If you have to use a car, share one! October 21, 2009

There are undoubtedly too many cars on the road–too many single-user cars that is. There is a growing trend, however, towards carsharing. Carsharing is similar to car rental with the main differences being you can use the carsharing vehicle for as little as a half-hour and the cars are located in the communities rather than at a central car rental location. In short, carsharing serves as a unique cross between a rental car and cab service. This implies that urban dwellers across the Eastern seaboard, Seattle, Chicago, Vancouver, Toronto and even London can take part in an environmental alternative to owning a car.

As a former car owner, I know the need for mobility-independence–the ability to leave the city on a whim; however, as a steward of the environment, I also understand the need to reduce, when possible, my carbon foot print. Well, I recently found a resource that helps to achieve a frequently sought after balance between wanting/needing a car and wanting/needing to help the environment: the Zip-Car.

Zip-Car is a membership based car haring service that includes gas, insurance, maintenance, and 180 miles of free driving. Membership fees vary based on the how you plan to use the vehicle but are generally less expensive than renting car. The fees are considerably lower if you are a student or part of business that takes advantage of the Zip-Cars business-friendly plans.

There are other programs that are starting to pop up, such as Connect by Hertz, but Zip car is still the market leader in the US for now.

Trains, Planes and Automobiles! October 1, 2009

America’s growth and westward expansion was based on the dominance of the train.  By 1929 the U.S. had one of the largest and most used rail networks in the world (65,000 railroad cars in operation and 265,000 miles of tracks).  Where did this train system go?  Where America once dominated, now we lag behind Europe and Asia who both have extensive and convenient rail systems.

The decline in the dominance of train travel is due in large part to the rise of America as an auto nation.  America’s automobile companies worked to beat the trains by buying rail lines to close them and pressuring Congress to build an extensive highway system throughout the country.  Although these efforts were a huge success for the auto companies, they took their toll on the environment as well as the U.S.’ dependence on foreign oil sources.  This dependence on automobiles has lead to troubles for America, and as these problems have arisen people have looked toward trains once again.

Train travel has the least harmful impact on the environment by leaps and bounds compared to plane and auto travel.  The only method of transportation that is better in walking or biking, clearly not a practical alternative to traveling throughout the country.  The U.S. government recognizes this as a benefit to train travel, and for this and other motives, it created Amtrak in 1971 to provide rail service in the U.S..  Amtrak uses around 21,000 miles of track, mostly pre-existing freight rails, and served around 28 million customers in 2008.  While this is a large amount of people, if anyone has ever ridden Amtrak, they know that the service is incomplete and would not be able to compete against the rails in Europe.  Why does America continue to lag in a much more sustainable alternative to travel?

President Obama recognizes the tremendous potential for growth in the U.S. rail system and has allocated $8 billion to enhance the rail system.  Hopefully this will produce great strides in the rail system and U.S. can lessen its harmful impact on the environment while providing a more pleasant travel experience.

Biodiversity is More Than a Want- It’s a Necessity September 23, 2009

The brilliant colors of coral reefs in the ocean, extensive foliage in the rain forest, animals running in open Western planes.  These are the symbols of biodiversity seen all over advertisements for vacations spots labeled as “paradise.”  Maintaining environmental biodiversity is clearly important to maintain the picturesque images of the earth, the ones that get turned in to posters that say “Relax” underneath the picture and fill the covers of National Geographic magazines.  But, what needs to be recognized is that biodiversity is not just a luxury, it is critical to the health of the environment.

Natural biodiversity is important to the health of ecosystems throughout the world.  Diversity helps ecosystems function in ways such as producing a wider variety of species, ensuring natural sustainability of species and allowing ecosystems to be more able to recover successfully after disasters.  All of these functions are obviously important for the future safety of the environment, but natural biodiversity can also have an impact on the economy and directly on you.

The Convention about Life on Earth stated, “at least 40 per cent of the world’s economy and 80 per cent of the needs of the poor are derived from biological resources. In addition, the richer the diversity of life, the greater the opportunity for medical discoveries, economic development, and adaptive responses to such new challenges as climate change.”  Biodiversity provides services like promoting a greater variety of crops; protecting water resources and helping break down and absorb pollution.  It also creates numerous resources such as food, medicinal resources, wood and plant products, breeding stocks and future resources.

People and governments need to increase their education and knowledge about what biodiversity is and why it is important.  Natural diversity is crucial not just for the health and safety of the environment but also for all people and the functions of the world we have created.  We should place much more emphasis on and work tirelessly to understand and protect the resources that the earth has given us.

Are Companies’ Actions Truly Green, or Simply Green Reactions? September 17, 2009

It is currently all the rage for companies to introduce environmentally friendly products, or change their methods of production to include measures to protect the environment.  However, it is obvious that these actions are not done without a motive to increase sales or save money, especially given the current economic situation.  This motive explains the copious increase in green marketing.  TerraChoice points out that green marketing has tripled between 2006 and 2008.

A problem I see with the current onslaught of green marketing is not that these actions are being used to promote sales or save money, but that for some companies, these actions are merely defensive. In many case, companies choose to make huge strides in acting environmentally friendly when they have been criticized and given negative press for harming the environment.   A recent example is Nike and Coca-Cola’s environmentally friendly commitments after being  publicly criticized.  Nike was criticized in a Greenpeace study of hurting the Brazilian cattle in the Amazon.  In reaction to this study Slaughtering the Amazon Nike has made strides to make amends, including a possible implementation of a tracing system to ensure that future biome harm doesn’t occur.

That being said, is this issue of defensive green actions truly a problem?  Even though the companies’ motives may not be ideal, environmentally friendly actions are still advancing.  I believe it is crucial to the health of our environment that companies take charge in helping the environment.  Therefore, although it is easy to see companies’ motives as insincere,  the work they are doing to green-up their companies should be praised. They are still moving in the right direction, and if it helps their business, it can also help our economy, leading to a win-win for everyone.

Hang-Up the Rag and Bucket – Tips for Sustainable Car-Washing September 3, 2009

Washing the family car in front of the house seems like a great way to save money on a professional car wash while spending some time in the sunshine, right? What you may not realize is that with every wash, you are sending upwards of 120 gallons of soapy, toxin-laden water directly back into the watershed. Furthermore, studies show that washing you car by hand wears away at the finish on your car much faster than with a professional wash.

Since the water that runs off your driveway and into the sewer isn’t sent to a water treatment plant the soap, gasoline, oil, and heavy metals that used to be on your car are put directly into streams and rivers. Conversely, professional car washes are required by law to sent their run-off to a water treatment plant. Furthermore, your average professional car wash uses between eight and 45 gallons of water – drastically less than what you would use at home. Lastly, the cloth that is used in the overhead and side rollers in professional car washes is designed specifically to minimize damage to the car’s finish. Though they can be more expensive than their home-based counterparts, these car washes are not only better for the environment, but also better for maintaining your car’s appearance.

In the instance where a professional car wash isn’t an option, some steps can be taken to minimize your impact on the environment. A wide array of green cleaning agents can be used to take care of the car’s body, windows, hubcaps, and tires. Using a pressure-washer instead of a garden hose greatly reduces the amount of water needed to get the job done. Washing the car on a permeable surface like gravel or grass greatly reduces the amount of run-off that makes it into fragile ecosystems. Finally, instead of finishing by dumping the bucket of soapy water into the gutter, pour it into the toilet to ensure that it makes it to a water treatment facility.

Is Population Growth Harming the Environment? August 6, 2009

The Earth’s population has now surpassed 6 billion people, a number reached because of levels of exponential growth. This number should be seen as an outstanding accomplishment in terms of having the resources to feed and keep healthy all 6 billion people. However, is this growth the reason for the depletion of natural resources that our world currently faces?

The magnitude of the population number is not necessarily the problem. A bigger problem is the increase in unsustainable and wasteful ways in which natural resources are currently used in many places today.

What matters is the size of the ecological footprint that highly populated nations have on the Earth. With such large populations, it is imperative that the ecological footprint of a nation is not larger than the nation itself. Overpopulation has occurred in many nations, leading to unsustainable uses of resources because of the explosion of trade and consumption, practices leading to poverty stricken people acting in unsustainable ways just to survive, regions not being able to sustain larger populations, and large family sizes due to cultural patterns or levels of education.

This issue is important not just because 6 billion is already a large number, but because the growth is not expected to slow anytime soon. The World Population Prospects, the 2000 Revision Highlights states, “By 2050, world population is expected to be between 7.9 billion (low variant) and 10.9 billion (high variant), with the medium variant producing 9.3 billion.” Therefore by 2050 there will likely be 9.3 billion reasons to understand the effect that population growth has on depleting the Earth’s natural resources. So what’s the solution? Although I wish I had a ’silver bullet’ answer, as you know, the answer is as complex as the problem. However,  minimizing the use of resources and increasing the sustainable use of remaining resources is a great start.

The Oyster Recovery Partnership Needs Your Help! July 31, 2009

Though the Chesapeake Bay is only an occasional thought for most that live in the District, our day-to-day lives here play a huge role in the health of the Bay’s ecosystems. Everything we place into streams, rivers, creeks, and sewers eventually finds its way into the Chesapeake, and many of these things are causing the growth of the numerous “dead zones” in the northern half of the Bay. These dead zones occur because of hypoxia, or water that has too little oxygen to support life, and are the product of a harshly unbalanced ecosystem.

The Bay is known for its crabs and rockfish, but its oysters make it possible for all these other animals to survive. By filtering water through their shells in search of food, they also clean the water of any unnatural chemicals. Hundreds of years ago, before the widespread harvest of the Bay’s oysters, the billions upon billions of shellfish were able to filter all of the Chesapeake’s water in a matter of hours. Now the job takes about three years to complete. Clearly, the now-dwindling number of oysters cannot handle the job at hand, and the situation can only worse as the Capitol’s suburbs grow and leech more and more toxins into the watershed.

However, there is hope for the Chesapeake! A group call the Oyster Recovery Partnership is working to reintroduce the shellfish into protected oyster reefs established throughout the Bay. In 2009 alone they have planted some 500 million oysters spread over an area of 300 acres. Thought the numbers seem impressive, the Partnership is still far from their goal of reintroducing the shellfish to Maryland’s 275,000 acres of oyster grounds. The only possible way for this to happen is with great public support through donations and volunteering. Giving the program a tax-deductible donation of $25 will help with habitat restoration efforts, fund the Partnership’s research and education initiatives, as well as plant hundreds of oysters. Becoming a volunteer is also encouraged, as public involvement is the best way to get the word out about the Bay’s sad state.

Note: There are many worthwhile organizations that work to address various environmental concerns. From time to time, we will highlight some that we think may not be as known to the general public. The Oyster Recovery Partnership is one such organization.

Don’t forget your reusable bag or you may be grabbing for your Nickels July 16, 2009

Paper or plastic, it’s the question inevitably thrown at you every time you head for the checkout counter. The ecologically friendly answer: neither. Soon Washington D.C., and possibly other cities, may have you thinking twice about your decision.

We have all heard the arguments against disposable bags and the havoc they wreak on our environment, but here is a refresher: approximately 100 billion plastic shopping bags are used in the United States every year which can be attributed to an estimated 12 million barrels of oil required to make them. How good are we at recycling these bags? Not very, only 1 to 2 percent of plastic bags in the US are recycled. Paper bags do not offer much of an alternative.  Americans consume more than 10 billion paper bags per year, amounting to 14 million trees being chopped down.

Plastic bags are also severely damaging to local waterways which has lead to the crackdown in D.C.  An analysis by the D.C. Department of the Environment (DDOE) found that plastic bags account for 20 percent of the trash in the Anacostia River and 50 percent of the trash in its tributaries. In response, the city created a nickel tax on disposable paper and plastic carryout bags to take effect January 1, 2010. The tax is applicable to grocers, food vendors, convenience stores, drugstores and other businesses yet excludes bags used for newspapers, produce, hardware, frozen foods, plants, bakery items or prescription drugs.  Business will keep one cent of the 5 cent fee to cover administrative expenses and the remaining 4 cents will be given to the Anacostia River Cleanup and Protection Fund. The proceeds of this fund will educate the public about the impact of the trash, provide reusable bags to District residents, and remove trash from the river. D.C. Chief Financial Officer, Natwar Gandhi, claimed the disposable bag tax will bring the District $3.6 million in fiscal 2010 revenue and could reduce the use of disposable bags by 50 percent in the first year of implementation.

Though San Francisco banned plastic bags outright in 2007, the District is leading the way as the first city in the country to impose a disposable bag tax.  A few states may follow suit with disposable bag legislation of their own in the works: Hyde, Curritck and Dare counties in North Carolina with an outright ban, Maryland (25 cent tax), Texas (7 cent tax), and Seattle (20 cent tax).

For more information on disposable bag legislation around the country visit http://www.seattlebagtax.org/.

Is it Green or Greenwashing? July 2, 2009

Companies are attempting to improve their environmental image, with the onslaught of green advertising, at the quest of pleasing more environmentally conscious consumers. Green marketing has tripled between 2006 and 2008 according to TerraChoice, an environmental marketing firm. Though many companies have made great strides to lessen their environmental impact, others prefer greenwashing or dishonestly portraying products or services as environmentally friendly. TerraChoice has identified seven key attributes or ‘sins’ of greenwashing and reported 98%, of over 2200 products, making green claims had committed one of the seven sins of greenwashing.  Beware of these seven sins (though not deadly) they may have you purchasing products with unintended environmental impacts:

1. The Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off is when companies make an environmental claim with limited criteria and exclude other important environmental issues. This sin can be seen in products touting energy efficiency but include toxic materials. You can avoid this trade-off by determining whether claims are restricted to one issue and evaluating lifecycle energy consumption, emissions, and materials. You can also look for a meaningful eco-label.
2. The Sin of No Proof is an environmental claim that is made without the necessary proof, such as third-party confirmation, to support it.  Many products, from food to shampoos, claim they are ‘certified organic’ some without a verifiable certification. To validate claims you can look at the product’s labeling, marketing materials as well as the product’s website.
3. The Sin of Vagueness is the use of ambiguous terms that create an environmental claim that can be misleading. The most common violation of this sin is the ‘100% natural’ or ‘all natural’ declaration, this may be true but many naturally occurring chemicals can be toxic (formaldehyde, arsenic and mercury to name a few). First, disregard ambiguous expressions such as ‘natural’, ‘green’ and ‘environmentally friendly’ unless they have supporting evidence. Again, look for meaningful eco-labeling.
4. The Sin of Irrelevance is a claim that is unimportant in seeking the environmentally preferable product. For example products claim to be free of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) despite CFCs being banned over 20 years ago. To avoid irrelevant assertions, determine whether or not similar products can make the same claim. If so, this product is no more ‘green’ than the next.
5. The Sin of Fibbing is the use of environmental claims that are untrue. An example of this sin lies (and yes pun intended) in products falsely claiming third-party certification such as Energy Star. Claims such as these can be easily verified with the eco certification itself, often with a simple check on their website.
6. The Sin of Lesser of Two Evils is a claim that distracts from the overall negative environmental impact of a product. The ‘fuel-efficient’ sports utility vehicle is an example of this sin. You can avoid becoming victim to this sin by simply asking ‘by nature is this product environmentally friendly?’
7. The Sin of Worshiping False Labels is a claim that misleads one through words and images portraying third party certification that does not exist. This can be seen with products that have certification seals with words such as ‘eco-safe’ that essentially have no meaning. You can avoid this sin by becoming familiar with reliable eco-labels such as Energy Star, Green Seal, EcoLogo and Sustainable Forestry Initiative.

For more information on greenwashing and eco-labels, check out:

http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/

http://www.greenerchoices.org/eco-labels/

Continuing and emerging trends in environmental technologies June 19, 2009

With the green movement gaining momentum, many environmental technologies have become more wide-spread such as solar power, wind energy, and a host of other innovations that will make human existence more sustainable.  Many of the technologies currently offered in the market took years of development and at the time required the assistance of state/federal incentives to make them attractive for consumers.  While there is the potential for existing and increasingly popular technologies to improve environmental quality, there are still many other related technologies that are being developed and are noteworthy.

One technology worth keeping track of is the usage of hydrogen fuel cells.  Hydrogen fuel cells have been considered a pollution free alternative to fossil fuels through a process that combines hydrogen and oxygen to make water in order to generate electricity.  The problem with fuel cells is obtaining the hydrogen.  Molecules such as water and alcohol have to be processed to extract hydrogen to feed into a fuel cell.  Some of these processes require the using of other energy sources, which then defeat the advantages of this “clean” fuel cell.  Most recently, scientists have come up with ways to power laptops and small devices with fuel cells, and some car companies are promising that soon we’ll be seeing cars that emit nothing but clean water.

Another technology is the promise of bioremediation, which uses microbes and plants to clean up contamination. Some examples of bioremediation include the cleanup of nitrates in contaminated water with the help of microbes, and using plants to uptake arsenic from contaminated soil, in a process known as phytoremediation.  The US EPA has used it to clean up several sites.  Often, native plant species can be used for site cleanup, which are advantageous because in most cases they don’t require pesticides or watering.  In other cases, scientists are trying to genetically modify the plants to take up contaminants in their roots and transport it all the way to the leaves for easy harvesting.

A third technology that could offer many advantages is electronic paper (also known as e-paper).  One of many possibilities of electronic paper would be the ability to use read a newspaper in the morning and then using the same paper to read a novel later using a flexible display that looks very much like real paper but can be consistently be reused.  The display contains many tiny microcapsules filled with particles that carry electric charges bonded to steel foil.  Each microcapsule has white and black particles that are associated with either a positive or negative charge.  Depending on which charge is applied; the black or white particles surface displaying different patterns.
Keep abreast of the developments of environmental technologies as time will certainly reveal new trends.