation offers gift projects in the areas of health and wellness, community development, environmental protection, and cultural preservation. For example, $25 will buy the pipes and tools to connect a Guatemalan or Mexican family’s home to a safe, clean water system. Seventy-five dollars will purchase medical equipment for doctors in Nepal and Tibet who deliver eye care services to remote regions. Five hundred dollars will send a Talking Circle program to a Native American reservation to educate people about prevention and treatment of diabetes using a synergy between modern medicine and traditional healing.

If I absolutely have to send an object, I like to send a gift that is Fair Trade certified. This certification is an attempt to break the poverty cycle in Third World countries by guaranteeing that artisans and craftsmen receive livable wages and training in sustainable business practices. These gifts also meet my criteria. They are fun, interesting, and unusual. In addition, they are usually hand-made, one-of-a-kind, and exquisitely beautiful. An internet search for “fair trade gifts” reveals many options, including three of my favorites, http://www.gaiam.com/, http://www.taraluna.com/, and http://www.tenthousandvillages.com/.

This year when you are making your gift list, consider some of these options. Your shopping will be stress-free, and the recipients of these gifts will be intrigued. No one will have to stand in line to return or exchange gifts which are the wrong size, the wrong color, or just plain wrong. After all, what the world needs now is…less stuff.

Local harvest

2007-11-23T14:39:00.000-06:00

Thanksgiving is my favorite holiday. Family members who are within driving range come, which in our family, usually amounts to only ten or twelve people. I get out the good silver, my mother’s china, and the Irish linens my sister brought me from the “old country.” The kids are grown, which has improved their conversational skills, but they are still relegated to the children’s table. Dogs are welcome, so we have a small herd of furry, white four-legged pals. It’s comfortable and relaxed and fun.

I recently began reading a fascinating book, The 100-Mile Diet by Alisa Smith and J.B. MacKinnon. For one year this Vancouver couple ate only food grown or raised within 100 miles of their home. I began to wonder if I could create our traditional Thanksgiving feast, if I were limited to Oklahoma-produced foods.

The menu in our family has not changed within living memory, so any changes would meet with disapproval, to say the least. Our menu is simple--turkey, cornbread dressing with and without oysters, mashed potatoes and giblet gravy, broccoli, cranberry sauce, rolls, and a relish tray. My sister bakes pumpkin and pecan pies, and I bake a mincemeat pie. I am the only one who eats the mincemeat, but I don’t care. It makes a tasty breakfast treat for several days after the holiday. For drinks we have wine with dinner and coffee with dessert.

Using only local ingredients might be quite a challenge. Oh, some parts of the dinner would be easy to obtain. Locally-raised free-range turkeys can be ordered from the meat market. I would have no shortage of delicious Oklahoma wines, but coffee, cranberries, and olives would be out.

I was unsure what else would be available at this time of the year, so I consulted the Oklahoma Food Cooperative website (www.oklahomafood.coop). What I found pleased me greatly. Most of the ingredients for cornbread dressing are available, but we would have to eliminate the oysters. No one would mind that, except the three of us who normally devour the oyster dressing. Potatoes and broccoli pose no problem.

The Vancouver couple had to make bread from potatoes, because there were no wheat farmers in their area. Oklahoma farmers produce an abundance of grains, and I am fortunate to be located within a few miles of several bakeries which produce mouth-watering breads made from nothing but natural ingredients.

Pies pose a problem. Cinnamon and nutmeg are essential to a pumpkin pie, or it will be nothing but a bland blob of custard on a crust. Unfortunately, nothing grown in Oklahoma resembles either spice. The Canadian authors solved the problem by concocting a pie flavored with maple syrup, but that solution will not work for us. Pumpkin pies are probably out. Pecan pies are another story, however. Pecans are abundant, and my culinary sources assure me that a delicious pie could be produced using a honey and sorghum combination. I am not the expert pie-maker in my family, so this is far out of my area of expertise. Of course, if members of my family were more adventurous, we could substitute a pumpkin-and-pecan harvest cake.

I am intrigued by the concept of eating locally. From what I learned on the Oklahoma Food Cooperative website, it would be possible to feast royally on Oklahoma-produced food, if one were so inclined. Fast food and soda pop, as well as some of the items I have already mentioned, would have to be eliminated. Chocolate and single-malt Scotch would be pleasures of the past.

Eating locally would mandate healthier menus, and the authors of the book claim that while it is more time-consuming to shop for local food, it is less expensive to buy. I am going to finish the book before I decide whether or not to try this experiment. Maybe I could cheat a little—a chocolate bar, an olive, a dram of Scotch. Once in a harvest moon.

Spam on a stick

2007-11-05T21:24:00.000-06:00

Are you puzzled about the ads for billboards on my blog? I guess the program which places the advertisements operates on a keyword basis and its spider has discovered my columns about outdoor advertising. Too bad it cannot discern my abhorrence for large pieces of highway litter!

Reduce your trash stream

2007-10-29T21:19:00.000-05:00

In my city we recently started using polycarts for garbage. I love my cart, but some people are having trouble making the switch from several small cans to one large polycart. Controlling the amount of trash generated by one's household is the key.

Overflowing polycarts are the visible symbols of this adjustment difficulty. It is essential that we change the way we think about trash, because of the finite amount of garbage each cart will hold, as well as the limited pick-up schedule. As individuals, we simply have to reduce our own trash stream. We must make a conscious effort to reduce, re-use, and recycle.

At my house, this is easy. We do not generate much garbage, because there are only two of us. However, it is much more difficult for people who have several children at home. If my husband and I threw every possible piece of trash into the cart, we probably could not fill it, but I remember how it was when my boys were home. They went through boxes of cereal and gallons of milk like they were trying to break a world record. A loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter might last two days, if the guys were feeling puny or were spending time at their friends’ houses. Garbage was measured in mountains, not bags.

What can be done to reduce this amount of trash? The key is recycling. Surely I do not have to explain the logic and symmetry of recycling. In a nutshell, the more items we recycle, the better for us, the better for the Earth, and the fewer bags of garbage in our polycarts. Aluminum, paper (including junk mail, magazines, catalogs), cardboard, and #1 and #2 plastics are easy to recycle.

Set up bins or boxes in a convenient place at your home. I keep my bins for aluminum, plastic, and cardboard in the garage and my box for paper by my desk. I also have a can crusher mounted on the wall above the aluminum bin, so the cans will take up less space. Enlist the help of your children. My boys used to vie for the job of squashing cans, and stomping on cardboard boxes was also a favorite chore. Psychologists might call this “channeling aggression.”

Further decreases in the amount of garbage we generate can come from shopping with trash reduction in mind. Buy items which are not over-packaged, when possible. Buy items which come in recyclable containers. Check for the #1 or #2 in the triangle on the bottoms of the plastic bottles or jars. I have switched to a couple of different brands of condiments lately for this reason. Buy one large container, rather than several small ones. For example, my husband’s favorite applesauce can be purchased either in a large plastic jar or a set of individual containers.

Recycling will quickly become second nature. Soon you will find that you will not be able to throw away a can, a plastic bottle, or an unwanted catalog. Start today. Make life with your polycart easier on yourself and on the people who pick up your trash. Reduce the amount of trash you generate by recycling, and you too will love your polycart.

Tilting at windmills

2007-10-29T21:16:00.000-05:00

As I recently drove from St. Louis north through Illinois, near the town of Paw Paw, I encountered a spectacular sight.

I was motoring along admiring the neat farms and silos when I crested a hill and came upon a huge wind farm. Gigantic, white, three-bladed windmills were scattered over the farmland as far as the eye could see. They seemed so pure, so clean, so elegant that I stopped to watch them. The sight of those blades spinning lazily in the sun was mesmerizing.

Wind power is affordable and efficient, but how does it work? Wind turbines have three blades, ranging in length from about 20 feet on small turbines for use by individual homeowners to 300 feet on commercial turbines, such as the ones in the North Sea wind park. The blades are connected to a rotor which powers a generator located inside the body of the turbine. When the wind blows, the blades spin the rotor and create electricity. This power is sent through cables to a transformer and then into an electricity grid.

What about Oklahoma? Considering that wind is one of our most plentiful crops, one would think that we would be “growing” electricity from wind. We are. Along with California, Texas, Iowa, and Minnesota, Oklahoma is one of the top five producers of wind power.

When OG&E offered wind power as an energy option in 2003, it was snapped up by 10,000 customers who quickly subscribed to the program. Because of the success of this project, OG&E built Centennial Wind Farm which opened in early 2007. Located in Harper County north of Woodward, Centennial has 80 turbines which generate 120 megawatts of wind power for OG&E customers. The company also buys 50 megawatts of power from Sooner Wind Farm, a farm of 34 turbines which is owned by a Florida energy company. The electricity generated from these two farms is enough to power 51,000 homes annually. When Centennial opened, OG&E discontinued its wind power subscription program. The electricity generated simply goes into the grid and is used by all of us.

Most of the wind farms in the world are located in the United States and Europe. The largest farm is Horse Hollow in Texas with 421 turbines. American wind farms generated enough wind in 2005 to power Chicago, but that is only 0.04 percent of our electricity production. Wind power production has tripled since 1998, with wind turbines generating electricity in 25 states.

Similar to the wind park in the North Sea, the first offshore park in the United States is in the planning stage. (I do not know why they are called “parks” when they are in the water and “farms” when on land.) This park will consist of 170 turbines located in a 25-square-mile area of Nantucket Sound, five miles off the coast of Cape Cod. Each turbine will be 260 feet tall with blades 164 feet long. The park will generate enough electricity to power 500,000 homes.

Of course, not everyone is sold on wind farms and parks. The most serious drawback to me is the impact of wind machines on wild bird populations. A farm located in a flight corridor used by migrating birds can be devastating to their population. Researchers are studying ways to alleviate this problem. Another complaint is that the machines are loud. This was true of older models, but newer ones have modified designs which are virtually silent. I could not hear a tiny whirr from the windmills on the Illinois farm. Other people think the windmills are an eyesore, and they definitely have a visual impact. As far as I am concerned, I would rather trade the existing metal cable conduits, which look like unwieldy chess pieces clumping across the landscape, for simple white towers with huge, glistening blades.

Wind power is clean, renewable, and affordable. It is a much cleaner energy option than fossil fuels. It is infinitely renewable, especially in a place “where the wind comes sweeping down the plain.” It is cheap to produce and, as an added bonus, it generates tax revenue for the cities near the farms.

Alternatives to fossil fuels are essential to our future, and wind power seems to be a particularly exciting option. As the poet Robert Burns said in another context, “Liberty’s in every blow.”

The business of billboards (Part 3 of 3)

2007-10-29T21:07:00.000-05:00

Are billboards good for business? Contrary to the claims of the outdoor advertising industry, the answer is NO. Do billboards aid in economic growth? Contrary to the claims of the billboard barons, the answer is again NO.

Americans love to travel. We drive; we fly; we pack up our tents or RVs and take off for a vacation. How do we decide where to go? “Natural beauty” is the #1 criterion for people who are choosing a vacation spot, according to the President’s Commission on Americans Outdoors. A place which wants to attract tourists and their dollars must enhance its scenic and historic assets. Removing, or at least controlling, billboards is a huge step.

How a community or state sees itself is reflected in how others view it. A long-term study of 35 cities by the Mississippi Research and Development Center found that the manner in which residents of a community perceive it affects how visitors feel about it. Simply put, an attractive place attracts. People who live in an appealing place encourage others to visit. Eliminating or controlling billboards is an aesthetic improvement which makes citizens happier and makes tourists want to come. A lack of visual clutter helps the economy.

About 700 cities nationwide have strict billboard controls in place. Most were warned by the outdoor advertising industry that these controls would devastate the local economy and would be especially damaging to hotel and restaurant businesses. However, these cities saw steady economic growth during the period following the implementation of billboard bans or controls. People like to visit pretty places, and when they visit, they spend. In 2006 travel and tourism generated $100 billion in tax revenues for local, state, and federal governments.

Former Governor of Colorado Richard Lamm states, “Billboards contribute a miniscule amount to our economic well-being, but they impose a high cost. They detract from Colorado’s attractiveness to tourists and from the pleasant surroundings for our residents.” Amen, brother. We Oklahomans, as well as all Americans, need to embrace this idea. We should value and protect the natural treasures and visual beauty we have all around us.

I once said to a member of my husband’s Iowa family--as we Oklahomans are wont to say--“Ya’ll come see us.” And she said, “Why?” Why?! This is the viewpoint of someone from a state whose predominant natural wonders have tassels on their tops and whose lakes barely qualify as large farm ponds. This does not say much about the general perception of Oklahoma as a tourist destination, does it?

What can be done about this? First, we can enhance our natural and historic sites. Removing or controlling ugly billboards would be a start. Second, we can educate ourselves and travelers about our state. From the thickly forested Arbuckle Mountains to the wild and intractable panhandle, Oklahoma is a wonderland of geographic diversity. Is there another state which can boast the wealth of beautiful water that we have—Eufaula, Texoma, Tenkiller, and so many others, including the glorious Grand Lake of the Cherokees? A visitor to Oklahoma could camp at Beavers’ Bend, hike at the Great Salt Plains, view a Viking rune stone at Heavener, or explore Alabaster Caverns. Plastering billboards over a state filled with such wonders should be prohibited.

What would happen if we eliminated billboards from our landscape? How would people find restaurants, hotels, gas stations? The answer is logo signs, TODS, or technological devices such as cell phones or PDAs. All of these alternatives are more efficient, more cost effective, and much less obtrusive than billboards. Logo signs and tourist-oriented direction signs (TODS) are already in use in 44 states. They consist of small signs containing several symbols or logos which advertise food, lodging, gas, or camping at nearby interstate highway exits. According to John Paul Nichols, Vice-President of Cendant Hotels, “Terrestrial billboards are becoming a thing of the past.” He points out that his PDA or cell phone can locate every hotel in the United States, and he does not need to wait for an accidental billboard.

Billboards make a lot of money for a few people, namely the owners of outdoor advertising companies. As for the rest of us, billboards clutter our landscapes, overwhelm us with competing advertisements, and lower our property values. States, communities, and individual businesses prosper without the blight of billboards. I am reminded of what the Pope cried to Michelangelo when he was taking a long time to paint the Sistine Chapel, “When will you make an end?” When will we make an end to the pernicious growth of billboards? When will we demand that the beauty of our surroundings be protected? Control billboards now!

(Once in awhile, my Oklahoma roots show.)

Bad, bad billboards (Part 2 of 3)

2007-10-29T17:58:00.000-05:00

Highway spam! Litter on a stick! Sky trash! Whatever we call them, billboards are ugly, intrusive, and sometimes pointless. Is billboard blight a problem? I think so, but what do other people think?

Recent polls commissioned by various states and universities reveal the same definitive fact--People do not like billboards. They favor moratoriums on new construction of boards, if not outright bans. In Houston, 81% of the citizens strongly support the city’s ordinance which will remove all billboards by 2013. In Missouri, 78% of citizens oppose any new billboard construction. (I sympathize with them, since their state is already inundated with outdoor advertising.) Citizens of Florida favor reduction in the number of billboards by a 10-to-1 margin. Los Angeles has recently instituted a moratorium on new construction, while they formulate a strict signage plan.

Some states have long-standing bans on boards. Hawaii led the way in the 1920’s by removing all billboards and banning new construction. On a visit to Molokai a couple of years ago, I drove the entire length of the 26-mile island with nothing but the occasional palm tree blocking my view of the blue Pacific. Paradise, indeed! Maine and Vermont removed all billboards in the 1970’s. One Vermont businessman expressed his view: “I do not think the short-term gains that billboards would bring to my business are worth the permanent degradation to our scenic roadsides…Visitors have come to expect more of us.” Alaska joined them in 1998 by passing a state referendum prohibiting billboards, and Montana is considering such a measure. Over 700 communities nationwide have banned new construction and instituted plans for gradual removal.

Other than the obvious degradation to the environment, how do billboards damage our quality of life? Excessive outdoor advertising is detrimental to our health. Boards bombard everyone, including minors, with messages encouraging alcohol and tobacco use. Outdoor advertising contributes to the numbers of automobile accidents, and it stunts economic growth in states and communities.

Sign overload endangers our health by increasing our levels of stress. A study at Texas A&M measured blood pressure, heart rate, respiration, rapid eye activity, and facial muscle movement of drivers as they commuted. One set of drivers sped through urban blight on roads cluttered with billboards and large on-site signs. The other group motored through areas unspoiled by billboards. Guess which group had higher stress levels.

Billboards cannot be turned off, so their messages are visible to all, including children. Studies in Baltimore, Atlanta, Chicago, and Detroit found that 75% of the existing billboards were located in minority neighborhoods, and three-fourths of those boards advertised alcohol or tobacco. Of the top ten billboard advertisers nationwide, eight are tobacco or alcohol companies.

The Outdoor Advertising Association of America brags that motorists cannot ignore their product. You may have seen signs that state, “Does outdoor advertising work? It just did!” The Federal Highway Administration maintains that there is a positive correlation between numbers of billboards and frequency of automobile accidents. Traffic safety is often cited by billboard opponents as a basis for regulation of signs, and federal and state courts have agreed. Do you sometimes find that you are trying unsuccessfully to read all the information on the boards as you drive? A study in Virginia found that on one road in that state, a person driving 45 miles per hour would have to read five times the average reading speed, or 1363 words a minute, to read all the billboards.

Environmental concerns include the destruction of thousands of trees per year by outdoor advertising companies. Many billboards are located on private land, but some states allow billboard companies to cut trees on publicly-owned land so that motorists have unobstructed views of boards. Outdoor advertising companies may call this practice “vegetation control” or “right-of-way maintenance,” but it is nothing more than cutting down our trees for their gain. According to a U.S. General Accounting Office report in 1986, 1100 trees were cut in Louisiana so that billboards at just two sites could be seen from a highway. A 1994 survey in Missouri found that 80% of the citizens oppose the state law which allows tree-cutting on public rights-of-way in front of signs. Recently the Georgia Supreme Court stood up for citizens’ rights by ruling that cutting trees on public land for the purpose of billboard visibility is unconstitutional, because the private benefit to the billboard companies does not engender a correlating benefit to the state and its citizens.

Billboards are ugly, intrusive, damaging to quality of life, and dangerous. Are some of them just pointless? In an area near the Lake of the Ozarks, gigantic double-decker signs advertise the WOW (Walk on Water) Church and the Williams Oncology Service. A traveler might be moved by the spirit to check out the WOW Church, if only to see if it lives up to its name, but surely no one will choose an oncologist because of outdoor advertising.

Next week--Are billboards bad for business?

Billboard blight (Part 1 of 3)

2007-10-29T17:46:00.000-05:00

I am a sucker for scenery. I love motoring sedately through the countryside enjoying the trees, meadows, wildflowers, rock formations, or whatever else Mother Nature has designed for us. As I recently drove through three beautiful states—Arkansas, Tennessee, and Missouri—I was bothered and bewildered by billboard blight.

Some signs are necessary, such as mileage markers or those which contain emergency help information. Some signs are welcome, such as those indicating upcoming rest areas. I was traveling with a puppy, so I looked forward to those essential stops. In Arkansas and Tennessee, I was aided by small highway signs containing logos of the gas stations, restaurants, or hotels I would find at the next exit. In the highway biz, these little signs are called tourist-oriented direction signs, or TODS. These business summary signs are great. If nothing shown on the TODS struck my fancy, I simply drove to the next exit for a different selection.

I thoroughly enjoyed my drive through Arkansas and Tennessee—and then I got to Missouri. What a mess! I was bombarded at every turn by jumbo billboards advertising everything from banks to boats, from retirement villages to vasectomy reversals.

One particularly pointless example was a series of three jumbo boards advertising the bank in a town with a population of 267. These billboards did not motivate me to pull off the road and run into the bank to open an account. They did block my view of a charming little Ozark “holler” containing a wildflower meadow and a burbling stream. My guess is that all of the citizens of the town over the age of 12 know where the bank is and what services it offers. I suppose there might be a few pre-teen entrepreneurs who could be persuaded by the giant signs to put their money in the bank, rather than in a sock, but I do not see why my view should be polluted in order to woo a tiny number of potential customers.

Whatever happened to the Highway Beautification Act? The act was passed in 1965 at the urging of Lady Bird Johnson. Legend has it that on the evening of the day the bill was to be considered in the House, there was a reception at the White House for members of Congress. Word went out from the West Wing that the legislators were not to come to the party until they passed “Bird’s bill.” The congressmen worked acrimoniously late into the evening, but arrived at the White House with the bill in hand.

The Highway Beautification Act of 1965 is a conglomeration of regulations which controls outdoor advertising, mandates the removal of junkyards, and encourages scenic enhancement on interstate and primary highways. When President Johnson signed it, he called it “a wall of civilization between us and the beauty of our countryside.” It contains many complicated rules, but a couple of them are clear. Billboards are to be located no closer than 660 feet from the nearest edge of the right-of-way on an interstate highway, and there must be no more than 21 structures per mile.

Why would beautiful states allow walls of intrusive and ugly signs to be erected between travelers on their highways and the natural wonders of their land? I am bothered and bewildered by those huge billboards, and I am offended and outraged by the lack of appreciation for the beauty of the land of which they are a symbol.

Is outdoor advertising out of control? Is there a solution? Are billboards bad for the environment, but good for business? Are they bad for our health, but good for tourism? Are there alternatives? Next week Sustaina will have more to say on this subject.

Plastics

2007-10-29T17:39:00.000-05:00

Plastics. Remember that scene in The Graduate where Mr. McGuire tells Benjamin that there is a great future in plastics? He was right. Plastics are used for a multitude of products from bags and bottles to toys and tennis ball felt. As a society, we manufacture mountains of plastic every day. What shall we do with these items after their original functions are finished?

Recycling of plastics is more complicated than recycling of other materials. Since 1987 plastics have been labeled with a resin identification code, developed by the Society of the Plastics Industry. This code, a number from one to seven surrounded by a triangle formed by three arrows, provides a uniform identification system for consumers and recyclers. Thirty-nine states now require this code to appear on all plastic eight-ounce to five-gallon containers.

What do the codes mean? Plastics marked with #1 are the easiest to recycle. This plastic, known as PETE, is used to make soda bottles, water jugs, and medicine containers. It can be re-processed into more bottles and jugs, as well as rope, car bumpers, cassette tapes, fiberfill, and much more. Heavier containers, such as those used for detergent, milk, shampoo, or motor oil, are marked #2. These high-density polyethylene plastics can be recycled into toys, plastic lumber, or pipes. Plastics marked #1 and #2 are widely accepted at recycling centers.

Plastics marked #3, #4, and #5 are rarely recyclable. Plastic #3 is found in shower curtains, medical tubing, dashboards, and nipples for baby bottles. Low-density polyethylene, marked #4, is used to make sandwich bags and wrapping film. Tupperware and other containers made of polypropylene are labeled #5.

Plastic #6, known as Styrofoam, is one of the easiest plastics to recycle, because it can be re-processed into many items, including foam insulation, cassette tapes, and packing peanuts. Unfortunately, #6 is not accepted by many recycling centers.

The identification code #7 is reserved for items made from combinations of plastics. These are difficult to re-process because the plastics must be separated from each other. Ardent recyclers might consider returning these items to the manufacturers, rather than contributing to the local landfill. Let the makers of these oddball items figure out what to do with them.

How does the plastic get from one’s home to a recycling center? The most successful recycling programs result from statewide legislation, known as “Bottle Bills.” The benefits of these bills, which establish a redemption value on plastic or aluminum containers, are two-fold. Large quantities of recyclable materials are easily collected and consumers have an economic incentive to return containers. Unfortunately, few states have returnable container legislation.

Another successful method of gathering recyclables is curbside collection. Because of the convenience to consumers, these programs have high recovery rates. Participants in curbside programs are usually asked to remove recyclables from household garbage and place them in special bags. Some communities allow commingling of recyclables, while others require some level of separation of materials. I yearn for the day we have curbside collection everywhere.

Drop-off recycling is the most widely available collection method. As a means of collection, drop-off centers are less expensive and less successful than redemption incentive plans or curbside collection.

Buy-back recycling centers are operated by private companies which pay consumers for recyclable materials which are brought to them. Most buy-back centers have purchasing specifications, such as removal of bottle caps or limitations on food contamination levels. These specifications enable the center to immediately begin re-processing the materials they purchase. Economic incentives to consumers make these centers successful.

The use of plastics is increasing rapidly, and re-processing is becoming profitable. Perhaps if Mr. McGuire were to whisper one word to Benjamin today, that word would be…Recycling.

Styrofoam controversy

2007-10-29T17:32:00.000-05:00

Styrofoam—friend or foe? One of my favorite lunch spots uses Styrofoam cups, and I feel uncomfortable every time I drink from one. Many environmentalists believe that Styrofoam is an ecological evil that should be avoided at all costs. Is this true? Let’s explore the matter.

What are the advantages and disadvantages inherent in the life cycle—the production, use, and disposal--of Styrofoam, as opposed to the life cycle of disposable paper products?

Styrofoam, or polystyrene, is a petroleum-based product made by Dow Chemical Company. It is a foam form of plastic into which air has been blown by some type of blowing agent. Prior to 1988 the blowing agent was a chlorofluorocarbon, or CFC, which was harmful to the ozone layer of the Earth’s atmosphere. At that time new blowing agents, such as carbon dioxide, pentane, or a gas called HCFC, began to be used. Recently HCFCs have been banned and will be phased out by 2030.

Paper production uses huge amounts of wood, water, and energy. It sends unhealthy emissions into the atmosphere and uses harmful chemicals, such as chlorine, in the process. According to a study at Carnegie Mellon University, twice as much energy and three times as many toxic chemicals are used to make paper as are used to make Styrofoam.

Unlike paper goods, Styrofoam products can be hazardous to your health. When food is stored or heated in Styrofoam, a carcinogen called styrene may leach into it. Styrene can simulate estrogen, causing hormone-related health problems such as breast cancer or prostate cancer. A recent Environmental Protection Agency study found styrene residue in 100 percent of the biopsies of the human subjects. Microwaving in Styrofoam is playing Russian roulette with your health.

At last we come to the fiercest objection environmentalists have to Styrofoam. It is virtually indestructible. Even though it is made largely of air, it does not biodegrade. A piece of Styrofoam is used once and then lies dormant in a landfill forever. Scientists are working to develop enzymes which will break down the molecules in plastic, but until they do, the three million tons of polystyrene which goes into landfills each year in the United States are just going to stay there.

On the other hand, paper does rot, due to the actions of organisms that can break down and digest plant products. However, methane is produced in the biodegradation process. Both Styrofoam and paper can be recycled, but they rarely are.

So what is the answer? Many factors must be considered, and in this brief overview, I have not been able to delve into the nuances of each. In broad terms, the production of Styrofoam seems safer for the environment than that of paper, but paper is clearly healthier for human use. There are negative aspects to the disposal of both Styrofoam and paper. Environmental science is rapidly changing the face of this debate, so tomorrow’s answer might be different from today’s.

Until this matter is permanently resolved, I will use glass or ceramic as much as possible. I wish my favorite lunch place would, too.

Reduce, Re-use, Recycle

2007-10-29T17:24:00.000-05:00

“Reduce, Re-use, Recycle” is the mantra of the environmental movement. Tree huggers and aging hippies are said to chant this as they float through life, presumably eating tofu, riding bicycles, and wearing clothes made of bamboo. Actually, we should all raise the strain. We are the temporary occupants and, therefore, the stewards of the Earth.

“Recycle” gets a lot of publicity, because it is the easiest to do. It does not require much extra effort to separate aluminum cans and plastics into separate sacks and keep a box for junk mail, newspapers, and cardboard. Of course, recycling can be taken much farther than this, but let’s keep it simple. The schools, universities, churches, and businesses in our community should be encouraged to engage in this type of basic recycling program. If education is the agent of change, children and adults can be taught by example about the importance of recycling to the health of the Earth.

“Re-use” is also fairly easy. I am sometimes teased by my friends because I keep butter tubs so I can store leftovers in them. Apparently, there are people who do not do that. In fact, I am told that some foolish people throw their leftovers away. I could never be accused of that. I will admit that sometimes a tasty scrap becomes a green, fur-bearing object in the back of the refrigerator.

I blame my mother for little quirks like that. She washed and saved aluminum foil for future use. My sister and I thought she was nuts, but obviously, she was a pioneer in the environmental movement. We also passed clothes down through the family until they were usable only as rags. I was always happy that as the oldest girl I was at the top of this chain.

In any case, there are many ways to re-use. Clean out bookshelves and donate discarded books to the public library or the local hospital. Share magazines with friends. Take outgrown clothes to Goodwill or Salvation Army. Print on both sides of office paper. Use this newspaper and a big bow to wrap a present. I could go on and on, but I am sure you can think of many other ways.

“Reduce” is the difficult part of the mantra. As a society which has embraced conspicuous consumption in every part of our lives, we do not want to reduce anything. We like big cars, big houses, big televisions, big everything. To our way of thinking--more, newer, faster, bigger is always better. Is it? Should it be? Can we change our perceptions? Can we modify our lifestyles without downgrading the quality of our lives? I believe that we can and we must. The future of our grandchildren depends on it.

I am out of space, so I will have more to say about this in another column. I guess I should have reduced.

Little drops of water

2007-10-29T12:49:00.000-05:00

Water, water, water—everyone’s talking about water! I attended a regional water meeting a few days ago, and it was most illuminating--lots of people with lots of concerns and lots of ideas. Most people were thinking in terms of broad, future plans, but I began to think of small, everyday ideas that could make a difference in our water consumption.

Fix leaking faucets and running toilets. Faucets can drip as much as 20 gallons a day, and toilets can waste 90,000 gallons a month. That is literally money down the drain! I do not know how to fix a toilet, so I call my plumber, but even I can change a washer on a faucet. Pay attention to leaking faucets or running toilets in public places or at the homes of friends and relatives, and mention it. It is easy for people to become oblivious to the sound.

Turn off the tap when you are brushing your teeth, shaving, or washing dishes. When shaving, put a little water in the sink so you can rinse your razor. When washing dishes in a double sink, fill one with soapy water and the other with clean water for rinsing. Our water bills tell us exactly how many gallons of water we use in a month. Try to lower your number every month. Consider it a challenge!

Install low-flow aerators on all faucets and showers. Get the type for your shower which can be turned off while you wash your hair or shave your legs, and remember to do it.

Catch rainwater in a barrel and use it to water plants. Decorative barrels with spouts can be purchased at gardening stores or on the internet, or you can just use any large container. If you have a mosquito problem in your area, cover the barrel when it is not raining.

Eat vegetarian one day a week. John Robbins, the author of Food Revolution, calculated that it takes 300 gallons a day to produce a vegetarian diet for one person and 4000 gallons a day to produce a meat diet for that person. He also states that not eating one pound of beef saves more water than not showering for a year. With all the delicious vegetables available, this will not be a burden. During the summer months, my mother occasionally cooked an all-vegetable dinner. It was my favorite!

As you think of other ways to conserve water, remember the childhood rhyme:
Little drops of water,
Little grains of sand
Make a mighty ocean
And a pleasant land.
We are fortunate that we live in a beautiful and pleasant land. Let’s keep it that way!

Down the drain

2007-10-29T12:43:00.000-05:00

A lot of water goes down the drain at my house. We wash our hands, rinse dishes, take showers--and the H2O flows down the pipes. Short of bopping the next boy who showers away all the hot water, can anything be done to conserve?

The average family in the United States uses 22,000 gallons of water per year just for showers and baths. Since most of this water is heated, we also use some kind of fuel to power our water heaters. We are creating an environmental double whammy. We are sending large amounts of fresh water into the sewer systems and we are creating carbon emissions which result in huge clouds of greenhouse gases.

I recently discovered low-flow aerators for faucets and showers. These are gadgets which limit the flow of water through the head but do not lower the water pressure. They are inexpensive and local hardware stores carry several types.

The aerator is located where the water comes out of the faucet or shower head. If you’ve ever replaced a washer, you know where it is. It can easily be twisted off and replaced. Even designer fixtures which do not have aerators are usually threaded to accept them.

Of the two kinds of low-flow heads—aerating and non-aerating—the former are the most popular. Aerating heads cause air to mix with the water while maintaining a steady stream. Because of the added air, the temperature of the water in your shower might get cooler as it falls to the floor, but the bubbly, foamy water is fun. Non-aerating heads use pulsation to save water. This massaging effect causes a strong stream of water and no temperature loss.

Most current faucet aerators allow a water flow of two to three gallons per minute. However, if your fixtures were installed before 1992, they might use as much as 10 gpm. All faucet and shower fixtures manufactured after that date in the United States are required by federal regulations to have a flow rate of no more than 2.2 gpm. The flow rate is marked on the side of the aerator.

A low-flow faucet aerator will restrict water flow to no more than 1.5 gallons per minute, and a high-efficiency showerhead will flow at no more than 2.2 gpm. Considerable savings on water and fuel bills, as well as reduced use of natural resources, will result from their installation. Each household which converts to low-flow aerators will save about 8000 gallons of water per year and reduce its carbon emissions by about 450 pounds.

This is Conservation 101. We can rapidly swing from drought to monsoons--from cracked fields and blowing dust to mushy fields and overflowing rivers. Consistent attention to water conservation must be a fundamental environmental principle for everyone. Every drop saved is important, and low-flow aerators contribute to that end.

Be a vampire slayer

2007-10-29T12:31:00.000-05:00

Do you know that vampires live in your home and office? I don’t mean the ones with satin capes and polished fangs who walk at night and drink blood for dinner. I mean the ones which suck electricity from the power grid and drive up your energy bill. Vampire appliances are those which continue to draw power even when they are turned off. These vampires flourish, and cloves of garlic will not help.

Televisions, coffeemakers, stereos, microwaves, DVD players--anything which has a clock display or a remote control is a vampire. These appliances use a microchip to go into a suspended mode, rather than turning off completely. Even devices which seem insignificant, such as electric toothbrushes or cell phone chargers, are raising your energy costs. Each item seems unimportant on its own, but cumulatively they can send a household’s power use soaring.

The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that each home has 10 to 50 of these appliances, and they account for at least 10 percent of our energy costs. Offices are particularly susceptible to vampire electronics, because they might contain several computers, printers, scanners, or fax machines. In 2001 President Bush ordered federal agencies to rid their offices of vampires by purchasing electronic devices which use no more than one watt in standby mode.

How much electricity is being wasted by our TIVOs and Blackberries? According to http://www.energystar.gov/, the amount of energy drawn varies from device to device. A DVD player in standby mode draws up to 75 percent of the power it uses when turned on. A cordless phone sucks up to 66 percent, but a television uses only 25 percent. The annual cost of vampire power in the US is estimated to be as much as three billion dollars.

Last summer, the California Assembly passed the Vampire Slayer Act of 2006. Aside from having a great name, the bill has a beneficial purpose. It requires manufacturers to place information about their product’s energy consumption in standby mode on their labels. Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, the author of the bill, claims that vampires cost citizens an average of $200 per home per year.

What can we do in our homes and offices to stop these energy suckers? Unplug appliances when they are not in use. Plug electronic devices into power strips and turn the rocker switch on and off manually. Buy a Smart Strip for your computer which will sense when the main device is powered down and will automatically turn off the peripherals. Invest in a gadget called a Kill-a-Watt power meter which measures the exact amount of power used by an appliance, so that you can determine which electronic devices should be unplugged or replaced. When replacing an appliance, buy an EnergyStar.

Take charge of your energy use and slay these electronic vampires. Buffy will be proud of you.

Nothing like a homegrown tomato (or two)

2007-10-29T11:48:00.000-05:00

I miss my garden. This year for reasons which sounded good last spring I did not plant my usual little plot. I never put in much—just a few tomato plants, some peppers, pole beans, maybe a sunflower or two--but I feel bereft. At a time when I should be relishing the delectable taste of sun-warmed peppers and tomatoes, I am forced to make do with vegetables grown by others.

A love of gardening runs in my family. My grandmother taught me about sweet peas and roses when I was tiny. My father was never too busy to plant a vegetable garden, and we ate new potatoes and okra from our backyard all summer. I am spoiled for homegrown produce.

I have found that a trip to the Farmers' Market goes a long way toward alleviating my yearning. Local farmers laden with beautiful produce appear with regularity. The last time I visited I found a bounty of squash, beans, onions, cucumbers, and much more. I bought pots of basil and cilantro for my herb garden, and a bunch of zinnias to enjoy in a vase in my kitchen window. I even found a vendor who had not refrigerated his tomatoes.

According to a report published in Food Policy, buying vegetables grown within a few miles of home is an easy way consumers can help the environment. When researchers Jules Pretty and Tim Lang calculated the production costs behind one strawberry or carrot, they discovered that trucking and refrigeration account for the largest share of the energy used to get the berry or carrot to the dinner table. “The most political act we do on a daily basis is to eat,” said Pretty. "Food miles are more significant than we thought, and much needs to be done to encourage local production and consumption of food."

Beginning with the upcoming school year, the public schools in my town will serve nothing but local produce. Since 2000 they have been part of a pilot Farm-to-School program in which the district bought some of its vegetables locally. Sponsored by the USDA and the state, the program has been successful on several fronts. Students receive fresh, tasty meals. Local farmers have a market for their goods. The energy saved in processing and transportation costs is substantial.

However, even the best-intentioned supermarket shopper is often prevented from buying produce grown close to home by inadequate labeling. Much of the time it is impossible to tell whether that ear of sweet corn came from California or Carolina. Produce is routinely shipped from Chile to Chicago or even farther.

A new technology called HarvestMark, which was developed to facilitate the tracing of contaminated produce to its source, will show consumers how far their food has traveled. A code placed on a piece of produce when it is harvested will allow the buyer to check its point of origin and date of harvest on the internet or a cell phone. This kind of unit traceability will mean that recalls for contamination can be limited to specific farms or areas. It will also aid growers in compiling food supply statistics for use in quality control and marketing campaigns.

That is great for people who do not like the smell of dirt, but as I gaze forlornly at my barren garden plot, I have an overwhelming urge to race outside with my gloves and garden claw and throw some pumpkin seeds in the ground. I could have homegrown jack-o-lanterns by Halloween.

Cell phones to sunflowers

2007-10-29T11:14:00.000-05:00

I recently got an adult toy—a new cell phone! Of course, I wanted an iPhone, but reality and my wallet prevented that. So I got a phone with a camera and lots of features I don’t know how to use. I’m delighted with my new toy, but what should I do with my old phone?

Many people toss their outdated mobile phones in drawers or closets and forget about them, but according to the Environmental Protection Agency, 125 million cell phones end up in landfills each year. Wireless waste is rapidly becoming a challenge.

Giving your old but usable mobile phone to someone who needs it is the most eco-friendly way of taking care of the problem, because preventing waste is always preferable to recycling. Local non-profit organizations sometimes accept phones for their use, and several sites on the internet contain instructions for donating phones to various charitable organizations. Try Call2Recycle (http://www.rbrc.org/) or the recycling section of the EPA website (http://www.epa.gov/).

If your wireless phone is at the end of its functional life, the components and accessories can be recycled. Plastic cases can be reprocessed, and the metals in batteries, chargers, and circuit boards can be recovered and re-used.

Most wireless companies will recycle your old phone for you, or you may take it to Staples or Best Buy. Keep America Beautiful (http://www.kap.org/) has recently introduced a campaign called “Wipe out Wireless Waste,” which uses cell phone recycling to generate money for local community projects.

Before you recycle your phone, make sure that your service has been deactivated. Remove the SIM card, if your phone has one, and clear the memory of any stored information, such as contacts or pictures. Go to http://www.recyclewirelessphones.com/ for easy-to-follow instructions.

How can this problem of wireless waste be eliminated? Cell phone manufacturers are already making units smaller and lighter, and they are phasing out the use of “persistent toxins,” such as lead and cadmium. Partially biodegradable phones made from corn, potatoes, and kenaf are available in Japan and Europe, and they should soon appear on the American market.

Some manufacturers are ahead of the curve. The NEC bio-plastic clamshell model can simply be tossed on the compost heap when its life cycle is over. The phone I want in the future is a Motorola prototype which has a sunflower seed embedded in the handset case, so it can just be planted. Of course, its innards must be recycled in a more traditional way.

A new toy is fun, but in the case of a wireless phone, some responsibility comes with the enjoyment. Don’t discard, when it’s so easy to re-use or recycle. I look forward to the day when cell phones will transform into sunflowers.

Junk mail

2007-10-29T11:12:00.000-05:00

Junk mail drives me crazy! My mailbox used to be stuffed with credit card applications, catalogs for clothing I would never order, magazine subscription offers, solicitations for charities, life insurance proposals, and other items of that ilk. Your mailbox is probably equally crammed.

Researchers say that each American receives about 560 pieces of junk mail a year, or 11 pieces per week. Multiply that by the number of people in your family, and--Wow! How much of it do you read? Statistics show that only 44% of direct mail is read by the person to whom it is addressed. Most of it is thrown into the trash and ends up in a landfill, where paper makes up 40% of the solid waste.

Contemplate the resources used to produce and deliver direct mail. One hundred million trees annually go to the pulp mills just for junk mail. Dead letters, indeed! An enormous amount of energy is used to produce the paper, deliver it to the printer, print the catalog or credit card offer, and mail it to recipients who do not want it. Consider the poor postmen who have to sort it, bag it, and stuff it into our mailboxes. It’s a huge problem!

I confess that I let junk mail accumulate into a large nest until it eventually bothers me enough to attack it. When I lost a couple of legitimate bills recently because they were hidden among the detritus, I realized I had to take action.

At http://www.directmail.com/ I filled out a form which caused my name and the names of my family members to be removed from catalog mailing lists. This service is free, but it cannot guarantee that your name will be removed from all lists forever.

Another helpful website is http://www.optoutprescreen.com/, the official Consumer Credit Reporting Industry website. It processes requests from consumers to opt-in or opt-out of offers for credit or insurance. This site is also free and the service lasts for five years.

The most informative site is http://www.nativeforest.org/. It lists five steps you can take to remove your name from virtually all direct mailing lists. While perusing this site, I also learned that manufacturer’s warranty cards are primarily used to gather names and addresses for direct mail lists. Caveat emptor!

Businesses, universities, and schools should check out http://www.ecologicalmail.org/. This is a free service which compares names of former or transferred employees with direct mail lists and flags outdated contacts so that your business or school does not keep receiving their mail. Everybody wins at this site. Companies do not have to deal with mountains of useless mail; direct marketers send only to valid potential customers; and the earth gets to keep some trees.

If junk mail is as big a problem for you as it was for me, take steps. Do not be a slave to your mailbox. Set yourself free today.

Fair Trade coffee, or what Juan Valdez never told us

2007-10-29T10:59:00.000-05:00

Do you love coffee as much as I do? I never drank it until a few years ago, but with the obsession of the recent convert, I now cannot begin a day without a cup.

At first I was content with the old standbys from the grocery store, but I soon began to need more excitement. I haunted Starbucks, trying all of their concoctions. I bought a grinder, so I could be cool and grind my own beans. I developed a fondness for a particular yellow cup which held just the right amount and directed the heavenly aroma into my nostrils in the most delectable way. In short, I became an addict.

As I wandered into the world of coffee, I noticed that some brands were marked “Fair Trade Certified.” This piqued my interest. Why are some coffees “fair” and some apparently “unfair?” Juan Valdez never said anything about that.

Half of the coffee grown in the world is produced on small family farms in Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Like small farmers everywhere, they are caught in the maw of the huge corporate farming operations. About 20 years ago, small coffee farmers began to band together into cooperatives to improve their lot. These cooperatives evolved into the Fair Trade movement, the goal of which is to lift the farmers out of poverty, to improve living conditions in their towns and villages, to protect the environment, and to educate growers about better business practices so they can sell more beans. Fair Trade farmers receive a guaranteed minimum price and a premium for organically-grown beans.

I’m in favor of being fair, but is Fair Trade only about price? The movement’s ideas have expanded over the years to include several other principles. In order to protect the health of the workers and preserve the ecosystems, sustainable growing methods are employed and harmful chemicals are banned. Child labor is not allowed. Coffee importers purchase directly from the growers, eliminating the cost of brokers. Members of Fair Trade cooperatives decide democratically how to invest their revenues in projects which will improve their communities, such as scholarships, healthcare centers, business training, or organic certification.

Where can one purchase Fair Trade coffee? Sometimes it’s a little difficult, but not impossible. All of Dunkin Donuts’ coffee and some of Starbucks’ coffee are certified. Many major universities serve only Fair Trade coffee. Newman’s Own has partnered with McDonald’s to sell Fair Trade coffee in 650 outlets. Sam’s Club and Atkins’ Foods carry Fair Trade coffee in bulk. Yuban coffee, which can be purchased at most supermarkets, is Fair Trade.

Coffee addicts, unite! For every drinker in the United States, there is a worker in a third world nation who depends on coffee for his livelihood. Buy “fair,” and that java will warm your heart as much as it does the rest of your body.

Guilt assuaged with green tags

2007-10-29T10:53:00.000-05:00

How do you feel about guilt? Personally, I would rather avoid the feeling, but it pops up every once in awhile.

When I fill my gasoline-addicted hog of an SUV at the pump, I hear a voice in my head reminding me that I would help the environment and my wallet if I drove a car which got more than 18 miles per gallon. The voice is particularly loud when I use my gas dryer to fluff one shirt, or when I realize that I’ve been gone from home for an hour leaving the door open with air conditioning spewing into the yard. I’ve even heard it when walking down the jetway to board a plane for an eagerly-anticipated vacation.

I rationalize the SUV by telling myself that when I bought it, I needed it for all the boys and their sports equipment that I toted around town. However, the boys are in college and the largest thing I carry now is a Labrador retriever. I have no excuse for misusing the dryer or leaving the door open, but surely I deserved the vacation.

Happily, a cure for this guilt exists--in the form of green tags, also known as carbon offsets. A green tag is an investment in renewable energy projects which reduce carbon emissions. For example, the money you spend to buy green tags might be used to plant trees or build wind turbines. All of us contribute to the build up of greenhouse gases, but we can also reduce that build up. We can balance our usage by becoming carbon neutral—offsetting what we use with green tags.

Companies from which we can purchase green tags for our cars, our homes and businesses, or for travel are numerous and easy to locate on the internet. Before choosing one, consider these factors. How much does each company charge to produce the equivalent of a single killowatt-hour from a renewable source? Are the reductions delivered within a short time or promised for the future? What percentage of the company’s funds is allocated to administrative costs, rather than energy projects?

Finally, how do you know that your money is going where you want it to go? Carbon offset projects should be certified by Green-e (http://www.green-e.org/), Environmental Resources Trust (http://www.ert.net/), or CDM Gold Standard (http://www.cdmgoldstandard.org/). These are independent third-party organizations which validate that your investment is being put into renewable energy projects.

Bonneville Environmental Foundation (http://www.b-e-f.org/) and My Climate (http://www.my-climate.com/) are fully verified. Other reputable companies include Carbon Counter (http://www.carboncounter.org/), CarbonFund Foundation (http://www.carbonfund.org/), Climate Care Ltd. (http://www.climatecare.org/), and Native Energy (http://www.nativeenergy.com/).

Silence that guilty voice in your head, as I have mine, by purchasing green tags. Carbon neutrality feels really good, but I should still get rid of the gas hog.

One man's trash...

2007-10-29T10:48:00.000-05:00

I had a disturbing conversation recently with a local businessman. I asked him what he recycled at his store, and he answered, “Nothing! As far as I’m concerned, it’s all trash.” All trash? Didn’t his mother teach him that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure?

Since then, I’ve pondered how one could persuade someone who thought like that to begin recycling. Many reasons leaped to mind, but I’ll only share a few.

Recycling prevents the perpetual destruction of natural resources. Look at the lifecycle of a product as a closed circle. We extract and process the material. We manufacture and consume it. We return the discarded product, so it can be processed, manufactured, and consumed again. Recycling lessens the destruction and pollution of the earth which occurs when trees are harvested or metals are extracted from the earth.

Recycling saves energy. Americans generate millions of tons of solid waste every year. If we recycled 30% of this, we would save the energy equivalent of 11 billion gallons of gasoline. My businessman friend is concerned because our curbside waste is being trucked to a landfill in another city and his expenses are going up. Fortunately, he can be part of the solution. If he recycles, there will be less trash on those trucks and more money in his bank account.

Recycling creates jobs. Nationwide, for every one worker employed at a landfill, there are 10 employed in recycling processing and 25 in recyling-based manufacturing. The recycling industry employs more people than the auto industry. Many companies employ special-needs people in their recycling programs. Shouldn’t we encourage these productive citizens by doing our part?

Recycling reduces the need for landfills. On a planet which is 70% water, there is a finite amount of land. Why should we use it to build ugly mountains of garbage? Landfills are the largest sources of human-produced methane, a greenhouse gas more damaging than carbon dioxide. Gas from landfills pollutes the air with carcinogens and other cancer-causing chemicals. Worst of all, landfills generate “garbage juice” which leaches into our groundwater. Icck! The most important point is that landfills create health problems for all of us, not just the people who live near them.

Reasons to recycle abound. To me there is a natural symmetry and an undeniable logic to recycling. I wish the businessman who startled me with his statement about recycling could see it. Perhaps he’ll reconsider and realize that his trash can and should become treasure.

Ink & paper = $$$

2007-10-29T10:43:00.000-05:00

How many pages do you print from your computer in a day? I print just a few for my personal use. If I worked in an office, I’m sure the number would be much higher. According to studies, the average office worker in the United States prints about 10,000 pages a year or 27 a day. That’s a lot of ink and paper!

Did you know that if you filled your car’s gas tank with Hewlett-Packard printer ink it would cost around $100,000? Talk about black gold! The ink in printer cartridges costs about $66 an ounce. Compare that to Dom Perignon champagne which costs $4.50 an ounce or milk which costs a paltry $.03 an ounce.

Why not save ink and money while helping the environment? Set your printer to draft mode by changing the options from regular to draft. Pages printed in draft mode appear slightly lighter because this mode uses less ink. Your printer will print three times faster than in regular mode, and you’ll create less waste because you will use fewer cartridges. By the way, cartridges should always be recycled, either by having them refilled at Cartridge World or disposing of them at Staples.

What about copy paper? I don’t want to inundate you with numbers, but 35% of the worldwide wood harvest ends up as paper, and per capita paper consumption in the United States is six times greater than the world average. Some of my mathematically-minded friends could compute how much of the world’s paper Americans use, but you get the idea. We use enough office paper in a year to build a wall 10 feet high from New York City to Tokyo.

How can we conserve without too much sacrifice? I always print on the backs of letters and flyers that come in the mail. My friends are used to receiving messages from me on odd-colored paper with an advertisement or a recipe on the other side. Another way is to set your printer to two-sided printing. This isn’t calculus, friends. If you print on both sides of the paper, you’ll use half as many sheets.

I recently discovered a website at www.greenprinter.com which provides downloadable software that eliminates those annoying end pages containing only a URL or some legal jargon. This software lets you remove ink hogs, such as banners, logos, and extra pictures. From this site you can also download EverGreen font, which was designed to print more characters on a page and still be easily readable. If you switch from Times New Roman to EverGreen, your paper use will drop by about 15%.

We should each accept a small part of the planetary responsibility for conserving resources. Using less ink and fewer sheets of paper is a tiny step, but one that we can easily take.

Light on bulbs

2007-10-29T10:39:00.000-05:00

Let’s shed some light on bulbs.

Compact fluorescent bulbs—the ones which look like spirals of glass—constitute the first advance in lighting since Thomas Edison made candles obsolete. Edison wasn’t concerned with energy efficiency and his bulbs know it. In fact, incandescent bulbs have changed little since their inception. Only 10% of the energy they use is converted into light, while the remaining 90% becomes heat.

An incandescent bulb is an energy hog with a short life. A compact fluorescent—CFL—is more expensive to buy, but it will last longer and save money over its lifetime. If you replace a 100-watt incandescent bulb with a CFL, it will last 15 times longer and you will save around $100. What’s the downside to that?

Still have questions? Are CFLs as bright as incandescent bulbs? The earliest ones were dim, but the new bulbs give off high-quality light. Do they fit standard sockets? Yes. However, if the lampshade or fixture is small, you might have a problem. Where can you buy them? Anywhere you can purchase incandescent bulbs. Are there any other advantages? Some CFLs have a room deodorizing feature, but those cost more. Any disadvantages? When you flip the switch, there is a tiny delay before the bulb turns on.

After you factor in all that information, a big question arises. Should you instantly replace all your bulbs? The incandescent bulbs you are using were cheap, and CFLs will save you a substantial amount of money in energy use. So the answer probably should be “Yes.”

We can each replace the bulbs in our own houses, but is there a solution on a larger scale? A global switch from incandescent bulbs to CFLs would lower the world’s electricity use by almost one-tenth, according to a recent report by the International Energy Agency. Since 19% of electricity worldwide is used for lighting, this is a dramatic change. Some countries are beginning to mandate the use of CFLs. Australia intends to phase out all incandescent bulbs by 2010. Several European nations are considering the move, and a similar proposal was recently introduced in California.

Switching from incandescents to CFLs is easy, and your reward will arrive with your first OG&E bill. I love the soft light produced by my CFLs, but I particularly love my smaller electric bill. Let’s face it--Edison’s bulbs are dinosaurs. CFLs are the bulbs of the present, and the future of lighting looks even brighter. Make the switch!

Paper or plastic?

2007-10-29T10:34:00.000-05:00

Paper or plastic? What’s the correct answer from an environmental point of view? We all know that plastic bags are bad for the environment. They take forever to biodegrade in the landfills. They are dangerous to wildlife, especially when they get into rivers and oceans. They are a waste of non-renewable petroleum. So should you choose paper? Paper bags are biodegradable. They don’t hurt wildlife, but lots of trees are cut down to produce them. It’s a quandary!

My solution is to use my own bags. In my car I keep two canvas bags which I carry into stores. These bags, which had been occupying space in my closet, now have a purpose. I keep a couple of plastic bags (which I re-use) inside one of them, in case I buy a package of something leaky or wet.

A solution on a larger scale has recently been approved by the city supervisors in San Francisco. They have banned the use of petroleum-based plastic bags at all grocery stores and pharmacies. In addition to offering paper bags, stores may sack using reusable cloth bags or plastic bags made of corn. The corn bags degrade rapidly and can be made into compost. The ban goes into effect in six months.

In 2002, the Republic of Ireland instituted a 9-pence (about 15-cents) tax on each polythene bag taken away by shoppers. As a result, plastic bag use has dropped by 90 percent. After the first three months, the levy was declared “an outstanding success” by Minister of the Environment Martin Cullen. Retailers handed out 277 million fewer plastic bags than in the three months prior to the “plastax.” Since then, millions of euros have been raised for environmental projects, and the reduction of litter has been dramatic.

In 2002, Bangladesh banned the use of polythene bags, because they were blocking drainage systems. They were found to be a major cause of the 1988 and 1998 floods which submerged two-thirds of the country. Demand for jute bags soared, resulting in more manufacturing jobs and increases in the prices paid to jute growers.

Taiwan’s ban on the bags, which was instituted in 2001, includes supermarkets, fast-food outlets, and department stores. It also prohibits government agencies, schools, and the military from distributing free plastic bags.

It would be easy for each of us to change our consumer behavior with regard to plastic bags. The kids who work at the grocery store looked at me strangely only at the beginning of my conversion. Now Jason teases me about my bags, but I think he’s glad I’m saving the earth for him. Andrea just thinks my bags are “cool.”

We can each play a role which will collectively solve the plastic-or-paper dilemma. See you at the store with your canvas bags!