Recycle, Chicago!

Opt Out of the Yellow Page's Yellowed Pages!

2011-03-01T14:01:00.004-06:00

After years of complaining about phone book litter by tree huggers and building owners alike, it seems as if Yellow Pages is finally getting the message that millions of Americans would like to see printed phone books disappear! I'd be willing to bet that it's been quite a while since most Americans turned, rather than scrolled, through the Yellow Pages. Yet it seems like another stack of these monstrous directories appears outside the front door of my building every few months or so.

Fortunately, the City of Chicago accepts phone books for recycling, but many towns and municipalities do not. Nor do many of Chicago's phone books find their way into a blue cart; most wind up rotting on the front steps or entry way, in the same place they were dropped off.

Late last year, cities began taking the matter into their own hands. It was Seattle, not a California city, who led the way in banning unsolicited phone book deliveries last fall, although a similar proposal found its way onto lawmakers' desks in San Francisco shortly thereafter. I rejoiced when I saw a posting last month on Tree Hugger that Yellow Pages has created a site for residents to opt out of receiving phone directories!

In Tree Hugger's interview with Neg Norton, president of the Yellow Pages Association, Norton said the company created the opt-out site because, "it doesn't make any sense for us to deliver phone books to people who don't want them." Amen! He also went on to predict that a very small amount of people would actually sign up to decline directory deliveries, as the company's surveys and studies show that 75% of households still use printed phone books.

Seventy-five percent seems awfully high to me; do 75% of households even have a land line anymore? At any rate, I went immediately to the opt-out site and entered my zip code. It showed that I was signed up to receive eight (eight!) directories a year, including the Guia Telefonica and the Russian Yellow Pages. Huh? I refused delivery of all of them. So if you're as sick of phone book litter as I am, take a minute to opt out, and pass this information along to any and every one you know who might like to opt out, too!

Junk Mail Experiment

2011-02-23T14:01:00.003-06:00

During my annual inbox purge, I came across a forward that I received last fall, but never bothered to read. The only reason I didn't delete it is because the subject matter-- clever ways to reduce spam, junk mail, and unsolicited phone calls-- actually piqued my interest. So I skimmed its contents and was particularly amused by the proposed solution to curb unwanted junk mail.

Now, I'm already on just about every opt-out list that I know of, but I still get my fair share of crap in the mailbox each week. The author of the forward suggested sending the utility company's ads back to them with their payment stubs, but I pay my bills online, so that's not a problem. Then the author shared some suggestions from Andy Rooney, the shouty old curmudgeon with woolly eyebrows who rants about some mild annoyance or other at the end of every 60 Minutes episode. I normally mute the guy, but this time he was in print, and he actually seemed to have a point.

Apparently, Rooney saves the return envelopes from the junk mailings he receives, then stuffs them with generic letters, advertisements, and application forms and drops them back in the mail. This forces companies to dispose of their own junk mail, and it also makes them pay-- twice!-- for sending it out in the first place. Even if there's nothing in the envelope, it still costs about 50 cents to return it to the sender. It sounds like he's careful to shred anything with his name or information on it, yet Rooney crows that the amount of junk mail he receives has decreased dramatically in the years since he's been single-handedly keeping the postal service in business, and that if we all would just do as he does, we could eliminate it entirely.

So I decided to try it for a week. I returned a blank application form to a credit card company, I sent AARP (they shouldn't be sending me stuff yet, anyway!) information on how to save 15% or more on car insurance, and I enclosed pledge forms supporting spay and neuter campaigns to an airline (on which I've never flown) that still wants me to join their frequent flier program. Granted, it was kind of fun, but my conscience kept me from making the experiment as effective as it could have been.

I decided from the outset not to return mailings to charities (many of them don't send out postage paid envelopes, anyway!), which automatically disqualified the majority of the junk mail I receive. But of the mailings I was willing to return, it was kind of fun to give these companies a chance to experience firsthand the frustration of receiving junk in the mail. Ultimately, though, I decided that my time would be better spent doing just about anything else. I guess I'm not cantankerous enough to single-handedly eliminate junk mail, but at least I tried!

In Lieu of Roses...

2011-02-14T14:00:00.005-06:00

... give your Valentine some fair-trade chocolate! Or plan an activity together; depending on how much you're willing to invest in this Hallmark holiday, you could go ice skating, make reservations at a nice restaurant, see a museum, volunteer, or even cook together. Whatever. Just no roses. Especially cheap roses. I'm serious-- do or give anything but roses!

Not only are roses cliche, they're also ruining the already fragile ecosystems of some of the developing countries from which our supermarket bouquets are exported. In Kenya, for example, the cultivation of Valentine's Day roses is draining (and polluting) Lake Naivasha, a precious and crucial source of water for the region. And in Colombia, the roses they export have been sprayed liberally with highly toxic pesticides and dipped in a myriad of chemicals by the time they hit store shelves. In addition to ruining their soil, surface water and groundwater, the workers who are repeatedly exposed to these chemicals (many of whom are single mothers) are at higher risk for health problems. Many children whose mothers came into contact with these pesticides and preservatives during their pregnancies showed signs--both physical and mental-- of developmental disabilities or delays.

So next year, consider starting a new tradition. Guys, I speak from experience when I say that, while flowers are nice, I'm much more impressed by a gift or a gesture that was well thought out and came from the heart. It doesn't have to cost a lot; in fact, I usually prefer that it doesn't! It just has to show that you care.

However, if you (and/or your Valentine) is/are dead-set on giving/receiving a colorful bouquet, consider buying organic. OrganicBouquet.com offers a variety of Earth-friendly options, including some rose alternatives that are grown a little closer to home. Potted plants are also nice (I like orchids!); they generally don't wither in a week and, when watered, can be enjoyed year round. So get creative, guys-- you can thank me later!

I Spy... With My Little Eye...

2011-02-08T11:42:00.003-06:00

... the contents of the blue recycling carts being tossed into the same truck as the garbage! For shame, Streets and San guys! Yes, I am aware that there was a blizzard last week. Yes, I know that many of you had to work overtime to salt and plow all the streets in this city. And I'll even admit that, since the city doesn't plow the alleys, it's a crap shoot as to whether the garbage trucks can even get down the alley ways at all.

But this is Chicago. The city that works. So man up, boys; if you can collect garbage, you can collect recyclables. Our recycling rate in this city is shameful enough as it is; let's not use a couple feet of snow as an excuse to make things even worse.

What Say Ye Now, Groundhog?

2011-02-02T20:46:00.004-06:00

Here in Chicago, outlandish weather forecasts are not at all uncommon among the local news stations. In fact, a rush-hour flurry or a sudden downpour is usually all it takes for meteorologists to cut in to the evening's top stories with "breaking news" of the (usually obvious) precipitation affecting portions of the viewing area, and to dispatch rookie reporters to the lake front and expressway overpasses to confirm that-- "live, from outside"-- the white stuff that's hitting my window is, in fact, snow.

So when forecasters began making their catastrophic storm predictions last week, I tuned in to Chicago's Very Own, WGN, to see what my buddy Tom Skilling had to say. He is by far the most level-headed, non-alarmist meteorologist in the tri-state area, so as soon as I heard him calmly describe the impending blizzard as a "storm of historic proportions", I took notice. And as it turns out, he was right on the money.

In this (delightfully snarky for NPR) article posted yesterday, an Atlanta meteorologist said (in response to the "monstrous monikers" that have been attached to the megastorms of recent winters):"Just in passing, I've overheard conversations about the intensity and danger of impending storms. People refer to the storm systems by their TV names, which lets me know that being creative gets people's attention."

But since terms such as "Snowmageddon" and "Snowpocalypse" are so East Coast 2010, I'd like to present to you a medley of the Chicago versions, coined specifically for the Blizzard of 2011. Here goes!

Snowly cow! Snowtorious B.I.G. himself has descended upon the Windy City. We've learned that Mother Nature's first name is, in fact, Snowprah, and that no one was excluded from her first "Favorite Things" episode of February. In a shrieking voice, loud enough to be heard over the howling winds, she has declared that, "you get a blizzard... and "you get a blizzard... everyone gets a BLIZZZZARRRRD!" Only this time, it's not just a room full of hysterical middle-aged women in brightly colored tops who are squealing "SNOW-M-G!"; school children everywhere are overcome with joy to learn that, what started as a snowrnado last night has closed even the Chicago Public schools today. And since this blizzaster has all but crippled transportation in the city, tomorrow's not looking good, either.

It warms my heart (but not my hands) to know that residents are banding together in the wake of this snowtastrophy; in this magical time-- after the snowfall has ended but before the lawn chairs appear (to claim "dibs" on their owners' dug-out parking spaces)-- neighbors are helping neighbors clear drifts from their front doors, shovel narrow pathways for brave commuters and dog walkers, and they're also responding to all-too-literal questions of, "Dude! Where's my car?!?"

On my quiet little side street (that probably won't see a snow plow or a back hoe until sometime this weekend), the only modes of transportation I saw in the two hours I was out unearthing my car were el trains, skis, and snowshoes. Plenty of people ventured out of their homes to marvel at the mess, though, snapping pictures like tourists while trying not to lose their dogs or kids in the waist-high drifts.

I know that 48 hours from now, we'll likely be back to business as usual, cursing the city's never-fast-enough response to snow removal, screaming "oh SNOW you didn't!" at drivers who cut us off or park in a way that is considered stupid-- even for blizzard standards-- but for today, I'm going to do my best to enjoy Blizzardpalooza 2011.

And as for the groundhog... I saw Punxsutawney Phil on the news, smugly predicting an early spring for those out east. Closer to home, our resident rodent in Woodstock, Illinois, wouldn't even come out. Groundhog's day was cancelled. What's that supposed to mean? My guess is that it doesn't bode well for any of us Chicagoans... well, except for maybe the meteorologists.

Alma Mater Goes Green!

2011-01-24T16:38:00.006-06:00

I admit, I perused the cover article of my latest alumni magazine with a mixture of excitement and envy. The feature story championed all the ways the University has "gone green" in the decade since my graduation, outlining both the big and little steps they are taking toward environmental sustainability.

While the seeds of environmental change had already been planted during my time there, the fruits of these labors did not materialize until after I had left; the University began offering a minor in environmental studies my senior year (but by then it was too late for me to add the program and still graduate on schedule) and it was offered as a major in 2005. The LEED-certified Welcome Center opened in 2008, and the GREENetwork, a task force that formed the year after I graduated, meets monthly to oversee the many environmental initiatives that are taking place campus wide.

Those are the biggies, but there are plenty of smaller and equally innovative practices taking place in nearly every aspect of campus life. Student volunteers run a second-hand clothing store from one of the residence halls; the cafeteria has gone trayless and has installed a "Hydration Station" of filtered and flavored waters, meant to encourage students to carry reusable water bottles; and prospective students and their families sip beverages from ceramic mugs that encourage their users to "Think Green", referring both to the environment and to the school's colors.

Even the University's staff are doing their part: the grounds crew has abandoned the practice of blanketing the lawn with pesticides, opting instead to spot-treat areas when necessary; custodial workers have switched to machines and cleaners that use both less water and fewer chemicals; and 65 pairs of aging laundry machines have been replaced with energy efficient models that use much less water and less energy.

Although I did take one environmental science class during my undergrad years, I would certainly have taken more had they been offered. I might have even taken more science classes if the ones that most interested me didn't have crazy prerequisites (like surviving the infamous Bio 101). That this liberal arts school is now taking a liberal arts approach to the environmental sciences-- encouraging students in the program to complete coursework in biology, chemistry, political science, and anthropology-- pleases me to no end; I only wish I could have gotten in on the fun!

Alderman Wants Brockovich at Water Testing

2011-01-13T09:39:00.003-06:00

Well, I'll be. Alderman Ed Burke has invited renowned environmental lawyer, Erin Brockovich, to the soon-to-be-held public hearings on the level of hexavalent chromium recently discovered in the city's water supply from Lake Michigan. This is the same pollutant found in the now groundbreaking case of the residents of Hinkley, California, vs. the Pacific Gas and Energy company, a case that Brockovich researched, launched, and championed all the way up to the highest courts, which ended in a $330 million victory for the plaintiffs and fame and good fortune for Brockovich. What's more, according to Burke, Brockovich's people say she is "available". So an environmental rock star may be coming to Chicago! I am beyond excited about this.

The level of chromium-6 found in Chicago's water supply last month was 0.18 parts per billion, which is now nine times higher than the acceptable 0.02 ppb adopted by California officials just this month. Although nothing has been said about limiting the amount of Cr-6 in our local water supply, officials vow to begin quarterly testing for the substance, and to report their findings online. The EPA has also agreed to review it's current chromium limits, and to consider separating the villified chromium-6 from its cousin chromium-3, which is an essential nutrient.

While chromium levels can knowingly be reduced through fancy water filtration systems, carbon filters (like the one in my fridge) have not yet been proven to separate this chemical out of the tap water (yikes!)

Revelations?

2011-01-09T01:57:00.003-06:00

Is the sudden flurry of recent news reports on the "aflockalypse" keeping anyone else awake at night? My eco-insomnia started on New Year's Day with a chilling story of 5,000 blackbirds falling from the Arkansas sky, and it seems like every time I turn on my TV nowadays, there's another report of mysterious mass wildlife deaths. We're barely a week into this new year, and already we've got reports of species turning up dead in Kentucky and Arkansas and Sweden, in numbers of Biblical proportions. And it's not just birds; dead fish have washed up on the shores of the Chesapeake Bay, dead crabs were found littering a beach in Britain... what (or who!) is next?

So what's going on here? Is our civilization being punished once more with a series of plagues? Did the Mayans correctly predict the coming of the end of days? Or is there something to the many conspiracy theories floating around, warning of covert government operations and chemical/biological warfare testing and the like?

Even though I'm exhausted, my judgement isn't clouded enough to buy into any of these crazy conspiracy theories, and I suspect that the day after the Mayans say the Earth will end will be remarkably similar to January 1st, 2000 (judgement day for Y2K); surprisingly uneventful despite all the hype. Nor do I entirely believe the reports that are telling us not to worry because scientists have decided that the blackbirds in Arkansas were literally scared to death by New Year's Eve fireworks the night before. I am worried, and I don't think the real answer is as simple as the (sometimes conflicting) news reports would lead us to believe!

I resolved not to spend another sleepless night speculating about the disturbing events of recent days, but to instead try and find a more logical explanation. So I turned on the Internet, set my common sense filter to "high", and started searching reputable biological and environmental sites. And here is what I found: sudden mass wildlife deaths are nothing new, nor are they uncommon. The U.S. Geological survey actually keeps a running tally of all reported die-offs here. In fact, scientists believe the species-specific deaths are more common than even this chart shows (as they think most die-offs go unreported) and that the media coverage (not the deaths themselves) is the only thing that has changed in recent days.

In reading through this chart, I see that most of the species on this list are birds, but that the suspected causes of death vary. While trauma is listed quite frequently, so are a number of various diseases. And I know (even from my limited training in biology and ecology) that toxins/pollutants and loss of habitat are other contributing factors. That in itself should give us plenty to worry about; I read somewhere else that as many as one in six species of birds are in danger of becoming extinct!

What's more, animals often succumb to disease, pollution, and other environmental factors long before humans. Some scientists suspect that these dead animals are the "canaries" in our proverbial coal mine, and it's high time we stop and listen. Just as animals can predict and detect severe weather and instinctively know when to take cover, many human diseases start in wildlife populations (bird flu, swine flu... these aren't just cute names!). If we want to stop their problems from becoming our problems down the road, we need to work to protect the environment we all share; humans are not immune!

The beauty of biodiversity is that every creature plays a vital role. We may not know what purpose each species serves in relation to our own existence, but we don't want to find out after they're gone... Sweet dreams!

Recycle Your Christmas Lights!

2010-12-28T09:42:00.006-06:00

Don't ask me how, but the City of Chicago will be recycling your old, broken, and unwanted strands of Christmas lights! Visit any one of their twelve drop-off locations now through January 18th to keep these old decorations out of area landfills. Both indoor and outdoor light strings are being accepted. For more information, or to print out this flyer, call 311 or visit www.chicagorecycles.org.

Hexavalent Chromium Found in Cities' Water Supply

2010-12-20T09:53:00.006-06:00

Remember the based-on-real-life movie, "Erin Brockovich", starring Julia Roberts as a feisty, lingerie-flaunting, single mother? Yes? Well, you may also remember that Robert's unemployed character was so desperate for a job that she took an entry-level position at her lawyer's firm, which was seemingly offered to her out of pity. And I'm sure everyone remembers that Brockovich stumbled upon a covered-up accusation of water pollution by corporate behemoth Pacific Gas and Electric, and took it upon herself to conduct follow-up research and rally more than 600 residents of the town affected to become plaintiffs of what turned out to be a huge class-action lawsuit (which, by the way, they won) against PG & E. This true rags-to-riches story ends with Brockovich going to law school and becoming one of the nation's most prolific environmental lawyers.

What you may not remember, however, is the contaminate at the center of this legal battle. The alleged cancer-causing metal in question was hexavalent chromium, or chromium-6. The good news is that the NIH finally labeled chromium-6 as a "probable carcinogen" (it's believed to cause stomach cancer, among other ailments) back in 2008, and that the great state of California (which has led the way in setting environmental standards and regulations since the 1970s) proposed to set a MCL (a limit on the acceptable amount of contaminate present) in its drinking water to 0.06 parts per billion. The bad news is that the EPA has no limit on the allowable amount of Cr-6, nor does it regularly test the nation's water supply for the presence of such a chemical.

So why do I think this is a big deal? Well, an independent environmental organization, the Environmental Working Group, took it upon themselves to test the drinking water of 35 cities around the U.S.; chromium-6 was found in the water supply of 31 of those cities, and in 25 of those cities, the amount was well above California's proposed limit.

In Chicago, the tests revealed Cr-6 amounts of 0.18 parts per billion; three times what California suggests is safe. Uh oh. The water pollution in this city is suspected to have come in part from the south side steel mills and other riverside industries, as the substance was widely used until the mid 1990s. Although the EPA has agreed to review its stance on hexavalent chromium, utility companies and industrial polluters are already fighting back. If the EPA does in fact set limits on the allowable amount of chromium-6 to enter the water supply, it will be very difficult (not to mention expensive!) to clean up, and companies are reluctant to dip into their profit shares to remediate the problem in the interest of public health. We're all drinking the water, though, so if I knew there was a way to lower my family's risk of certain cancers, liver and kidney damage, and leukemia, I'd consider it a small price to pay.

Meigs Field Now Bird Sanctuary

2010-11-28T18:56:00.003-06:00

Northerly Island is, by all accounts, an enviable piece of real estate. Located just southeast of the Museum Campus, the peninsula was once home to a little airport known as Meigs Field, which met its now-infamous end back in 2003, when Mayor Richard M. Daley covertly sent a fleet of bulldozers to tear up the runways in the middle of the night, without warning the public or getting approval from any of the city's usual legal channels. Unapologetic in his actions, Daley cited only a concern that having an airfield so close to downtown posed a "terrorist threat", in a very-belated response to the September 11th attacks.

Although pilots and other aviator enthusiasts still harbor a great deal of resentment toward the mayor and his seemingly rash decision, it sounds like Northerly Island will soon become a permanent hub for winged creatures of the feathered variety.

In the years since the runway debacle, the Park District has already made great strides in beautifying Northerly Island. They have done a good deal of prairie restoration on the southern half of the peninsula, and erected the Charter One Pavilion, a 7,500-seat (temporary) concert venue to the north. This article in yesterday's Tribune details how architects plan to unveil green designs for a permanent concert facility (revenue from these concerts will help fund this project) and to restructure the old terminal building, by removing the walls (which have claimed the lives of many a migrating bird) and turning it into an open-air pavilion.

A more concerted effort will be made to turn the island, which is on the direct flight path of many migrating birds, into a bird sanctuary and hospital, while underwater rock formations will harbor many more species of aquatic plants and animals. I walked the length of Northerly Island earlier this fall, and despite a group of tourists on Segways, I found it to be a surprisingly peaceful place. I think a nature sanctuary is a great idea, and the views can't be beat!

What's in YOUR Water?

2010-10-30T16:35:00.002-05:00

Just as many people find it hard to remember life before cell phones, others can barely remember life before bottled water. Do you remember when bottled water was "invented"? I do. We must have all been so primitive and uncultured before then... to think that we all used to drink (*gasp!*) tap water... the horror!

Oh, wait. I still drink tap water, and I think all of you should, too. Now, I'm not normally one to blatantly impose my views on others; as long as your actions aren't affecting me and you're not hurting yourself or anyone else, I'm willing to put up with a myriad of different things. But in this case, I think the actions of bottled water drinkers are hurting themselves and others, and here's why.

We've all heard the alarming statistics of the number of plastic beverage containers that wind up in landfills: they make up 45%-60% of all litter in this country, and the number of bottles discarded last year alone, when stacked end to end, would be enough to reach to the moon and back six times, or something crazy like that. Discarded plastic bottles are also clogging up our oceans, comprising a hefty percentage of the giant patches of garbage floating in our polluted seas; the 21st century version of the plastic six-pack rings people got so fired up about back in the '80s.

I know what you're thinking: "Of course litter is bad. I recycle my plastic bottles. What else have you got?"

If pollution doesn't weigh as heavily on your eco-conscious as it does mine, then consider this. Our government, in its infinite wisdom, passed a great deal of environmental legislation back in the 1970s and 80s, and as a result of pieces of legislation such as the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, all municipalities have to meet very specific criteria when it comes to the treatment of drinking water. This includes regular, daily testing of the water that comes out of our tap. And no, it's not 100% pure, but some minerals are good for us and we can rest assured that it has been tested for a myriad of toxins, and test results came in below the MCLs for each of those toxins. We can use additional in-home filtration systems as an extra safeguard or if we object to the taste, but know that in the 21st century, the water that comes out of the tap in this country has been thoroughly tested and is safe to drink.

Still not convinced? Then consider this: bottled water came onto the scene several years after the afore-mentioned bills were passed, so our government, in its infinite wisdom, delegated the regulation of bottled water to the FDA instead. The FDA is so huge that it can't really test every product under its jurisdiction to the extent that is sometimes needed, and often approves items (such as water) that are "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS) without closer inspection. The FDA does not investigate advertising claims of "mountain-pure spring water" and the like, and only gets around to testing bottled water every three to six months... if we're lucky.

Independent testing has since revealed that many of these claims are false, and that most bottled water is just packaged tap water. It's rarely cleaner than what comes out of our faucet, and in some cases the level of contamination is worse. If, for example, bottled water is contaminated during the packaging process, it could take months to detect the toxin, and by that time, thousands of people could have already consumed the tainted water. Tap water contamination is detected and remediated much more swiftly than that.

My final argument against bottled water is this: bottled water came about because giant corporations such as Nestle and Coca Cola and the like found a sneaky new way to increase their sales. They've profited so much from designing clever advertising campaigns and making unfounded health claims about the benefits of their bottled water product, they've monopolized and have all but depleted once-public water sources in areas (such as northern Michigan) just to make a buck. Bottled water is the first step in turning a natural resource into a commodity, and that's a slippery slope to venture down.

Water is vital to our very existence, and the thought of allowing large companies to seize our water supplies and claim ownership of this crucial element is terrifying, indeed. So the next time you reach for an Ice Mountain or a Dasani, I challenge you to stop and think about what you're actually drinking!

Climate Change Exhibit

2010-10-02T18:49:00.010-05:00

I practically skipped down to the Museum Campus last week to take advantage of one of the Field Museum's free days, which means reduced-price admission to their normally pricey special exhibits! I've been meaning to go see the Climate Change exhibit (as well as the robotic dinosaurs, which were very cool) all summer, as I'd heard so many good things about it that I wanted to see it for myself.

In my excitement, I arrived at the museum shortly after it opened, and had the entire Climate Change exhibit practically to myself. So I took my time meandering through the aisles, crammed floor to ceiling with historic facts, photos, meteorological diagrams, and flow charts, reading both the interest-piquing tidbits and the heavier scientific evidence behind the findings presented.

Of all the information presented, my only beef with the presentation was with the giant stuffed polar bear picking its way over a mound of garbage. I found the display to be apocalyptic and over the top; the present facts are scary enough, there's no need to make wild predictions about the future.

Although the subject matter was still alarming, it was not alarmist by any means, and I was pleased as punch to see no partisan politics in play whatsoever (which, in my opinion, is exactly as it should be!). The exhibit did exactly what exhibits do best, and that is to present the facts in a clear and concise manner. It's funny, but without partisan rhetoric and cliche talking points, skeptics have a much harder time arguing with the facts!

And the fact is that our planet is getting warmer. The all-encompassing takeaway I left with is that, while the rising temps may be due in part to the natural cycle of the Earth (take heart, skeptics!), our habits and actions as a society certainly aren't helping matters and may in fact be making things worse (hug a tree, hippies!). The exhibit left visitors with a sense of hope, detailing how a few small actions by many could change the trajectory of our future, because the health of the environment and the health of all species (humans are not immune!) are inexorably linked.

Ding Dong! The Well is Dead!

2010-09-19T18:50:00.002-05:00

Ding Dong!

The Well is dead.

Which oil Well?

The BP Well!

Ding Dong!

Macondo well is dead!

Scrub oil off the pelican's head,

pull trawlers along the Gulf Sea bed.

Coast Guard said the oil well is dead!

Say skeptics, "Where'd the oil go?"

Below - below - below.

Yo-ho,

let's open up the beach

and wring the booms out.

Ding Dong the merry-oh,

never mind the slick below.

Let folks know

Macondo well is dead!

The well's been plugged but it's a pity,

Offshore drilling all had to be stopped.

Spillcam's off; we're not the enemy!

USCG

But we've got to verify it legally, to see

To see?

USCG

If she

If she?

USCG

Is morally, ethic'lly

Shrimpers

Spiritually, physically

Fishermen

Positively, absolutely

Tourists

Undeniably and reliably Dead

Adm. Thad Allen

As Admiral I must aver,

I thoroughly examined her.

And she's not only merely dead,

she's really most sincerely dead.

This is a good day for Gulf dependents,

For all marine life, and their descendants

USCG

If any...

All

Yes, let the joyous news be spread

Deepwater Horizon's well is dead!

Stearns Quarry Wetlands

2010-09-07T18:49:00.004-05:00

I learned of this ecological gem while waiting on the Roosevelt el platform, of all places. The CTA has TV screens at some of the larger stations that encourage passengers to explore different areas of the city by mass transit, by showcasing certain attractions near different el stops. Advertised as being just steps from the Halsted Orange Line station and bus hub, I hopped a train to the south side and spent a morning wandering through one of the Park District's newest open areas and wetlands restoration sites.

The site of this abandoned stone quarry lies just southeast of the Stevenson Expressway, but despite its proximity to such a major vehicle thoroughfare, the quarry is surprisingly tranquil. The topographical variation itself is reason enough to visit; the mound of unused land left by the site's previous industry is now a grass-covered hill, criss-crossed by paved pedestrian walkways, and the mining pit has been filled with water and stocked with native fish and aquatic plants.

The walkway into the park is lined with large stones, a reminder of what the land was once used for, and the water's source is at the site of the quarry's old well. It circles the well in a growing spiral trench until it reaches the edge of the pavement and meanders down the hill into the quarry pit below. Sedges and tall grasses have already taken root in the fertile soils lining the newly formed stream, and should be completely grown in by next summer. Although the fishing area is not yet open to the public, residents are already taking advantage of the open space; runners were tackling one of the largest hills in the city and families were picnicking atop giant boulders.

After I toured the wetlands, I briefly considered continuing south on Halsted to lunch in (and explore) the Bronzeville neighborhood, but was skeptical of the neighborhood that lay in between, so I (somewhat reluctantly) hopped back on the train and made my way north. Kudos to the Park District and the Transit Authority, however, for enticing me to visit a part of the city I wouldn't otherwise have considered!

Lincoln Park Nature Boardwalk

2010-08-23T18:47:00.006-05:00

With the end of summer looming, I packed my camera, field guides, and water bottle and headed down to Lincoln Park to see the Nature Boardwalk, which opened in June. The park's South Pond had been under construction for more than a year, with bulldozers and backhoes tearing out the old and making way for the new, native ecosystem. About the only wildlife remaining from the old pond is a colony of endangered herons (in fact, construction was scheduled around their breeding season), as all of the non-native fish that had once called it home had to be destroyed (because it's illegal to release non-native species into local waterways).

The pond was filled and surrounded by regional vegetation and stocked with native minnows, bluegill, turtles, and other wildlife. Filtration systems were installed in the pond to keep the water's pH as close to a naturally formed pond as possible. An island in the middle of the pond and ledges under the bridges were meant to

encourage swallows and other non-aquatic species to take up residence as well.

As much as I enjoyed my stroll around the pond's perimeter, I think the habitat will be far more impressive in a couple of years.

The newly transplanted sedges, grasses, and wildflowers will need time to take root and grow tall enough to cover the ground, and once the vegetation is established, even more species will come to settle in this ecological sanctuary. It was definitely worth the el fare, though!

The Reader on Recycling

2010-07-27T10:09:00.004-05:00

When I saw this story on the front page of the Chicago Reader, I wanted to bend down and hug the squat little distribution box just north of my el stop. Upon further reading (and it's quite a hefty article, at least by free newspaper standards), I began to wonder whether its author was making legitimate complaints or just adding fuel to this already fiery debate. I've included some of the most telling excerpts below, with minimal commentary, so readers can formulate their own opinions on the matter. The article opens:

If you live in a residential building with four or fewer units, you're supposed to put your recyclables into blue carts and set them out by your trash every two weeks—though ... in most neighborhoods there are no blue carts yet. [Or] you can take your recyclables to one of the city's 33 drop-off centers and hope the bins there aren't already too full.
[But] if you live in a building with more than four units, your garbage is picked up by private waste haulers ... If your hauler isn't recycling, you can press the building owner to comply with the law, but he doesn't really have to fear being fined for violating it. Or you can take your stuff to one of those 33 drop-off centers and hope the bins there aren't already too full.
If you live adjacent to a neighborhood that has the blue carts, maybe you can slip your recycling into the ones across the street, if they're not already too full—but don't get caught, because it's illegal. If you live next to a park, or visit the airports regularly, maybe you can take your materials to their plentiful recycling bins.
Or you can do what most Chicagoans do: say to hell with it.

Confusing, right? I think so, too. A good deal of funds allotted for recycling have been spent on studies, which show that only 8% of waste from city garbage haulers is diverted from landfills (private sector haulers fare slightly better at 19%). Studies also project that this number could easily be raised to 40% in both public and private sectors. So why is Chicago's recycling program still such a failure?

In April, city officials quietly released the results of a pair of studies they'd commissioned to help figure out how to reduce the amount of garbage produced in Chicago. One, a "waste characterization study," sampled trash around the city to determine what Chicagoans are throwing out. It found that we produced about 7.7 million tons of waste in 2007, most of it metals, paper, food and yard waste, plastics, used clothing, and construction and demolition (C & D) debris like concrete and steel.
The other, a "waste diversion study," analyzed what's happening to the city's garbage after it's picked up. It determined that most C & D debris is recycled and reused—as much as 65 percent, the result of a 2005 city ordinance as well as demand for the materials in the marketplace.
But the study also found that even with the high recycling rate for C & D debris, most of Chicago's waste ends up in landfills: 56 percent of metals from homes and businesses, 69 percent of discarded paper, 96 percent of food and yard waste, 96 percent of plastics, and almost all clothing.
The study authors, from a consulting and engineering firm called CDM, offered city officials some straightforward recommendations: offer blue carts citywide, provide more opportunities for residents to recycle clothing and compost organic waste, launch education and outreach programs, and start enforcing recycling laws already on the books. (The studies cost $494,250, about half of which was covered by grants, the rest by funds drawn from the city budget.)

Enforce laws already on the books. That seems obvious to me. So obvious, in fact, that I bristle every time I hear lawmakers debating issues into the ground for which practical (albeit unenforced) solutions already exist. Even more alarming to me, though, are these findings: almost all clothing is tossed instead of being donated!?! 56% of metals, 69% of paper, and 96% of plastics are NOT being recycled!?! And 96% of food and yard waste is NOT being composted?!? Not cool, Chicago. Not cool.

According to the study results released by the city this spring, just 14 percent of the city's waste is produced by the homes served by city garbage crews. About 61 percent comes from the C & D sector, whose efforts are one of the city's few recycling success stories.
The other 25 percent comes from businesses and what the city refers to as high-density residential buildings—those with more than four units, for which garbage collection and recycling are already in the private sector. For the last 20 years recycling in these buildings has been an even lower priority for the Daley administration.
In 1993 the City Council passed the Chicago High Density Residential and Commercial Source Reduction and Recycling Ordinance ... It requires that building owners set up recycling for at least three kinds of materials. If they don't, the city can issue warnings, impose fines of $100 a day, or take away the business licenses of retailers and offices ... In practice, however, the ordinance is almost meaningless, because city officials quickly decided that they didn't want to alienate property owners and building managers by enforcing it.

Well, so much for that idea. The article attempts to leave the Chicago's readers with a glimmer of hope in the closing paragraphs:

In lieu of curbside programs or a coherent high-density policy, the city has created 33 recycling drop-off centers that are well used, to the point where they're often overflowing. In fact, two south-side aldermen recently proposed fining suburbanites who sneak into Chicago to dump their recyclables at city-owned drop-off facilities. From the beginning of the year through the end of May, 1,900 tons of recyclables have been left at the sites, according to Matt Smith.
Recent changes to city and state law have made composting more feasible. The city's website offers tutorials, even for apartment dwellers, and several new commercial composting ventures are opening on the far south side. But for many people—even those with a deep interest in recycling—the city's current web of programs and possibilities is too difficult to navigate.

And where will that leave us, Chicago? Before too long, I imagine it will leave us wallowing in our own waste, because we've been clogging up the landfills with recyclable materials for far too long.

The Greening of Brownfields

2010-07-22T19:20:00.005-05:00

photo via Exelon Corporation site

Stop the presses! Chicago is the Second City no longer! At least not in the realm of environmental initiatives, that is. I personally thought the segment on this Brightfields Initiative that has come to fruition in the West Pullman neighborhood on Chicago's far south side was more of a headline story than an end-of-broadcast blurb, but these days, I'll take my good news any way I can get it.

For those of you unfamiliar with the EPA's Brownfields Initiative, Brownfields sites are perhaps better known as former Superfund sites. These sites, even after successful cleanup and remediation, are ill suited for most types of developments. For example, no one would want to purchase a Brownfields site and build a subdivision or an elementary school, or cultivate a community garden because -- despite even the most successful cleanups -- these sites are still heavily contaminated, it's just that the amount of contamination has been reduced to acceptable EPA levels. So the Brownfields Initiative exists to find viable uses for this spoiled land, such as turning it into a parking lot, or building a big-box warehouse or retail location (with provisions made, of course, for importing potable water).

The Brownfields to Brightfields Initiative takes this task one step further and put solar panels on these undesirable pieces of real estate, which brings clean energy, jobs, and (eventually) power savings to the surrounding communities. And in this, Chicago is leading the nation! Not only is Exelon City Solar the largest urban solar power plant in the country, it's also the first of its kind!

The 32,000 solar panels, which were sourced and manufactured from south side companies, are equipped to follow the rays of the sun as it makes its way across the sky, and will generate enough power to power 1,500 homes. Exelon has leased the 40-acre Brownfield site from the City of Chicago in a long-term deal, and according to the EPA:

"The City of Chicago and Commonwealth Edison have jointly committed $8 million to purchase solar systems in the next five years. The solar systems will be installed on other [B]rownfield sites as well as schools, office buildings, transportation routes, and municipal and commercial properties."

Exelon City Solar will also serve as a demonstration and educational site for other cities that want to harness the power of the sun. So let's hear it for Chicago, solar energy's First City!

If You Can't Beat 'em... Eat 'em?

2010-07-13T19:20:00.004-05:00

That's exactly what Governor Quinn is proposing we do about our Asian Carp problem. These pesky bottom feeders, which are too bony and taste too fishy for our weak American palates, are apparently a delicacy in China. So our esteemed Governor has partnered with the downstate Big River Fisheries and brokered a deal to market this "wild grown" fish to upscale restaurants in China.

The state's initial investment into this innovative initiative is $2 million to upgrade Big River's two facilities, which are some of the only ones in this state already equipped to handle the processing of these massive fish. Projected benefits of this investment include: 60-180 new downstate jobs, a marked reduction of Asian carp in the Mississippi River, and a local product that China actually wants to import. Quinn said that an estimated 30 million pounds of carp will be exported in the first two years of this venture.

Since this unwelcome species was introduced to American waterways down south nearly 30 years ago, they have been migrating north, largely unchecked, destroying native ecosystems as they go. Currently, their continued push has brought them dangerously close to the Great Lakes. If these fish succeed in reaching Lake Michigan, the results could be devastating to nature and industry alike.

Blue Bin Blues

2010-07-09T19:18:00.005-05:00

This front-page story of today's Chicago Sun Times stopped me dead in my tracks this morning. The photo, which showed row after row of unused blue carts-- stacked floor to ceiling and sitting in some southside warehouse-- that have not been passed out to qualifying Chicago households. To be more specific, roughly 359,000 of the 600,000 qualifying residences in Chicago are still waiting for the coveted blue bins to appear in an alley near them.

The blue cart program, which was supposed to have been completed by the end of 2011, ground to a screeching halt when Chicago, along with many other cities across the nation, witnessed their smoke-and-mirrors method of balancing the city budget evaporate along with the nation's economy back in 2008.

Aldermanic proponents of this city-wide program have called the stockpile of pristine blue carts (with an estimated value of $45 each) a "colossal waste of money" and demand that City Hall make recycling a priority once more. Mayor Daley defends his proposal to privatize the city's recycling, which he unveiled last month (just to freak me out, I'm fairly certain), claiming that doing so would cut $40 million of the estimated $60 million it would cost for the city to see this plan through to completion.

I'm including this blurb from The Huffington Post, aptly entitled "Chicago Recycling FAIL", which summarizes the Sun Times article and offers a more pointed reaction to the city's recycling shortcomings. I hate to break it to you, Chicago, but the only thing "green" about the recycling program in this city is our collective envy of the villages, townships, and even other cities that have managed to get it right!

Why Putting-it-out-Back-for-the-Scrap-Metal-Scavengers-to-Take is NOT Recycling!

2010-06-28T19:19:00.006-05:00

We've all seen them in the alleys behind our homes... they're about as prevalent as those rat extermination posters the city tacks to utility poles each spring. I'm talking about the scrap-metal guys that skulk through the alley ways in 30-year-old pick-ups trucks, trucks with bad spray paint jobs and hauling beds that have been built up with cheap chain-link fencing, rusty support rods, and splintered two-by-fours.

And who hasn't left an unwanted item off to the side of the dumpster, in hopes that someone else will claim it before the garbage men come? I've been guilty of this myself... both of leaving trash and of finding treasures. Well, this isn't always the best idea. I won't even go into how it provides a way for undocumented workers-- who, let's face the facts, make up the vast majority of these scavengers-- to acquire a tax-free income, even though it does.

For the purposes of this blog, I would like to keep my focus on the environmental ramifications of this phenomenon. I watched from my kitchen window today as my landlord cleaned out the garage. The pile of stuff he had amassed was astounding. Within minutes, along hobbles a rusty pick-up truck, already heavily laden with scrap metal. Not only did these guys stop and gobble up the appliances, electronics, and building materials that my landlord had already dragged to the curb, they (with his blessing) finished clearing the unwanted metal items out of the garage for him, with nothing but dollar signs in their eyes!

As the poor old truck groaned and lumbered out of the alley, I began to wonder what would happen to all the non-metal components of these items once the metal portions had been weighed and sold as scrap. While I don't have the specifics on any particular metal recycling center, if I've learned anything from my haz mat and contaminated properties remediation classes, it's that these scrap metal yards tend to not give much thought to the heavy metals, corrosive liquids, and other hazardous wastes they separate from appliances, electronics in particular. Sure, the metal gets recycled, which is great, but where does the rest of it go? Into our landfills, soil, and drinking water. Not cool.

That said, I'm willing to look the other way for scrap metal items like ironing boards and pipes that don't contain hazardous materials. But when it comes to old electronics, folks, take them to some place like Abt Electronics or the Chicago Hazardous Materials Recycling Center (it's free!) where you can be sure that all the parts of that old computer or behemoth television set will be properly disposed of or recycled. And if you get new appliances, many places will haul your old ones away-- if not for free, then for a nominal fee. Take advantage of and throw your support behind these legit services and quit relying on the scrap metal guys to do the right thing!

Privatized Recycling?

2010-06-16T21:41:00.002-05:00

Guess what, everybody? Mayor Daley wants to privatize yet another city service! We've already leased the Skyway, possibly the airports, and of course the parking meters (and we all know how well that went over, now that we're paying 5 times as much to park on the same streets we've been parking on for years, taking away free parking on Sundays and holidays...). What could be next, you ask? RECYCLING!

[Insert collective groan and some serious eye rolling here.]

How bad could privatized recycling be, you ask? Well, we'd be paying for it, first of all, and-- once leased-- the city would have little control over things like price hikes and poor service, which is what has enraged so many residents about the parking meter deal. Secondly, who's to say that a privatized company would accept as many types of recyclables as our current (albeit imperfect) system does? And third, if people actually have to make an effort to separate their paper from their plastics, how many will be inclined just to throw the item into the trash?

According to the Chicago Reader, Mayor Harold Washington first put this plan into action back in the 1980s. His successor, Mayor Daley, who inherited the plan when he took office after Washington passed away, has been dragging his feet on the matter ever since. He's concocted a variety of schemes, such as Waste Management's blue bag program (which, as we should all know by now, was an absolute disaster), but hasn't really done much to establish an effective, functional recycling program in this city. Even the blue cart program (which is sloooooowly making its way to 600,000 residential homes in Chicago and estimated to be finished by the end of next year) does nothing to address the remaining 80% of this city's waste, which comes from businesses and multi-unit buildings.

The upside to privatized recycling, should this deal in fact go through? Maybe we Chicagoans would finally have a comprehensive, city-wide recycling program that we can call our own. That's what we really want, isn't it? Well, if so, it's looking like it may cost us... and the final price tag remains to be seen.

Dawn Saves Wildlife

2010-06-11T13:22:00.004-05:00

Reason #37492751 to read the fine print: buying Dawn dish washing liquid in and of itself does not save wildlife like the cute little otter pictured on the front of these bottles. Consumers have to enter the long numerical code (printed in white on the lower back side of each bottle) and place of purchase at the web site listed in microscopic lettering underneath the claim that $1.00 from each purchase will go toward saving wildlife.

Once I finally sat down to claim my $2.00 in donations to this timely and worthwhile cause, it only took a minute, but it made me wonder how many people take even that much time to follow through on this extra step, or if they read the fine print at all.

I've been fighting an overwhelming urge to take my Dawn dish washing liquid, along with my pink-and-brown plaid Wellies, yellow rubber gloves, and an animal carrier down to the Gulf shores, and to just start catching and cleaning oil-covered animals. As much as I would like to be fighting the good fight on the front lines-- from the marshlands of Louisiana to the once-white, sandy beaches of Florida-- it's simply not a feasible option at this time. Entering a product code into a web site, however, is.

World Environment Day

2010-06-05T21:44:00.002-05:00

Well, it seems like there's a day for everything-- National Donut Day, Talk Like a Pirate Day, and today, it's World Environment Day. The United Nations actually began celebrating this day back in 1972, so I'm almost embarrassed to say this is the first I've heard of it. I know about Earth Day in April and even Earth Hour in March, but what is World Environment Day?

With the tag line of "Many Species. One Planet. One Future.", the UN Environmental Programme boasts June 5th to be the "most widely celebrated, global day for positive, environmental action." Activities are meant to promote awareness, champion biodiversity, and spur individuals and communities to action.

On the local level, the Chicago Botanical Gardens has a whole schedule of activities planned to commemorate WED, including used plant container recycling, gardening demonstrations, kids' activities, and a farmer's market. We Chicagoans are always looking for a reason to celebrate, and today, the environment is reason enough!

Green Festival 2010

2010-05-23T18:40:00.002-05:00

I made my way down to Navy Pier this morning to attend this year's Green Festival, free pass in hand (thanks in part to the shelter where I volunteer). I went a few years back when it was at McCormick Place, and left with an entire bag full of free samples, including laundry detergent, energy bars, beauty products, and paper products. This year's Festival didn't disappoint, and in addition to restaurateurs, trade schools, and natural-products vendors, I noticed quite a few activists and non-profit organizations.

I spent some time chatting with the Environmental Law and Policy group based right here in Chicago, and filled out post cards to my senators and alderman to vote to close the coal plants operating near Pilsen and Little Village. I also picked the brain of a woman working to collect signatures for the Food and Water Watch, a group that was petitioning to have BP's Deep Water Atlantis rig shut down as well, because this well was missing even more safety records than the Horizon, which as we all know, blew up last month.

If I were a home owner, I would have enjoyed learning about geo-thermal energy, solar panels, eco-friendly windows and energy-efficient appliances, but for the time being I just scooted right past. There's a little something for everybody at this festival: fair-trade edibles (from chocolate to coffee) for the foodies; hemp purses and clothing for the tree-hugging hippies; one-of-a-kind pieces of jewelry for the classy folk; organic t-shirts with clever quips or creative graphics for the hipsters; and volunteer/non-profit organizations passionately supporting some noble cause for the do-gooders, like me!

If you can't make it to Navy Pier this weekend, keep the 2011 festival on your radar; for anyone who's even remotely interested in all things environmental, it's worth the price of admission. And if you ride your bike or take public transit, that admission price will be reduced!

If I Were President...

2010-05-18T21:42:00.004-05:00

I really don't envy President Obama right now. Hundreds, thousands, or possibly millions (no one seems to know) of gallons of crude oil a day are gushing into the Gulf of Mexico right now, weeks after the Deep Water Horizon platform exploded and killed 11 workers, and there's no end in sight. People are scared and angry, myself included. We feel helpless because we don't know what to do, and many people want someone to blame.

While these feeling are completely justified, I'm afraid our anger is a little misdirected. Every time I see the live footage of that thick, nasty sludge spewing into the sea, I feel a bit nauseated myself. Many people are mad at the president for working with BP and for not making more of a presence in the coastal regions that have been most affected. And others want to channel their anger into a boycott of BP. Neither approach is going to bring about the solution we crave.

Yes, Obama has been relying heavily on BP for the solution to this problem, and all their hair-brained schemes to date have focused more on recovering their precious commodity rather than stopping the actual flow of oil into the Gulf. That makes me mad, too, but I realize the president has to work with them; their people are some of the only ones on the planet who have the knowledge and expertise to shut off this well. The president certainly can't don scuba gear and swim a mile down to the ocean floor with a wrench in one hand and a giant lid in the other and fix the pipe himself!

President Obama has spent a great deal of time meeting with experts and organizing aid and response; he has already deployed more than 17,000 National Guard to the Gulf, and has provided additional military vessels and equipment to aid in clean-up efforts. He is also pushing his clean energy agenda harder than ever, and although it isn't providing the instant gratification people crave, it is the best long-term solution to ensuring that a tragedy like this doesn't happen again. Much more aid is on the way to Gulf residents, but the seemingly slow response isn't apathy on the part of the president, it's because of our tri-cameral government. If you want to be mad at a president, direct your anger toward our forefathers, who designed this system of checks and balances and bureaucratic red tape that is holding up the Federal aid package.

Equally ludicrous is the small but boisterous movement to boycott BP gas stations. This is ineffective for a number of reasons. In the short term, the only people a BP boycott will hurt will be the local gas station owners and workers, most of whom are not even directly affiliated with BP. Also, BP gasoline is sold under many names, not just British Petroleum. Who knows where Huck's or Meijer's or Sam's Club gets their gasoline? And ultimately, if a boycott of BP were to succeed, the company could potentially go bankrupt. This would be the worst outcome of all, because they would no longer have to pay to clean up the enormous mess they've made. We're the ones who have created such a high demand for gasoline; we the people of the U.S. of A, making up only 2% of the world's population, use more than 20% of the world's oil. We're the ones who want the oil, and it has to come from somewhere. Our best revenge would be to reduce our individual consumption, thus making the need for deep sea drilling unnecessary.

That said... If I were president, I would acknowledge peoples' feelings of heartbreak, helplessness, and outrage, and channel those emotions into clean-up efforts and other solutions. I would highlight environmental non-profits that are already in the marshes and on the beaches that don't have to sift through the same bureaucratic bull sh*t that the government does, and encourage people to donate or volunteer. I would demand that BP hire any out-of-work fisherman, shrimper, or oyster trawler with a boat who wants to pull a skimmer or lay out booms or shovel tar balls off the beach, because I guarantee you there is no one on this planet with a more vested interest in getting this spill cleaned up than those whose livelihoods depend on the waters of the Gulf. I would insist that all the aid and relief workers-- military and civilian alike-- stay in the hotels and eat at the restaurants that have been hardest hit to keep the local economy afloat.

In short, I would try to turn this nation's anger into action. We can sit around and be as angry as we want, but if all we do is sit around and kvetch nothing will ever get done. Unfortunately, I won't be eligible for the presidency until 2016 (so save your votes!), but I can encourage everyone I know to be part of the solution, which will empower us all to deal with the problem.

BP logo image: © BP p.l.c.

Hair Soaks up Oil Spills!

2010-05-07T15:09:00.002-05:00

I stumbled on this video a day too late to badger my own hairdresser to participate in this project, but there's still time for all of you to pester your stylists and barbers (and even pet groomers!) This awesome and innovative non-profit, Matter of Trust, takes hair and fur trimmings (and even fleece and feathers!) that salons, farms, and groomers package up and mail in from around the country and turn them into hair mats and booms, which are in turn used to soak up oil.

In light of the devastating spill in the Gulf caused by the explosion of BP's Deep Water Horizon well, donations are needed now more than ever! Oil continues to gush from this broken well and is making its way toward the shores of our southern states. I feel powerless to help all the way up here in Chicago, but sending money and supplies to agencies and non-profits that do have the ability to help makes me feel like I'm being part of the solution. The group also accepts donated nylons as well as monetary donations to cover operating costs.

For a demonstration of how these hair mats and nylon booms work in the battle against spilled oil, check out the video posted above, and consider asking your hair person to support this creative, timely, and very worthwhile cause.

Happy Earth Day!

2010-04-22T18:32:00.003-05:00

Happy 40th Earth Day, y'all! Did you know that 20 million people celebrated the first Earth Day? Or that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA), and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts were all "born" the same year?

1970 was a landmark year for environmental awareness, but sadly, we're still facing many of the same problems we were 40 years ago. All this talk we hear in the news on building more fuel-efficient cars, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and reducing our energy use and waste production... that's nothing new. As times changed (and fuel prices went down) these eco-friendly ideas became less urgent. Let's not make the same mistake this time around!

So here's to making the next 40 years even better than the first... how will you help? Celebrate Earth Day by doing something as simple as planting flowers, picking up garbage, or recycling old electronics. Or you can join forces with like-minded folk and help spruce up a park or clean up a portion of a river bed or lake front. Every little bit will help!

Living Downstream

2010-04-19T21:22:00.007-05:00

Sandra Steingraber, ecologist, cancer survivor, and fellow Illinois Wesleyan (and U of M) alum, made the University's news page today because a documentary has just been made about her book, Living Downstream. I took a May Term class with Steingraber back in 1997, right after her book had been published. The ecology class focused heavily on her area of research, which linked environmental contamination (toxins that include chemicals, heavy metals, and industrial and agricultural wastes, to name a few) to cancer. And, quite frankly, it was fascinating.

Steingraber first became interested in the environmental causes of cancer when, as an IWU student, she was diagnosed with a rare bladder cancer at age 20. Casual onlookers could attribute her disease to bad genes, because her mom developed breast cancer in her 40s, and an aunt had died of the same type of bladder cancer with which Steingraber was diagnosed. But she was adopted; genetics had nothing to do with it.

When Steingraber began researching this book, she collected a great deal of already-recorded data, which had just been made available to the public under the newly passed Right-To-Know Act, and started connecting the dots. She grew up in central Illinois, just like I did, but she lived in a rural town along the Illinois River. With her home town being as small as it was, it seemed like a disproportionate number of its citizens had some form of cancer. So she made her way "upstream", so to speak, and identified industrial waste dumps, agricultural run-off sites, chemical incinerators, and coal-burning facilities as the sources of the toxins that wound up in the water of her town downstream. Because none of these things are unusual to find in the Midwest, further research revealed just what she suspected: her town was not unique.

Yes, her book is full of the names of various chemicals and contaminants that have found their ways into our food, water, air, and soil. But by intertwining this scientific data with her personal story of cancer and survival (as well as a clear and concise writing style), she makes years of intense research (or scientific gobbledy-gook, to us non-brainiacs) not only palatable, but relatively easy to understand. Critics, doctors, and environmentalists alike have hailed her book as "the Silent Spring of our generation", but let me assure you... having read both, Steingraber's novel is a much more enjoyable read.

On the first day of class, Sandra Steingraber used a parable to depict the backwards way in which we are going about treating cancer patients. She told the story of residents in a small town who noticed more and more people getting caught in the current of a nearby river and drowning. The townspeople invented all of these pricey and elaborate ways to rescue and resuscitate the drowning victims, but no one thought to venture upstream to stop whoever was pushing these victims into the river in the first place. And so it is with environmental contamination.

More than a decade later, the specifics of this class are a bit fuzzy in my head, but I know for certain that Steingraber's passion and enthusiasm for her work is what first got me interested in matters of nature and the environment. I also remember learning about Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), or the amount of each chemical that is allowed to remain in our drinking water. Anything at or under these levels is considered to be safe... more or less. There was an MCL Cafeteria in my hometown at the time, which I thought was a surprisingly inappropriate name for a restaurant. If any of those stores still exist, do yourself a favor and eat somewhere else... unless you know for a fact that MCL stands for something else. Yikes!

My take-away from this one-month course, which involved more reading, studying and research than any other class I had taken before (or have taken since), was that we can greatly reduce the number of "suspected carcinogens" (cigarettes were "suspected carcinogens" for decades before the Supreme Court passed their definitive ruling on the matter, which has upgraded them to plain old carcinogens) in our environment if-- and only if-- we make a fundamental shift in the way in which we dispose of our waste and operate our businesses, both in the industrial and agricultural fields. Regardless of what the news tells us, we can't avoid these environmental contaminants just by individual lifestyle changes; change has to come from upstream.

Here is the schedule of upcoming screenings of her film. If it comes to your area, I strongly encourage you to go see it. You can thank me later!

Plastics #7

2010-04-11T21:15:00.003-05:00

Number 7 plastics include a hodge podge of resiny materials that don't really fit into any of the other categories. In fact, the abbreviations for #7 plastics range from MISC to OTHER. The hard plastic polycarbonate falls into this polymeric catch-all, which contains Bisphenol-A (BPA), a chemical compound that it has become trendy to fear in recent years, after studies have suggested that-- when leached-- it acts as a hormone disruptor in animals and humans.

The best "plastic" in this bunch, in my humble opinion, is polyactide (PLA). While at first glance it may seem that these letters are an obvious abbreviation for "plastic", it actually gives savvy recyclers a hint as to what it is really made of... plants! Remember back in Plastics 101 when we learned that cellulose (plant material) is a naturally occurring polymer? Well, some innovative scientists are using the power of nature to create compostable plastic packaging! The only catch is that, because it is biodegradable, it is not recyclable.

Because of the variety of items that fall under the category of #7 plastics, they weren't traditionally recycled. However, more curbside programs (Chicago's included) now accept this type of packaging. In addition to the now-recyclable three- and five-gallon water bottles and food containers, (which can be turned into plastic lumber and other custom-made products) miscellaneous plastics are used in bullet-proof materials, DVDs, nylon, signs, and computer cases.

Plastics #6

2010-04-05T21:15:00.001-05:00

Number 6 Plastics, or polystyrene (PS), is a tricky polymer, indeed. Rigid polystyrene products include some carry-out containers, aspirin bottles, and compact disc cases. Foam, or expanded polystyrene (better known by its popular brand name, Styrofoam) is used in disposable plates and cups, egg cartons, carry-out containers, and packing material.

Although there are places in Chicagoland (such as the recycling station behind Abt Electronics in Glenview) to recycle expanded polystyrene, the City of Chicago does not accept #6 plastics in its blue carts or at its many drop-off locations. While this is understandable of expanded polystyrene, as Styrofoam is terribly difficult to recycle-- it's quite expensive, and Styrofoam takes up a lot of space and weighs next to nothing, so it's hard to keep from blowing away-- this leaves me with food containers and produce clam shells that I have little choice but to throw in the trash. Not cool.

Another thing that isn't so cool about polystyrene is that environmentalists and scientists alike suspect that, when heated, this plastic leaches toxins into foods and noxious fumes into the atmosphere. Looking back at the amount of hot chocolate I drank out of Styrofoam cups as a kid at camp, and the number of said cups that wound up being tossed into the campfire because it was cool to watch them burn, I cringe. So next time any one of you thinks about drinking a hot beverage out of a Styrofoam cup, think again.

Of the polystyrene that is actually recycled, it is turned into insulation, egg cartons, rulers, and packing materials.

Plastics #5

2010-03-31T21:14:00.002-05:00

We've already discussed Number 5 Plastics, or polypropylene (PP)... to an extent. Recall if you will the initiatives taken by companies such as Aveda and Brita in finding uses for plastic bottle caps and water filters, respectively, to divert this previously little-recycled plastic from the landfills. Thankfully, more recyclers are accepting polypropylene, including Chicago's curbside program.

The appeal of polypropylene is that this particular polymer chain has a very high melting point, which is ideal for hot liquid containers. It is also used for yogurt containers, medicine, syrup and ketchup bottles, and straws. Once recycled, it becomes fodder for battery cables and casings, brooms and brushes, ice scrapers, landscape borders, bins, and pallets and trays.

Remember, plastics aren't so much recycled as they are downcycled-- they will never be as strong or as effective as they were at the start of their lifecycle. And although recycling is now possible, the best solution for recycling plastics remains to reduce the amount of plastic products used in the first place.

World Water Day

2010-03-22T21:20:00.006-05:00

Happy World Water Day! Did you know that World Water Day has been observed worldwide since 1993? This initiative was one result of a resolution made by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, which met in Rio de Janiero in 1992. Originally, nations were invited to "devote the Day to implement the UN recommendations and set up concrete activities as deemed appropriate in the national context." Thus far, this has included laying pipes and pouring concrete and digging wells in areas most in need of fresh drinking water. The fundraising efforts continue in hopes that providing fresh water will increase sanitation, improve health conditions, and lift impoverished people out of wretched circumstances world wide.

The 2010 celebration of this day falls right in the middle of the UN-dubbed "Water for Life" decade. Launched in 2005, the Water for Life campaign aims to reduce by half the number of people without adequate access to water (which at the time was 1.1 billion; 2.4 billion if you count everyone without clean, potable water). The aim is to implement water programs in poorer and developing nations and rural areas, and to include women in the process of establishing safe water sources within their villages, especially in areas where there has traditionally been a large gender disparity between men and women.

Safe access to clean drinking water should be considered among the most basic of human rights, and while much has been done to combat this problem, the world still has a long way to go. Fresh water makes up less than 3% of all the water on the planet, and that number is only going down. While it sometimes seems like we in the U.S. have water to spare, there are people in this world who would give anything to have collected the water wasted by even one person who left the tap on while brushing their teeth. So in honor of this initiative, think of some ways to conserve (and not waste) this precious resource, and be glad that you're not one of the 2.5 billion people in this world without a toilet.

Plastics #4

2010-03-16T21:13:00.002-05:00

Number 4 plastics, or low-density polyethylene (LDPE) shares most of its name with #2 plastics, but not much else. LDPE most commonly used to make bags: shopping bags, tote bags, bread bags, dry cleaning bags, you name it. Also found in squeeze bottles and sometimes carpeting or furniture, plastics #4 does not hold up well to everyday wear and tear, and because the recycling process further breaks down its polymerized structures, it was long thought to be an undesirable material for remanufacture.

Thankfully, more and more curbside programs are now accepting LDPE for recycling, as manufacturers have found a way to incorporate it into trash cans and liners, compost bins, envelopes, and certain construction materials. Many stores now accept plastic shopping bags for recycling. In fact, all the big-box stores in Chicago are now required to reycle shopping bags as part of a compromise reached between retailers and the City after the proposal to ban plastic bags (or at least charge customers who chose to use them) failed miserably.

Plastics #3

2010-03-12T21:12:00.003-06:00

The third category in the plastics family is Polyvinyl Chloride, or PVC, which is a polymerized byproduct of vinyl chloride. A highly durable plastic, it is used extensively in construction materials such as windows, siding, and piping, and is also found in yoga mats, as well as various types of medical equipment. Its composition makes it a cost-effective and long-lasting product, one that will take hundreds of years to break down.

Occasionally PVC is used to make cleaner or detergent bottles or food packaging. However, PVC is not nearly as benign as plastics #1 or #2, nor is it as easy to recycle. Because of the chlorine present in its molecular structure, highly dangerous toxins can be released into the air during its manufacture. Plastics #3 should never be used for cooking or heating food, as the toxins within are released when the plastic is heated or burned. Some studies have suggested the dreaded chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) may be present in plastics #3 as well, which is suspected of affecting human growth and reproductive hormones when leached into food or drinking water.

Of the municipalities that do accept PVC packaging for recycling (and yes, Chicago does!), it is recycled into plastic lumber and flooring, cables, speed bumps, and mats.

Plastics #2

2010-03-03T20:53:00.004-06:00

High-density Polyethylene, or HDPE, is like a little brother to PETE. Better known as plastics #2, it is easily recyclable and can be remanufactured into a number of products. Uncolored HDPE has a milky, or translucent sheen, as evidenced in milk jugs, shopping bags, and cereal box liners. Colored, or pigmented HDPE is common as well, and tends to be a bit stiffer than its naturally hued counterpart. Colored HDPE usually packages cleaners, detergents, and beauty products.

HDPE is easy to form and easy to process. Not only does the chemical make up of high-density polyethylene make it unlikely to leach into food products or break down too much when heated, it is highly resistant to chemical reactions, which makes it ideal for packaging bleach, motor oil, household cleansers and industrial chemicals.

Because of its strength and stability on a molecular level, HDPE is one of the only plastics that can be recycled back into a plastic bottle or container. Other products commonly made from HDPE include: floor tiles, artificial lumber and fencing, drain pipes, dog houses and picnic tables. There's also a pretty good chance that your recycling bin is made out of #2 plastics! How many of your HDPE containers are making it into that bin?

Plastics #1

2010-02-26T19:51:00.005-06:00

Plastics #1 is the designated number for all plastic containers made with Polyethylene Terephthalate, or PETE for short. Polyethylene (and all its variations) is the most widely produced plastic in the world, and for good reason. Used to make everything from soda and water bottles to trash bags to peanut butter jars to oven-safe food containers, the plastics in this category are the most easily recycled. They are also the least likely to leach chemicals when heated, which makes it the safest choice for food and beverage containers by far.

Recycled polyethylene terephthalate is actually in high demand; manufacturers use it to make polar fleece, furniture, carpeting, and occasionally new containers. Despite its many (re)uses, the recycling rate for #1 plastics remains quite low; several reports claim it to be as low as 20% in some areas. This is especially surprising because some programs, such as California's Bottle Bill, offer a monetary refund for the return and recycling of containers made from plastics #1.

So when in doubt, just think of PETE. PETE's your buddy, PETE's your pal! C'mon, Chicagoans-- Recycle PETE so manufacturers have a cost-effective and responsible way of making all those products we want to buy! And just think, purchasing those re-manufactured products will be much more rewarding without having a guilty eco-conscience; I don't think there's any such thing as green-buyers' remorse.

Plastics 101

2010-02-19T19:29:00.001-06:00

Plastics are polymers, meaning that on the molecular level, thousands of like molecules, or monomers (for plastics, this usually translates into long, long, chains of hydrocarbons, with some other molecules mixed in here and there, which I'll get to in a minute) join forces to create one giant molecule.

Plastics make up one group of synthetic (or man made) polymers, the other being rubber. However, naturally occurring polymers are far more prevalent than all the manufactured rubber and plastic products in the world, combined! Natural polymers include wood, cotton, leather, and wool, which man has long used to build homes and make clothing; the synthetic polymers available today serve to complement these naturally occurring substances.

Left to its own devices, the chemical reaction that causes polymerization would continue unchecked, creating infinitely long chains of hydrocarbons, which would produce so much heat and energy that they would eventually self-combust. This is where the other elements come in; they serve as book ends, if you will, to an otherwise never-ending polymer. Some plastics might contain molecules of chlorine, fluorine, oxygen, or nitrogen, so the make up (and eventual breakdown) of plastics vary drastically from one type to the next.

Okay, so by now we all know that it's important to recycle plastics. But what many people don't know is that some types of plastics are more easily recycled than others, and discerning which containers should go in a blue bin can be downright confusing. Fortunately for us Chicagoans, the city's recycling program accepts six out of the seven basic types of plastics used for packaging and containers: #1-5 and #7.

So what does this mean? Each number represents a category by which plastics can be sorted, and for all intensive purposes, the lower the number, the easier the plastic is to recycle. The good news is that all plastics can be recycled, but the bad news is that not all plastics can be easily recycled. Adding to the bad news is that the composition of plastic changes when exposed to heat, which causes the polymers to break down, the single bonds within the hydrocarbon chains to weaken, and sometimes chemicals within the polymer leach out of the plastic itself. This is especially troubling in the case of plastic bottles or containers for food or beverages.

The other troubling thing about plastic is that, unlike recyclables made from more natural substances such as aluminum and paper, plastic cannot be recycled back into plastic, which means that we have to find other uses for recycled plastics. Without a market for products made from recycled plastics, all the recycling in the world won't do us any good! Stay tuned in the coming months for a breakdown of the seven main types of recyclable plastics, including the common uses and resulting byproducts for each.

Polystyrene Ban Proposed

2010-02-11T12:30:00.006-06:00

Ed Burke, 14th Ward Alderman and Chairman of the Finance Committee, proposed a city-wide ban on polystyrene products-- better known as Styrofoam-- used in the food industry. Though this proposal-- spurred by the realization that Chicago Public Schools are throwing away 35 million polystyrene lunch trays each year; that's more than 250,000 trays a day!-- is a good idea in theory, every time a political figure tries to ban something in this city, people get all up in arms. And Alderman Burke has proposed to ban a lot of stuff: plastic bags, BPA, trans fats, and smoking inside public places. While I agree these would all be in the best interests of the city, the smoking ban was the only proposal to gain any traction. However, he's also had some proposals that were pretty "out there", such as banning carriage horses from pooping on the street (has anyone ever seen a horse in a diaper? Didn't think so) and limiting dogs to 10 minutes of barking within a certain time frame, which is ridiculous on a number of levels.

If passed, this proposal-- like all proposed bans-- would come with fines that would theoretically generate much-needed revenue for the city. However, it should be pretty clear by now that this simply doesn't work; nobody pays attention to these arbitrary new mandates, and few people are fined because these proposals are so hard to enforce. Didn't the city learn anything from the foie gras debacle that made Chicago the laughing stock of the culinary world? Restaurant chefs took pride in breaking that law, which was eventually rescinded. I personally disagree with foie gras from an ethical standpoint, so I don't eat it. Not everyone shares my concern, but banning the end product didn't solve anything, especially not for the force-fed geese.

No Foam Chicago, a grass-roots organization, is backing Alderman Burke's ban, but with the very thing his proposal is lacking: facts. Among the group's top ten reasons to ban Styrofoam, they cite the chemical styrene as a known environmental hazard to human health and reproductive systems. When heated (in the microwave, or by the addition of a hot food or beverage to the container), the chemical leaches into the food and is unintentionally ingested. Also, polystyrene recycling, while possible, is quite costly and largely impractical, so the bulk of these containers wind up clogging our landfills, where they take centuries to break down.

A number of eco-friendly, biodegradable alternatives to Styrofoam packaging in recent years that are more readily available and less cost prohibitive than they were in the past. Giant corporations like McDonald's have phased out their use of polystyrene products (remember when those fried, low-grade burgers used to come in watered-down, pastel-colored clam shells?) without losing profits, and the people who consume these sandwiches are *slightly* healthier because of it.

If Alderman Burke wants to make a change to the polystyrene problem in our public schools, he might be better off playing his "won't somebody think of the children!" card, and working with CPS to find a better solution. Heck-- have the high school science teachers address the problem in their lesson plans, and let the students figure out a better way. Help them help themselves! Do I think Chicago restaurants should get away from using polystyrene packaging? Yes. Is banning Styrofoam and riling up our vibrant restaurant industry the answer? No. I believe the good people of Chicago will respond better to helpful incentives than they will to heavy-handed influence; I'm no Alderman, but I think it's worth a try!

This is Our Moment

2010-02-06T13:14:00.004-06:00

This video, sent out by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), appeared in my inbox earlier this week. This Public Service Announcement, spearheaded by Leonardo di Caprio, extolls the virtues of the clean energy bill that is currently being debated in the Senate. Di Caprio, a longtime supporter of the NRDC, has recruited a whole slew of celebrities to throw the weight of their fame behind this bill, in hopes of generating greater support. While I agree with everything that is said, I'm skeptical of just how involved the people in this video actually are with the NRDC or with advocating for clean energy. I'm only including it on here because the site has a host of cool links and valuable information, including a way for concerned citizens to email their senators or to upload their own videos. And I'm pretty sure that Leo's intentions are legit-- he came out with his own documentary about climate change shortly after Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, and he drives a Prius. What's not to like? And besides-- the famous people are telling us to get involved. And if famous people say it, then it must be true!

Asian Carp Video

2010-01-26T15:15:00.002-06:00

Guess what, everybody? I finally figured out how to upload video content to my blog! Huzzah! This is a short clip showing just how gross and nasty these Asian carp can be, which I tried to include in a previous post but failed. So watch the video now, and remember to watch your head the next time you're out on the river-- yuck!

So Sue Us!

2010-01-19T16:25:00.005-06:00

Oh, wait. They already did... the rest of the Midwest, that is. Michigan started it, slapping the State of Illinois with a lawsuit to stop the migration of the Asian Carp toward Lake Michigan by closing the locks on the Illinois Sanitary and Ship Canal. If you recall, this waterway was the site of a massive fish kill last month, an attempt by the Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to keep the dreaded fish from swimming past the electrical barriers (a device that emits underwater shock waves, designed to keep these fish downstream) while they were shut off for some routine maintenance.

Michigan's governor, Jennifer Granholm (who I actually like-- she was governor during my time in Ann Arbor) launched the initial suit against Illinois, while Indiana, Ohio, Minnesota, and even New York were quick to jump on her legal bandwagon. Our attorney general, Lisa Madigan (who I also like-- she lives in my neighborhood!) argued that the case was misdirected, because the Army Corps of Engineers, and not the State of Illinois, operates the locks on the canal. If Michigan wanted to sue somebody, it should be them.

Bloggers and reporters have been all over this issue since news of the lawsuit broke about three weeks ago; some claim that Daniel Burnham (the guy who, among other things, had some say over reversing the flow of the Chicago River) is spinning in his grave, while others suggest that Michigan should sue the carp themselves for trespassing. I have no desire to get snarky about the matter; we need to do everything we can to protect the Great Lakes, but crippling the state's shipping industry is not the answer! And for the record, when it comes to lawsuits pitting the environment against industry, industry wins out the vast majority of the time. We need another approach.

That's why I was so happy to hear today that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case, bumping it back down to the state courts. Something needs to be done, but we need scientists-- not lawyers-- calling the shots here. Hoever, this comes at the same time that biologists are saying that Asian Carp DNA (although not the fish themselves... yet) has in fact been found in Lake Michigan, which is a very scary prospect, indeed. Although Michigan was defeated in this round, they are not deterred; they plan on taking their case to Congress, and are lobbying President Obama to force Illinois to cut off an arterial waterway (although I can't be certain, I'm pretty sure that's not his job...) So we certainly haven't heard the last of this story, but the drama continues to unfold.

Brita Filter Recycling Now Available!

2010-01-12T19:51:00.001-06:00

I learned something today... and on Facebook, of all places! This program started a year ago today, so I can't believe that this is the first I've heard about it... but it is now possible to recycle Brita filters in the U.S.! This has long been available in Europe, and now Brita has teamed up with Preserve, a company that manufactures household items out of 100% recycled materials, to separate the plastic from the carbon particles and find new uses for both. The program is called Gimme 5, in reference to the #5 (polypropylene) plastic that is used to make Brita filters. Although Chicago does accept polypropylene plastics in their single-stream recycling bins, many cities do not.

To recycle these filters, Preserve asks that we set the spent filters aside and let them dry for a minimum of three days, then wrap them in a plastic grocery bag (don't worry, they'll recycle that, too!). From there, consumers can either take the filters to a designated drop-off location (the link is down at the moment, but I know many Whole Food stores in the area will accept these filters), or-- if there isn't a drop-off location nearby-- save up a few filters, pack them in a (recyclable) box, and mail them into the company at:

Preserve Gimme 5
823 NYS Rte 13
Cortland, NY 13045

The only downfall is that the customer is responsible for the shipping costs. However, John Lively, director of environment and material science for Preserve, assures skeptics that, "we calculated that the benefits of keeping Brita filters out of landfills outweigh the impact of shipping them for recycling through this program." Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club applaud Brita's efforts to expand on their "Filter for Good" campaign, which launched in 2007, and encourages people to ditch bottled water and drink filtered tap water instead. So I'll give three cheers to Clorox (the parent company of Brita) for setting an example for other large corporations by putting a portion of their profits toward fighting the good fight. Hip, hip, HOORAY!

I Resolve to...

2010-01-04T11:45:00.001-06:00

... save the planet, one drop of water at a time. My environmental resolution for 2010 is to conserve more water. I switched to a low-flow shower head over the summer (this was a second attempt, as I couldn't stand the first shower head I tried) but in my last apartment, I got into the bad habit of leaving the water running while I washed the dishes, as there was no room to wash, rinse, and dry. It's terrible, I know. With less than 3% of the world's water able to be used as drinking water, every wasted drop contributes to water woes of the future.

This may not seem like a big problem here in Chicago, as we have one of the largest freshwater lakes right at our doorsteps, (seen above in this skyline shot from Promontory Point in Hyde Park, on a day much nicer than today) but the lack of fresh water is already a reality in parts of Africa and Asia, and-- albeit to a lesser extent-- in parts of the American southwest and the plains states! Some city and state governments have already imposed water restrictions for activities such as watering the lawn or washing the car during the warm summer months, and experts predict that these restrictions will only grow in the coming years.

Warning signs are everywhere; the Colorado River no longer reaches the sea, and the Odwalla aquifer (main source of water for the western plains states) is nearly dry. Scientists fear that the wars of the future may be fought over water, instead of boundary lines or religious differences. That's quite a prediction, but given that water is one of the basic necessities of life, I can see how its scarcity may someday become a contentious issue. But if you don't believe me, then rent a documentary like Flow: For the Love of Water. It's a bit preachy, but raises a number of very real concerns in terms of water conservation. However, I wouldn't recommend watching it before bed; you just might have to sleep with the lights on.

This is why it makes me nuts to see my rich neighbors run their automatic sprinkler systems in the rain, or when the bartender at work leaves the water running even when he's not washing dishes at all, or when people have a leaky faucet that they're just too lazy to fix. And don't get me started on those hyper-sensitive automatic flushers that are triggered by even the slightest movement; I've had toilets flush on me as many as three or four times, while I'm sitting there! It's gross... and wasteful. However, until I get my dish washing habits under control, I don't feel like I have any real room to talk. So watch out, world, because this "Earth" girl is reaching out to embrace another element!

The Conservationist's Christmas

2009-12-21T19:46:00.002-06:00

I'm pleased as punch with all the terrific and eco-friendly alternatives to gift buying, gift giving, and even gift wrapping that are cropping up both in stores and on the Internet these days. I don't know whether it's a result of increased environmental awareness, the prolonged economic recession, or both, but there are so many alternatives now to the commercial consumerism trend that has dominated Christmases past that it has become hard-- even for those who equate Christmas with presents and presents only-- for people not to consider the impact of their purchases!

When it comes to buying gifts, the options are as varied as the gift givers themselves; there's bound to be something for everybody! For the person who has everything, a donation can be made in their honor to any number of charities. Whether it's a charity that holds special significance for the gift recipient or an organization that puts the money toward a more specific purpose, such as rescuing a penguin or providing seeds for farmers in Africa, the gesture is appreciated and the money is put to good use. While these aren't always the most exciting gifts to receive, I really think it is more representative of the true meaning of Christmas than, say, a Play Station, because you're giving for the sake of giving and helping those in need, even though you're not getting anything (tangible) in return.

Another option would be to purchase fair-trade goods or seek out companies that are pledging to donate a portion of their profits to a specific cause or charity. I managed to do both when I bought fair-trade coffee for my brother-in-law; not only were workers in a far-away country getting a living wage for their product, a part of the proceeds went to feeding orphans as well! Then, of course, are the artisans and companies that use recovered, reclaimed, or recycled goods to make new and one-of-a-kind merchandise. They turn trash back into treasure by making purses out of old seat belts or colorful necklaces out of discarded magazines; the offerings are quite varied, and very creative!

When it comes to wrapping all these environmentally responsible, one-of-a-kind gifts, there are a number of equally Earth-friendly options available. I purchased a number of decorative gift boxes back in January; they already look like they've been wrapped, so I just add a bow and call it a day! Same goes for gift bags... I don't think I've ever purchased a new one of these, I've just repurposed the bags from gifts that I've received!

And for those odd or irregularly shaped items that just won't fit in a box or a bag, consider using butcher's paper instead of traditional wrapping paper (which is not recyclable!). Dress it up by adding a bow, and save a tag by writing directly on the paper! Some people have suggested purchasing fabric remnants and using those in place of wrapping paper; maybe if I'm at a craft store during their after-Christmas clearance sale, perhaps I'll look into it. I've also lobbied for saving and reusing gift tags (the tie-on tags, not the sticky tags-- I'm not that bad!) because it requires minimal storage and will save time when labeling gifts for next Christmas.

So what are you doing in the name of conservation this Christmas? I think my favorite idea this season has been the second-hand Christmas my sister is having with her husband and in-laws. All the gifts have to be a hand-me-down or a "regift", or from a second-hand or antique store or a garage sale. That's one sure-fire way to avoid the mall-- I can't wait to hear what they got! I think if I were to participate in a gift swap like that, I would throw the option of supporting charities or purchasing fair-trade or repurposed goods into the mix; now that would be a conservationist's Christmas!

"Poison Fest"?

2009-12-04T21:16:00.007-06:00

Last night, a murder spree of Biblical proportions took place in a six-mile stretch of the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal near Romeoville, which is about 40 miles southwest of the city. The killing was both premeditated and indiscriminate, and the resulting carnage is staggering. I'm talking about a decision by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources to dump 2,200 gallons of rotenone, a toxin that is lethal to-- as some expert on the WGN morning news said (in his best movie trailer narration voice)-- "anything with gills". This drastic measure was taken to prevent the Asian carp from continuing their journey from the Mississippi River into Lake Michigan, which, for the Great Lakes ecosystem (and the commercial fishing industry as well) is a "doomsday" destination.

The Asian carp in question is more accurately known as the Bighead carp; of the five known species of carp in this country, all of them came from Asia. This includes the common carp, which was brought over in the 1830s and is now considered to be a native species. The Bighead carp (along with the Silver carp) were deliberately imported from Eastern China in the 1960s and 70s by catfish farmers and wildlife experts to improve water quality and to control aquatic vegetation. The problem is, these huge fish (with voracious appetites) escaped their enclosures in the 1990s (likely after a flood), and entered a number of waterways in this country, namely the Mississippi River. They're bottom feeders that reproduce freely, and they eat such a ridiculous amount of plankton that it disrupts the entire food chain, established long ago by the many species native to these ecosystems. These carp can range anywhere from 50-100 pounds, and they have an especially disturbing habit of responding to boat traffic by leaping out of the water and slapping their huge, scaly bodies into boaters or fishermen or skiers; a number of people have been injured by these giant, flying fish!

This is just one of many failed attempts to control one biological nuisance by importing a species that is not native to the area, which in turn becomes an even bigger nuisance than the pests it was brought in to control! I'm not in favor of indiscriminate chemical controls, either (like those deployed last night), but I'm afraid I don't have a satisfactory solution to the problem at hand.

So what is rotenone, exactly? According to this article from Reuters, it is a "natural poison that prevents fish gills from absorbing oxygen." It goes on to say that it is "used as a broad-spectrum insecticide and pesticide, kills fish and freshwater snails but does not harm other animals. It dissipates within two days, though authorities plan to introduce a neutralizing agent to speed up the process." More specifically, it is a natural pesticide derived from the roots of tropical and subtropical plants and is used in organic gardening, on household plants, and as flea and tick control on pets. The fish and insects affected by this toxin die slowly, but stop eating almost immediately.

Other sources (which I can't verify, so I won't list here) suggest that it may contribute to mammary tumors and changes in blood composition in pets that accidentally inhale or ingest the stuff, and may possibly be linked to Parkinson's Disease in humans who have had chronic exposure. The sentence that bothered me the most in all of my readings was:

"There is considerable controversy over the use of rotenone to kill non-game fish in water body management areas. One study found that the practice has a substantially harmful effect on biodiversity, in which several populations of the native fish showed negligible signs of recovering stocks, while populations of all exotic species are up."

Invasive species are bad-- I get that-- but the killing of any living creature (an estimated 200,000 POUNDS of dead fish are expected to be recovered within the next couple of days!) on such an expansive scale just doesn't sit well with me, especially since early reports have turned up only one big, bad carp and scads of good, native fish. Surely there's a better way... right?

Sticking it to the "Mon" ... Santo, that is

2009-11-22T14:18:00.010-06:00

Corn Dusk, originally uploaded by Dodo-Bird.

You can have your fantasy football teams, but I'd rather spend a lazy Sunday laying the groundwork for a fantasy class-action suit that's been knocking around in my head. This fantasy suit of mine pits innocent and hardworking farmers against the greedy, multi-national agricultural companies that sue farmers who save and replant their own seed into permanent submission, and instead force them to purchase their patented, genetically modified products. The source of my defense actually comes from a small section of environmental law meant to pertain to real estate: the innocent landowner defense of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (better known as CERCLA).

CERCLA is a massive piece of legislation; I took a semester-long class that focused only on the innocent landowner (and contiguous property owner) defense within CERCLA, and we only just scratched the surface. The focus of the class was on conducting site assessments for potential purchasers of industrial real estate, but with my brain working the way that it does, the potential implications outlined in this defense gave me another idea.

Let me preface my fantasy class action by saying that I am not a lawyer. I'm not shouty or argumentative, I can't talk in circles, and I detest legalese, which means that I will probably never be a lawyer, because I would be lousy at it. Nor am I a farmer, I just sympathize with those land stewards who are trying to stay afloat in the seriously messed up, over-subsidized and overpriced crop monoculture that is big agriculture in this country. I first became aware of the shady, underhanded dealings of these multi-national corporations-- who have crossed a moral and ethical line by genetically modifying crops and obtaining patents not only for the seeds but for the crops they produce-- through documentaries and books such as The Omnivore's Dilemma, Food, Inc. and The Future of Food.

Each of these resources acts as an exposé into the seedy dealings of these seed businesses, who make the purchasers of their seeds sign over their souls, while going after the farmers who don't want to do business with them and suing them for saving their own seed. Of the farmers who chose to fight Monsanto in court, the few who didn't immediately submit to the settlements (on the condition of silence) and start purchasing Monsanto's "cutting-edge biotechnology" wound up losing millions before eventually losing their lawsuits. These companies are simply too rich and too powerful for individual farmers to take on... hence the need for a class action!

A number of farmers spoke out against Monsanto's practice of sending out "investigators" to bully and intimidate farmers whose properties were adjacent to their customers' farms into buying their products as well, an action Monsanto at once denies then claims is at their customer's insistence. Although these persecuted farmers came from all over the continent, their stories were all pretty much the same. Monsanto tested their seed, supposedly found their patented technology, and took these farmers to court. Monsanto has a number of articles denying these claims on its website, and boasting that the validity of their patents on living organisms was reviewed and upheld as recently as 2007 (patents come up for review every 20 years or so-- this is not good news!) They also cite specific cases against the farmers who were brave enough to speak up, listing all the reasons why the farmer-- and not their corporation-- is in the wrong.

So who are we to believe? A greedy, international corporation that is raking in record profits and steering this country into another dust bowl era, or a nation of beleaguered farmers who just don't have the resources to fight the good fight? I can't say for sure... but in case you couldn't tell, my allegiance is with the farmers.

I will concede that there are a couple of factors that complicate my argument. First, we have to establish that Monsanto's patented, genetically modified seed is a contaminant and-- more specifically for the CERCLA defense-- a hazardous substance. Non-GMO farmers certainly consider even trace amounts of Monsanto's patented technology that appear in their carefully saved, cleaned, and stored seed to be a contaminant, because it's not wanted! In this legislation, a hazardous substance is defined as, "...such elements, compounds, mixtures, solutions, and substances which-- when released into the environment-- may present substantial danger to public health and welfare or the environment." While Monsanto's seed in and of itself isn't a hazardous substance, the effects of eliminating biodiversity and monopolizing the agricultural industry is an environmental hazard, and the ridiculous surplus of corn and other grains grown in this country each year does pose a danger to public health and welfare in that food scientists keep finding new and sugary ways to get us unsuspecting consumers to eat (and drink!) more and more of this stuff. Furthermore, I don't think it would be too hard to make a connection to the obesity epidemic and the increased consumption of corn-based foods; in fact, some of the resources listed above already have! And second, we'd have to find a way to hold our own against the scores of shouty, argumentative, legalese-loving lawyers employed by Monsanto, whose sole job would be finding ways to prove us wrong.

In the case of chemical contamination, liability can be difficult to prove, especially if the original contamination source is not located on the property in question. This makes it hard for current owners/operators and prospective buyers of the land in question to qualify for the innocent or contiguous landowner defense, and even when they do, there is still no guarantee that they will be exempt from liability. As for my argument against this biological contamination, however, Monsanto's coveted patents would make it incredibly easy to trace, identify, and prosecute(!) the responsible parties. The CERCLA legislation is one of the few environmental policies that actually has any teeth and-- like most tax laws-- is designed in a way that makes any potentially responsible parties "guilty, until proven innocent". And the best part about CERCLA is that it's retroactive; even if these corporations can get away with these shenanigans now, if Congress comes to their senses at some point in the future and repeals the right to patent seeds, these corporations will be liable for contamination that occurred before and after these changes are made!

Without getting too much into the due diligence of the matter-- which really only pertains to potential buyers-- for the sake of my argument, I'm going to say that the farmers owned their properties before the contamination source appeared. Assuming due diligence has been proven, the imaginary farmers I'm representing would have to meet certain conditions to qualify for the innocent landowner defense, such as:

The contaminants migrated onto their land from other properties despite due care. The most likely cause of seed contamination is by cross-pollination of the innocent farmers' crops with genetically modified crops from neighboring farms. There is a clause in the innocent landowner defense (I don't remember which one, and will only look it up if somebody really wants to know... I'm not a lawyer, remember?) stating that landowners cannot be held responsible for contamination that occurred as a result of an act of nature.
They have no knowledge of/no reason to suspect contamination. Unfortunately, this would eliminate any farmer who plants even a portion of their fields with patented seed; basically, once you sign Monsanto's "seed steward" agreement, they pretty much own you whether the seed in question is theirs or not. Also, if the purchaser "contributes" to the contamination, the I.L.D. cannot be applied. But innocent farmers cannot be held responsible for unknowingly "violating" an agreement that their neighbors made with a seed company!
They acquired either the land (or, in this case, the contaminated seed) through inheritance or bequest. One of the cases Monsanto describes on their website involves contaminated seed given to a farmer by a relative. Even without my fantasy defense, Monsanto was unable to prosecute the innocent farmer to the extent that they would have liked.

Even if my class-action farmers were able to qualify for the innocent landowner defense, they would still probably have to make a "contribution" to the EPA toward the remedial actions necessary to remove the contaminant from their seeds. Under CERCLA, the current owner/operator of the land in question is automatically considered a potentially responsible party. In the case of "strict" liability, the farmer would likely be stuck with the cleanup costs. So we'd be pushing for "joint and several" liability, where the EPA examines all PRPs and goes after the one(s) with the deepest pockets. In this case, there's no doubt that would be Monsanto. The small settlement the farmers would have to make is known as a de minimis settlement, and it would also protect them from later being sued by Monsanto (should it be determined that they were indeed the contributors of this contamination) to recoup some of the costs of remediation.

A remedial action is defined as a "...remedy that is protective of human health and the environment and maintains protection over time". This is a long-term process, because Monsanto (for the sake of my argument) would have to find the best and most cost-effective solution. CERCLA liability is generally limited to the remediation costs plus up to $50 million to cover natural resource damage (read: contamination of the innocent farmers' crops). However, I would go on to argue that the release of their patented, biological contamination was done willfully. Surely they know that, before they started concocting corn in a test tube, plant pollination occurred naturally. The fact that they're hunting down farmers who aren't buying their seed is evidence enough that they were relying on some level of cross pollination (contamination) to occur.

If we could prove that, then there would be no limit to the amount of money Monsanto would have to fork over to clean up the mess they've created. This would likely involve quantifying what amount of "trace" contaminant is acceptable (and amending their precious patents... or better yet, doing away with them altogether!); this amount would have to be considerably higher than they'd like, to account for the promiscuity of pollinating plants. If they don't like that idea, then they would need to put their mad scientists to work developing a genetic hybrid that a) doesn't pollinate with other varieties of seed or b) is asexual and unable to pollinate at all. They clearly enjoy playing God, and make their customers buy brand new seed each year as it is, so it shouldn't make any difference whether or not their test-tube crops can reproduce! That's the only way they could ensure that their precious biotechnology wouldn't wind up in unsuspecting hands, thus allowing the farmers who choose to sow their crops in the age-old way (that nature intended) to do so, without fear of prosecution.

And that is how I would help David fight Goliath. Clearly, if this were ever to become an actual defense, I would need to get a law degree, read the entire CERCLA Act, flesh out my arguments, and brace for a long and ugly battle. So what do you think? Should I keep my day job or start fielding calls to be some environmental lawyer's next Erin Brokovitch? Is my idea crazy, or crazy enough to work? Who's with me? Let's "stick it to the Mon(santo)" and help farmers everywhere take back their fields!

Seeding the Clouds

2009-11-13T19:36:00.005-06:00

When we woke up to a veritable snow storm on our last day in Beijing, having enjoyed pleasant 70-degree weather just the day before, I was baffled. I later learned that the clouds had been "seeded" earlier in the week, which supposedly induces rainfall. I didn't know what that meant. In fact, I hadn't even heard of this practice until it backfired on the first of this month, spoiling our last day of vacation, and causing an international stir by creating one of the earliest Beijing snowfalls on record. But it turns out that cloud seeding is nothing new, and when it comes to the controversial practice (to say the least!) of messing with the weather patterns, China is leading the way.

In one 2006 report, the Chinese government spends about $50 million (USD) a year in their attempts to control the weather. (Current estimates are as high as $90 million!) It is estimated that China sends cloud-seeding aircraft on roughly 700 missions per year, loaded with a comparable number of rockets and artillery shells that are filled with chemicals such as silver iodide and mixed with dry ice. These rockets are then shot into the atmosphere in hopes that the chemical particulates released will aid in the formation of water vapor, which will then fall to the Earth as rain.

Although China has had a moderate amount of success with this practice, bringing much needed rain to drought-stricken areas and helping to extinguish raging forest fires in remote regions of the country, the path that they are heading down is a slippery slope indeed. Rumor has it that they made attempts to ensure sunny, favorable weather for the Summer Olympics, which were held in Beijing just last summer, by using this practice to coax rainfall out of any potentially moisture-rich clouds headed toward Beijing, inducing the rain to fall prematurely so as not to ruin their moments in the spotlight. I couldn't find any proof of whether this worked, though, or if it's even true. The skies were sunny, sure, but Beijing has been suffering from a nearly decade-long drought, so the scientists' claims may be more arrogant than they are accurate.

So arrogant, in fact, that they've done it again; created an unseasonal snowstorm that has, according to an article published today, already killed 40. In China's defense, they're not the only ones trying to outsmart Mother Nature; weather modification experiments have been going on in Europe, Asia, and even the U.S. for more than 50 years. Proponents of this practice argue that the main chemical components of the rockets-- silver iodide (which is found in iodized table salt) and carbon dioxide (found in the atmosphere)-- are harmless. Everything has a toxicity level, though-- even water! And who's to say what the long-term effects may be from prolonged exposure to these chemical rains?

The Chinese, however, are unapologetic in their cloud-seeding efforts. It seems to me that they plan to advance their civilization as rapidly as possible, and will only deal with the consequences when they (inevitably) arise. I'm all for scientific breakthroughs and development, but there's a fine line between weather modification and playing God; if it's not done responsibly, they'll have to answer to Mother Nature in the end, and she's quite a force to be reckoned with.

Obese Packaging

2009-11-07T11:23:00.000-06:00

I came to the startling realization the other day that the shape of our bodies and the shape of our packaging has undergone an alarmingly parallel transformation over the past 50 years or so ...

Using soda as an example, let's first consider the 8-ounce bottle of Coke. This is one serving size of carbonated goodness, served up ice-cold in a glass bottle that -- once empty -- was returned to the bottler, who would carefully wash, sanitize, and refill the container. People took good care of these bottles (the fact that there was a small monetary incentive to do so certainly didn't hurt!) and, on average, bottlers were able to reuse the glass packages 25-30 times before the paint would start to fade and they were forced to take the bottles out of circulation. People also took better care of themselves back then; they kept portion sizes in check and put forth a little extra effort to keep themselves in circulation (so to speak).

By comparison, the 20-ounce bottle of Dr. Pepper on the left crams two and a half servings into it's shapeless plastic packaging, and -- despite the serving size on the label -- we generally pour all of that sweet, sugary liquid down our gullets in a single sitting, transferring the contents of the bulging container into our bulging bellies. Then we carelessly discard the single-use containers, thinking little of the cost, energy, and oil it takes to create a new container for yet another super-sized serving of soda. If we're lucky, the plastic bottles will be recycled, but this doesn't often happen.

Think about it -- the small, svelte, and shapely bottle of Coke could swap clothes with Barbie ... the big, bulging bottle of Dr. Pepper would be resigned to covering up in a flowing, shapeless mumu. Guess the phrase "you are what you eat" should extend to beverages, too!

Silent Spring: A Summary

2009-10-21T16:32:00.014-05:00

Like any good tree hugger, I decided over the summer that I needed to read Silent Spring, Rachel Carson's "explosive bestseller" about the devastating effects of the chemical pesticide programs used during the 1950s and 1960s. I hear it referenced so often that I assume it's mandatory reading for entomologists, biologists, ecologists, and environmentalists alike. So I picked up a musty, crumbling paperback copy in a used book store one day and dove right in. I motored through the first couple of brief chapters pretty quickly, intrigued by Carson's answer to her own rhetorical question:

"How could intelligent beings seek to control a few unwanted species by a method that contaminated the entire environment and brought the threat of disease and even death to their own kind? Yet this is precisely what we have done. We have done it, moreover, for reasons that collapse the moment we examine them." (p. 20)

After that, however, things began to get very technical, very quickly. The book is structured as a commentary on a number of case studies done during the height of the indiscriminate chemical spraying era, from the late 1940s up to the early 1960s (when the book was published). Even though the jargon is kept to a minimum and most of the data is presented in layman's terms, it is a tedious and laborious read and I couldn't mentally process more than ten pages at a time. I aimed to get through one chapter per sitting, but with so much data crammed onto each water stained page, not even the chapters' blatantly incendiary titles (such as "Elixirs of Death", "Needless Havoc", and "No Birds Sing") could help me to maintain my focus.

As I slogged through the meaty middle chapters, I began to get an eerie feeling; it was both a sense of foreboding and deja vu. In case study after innumerable case study, while the locations, pests, and sometimes even the chemicals changed, the inevitably disastrous result was almost always the same.

When DDD was sprayed at Clear Lake in California to kill the gnats, the swan grebes died. When the hop growers of Washington and Idaho sprayed heptachlor to kill the strawberry root weevil, their crops died and the land remained unusable for years. When the U.S. Department of Agriculture sprayed dieldrin over Iroquois County, Illinois, to "eradicate" the Japanese beetle, the song birds of the region were wiped out within a matter of days. When DDT was sprayed in East Lansing to kill the gypsy moth and prevent Dutch Elm disease, the robins died. The list goes on and on, but the message is clear: saturating the country with chemical pesticides is bad... very bad. Got it.

Scientists came to discover that these poisons were stored in higher and higher concentrations as it worked its way up through the animals in the food chain. The initial spraying might not have killed a bug, for example, but it probably sickened an earthworm or a fish that ate several bugs, and in turn almost instantly killed a bird that ate several earthworms or fish. The birds that didn't die instantly were either rendered infertile or endured a long, drawn-out illness before the twitching and agonizingly painful convulsions set in that, after much suffering, ultimately killed them. And-- perhaps worst of all-- the programs didn't even work long-term.

What these short-sighted chemists and government officials failed to realize was that it's nearly impossible to eradicate a single species of pesky insect; those that survived not only reproduced at a much faster rate than their natural predators, but they became resistant to the pesticides more quickly as well, rendering subsequent sprayings ineffective. Without a healthy bird population to keep these insect populations in check, the pests' numbers can exceed pre-spraying levels in a matter of years (and sometimes months!) As Carson explains:

By their very nature chemical controls are self-defeating, for they have been devised and applied without taking into account the complex biological systems against which they have been blindly hurled ... (p. 218)

She continues:

"The really effective control of insects is that applied by nature, not by man. Populations are kept in check by something the ecologists call the resistance of the environment: The amount of food available, conditions of weather and climate, the presence of competing or predatory species, are all critically important ... [The second neglected fact it] the truly explosive power of a species to reproduce once the resistance of the environment has been weakened ... (p. 218)

Thankfully, the sprayings eventually stopped, but not before our soil and groundwater was heavily contaminated. I know many of these same pesticides are still in use today, albeit in much smaller concentrations. Still, the best way to fight a force of nature is still with nature itself. For in her final paragraph, Carson issues a harsh admonishment, warning that:

"The 'control of nature' is a phrase conceived in arrogance, born of the Neanderthal age of biology and philosophy, when it was supposed that nature exists for the convenience of man ... It is our alarming misfortune that so primitive a science has armed itself with the most modern and terrible weapons, and that in turning them against the insects it has also turned them against the [E]arth."

Shortening the Supply Chain

2009-10-04T18:48:00.011-05:00

Do you know where your dinner came from? Today, I do. I made a delicious pasta dish using homemade ravioli from the Madison farmers' market. It's fresh, I recognize every ingredient on the label, and-- best of all-- it's relatively local. The pesto sauce was made from the basil on my back deck, and the cherry tomato garnish was also harvested from a plant out back. I would have taken a picture of the meal itself (which was served with a side of locally grown greens) but it was in my belly before the thought ever occurred to me.

I wish I could eat meals such as this every day; it's fresh, it's flavorful, and (from a broad environmental standpoint, if not a personal one) it's frugal. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult to prepare healthy meals from unprocessed (or minimally processed) foods. If you shop at a grocery store, this task becomes next to impossible. The foods on the inner shelves-- the juice boxes, cake mixes, and snacks-- have been almost entirely created in a laboratory somewhere; the meats come from animals that were drugged, sickened, and tortured during their short and miserable lives; the eggs are six to nine months old by the time they reach us while the other dairy products have had the nutrients pasteurized right out of them; and even the produce has been genetically modified, saturated with a myriad of pesticides, or both! And to top it all off, the vast majority of these items have been trucked in from some distance away; the average fruit or vegetable travels about 1,500 miles to get to our plate.

I will admit that there are some things I like about the current food chain; I can get fresh produce (like citrus, avocados, and other tropical fruits) that we just can't grow here-- they would never survive Chicago's temperamental climate. But why ship tomatoes from Mexico when there is an abundance of them grown right here in the Midwest? It just doesn't make any sense to me. Also, some of the products manufactured by this country's food scientists (microwave dinners, instant oatmeal, packaged cookies, condensed soups and the like)-- even though they are nutritionally worthless-- can be convenient in a pinch. The problem is that most Americans eat this garbage on a daily basis; and some rely on these items for each and every meal!

The third factor is the cost; government subsidies and the overwhelming imbalance between supply and demand have driven prices down to the point where industrial farmers will never be able to turn a profit. To pay a fair price for meats (for example) that were responsibly and naturally raised is a sticker shock for some, while completely cost prohibitive for others. I saw on a news broadcast the other night that, despite recent price hikes on grocery essentials, Americans on average are only spending 5% of their income on food, compared with the 10% our grandparents doled out just 50 years ago! I'd be willing to bet that they ate a lot better, too.

While I would love to go off the grid entirely, to plant a huge garden, make everything from scratch, and only buy my food from local farmers, that simply isn't realistic for me at the moment. So I splurge on real food whenever and wherever I can, and when I do make a meal using entirely fresh ingredients, I savor the fruits of my labor.

Daisies!

2009-09-17T18:19:00.003-05:00

Nothing special or profound to report here; I just wanted to share my small contribution to the greening of the urban jungle that is Chicago. I love, love, LOVE Gerbera daisies, and these sunny little beauties are one of my favorite features in my current apartment. A vibrant splash of color on an otherwise dull, gray, and impervious surface, they provide a nice contrast to my primarily green container garden, and happily soak up the sun's blazing rays that drench my deck with its western exposure.

Fall is coming, and these flowers won't last but another month (or two); this is just a feeble attempt to preserve a moment in time, to savor the beauty and save the image. When I look back on these pictures in a few months' time, during the dull and dreary doldrums of a Midwestern winter, maybe they will make me smile, and remind me that the sunny days of spring aren't as far off as they will undoubtedly seem.

Primo Parking

2009-09-02T11:10:00.005-05:00

I was cruising around a parking lot at a mini mall in a swanky southwest suburb, looking for a place to park. There were no regular spots to be found so, out of desperation, I pulled into a spot up front . It was not a handicap spot (I would NEVER do that), but it still had a sign. When I drove by before, I assumed it was a designated spot for expectant mothers or something like that. Well, if anyone was watching, I could stick out my gut, hold the small of my back, and waddle into the store. I was only going to be a minute, and I had to get to work!

As it turns out, it wasn't pregnant lady parking at all; better yet, I had every right to park there! The spot was reserved for fuel-efficient vehicles, and my 2006 Sentra certainly fit the bill. It's no Prius, but it averages 33 miles a gallon, which more than makes up for its poor acceleration abilities. In fact, that sign made my whole day. Kudos to the environmentally conscious parking lot engineers of Kane and DuPage counties! The actual design of the lot is a mess, which makes no sense to me, but at least they got one thing right. Hopefully they're blazing a trail that future parking lot construction and design teams will want to follow. They've got my repeat business, and it's all because of that sign!

It's The Most Wonderful Time...

2009-08-23T12:56:00.006-05:00

I'm not talking about the holidays, or even the start of a new school year (especially not that!) I'm referring to the plethora of fresh produce that is in season this time of year. Farmer's markets everywhere are overflowing with nature's bounty! Whatever adjectives you want to use to describe your fruit or vegetable of choice-- ripe, crisp, plump, juicy, sweet, etc.-- it all applies. And prices have never been cheaper-- these farmers have corn and tomatoes and zucchini coming out of their ears! All they want to do is get it out of their gardens and into our bellies; now who can argue with that?

With so many delicious and affordable options available right now, I'm tempted to buy extra and try my hand at canning, pickling, or even freeze-drying, so I can enjoy these farm fresh tastes all year long. I saw the first apples of the season last week, though, so I know that I'll need to act fast, because like all good things, this too shall pass. In the meantime, I'm eating any and every piece of produce I can get my hands on-- with food this healthy and fresh, why should anyone have to choose? Eat your hearts out, fellow veggie lovers!

Basil Bug?

2009-08-14T14:24:00.008-05:00

Someone's been eating my basil, and it's not just me! I've been trying to harvest more basil as of late, but someone (or something) else has been getting to it first. The big leaves have huge holes chewed out of them, and some of the smaller ones have been sheared off altogether. Harrumph.

Well, when I was out watering today, I finally identified the culprit:

Can you see him? How about now?

I have no idea what type of insect this is, but he blends in so perfectly with the leaves of my poor basil plant, he's probably been there all along! As far as bugs go, it's really quite beautiful; leaf shaped and with an iridescent sheen that catches the sunlight. He's so cool-looking, that I couldn't bring myself to flick him off of the plant, so I guess I'll have to settle for sharing my bounty. Surely there's enough basil for us both... right?

(By the way, if any of you do know what type of bug this is, I'd love to find out!)

Aveda "Kicks the Cap" out of Plastic!

2009-08-06T09:09:00.007-05:00

On my way to a matinee at the Landmark Century Theater, I stopped by the Aveda Institute with a bag full of plastic bottle caps. I know what you're thinking, but let me assure you that they were in fact happy to see me! You see, the Aveda company is leading the way in the area of "producer responsibility", a novel concept that I hope catches on soon with companies large and small, far and wide. In addition to using wind power to generate energy at their manufacturing plants, they have begun recycling plastic bottle caps into bottles and containers for their many products.

Why is this such a brilliant idea, you ask? Well, the caps on most plastic bottles are made from a different (and much harder to recycle) plastic than the bottles themselves, and few local recycling companies can process them. What Aveda has done is to find a use for these caps (all the recycling in the world won't do us any good unless someone finds a way to repurpose these recycled products!) and what better way to reuse old packaging than to turn it into new packaging?

Their "responsible packaging" has long been made from easy to recycle plastics, glass, and even cardboard cartons, and the Caps Recycling Program is their latest effort to keep these little plastic bits from littering our parks, beaches, and oceans. They are looking to partner with schools, to educate students who will then aid in their collection efforts. The company provides a specific description of the type of "rigid plastic" they seek; the lids I had saved from countless gallons of milk did not make the cut, because I could bend them with my bare hand. Some of these rigid plastic caps are marked with the number 5. This sounds like an easy way for students to learn about the "cradle-to-grave" life cycle of a product, and the caps are easy to collect.

The link above has suggestions for parents and teachers who are interested in getting their students involved in this noble effort, and it seems like most of their cap collectors are in fact children; the woman who took my caps kept asking if I was a teacher or had neices and nephews who had asked me to drop the caps off for them, and whether they were excited to be taking part in their program. So I told her that, yes, this was an exciting program, and that I hoped to recruit and excite more people to assist in their efforts to reduce their impact on the environment. And that, my dear readers, is where you come in. The caps can be dropped off at any Aveda salon; the company also provides special shipping labels to schools who enroll in their program so they can mail the caps instead. The process couldn't be easier, and I encourage you to encourage the little people in your lives to start collecting caps today, and let them see that they, too, can make a difference!

South Pond

2009-07-27T20:01:00.003-05:00

I was walking through Lincoln Park today, and smelled something awful. The stench seemed to be coming from behind a large, makeshift fence, and after a block or so, I stumbled upon this sign, which explained the odor.

Basically, they are transforming the southern pond into an "urban ecosystem", returning native species of fish, plants, birds, frogs, and the like back to the area. I vaguely remember seeing something about the project on the news earlier in the spring; they had to kill off a number of the non-native plants and critters that were inhabiting the pond before the renovation, which made me sad, but I'm all for restored wetlands and furthering the native species and the like.

I'm not quite sure how I imagined they would go about "restoring the natural habitat", but I certainly was not expecting to see this:

Cranes and bulldozers and idle construction workers, oh my! I guess I never figured they'd have to do a complete demolition to make a natural restoration; I expected them to just make improvements to the existing pond. Not so. I'm looking forward to seeing the finished product, which the sign assures me will be "an outdoor classroom for students of all ages", I just find their restoration methods a bit ironic.

Phone Book Rant

2009-07-16T21:15:00.005-05:00

Dear Local Phone Company,

PLEASE STOP SENDING ME PHONE BOOKS! Why must you cling to this archaic practice? Nobody uses them anymore, yet each spring they arrive on the doorstep of every resident in the city, regardless of whether they have a land line or not! I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but after all the money you spend producing these monstrosities and all the fossil fuels you burn by distributing them, only a minuscule amount actually wind up in peoples' homes. Most are either pitched, recycled (I'm hoping...), or left to languish on the same doorstep where you left them.

These books are massive and take up precious space, and they're hard to use; the few times I've tried, I've failed to find the business listings I was looking for, because it wasn't logically categorized. Yet when I then turn to the online yellow pages and enter any related key word, I can find what I'm looking for in a matter of minutes! In summary, the Internet wins. Hands down, every time.

I recycled the books that appeared in my lobby in April, and I recycled the unwanted duplicates you sent me when I moved. Surely you can understand my frustration at opening the door to my apartment building this afternoon and finding YET ANOTHER STACK OF PHONE BOOKS. I've yet to recycle this batch, and every time I see them in the foyer, my temper flares. Since I already disposed of the last two sets of directories you sent me this year, why on earth would you think that I'd want a third?!?

Here's a thought: in addition to touting your online billing practices as your company's way of "going green", why don't you save some real green-- financial and environmental-- by only issuing phone books to customers who specifically request them. Then you could spend all the money you'd be saving on studies that quantify all the trees you'd be saving. This would stop clogging our landfills with those despicable space wasters, and the tree huggers of the world would begin hugging your executives instead. I think it's something that you, as a company, should seriously consider. After all, your rival company doesn't harass its customers (and potential customers) by littering their entryways with giant, heavy, yellow doorstops... do you really want to let your main competition have the upper hand in this regard? I highly doubt it.

I implore you to at least think about giving the printing press a rest. And in the meantime, LAY OFF the unsolicited phone book deliveries! Thank you.

Sincerely,
ChicaGoinGreen

A Quiet Statement

2009-07-07T20:59:00.001-05:00

I couldn't help but smile when I saw this "license plate" today; I myself am petrified to ride a bike in the city, but I certainly appreciate the sentiment!

I've Been Greenwashed!

2009-06-22T21:53:00.007-05:00

I've been so careful about reading labels and dissecting the fine print lately, to make sure that the green, eco-friendly, and organic products I buy are, in fact, as pure as advertised. My vigilance is in large part to avoid falling victim to "greenwashing", which is a relatively new marketing ploy-- advertising that proclaims a product is "green" when it's really not. The suggestive wording on the packaging appeals to our subconscious as well as our eco-conscious, luring consumers who want to be more responsible in their product choices to buy what they're selling. However, all greenwashing really does is to get customers to shell out more money while (underhandedly) making them feel good about their decision to "go green". A sneaky and shameless tactic, indeed.

Until now, I've done a pretty good job of outsmarting the marketers-- like 100% natural soda (or yogurt, or granola bar)... made with high fructose corn syrup? Nice try! Environmentally themed t-shirts... woven from 55% polyester blends? For shame! Eco-friendly pesticides? Oxymorons! I know better than to fall for that, don't I?

Today, at my local big-box retailer, I was lured by the earthy green sheen of shampoo and conditioner bottles plastered with happy, earthy words such as "organic!" "natural!" "ultra whipped yogurt proteins!" and "sulfate free!" Topped with a rebate slip for 100% of the purchase price (printed on recycled papers, with soy-based inks), I was hooked. Sold!

(For those of you who are wondering, sulfates are cheap and effective chemical surfactants that are used in products from shampoos to face washes to toothpastes. Manufacturers like them because they're inexpensive and plentiful; they easily break down dirt and oils, and create a rich lather. Some popular sulfates used in cosmetics, however, are also registered pesticides and/or suspected carcinogens, hence the organic movement's attempt to make sulfate-free products. These products are equally effective and often less irritating to skin and eyes [and the environment!], but generally don't foam as well and can often cost more).

It wasn't until after I got my eco-hair cleansers home and tore off (and filled out) the rebate slips that I saw the list of ingredients hiding underneath. Water, Cetyl Alcohol, Behentrimonium Methosulfate... Wait. Methosulfate?!? Not the dreaded Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, but still... It's ingredient #3 in my sulfate-free shampoo?!? D'oh!

Marketers: 1. ChicaGoinGreen: 0.

If it weren't for the fact that I'll be getting my money back in 6-8 weeks (thanks to the strategically placed rebate slips), I would be much more inconsolable than I am. Let this be a lesson to all you fellow planet savers; paying more for an "organic" product doesn't automatically make it better for the environment-- so it pays to do your homework!

River Roads

2009-06-19T10:02:00.006-05:00

With more than a year's worth of above average rainfall in the record books, my fellow Chicagoans and I have been dealing with a sharp increase in street flooding. In fact, it now seems that even a moderately heavy rainfall turns intersections into giant puddles (and sidestreets into swiftly moving streams) in a matter of minutes. It's quite common to see diligent homeowners on the street corners after a downpour, in their galoshes, jabbing a broomstick into the storm drains, hoping to loosen whatever is "clogging" the sewers.

After wading home through nearly a foot of water (thanks for the pic, Danielle!), rushing down the street after a monsoon-like rain-- in February-- I seriously considered investing in a canoe. Even the water-main replacement projects have done little to relieve the flooding! What most residents don't know, though, is that it's not a glut of fallen leaves that clogs our sewers, it's a problem that was intentionally created by the Department of Water Management. After the "great flood" of 1997, the city installed nearly 200,000 rainblockers, or intake restrictor valves, in neighborhood storm drains.

The purpose of these valves is to slow the amount of rain that enters the system. Like many older cities, Chicago has a combined sewer system, which collects both sewage and storm runoff. An influx of storm water into the city's sewer system forces raw sewage releases into Lake Michigan or-- worse yet-- into the streets or peoples' basements. Reasoning that flooded streets are preferable to flooded basements (no argument here), the city boasts that their rainblocker program was completed ahead of schedule and under budget, and at only a quarter of what it would cost to actually improve the sewer system.

What the city fails to mention is that this program is a "band-aid" for an actual solution that was started two decades before, that (like so many things in this city) is behind schedule and over budget-- the Tunnel and Reservoir Plan. Better known as "The Deep Tunnel" program, perhaps it would be more accurate to describe the project as out of money and far from finished. Begun in 1975, the program called for more than 110 miles of tunnels to be built under Chicago and its municipalities. These tunnels would then carry sewage and storm water to an appropriate number of reservoirs, where it would be stored until it could be properly treated and safely released.

While the tunnel system is nearly complete, the reservoirs (which were originally slated to be finished in 2015) are virtually non-existent. The result of which is, as expected, flooded streets and raw sewage releases into Lake Michigan. And while the EPA lauds Chicago for testing the water quality of Lake Michigan with such great frequency, the tests show unacceptable levels of E. Coli more than a third of the time, which leads to beach closures throughout the summer. When the red and yellow flags are flying, you really don't want to make that day a beach day.

My vote (not that it matters) is to dedicate a chunk of the city's stimulus money to finishing what was started more than 30 years ago, to reduce (and potentially eliminate) the sewage and flooding problems that have plagued this city since its inception. Until then, though, who wants to go swimming?

My 20/20 Challenge

2009-05-30T13:37:00.002-05:00

I met a friend for lunch in Andersonville today, and picked up a flyer about the neighborhood's 20/20 Challenge. Promoted by the Andersonville Chamber of Commerce, the idea is, if each resident commits to spending just $20 a week in their neighborhood for a total of 20 weeks, local restaurants and business owners will prosper. This will support small businesses in the neighborhood and enable them to keep their doors open, because people are more likely to visit thriving and vibrant neighborhoods than they are to frequent those with vacant or boarded-up storefronts!

I'm a huge proponent of mom-and-pop stores (and of supporting local businesses), and I think this challenge is a great idea. I didn't sign up for A-ville's challenge, however, because I would rather spend that money in my own neighborhood; it's a remarkably easy thing to do! So far this week, I've gotten take-out from the restaurant down the street, bought some cat food at the nearest pet boutique, and washed my clothes at the independently owned laundromat. That doesn't even count the meals I've eaten at the restaurant where I work (they're supposed to be supporting me, not the other way around!) and I'm well over my $20 already.

Along those lines, I'd like to take my personal challenge a step further and try to do the same thing at my local farmer's market. $20 doesn't go nearly as far there as it does at the grocery store, but if these small farms are going to survive in the face of big agriculture, they need our support. With a little planning, I think I can stretch my $20 by basing my meals around the produce that in season (that which is most plentiful is usually the cheapest!) any given week. I can even get cheese, eggs, meat, and some baked goods from these farmers, so I won't get bored.

There, I've said it out loud; I am going to "vote with my wallet" this summer and support the local farmers who are using sustainable and environmentally sound methods of growing their food. Now-- who's with me?

BPA Ban

2009-05-15T10:45:00.003-05:00

On Wednesday, Chicago's City Council voted to ban baby bottles and sippy cups that contain Bisphenol-A, or BPA, becoming the first city in the country to do so, preceded only by the state of Minnesota, which passed a ban of their own just last week. BPA is a chemical that is used to harden plastics; it also lines some food containers. In 2007, independent researchers came out with studies that linked BPA ingestion to the eventual onset of diabetes, breast and prostate cancers, and a host of other problems caused by the general disruption of the endocrine system. The chemical reportedly mimics estrogen in humans, which in itself is cause for concern, and researchers concluded that infants and young children were especially susceptible. BPA ingestion occurs when foods or beverages are heated in containers made with BPA, as this causes the chemical to be released, and it is then leached into foods.

However, the FDA disagrees, claiming that its tests (purported by some to have been funded by the plastics industry) revealed BPA to be safe for human use. While I'm not taking sides either way, I do think that any evidence to the contrary should be more than enough to warrant a closer look. I do, however, question the need for a city-imposed ban. When the independent reports came out a couple of years ago, many manufacturers voluntarily pulled suspicious products from their shelves, and many more have retooled their manufacturing methods to produce BPA-free plastics. To insist that retailers sell only BPA-free baby products in our city seems a bit redundant. On the flip side, it could pave the way to a nationwide ban, which would benefit everybody. Back in the 1970s and '80s, for example, when California insisted that the vehicles in their state be held to stricter emissions standards than the federal government required, the entire nation soon adopted the standards set by California lawmakers, because manufacturers didn't want to produce two different types of cars.

And why only baby products? It's not okay for infants and toddlers to ingest this stuff, but kindergarteners get the green light? Who's to say that a baby won't still be exposed to BPA because they ate food that came from a can lined with BPA, which isn't marketed specifically for children, and is not included in the ban? And what about the rest of us? Are we just supposed to know better? For those of us who don't, if a plastic product has a recycling number 7, there's a very good chance that it contains BPA. I guess I'm not as concerned as I maybe should be-- I still buy canned goods, and have yet to replace my BPA-laden Nalgene bottle. On the same token, I don't heat foods in the can, and my Nalgene bottle has never been in a dishwasher, or a microwave, or left in the car on a hot day. So maybe I'm in the clear. Then again, maybe I'm not. And maybe this latest ban will turn out to be a good thing, or maybe it will go the way of the foie gras ban; only time will tell.

Earth Day 2009

2009-04-22T22:18:00.004-05:00

I happened to be home this morning to catch Oprah's Earth Day special. I'll admit I tuned in more for the environmental aspect than the "O factor", as I'm still a little bitter about the tapings I was subjected to a few years back... which is a whole other story... but I actually learned something! So, I never thought I'd say this, but thanks, Oprah! I was devastated by the opening segment with Jacques Cousteau's grandson, Fabien, about the largest garbage dump in the world, the swirling patch of trash in the Pacific Ocean. Estimated to be twice the size of Texas, and up to 90-feet deep in places, marine animals big and small are ingesting, getting entangled in, and dying from OUR TRASH. They showed picture after heartbreaking picture of a turtle whose shell had grown grotesquely around a plastic ring it must have gotten stuck in as a baby, a bird who was trapped and dying under layers of plastic, and an entire cigarette lighter in the belly of a dead albatross.

I know we're a long way from the Pacific Ocean, but there's a mass of trash in all of the world's oceans, and whether we realize it or not, we're contributing to the growing problem. Trash dumped in area lakes and rivers is washed downstream to bigger rivers, and is eventually carried out to sea. So this Earth Day, consider joining forces with other city dwellers and spend an afternoon this spring cleaning up a vacant lot or fishing trash out of the Chicago River. The city's "Clean and Green" initiative has several events coming up in May, and the Park District and Forest Preserves offer similar volunteering opportunities. Just think, a plastic bag that is plucked from a river in Chicago could potentially save a fish that would have otherwise been suffocated by unwittingly swimming into it! Just go to the City of Chicago web site or be on the lookout for volunteer opportunities in your area. We can all help to make this Earth Day a happy one!

Crestwood's Conatmination Concerns

2009-04-19T11:02:00.008-05:00

I was stunned to see an explosion of investigative reports and articles in the news today, stating that village officials in suburban Crestwood had knowingly pumped contaminated water from a tainted well into their municipal water supply. And continued to do so for more than two decades after the U.S. EPA alerted them to the contamination! According to the article in today's Tribune, the EPA warned Crestwood officials back in 1986 about the dangerously high levels of perchloroethylene in their main water supply. Officials reportedly placated the EPA by agreeing to pipe in their drinking water from Lake Michigan, and the well was downgraded to an emergency-only, back-up water source, which eased state requirements for regular testing.

The article goes on to say that the Village of Crestwood continued to draw up to 20% of it's monthly water supply from the tainted well until 2007, when the EPA finally shut it down altogether. It took a vigilant mother of a child with cancer to get the attention of the EPA, and now the whole town is outraged. A segment on this evening's news focused Crestwood residents with (or in remission from) a myriad of cancers, suggesting that these illnesses could be chronic health effects of, or the possible result of long-term exposure to, a drinking water contaminant.

Is this possible in this day and age? You betcha-- have you ever watched Erin Brokovitch?!? Was it shady for Crestwood officials to tout low water prices while drawing drinking water from a contaminated well? Most definitely. Is it illegal? Well.... not exactly.

Under the SDWA, the EPA has set National Primary Drinking Water Standards, which identifies and classifies 86 known water contaminants, along with health risks and likely contamination sources for each. The EPA has studied these contaminants and set a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and goal levels (MCLG) for each. While perchloroethylene, a commonly used dry-cleaning solvent, is not on the list, the two organic chemicals that form when PCE mixes with and breaks down in groundwater, dichloroethylene and vinyl chloride, are. Dichloroethylene, which can cause liver problems, has a MCL that ranges from 0.007 to 0.1 mg/L. Vinyl chloride, which increases cancer risk and is also a suspected cause of autism, has a MCL for just 0.002 mg/L and a MCLG of 0. This is some bad stuff! The October, 2007, test revealed vinyl chloride in an amount that was more than twice the legal MCL for that chemical.

However, this water was diluted with treated water from Lake Michigan, which likely reduced contaminant levels enough to pass the MCL tests, which are performed daily by all water treatment centers. However, saying that "dilution is the solution to pollution" is like advocating the withdrawl method of birth control; a crap shoot at best. If any of these contaminates exceed the MCLs, the local public water system (PWS) is required to notify their customers under the Public Notification requirements outlined within the SDWA. A tier-one notice requires notification within 24 hours if the contamination poses an immediate threat to human health, while a tier-two notice gives the PWS 30 days to report excess contaminant levels or improperly treated water. Crestwood only ever sent out tier-three notices, which were little more than cheery updates sent out with the annual water-quality reports.

The State of Illinois also has a right-to-know act that was passed in 2005, which would require either state officials or the Department of Public Health to notify residents when their soil or groundwater had been contaminated, even if the public water system failed to do so. Even the best technology available cannot remove all contaminants from the drinking water, so we are all drinking a chemical cocktail of sorts, regardless of where we live. It is the job of the EPA and our PWS to ensure that the contaminants we ingest are in such miniscule amounts that they pose the least possible threat to human health.

Although a statement was reportedly issued to Crestwood residents by the Health Department in August of last year, it was released nearly a year after the well was capped for good... and some may argue that the notice came nearly a quarter-century too late.

Giant Piles of Garbage

2009-04-14T16:24:00.006-05:00

I hate to break it to you all, but waste management in this country is just that-- the management of waste. It's been likened to a shell game; we move piles of garbage from one place to another. Every year, the garbage trucks have to drive a little farther out to find a place to pile up all the trash we generate; in fact, the EPA estimates that all the landfills in the Chicago area will be full within the next 5-7 years. Cities like New York are already facing the space crunch; they sent out a "garbage barge" a few years back, with the intent of making their garbage someone else's problem. The barge circumnavigated the globe, and since no one was willing to take New York's trash, it wound up right back in New York.

According to the 2006 EPA report on the subject, of the 251 million tons of waste we generate each year (that's roughly 4 1/2 pounds of garbage per person per day), a full 55% of that was discarded. Only 32.5% was recovered (recycled), and a mere 12.5% was burned and the byproducts of combustion recovered as energy. We used to burn a lot of our garbage, but the gases and fumes that resulted were not properly filtered or recaptured, and the air pollution levels forced us to find another way. Many of the old incinerators in this city are now used as sorting facilities for our single-stream recycling program; city workers separate the materials that have been designated for recycling.

Our current method of waste management is to dump garbage into what they call "sanitary landfills". It sounds like an oxymoron, but basically all it means is that, once the landfill is full, it is covered with dirt. Out of sight, out of mind, right? Not necessarily. Old sanitary landfills are everywhere-- even if they no longer look or smell like landfills, it's hard for me not to call them what they are-- giant piles of garbage.

For example: those "mountains" along the Bishop Ford freeway into Indiana? They're not hills-- this is Illinois!-- they're covered mounds of trash. Ditto for the hilly landscape around Calumet City. The Brickyard Mall was built over a filled-in garbage pit, a large clay pit that was originally used in the making of bricks, hence the name. While that sounds like a good use for a former landfill site, the mall had to be closed down a few years back and was ultimately rebuilt, because the trash upon which the foundation was laid settled and compromised the structural integrity of the building. I'm not sure, but I suspect that the massive hill in the park across the street from me-- the one cross country runners dread-- was also created from garbage. And the popular sledding hill in the ritzy community of Evanston? The locals who remember call it "Mount Trashmore"-- it is aptly named.

We've become an undeniably "throwaway" society, but how do we reverse the waste and recovery percentages and slow the formation of these giant piles of garbage? There's not a single answer to that question; it will require a multi-faceted approach and the full cooperation of the American people to turn those numbers around. It will undoubtedly take time, but the effort is becoming increasingly necessary. Can you imagine what future civilizations will think of us when they excavate mound after mound of trash? I shudder at the thought.

The Problem with Packaging

2009-03-25T12:34:00.006-05:00

Tree huggers and environmental advocates everywhere are always urging consumers to purchase products that use as little packaging as possible. While this is good, sound advice, even well-intentioned shoppers wind up reaching for the brand names or sale items instead of the environmentally sound alternatives, which often trumps their desire to avoid excess packaging. So, how big of a deal is it, really? Most people are stunned to discover that, as of a 2006 EPA report, 32% of all Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in this country comes from product packaging alone. That's nearly 84 million tons a year, or 1/3 of all trash hauled away from our homes and dumped into landfills!

The sad thing is, much of this packaging is unnecessary. There's a whole psychology to product packaging; graphics and color schemes draw attention to the product, while larger packages take up more shelf space, which makes consumers think they're getting more for their money and also increases product visiblity on store shelves. Also, manufacturers can charge more for all the extra materials used to package the product, which is a sneaky way to increase their profits. Are we really that distracted by bright and shiny objects? Research suggests that we are, and as long as we keep succumbing to these sales tricks, manufacturers will continue in their wasteful ways.

As far as unnecessary packaging goes, some of the biggest culprits (in my opinion) are print cartridges, eletronic accessories, and over-the-counter drugs. Have you noticed that the box the print cartridges come in are usually twice the size of the actual cartridge, which is nestled in a plastic tray (usually made from hard-to-recycle plastic), which is encased in a plastic bag? Sure, the box has all the information and instructions on it, and the plastic tray keeps the cartridge from rattling around the box, but all the same instructions are printed on the plastic bag! Why not just poke a hole in the plastic bag and hang it on a hook!?!

I recently bought a memory card for my camera (it's a very small disk), which came encased in plastic packaging the size of a paperback-- why!?! And pill bottles drive me nuts. I bought some allergy medicine last year, which was embedded in an oddly shaped plastic package (which requires much more shelf space and larger shipping boxes than the bottle alone). It wasn't for protective purposes; I removed a tamper-resistant seal on the bottle when I finally got it dug out of the package. Once I got the bottle opened, I then pulled out a large piece of cotton, then dumped out some miniscule pills, which barely covered the bottom of the bottle. Ridiculous.

That said, there are some responsible producers and manufacturers out there. Take cell phone companies, for instance. They have one sample of each make and model of phone on display, and once the customer selects one, they go into the back and bring out an unremarkable box, filled to the brim with the phone, charger, and instruction manual. Windex has come out with refill packets for their glass cleaner-- a one-by-three-inch package of concentrated cleaner can be dumped into an empty spray bottle, mixed with water, and-- voila!-- a whole new bottle of Windex, minus the plastic bottle disposal.

I know some of these measures are used as shoplifting deterrants, but surely there are better ways to go about it... What if pharmacies had bulk dispensers of some of the most popular OTC drugs (like the plastic bins with the different colored jelly beans at most candy stores)? If customers come in with an empty bottle, they can get it refilled, at a discount. Or why not keep more of the small electronics behind a counter? With minimal packaging, stores could fit quite a number of products behind the electronics counter. Leave one out on display, like the cell phone stores do, and only pull out the product after the sale has been made. As for ink cartridges, many stores already offer a refill option on existing cartridges, which is something every consumer should take advantage of whenever possible!

The European Union issues levies (taxes) on manufacturers who use excessive packaging; if they want to waste materials, they can, but they will be charged accordingly. While it's not a ban or a law that producers would likely rail against, it has proven to be an effective deterrant in wasteful packaging. Our government and policies, unlike those of the EU, are more reactionary than preventative, but consumers can wise up now-- look at the packaging before purchasing a product. If we band together, we can pressure manufacturers even if our government will not... When it comes to product packaging, if consumers boycott the worst offenders, they will get the message!

Daylight Saving Time!

2009-03-07T18:52:00.005-06:00

I love Daylight Saving Time, especially in the spring. For me, the extra hour of daylight in the evenings is synonomous with growth, renewal, happiness, and all things summer. In fact, I consider the extension of Daylight Saving Time in 2006-- by moving up the start date by three weeks in the spring and delaying the end date by a week in the fall-- to be the single crowning achievement of the Bush Administration. I was surprised to find out, however, just how many people disagree with me. They argue that it's hard to get up in the dark and reset their internal clocks, to lose an hour of sleep, and even to lose an hour of drinking time at the bars the night the clocks change.

Although the idea of Daylight Saving Time started with Benjamin Franklin, in an essay written while in Paris in 1784, it wasn't seriously considered until Englishman William Willet took up the cause, lobbying to shift the clocks ahead a total of 80 minutes on four consecutive Sundays in April, and to reverse the progression by the same incriments in November. He began lobbying Parliament in 1909, and was met with much ridicule. He continued to fight for this idea of "Summer Time" until his death in 1915; the bill finally passed in 1916 and was adopted in the U.S. two years later.

The argument has long been that Daylight Saving Time (note it's not Daylight Savings Time, even though that sounds more grammatically correct) helps save energy because people are able to rely on natural light later into the evening. However, the advent of air conditioning seems to have negated these benefits somewhat, as people are instead using the energy to run their fans and window units longer than they might otherwise do. In fact, a study was recently done in Indiana (a state which has been a little slow on the uptake, only switching to DST at the request of the Bush Administration in 2006) that shows energy usage went up during the summer hours, which reinforced their theory that DST was useless. What the study failed to mention, however, was the climate trends and population growth from the years used in the comparison.

Whatever your position on the matter, I find it's easier to get up in the dark those first few mornings when I think ahead to the long, lazy days of summer, and the time spent outdoors in the evenings, when the kids can stay out and play until bedtime. It's much more depressing to me when the daylight goes away, when it's dark by the time I come home from work. And not even an extra hour of sleep can change that.

Don't Grab a Kleenex!

2009-02-26T11:19:00.002-06:00

While we're still in the midst of cold and flu season, let me pose this question: do you know where your Kleenex comes from? For most of you, I'm guessing the answer is no. Instead of repurposing recycled paper content, giant corporations like Kimberly-Clark, Proctor and Gamble, and Georgia Pacific knowingly and actively participate in the deforestation of some of North America's most ancient forests. Greenpeace has been fighting Kimberly-Clark (makers of Kleenex, Scott, and Cottonelle, among others) since 2004 to adopt a more responsible approach to the manufacture of such disposable products. Kleenex has fought back, reluctant to change their destructive and wasteful ways. So now, nearly five years later, the battle rages on.

This article in today's New York Times reminded me of this fact and got me mad all over again. Think about it; do we really need to cut down trees that have been enhancing the beauty of our planet and providing forest animals shelter for hundreds of years, just so we can wipe our ass with (or blow our snot into) something shiny and new? NO! This nation's trend toward bigger and better, regardless of the cost, has only fueled these companies' desires to create 2-, 3-, or 4-ply, quilted, padded, and even moisturized personal tissue items.

Sure, they're soft. Sure, they're aesthetically pleasing. But the luxury is NOT worth the damage caused to wildlife and to the environment. For all the energy it takes to cut down, process, bleach, heat, and package the sad remnants of a once-majestic tree, those hefty costs are passed on to the consumer while our natural resources are destroyed. I'm no businessperson, but it makes far more sense to me to use recycled paper products, which are far more cost and energy effective, and manufacturers can instead pass savings onto their consumers while maintaining their profit margins!

Now, I'm not suggesting that everyone go back to carrying a handkerchief, because that's... well... gross-- but you can be a smart consumer and vote with your wallet. For example, Trader Joe's sells wonderful (and cheap!) paper products that are 100% recycled, use up to 80% post-consumer content, and are not whitened with any chlorine bleach. The tissue boxes are funny and even fashionable, and cost less than a dollar (and the toilet paper doesn't leave any remnants on your behind)! If you have a terrible cold and are going through multiple boxes of tissues a day and your nose has been rubbed so raw that you just have to get a box of ancient-forest tissue, I suppose I can look the other way for a bit, but for average, everyday use, recycled tissue reigns supreme!

Winter, Be Gone!

2009-02-05T16:18:00.004-06:00

Winter in Chicago always seems to become interminable this time of year. We haven't seen the ground in more than a month, and our usually vibrant city is colorless and ugly, made dull by a film of snow and ice, road salt, and "city sludge" that covers every available surface. The unmelted snow is a blank canvas for all the filth and pollution generated in this city; every bit of territory marked by the neighborhood dogs is instantly visible along the deep snow banks, and the discolored snow by the roadside ranges from a weak coffee brown to charcoal black. Have you ever noticed how starkly a freshly washed car stands out against the dull winter landscape? Even then, the color doesn't stay true for long. I washed my car just two days ago, and it is once again the color of grime, with only a hint of red.

Has anyone else wondered what causes snow to turn that color? It's not dirt, people-- the ground has been frozen solid for months. It's a combination of the soot and particulates belched out by countless car and truck exhausts, fragments of rubber from car tires, and even specks of concrete and blacktop that have unintentionally dissipated from the roadways and fallen from the overpasses. This is a direct result of the repeated plowing and salting that city streets endure each winter, which in turn creates potholes, cracks in the infrastructure, and yes, countless blown-out tires. This pollution, some of which is absorbed by flowering plants and trees or washed away by cleansing rains during the warmer months, stares us in the face each winter, soiling even fresh snowfall like dust on the fingertip of a white kid glove.

Despite efforts to "green" the city, during the months that aren't actually green, the pollution has nowhere to hide. Chicago was nicknamed "the Black City" during the Golden age (around the turn of the twentieth century) because of the smoke and soot generated by trains, iron and steel plants, slaughterhouses, and other industries, which covered nearly everything downwind. Pollution management has gotten unquestionably better since then, but despite these improvements, the city still has a long way to go. Although the sources may be different now, the outcome is the same; extensive pollutants in the Windy City.

The Blue Carts are Coming! The Blue Carts are Coming!

2009-01-23T11:11:00.004-06:00

Actually, the blue carts are here! They were delivered to eligible homes in my ward last evening-- hooray! Although we received information about the blue cart program (along with an invitation to participate) weeks before, my apartment building has too many units to be eligible for this program. It looks like they will accept all the same materials they accept at the drop-off centers, which is nice. The brochure shows pictures of the many items that can be recycled in these blue carts, and does not require the different materials to be sorted (or even rinsed [!!]-- just emptied), and recyclables will be picked up every other week starting in February. First a drop-off recycling center in the park across the street, now blue carts in the alleys... it's a good day in the 33rd ward!

The GAIA-Movement?

2009-01-12T15:25:00.005-06:00

It seems like clothing donation boxes are everywhere in this city; they're scattered through almost every neighborhood in grocery store parking lots or next to gas stations or banks. I was all set to tout the virtues of the non-profit group behind the large spring-green donation bins, the GAIA-Movement, until I started doing a little research. This 501 (c) (3) charity, named after the mythological Greek term for "Living Earth", was started in 1970 by a group of Danish teachers, now known as Tvind. The organization was started under the premise of James Lovelock's Gaia Theory, which states that the Earth is a living planet, and that:

"All life forms work together in symbiosis to make this planet habitable, regulating the atmosphere the oceans and the climate. Humans also contribute to the life of the atmosphere, oceans, and earth. We believe that humans affect the environment both positively and negatively. We believe current human activities are disrupting the composition of the environment with possible disastrous consequences. We think that action is needed."

According to the Web site, the Gaia Movement collects donations (they primarily solicit clothing, but accept all sorts of odds and ends), which are sold to resale shops (usually in third-world countries) and the money raised goes to fund a myriad of environmental projects, such as recycling and landscape beautification at home and water and energy conservation projects abroad.

The Gaia Movement came to Chicago in 1999, and now has more than 500 green donation boxes scattered throughout the region. They had an overwhelming response from generous, eco-conscious Chicagoans; the group raised more than $2,000,000 the first three years alone! What attracted me to this organization was their environmental purpose and charitable promises, which are listed right on the side of the box, and the fact that they even accept clothes that are no longer wearable, because they can recycle the fibers!

I sent an email to the Program Manager of the Chicago branch last fall, asking on behalf of the shelter where I volunteer if they would accept the threadbare linens for recycling, but received no response. I imagine they will, though, because according to their Web site, textiles are one of the easiest materials to recycle, yet only 15% of all discarded clothing in the United States manages to stay out of the landfill! I also like the convenience of their many drop-off locations; there's a donation box sitting in the Burger King parking lot at the end of my street-- it's so easy!

The thing that gives me pause, though, is this Tribune article from 2004. As it turns out, high-ranking members of Tvind, the founders of the Gaia Movement, are under criminal investigation in Europe for embezzlement, tax evasion, and money laundering schemes. The article goes on to say, that:

"(al)though Tvind leaders face criminal trial and front-page headlines in Europe, the group flourishes in the U.S. ... Tvind’s Chicago-area operations demonstrate how the international collective sustains itself by generous clothing donations, idealistic volunteers and the determination of middle managers who live in Spartan conditions for the sake of a revolutionary creed."

"At the center are Gaia’s green bins. They stand 6 1/2 feet tall and weigh 500 pounds when empty. In an America where the average person recycles or donates to charity less than a quarter of the 68 pounds of textiles he or she tosses out every year, the Gaia bins offer what people seem to want: painless altruism, cleaner closets and utter convenience."

The article goes on to say that the Gaia movement has ties to for-profit organizations such as U'SAgain and Planet-Aid, and despite the claims that more than $2,000,000 a year goes toward environmental projects, a reported 96% of that money instead funded the business of resale clothing and paying their Atlanta-based contractors. I tried to follow the money trail posted in the sidebar to this article, but quickly got a headache. I'm not an accountant or an investigator, so I don't know what to believe.

I can tell you what I think, though-- I think that it's best to donate reusable clothes directly to resale or thrift shops instead of to a third-party organization. Legitimate resale-clothing outfits, such as Goodwill and the Salvation Army, have decreased the number of drop boxes located throughout the community because these boxes are costly to maintain, and it's too easy for improperly packaged donations to get wet or dirty when dropped into these metal collection bins, which then makes them unusable.

I still think these boxes are great for unusable clothes (and linens!) because these textiles are reportedly recycled, which is something most other organizations like this are unable to do. I worry less about what they do with the profits that come from selling recycled textile fibers, because the good that comes from recycling somewhat negates the allegedly shady monetary actions, at least for me. I guess the moral here is, while it's good to support environmental causes, it might be even better to first do some homework on the organization you're looking to support first, because sometimes these things aren't always what they seem.

A Place for Prescriptions?

2009-01-09T15:33:00.001-06:00

Good news, Chicago! We now have more options when it comes to recycling (or at least keeping out of the waste stream) expired and unused prescription drugs! Mayor Daley has partnered with the Department of the Environment and the Chicago Police Department and has installed pharmaceutical drop boxes in five Area Police Headquarters. These drop boxes are permanent, and available to residents 24/7. The USEPA funds the collection of these Rx and OTC drugs, while the IEPA funds their disposal.

Proponents of this program hope that, by providing a more convenient method of proper disposal, more residents will be inclined to recycle the unwanted contents of their medicine cabinets rather than flushing them down the toilet, which was long thought to be the best way to get rid of unwanted medicines. However, since trace amounts of pharmaceuticals have been showing up in our drinking water (yikes!), it's becoming increasingly clear that we need to find a better way.

The permanent drop-off boxes are available in addition to the City's Household Chemicals and Computer Recycling Facility (on Goose Island) and the occasional recycling events hosted by the DOE, and their placement in police stations is no accident. I've long thought that pharmacies should take back unwanted and expired drugs from their customers (I've heard that some actually do, but I've yet to find them), and perhaps someday they will, but I guess the problem is that if people drop off controlled substances (like OxyContin) or other strong medications, the pharmacies could get into legal trouble because these medications need to be carefully monitored and kept under lock and key at all times so they don't wind up in the wrong hands.

These new drop boxes are designed to keep drugs in and people out, where they remain under the watchful eye of area law enforcement until they can be removed and taken to the Goose Island facility for packaging, then transported to a state-of-the art disposal facility where they are safely incinerated. For the location of the new drop boxes, or to print an informational flyer, visit the city's web site at http://www.cityofchicago.org/.

Photo: City of Chicago

Coming Soon, to a Park Near You....

2008-12-30T15:53:00.014-06:00

On a sleety, snowy night, I was on my way home after an evening out when I caught a glimpse of what looked like a recycling drop-off center at the park by my home. Could it be?!? A convenient place to drop off my recyclables? No more twenty-minute commutes with a trunkful of paper, glass, and aluminum? I could hardly believe my eyes! Visibility was low because of the fog and other precipitation, but I was curious enough to venture out in the elements the next day to confirm my suspicions. There, in the parking lot just a block away, stood an official City of Chicago drop-off bin, a shining blue eco-beacon amidst the snow, salt residue, and city sludge.

I ran right home to retrieve my recycling-- I couldn't bag it fast enough! The best thing of all was when I went back to the park with my recycling in tow and opened the first door to deposit my recyclables, only to discover that the container was full! I had to try three more lids before I found just enough space to squeeze my two garbage bags into the receptacle. I think that speaks volumes about the need in this city for convenient recycling options. I checked the City of Chicago Web site to see how many other locations had been added this past year. While the site still only listed the original sixteen drop-off locales, the map below had nearly twice as many locations flagged, and when I ran my mouse cursor over each, the corresponding address popped up. Let's hope this number continues to double exponentially in the coming year!

So if you're like me and have been going to great lengths to recycle your everyday waste, be on the lookout for a drop-off site at a park or local college near you-- this earth-friendly task may soon be much easier to do!

Recycle Those Trees!

2008-12-30T15:53:00.013-06:00

Christmas is over, and for most people, that means that the decorations must come down. But what to do with the decorations that can't be put back into storage, such as the live trees and wreaths and garland? I hate seeing the lovely Douglas firs and blue spruces and Norwegian pines that lent themselves so beautifully to the holiday decor of many a Chicago home cast heartlessly onto the curbs and into the alleyways to be picked up with the trash, especially when the city has a better solution! From Saturday, January 3rd through Friday, January 16th, the City of Chicago will be accepting trees at the following locations for recycling.

The service has been expanded from a couple of Saturdays to nearly two weeks, due to the overwhelming response in recent years. There are some other changes, though-- the city will not be collecting regular recyclables at these locations like it has in the past, and it sounds like, instead of blue bags or a free CFL bulb, the city will be offering bagged mulch to recyclers (albeit on a limited basis). The city will then use the extra mulch from the recycled trees on gardening and landscaping projects throughout the city later this spring.

So look out the window the next time you're on the el-- the trashed trees that are leaning against the dumpsters are very easy to see from this heightened vantage point-- and try to envision how much landfill space those discarded trees will needlessly be filling. That's a lot of mulch!

Now That's ALDI Smart!

2008-12-28T20:51:00.005-06:00

At first glance, Aldi customers are a strange and varied bunch. They bring their own bags, wagons, or suitcases into the store, they unload crates of food then stock the shelves and reuse the boxes, they bag their own groceries, and they never leave their carts in the middle of the parking lot. While the extra effort on the customer's part is largely to avoid paying five- to ten-cents per bag and to retrieve the 25-cent deposit required to use a cart, and the minimal services on the store's part save money, space, and labor, this economic business endeavor has become-- albeit inadvertently-- an environmental one as well.

Aldi is short for Albrecht Discount, named after owners and brothers Karl and Theo Albrecht. Based in Germany, Aldi is one of the largest grocers in the world. This discount chain now ranks among the top twenty five groceries in the United States, with Chicago being its largest American market. Aldi does not accept checks or credit cards, only cash, debit, or food stamps, as the former payment methods cost too much to process. Because the shopping experience is such a do-it-yourself endeavor, Aldi saves a great deal on labor and passes these savings on to the customers. Other, larger grocers employ baggers, stockers, and cart corralers, and conversely pass these added expense on to their customers.

With an inexpensive, yet varied (and tasty!) store brand, Aldi rarely stocks name brands or products other than their own. That said, they do sometimes carry brand-name products on special, such as Goose Island root beer or Ritz crackers. Finding such gems at exceptionally low prices is always a treat! While the Jewels and the Dominicks carry 35 times as many products, most of these are different brands of identical products, and this requires nearly four times the square footage and shelf space as the typical Aldi store.

Most of the stores I've been into are clean and unpretentious. This no-frills operation was years ahead of its time in the practice of charging for bags. It doesn't waste money on fancy displays, and rarely stocks more than it can sell, which significantly cuts down on the amount of food it throws away. I particularly like that these stores carry 90% of the products consumers buy most. The produce section is usually a pleasant surprise, and the meat department has improved greatly in recent years.

There are 157 Aldi stores in the Chicagoland area, and 31 of these are in the city itself. When I shop there, I rarely spend more than $25 on a week's worth of groceries. So if you haven't been into an Aldi before, grab a bag (and a quarter for the cart) and see for yourself what great deals await you. I would recommend staying away at the beginning of the month, though-- that's when the LINK/WIC people get their monthly government handouts-- the place is a madhouse. But do try and support this economically and environmentally efficient business model during the remaining three weeks of the month, and save up to 40% on your groceries. Now THAT'S Aldi smart!

Closing the Loopholes

2008-11-09T16:02:00.003-06:00

Loopholes, both in the manufacturing process and in the legislature, greatly hinder efforts to improve the recycling rate of aluminum cans. Aluminum is a valuable commodity, a source of revenue from which the beverage industry, waste haulers, scrap yards, retailers, and consumers all want to benefit, but few are willing to fund an improved and expanded recycling program. This battle has weighed heavily on the efforts of both state legislatures and Congress to pass the sweeping reforms necessary to overhaul the way in which aluminum is reclaimed and recycled, and this ongoing political infighting has, as it so often does, detracted from the issue at hand.

That said, the other major hurdle to the aluminum recycling dilemma lies in the political arena. One of the many loopholes in our current system of government allows large and powerful corporations to send lobbyists to Capitol Hill, and the beverage industry is no exception. These corporations spend tremendous amounts of money to persuade lawmakers to support legislation that would help the companies maximize profits, and to vote against bills that do not support their own special interests.

According to the Bottle Bill Resource Guide, “Bottle bills have been 'bottled up' in state legislatures and the U.S. Congress for over two decades, seldom getting to the floor for a full vote. They are generally defeated in small committees, often by a narrow margin. These defeats are due to the tremendous influence the well-funded, politically powerful beverage industry lobby wields over our elected officials.” Indeed, the opponents of bottle bill legislation have banded together to fight a number of ballot initiatives involving the implementation or expansion of bottle bill programs, both at the state and national levels.

With industry opponents spending more than 30 times what proponents of the bill are able to afford, it comes as little surprise that most of these bills are defeated. In 1996, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group reported that the beverage industry spent more than $14 million between 1989 and 1994, aimed at persuading politicians to vote against the National Bottle Bill, and that in 1992, the U.S. Senate Committee members who did vote against the National Bottle Bill received 75 times the amount of PAC money that bottle bill supporters did.

Opponents argue that bottle bills would cause costs to rise among bottlers, distributors, and retailers, and cause jobs and sales to fall in the manufacturing sector. It seems to me that if they spent less money bribing politicians and more money on solving the problems caused by their production of disposable beverage containers, they could put millions of dollars into recycling initiatives, and still come out ahead! Opponents even claim that bottle bills would “rob” curbside recycling programs of valuable aluminum, thus reducing revenue. Although compelling, a closer look at these arguments shows them to be largely untrue.

First, curbside recycling programs are only available to 50% of the country, which means that half the population has no easy way to recycle. Although the number of curbside recycling programs has more than tripled since 1990, this method does not capture an acceptable amount of used beverage containers—the percentage of aluminum cans that are recycled has in fact decreased from 65% in 1992 to 43% in 2006. In states that have both bottle deposits and curbside recycling, research shows that the increased recycling rate comes largely from diverting cans from the waste stream and not from municipal recycling bins—unclaimed deposits range from 15-30% in most instances, and a number of these unredeemed cans appear in curbside bins.

Although the initial cost of implementing a deposit program is more expensive than other methods, it becomes more effective and cost-efficient in the long run. A number of companies, government agencies, and environmental organizations joined forces in 2000 and hired a bunch of consultants to analyze the cost and effectiveness of beverage container recycling of the current recycling methods. Among their findings was that, for an added expense of about 1.5 cents per six-pack, the recovery rates were 25 times higher in states that had bottle deposit programs than they were in states without these bottle bills.

Beverage distributors used to take empty bottles back to the plant to be cleaned, sanitized, and reused; if they were able to take back-hauling out of their system, they also have the ability to put it back in. Although beverage container waste costs money to recycle, just as it does to throw away, with the deposit method, producers and consumers shoulder the cost, instead of government and taxpayers. This creates a powerful incentive for manufacturers to eliminate unnecessary waste and reduce the amount of toxic substances used, and eases the burden on cities and states facing financial crises and budget deficits, as the cost is no longer borne by the taxpayers.

Some organizations are pushing for the implementation of extended producer responsibility, or producer take-back programs, which would require producers to take full responsibility for the entire life cycle of their products, from product design to end-of-life management. Many countries began adopting these standards in the 1990s but, for whatever reason, the U.S. has been reluctant to sign on.

Although the U.S. clearly has a ways to go to cut wasteful production and utilize recyclable materials, there is much room for improvement. Concerned citizens should demand their politicians to step up and denounce the lobbyists, and call for a change in the way this country handles its recyclables. Most importantly, we need to keep used beverage containers out of the waste stream—a myriad of solutions exist, we just need to fight to ensure their implementation, and hope these changes will come about sooner rather than later.

Aluminum Can Recycling

2008-11-09T15:49:00.004-06:00

Aluminum is made from bauxite ore and other natural resources. However, aluminum is the only material that is currently 100% recyclable, which means that, once the metal is made, it can be recycled indefinitely. The process of recycling aluminum uses only 5% of the energy that would be required to make the same amount of aluminum from virgin materials. Although some groups estimate the energy savings to be closer to 75-80% than the 95% that is so popularly quoted, they instead break down the savings by cost. In the 1980s, one ton of virgin aluminum ore was $1,933, while the same amount of recycled aluminum totaled a mere $313, which is a net savings of $1,620 per ton—still a significant amount.

Since most recycled aluminum is turned back into beverage containers, the EPA stresses that the materials must be source separated, clean, and dry so processors can “…generate only high-quality scrap. The recovered aluminum containers must be free from steel, lead, ferrous materials, bottle caps, plastics, glass, wood, dirt, grease, trash, and other foreign substances.” Once the aluminum is separated, it is condensed into 1,200-pound bales and shipped from the scrap yards to aluminum processing and manufacturing plants. After workers strip the outer decorations from the cans, the aluminum is shredded and fed into a melting furnace.

At this point, the recycled aluminum is mixed with virgin aluminum ore; the cans on store shelves today are made up of approxomately 40% post-consumer content. Once melted, the molten aluminum pours into ingots, or molds that cast the metal into large sheets (25 feet long and 20 inches thick) that are fed through large rollers, which reduce the thickness of the aluminum sheets all the way down to 1/100th of an inch—the thickness of a human hair! The metal sheets are then coiled and sent to can makers, who fashion the body and lids of the new cans, which then arrive at the bottling plants, ready to be filled and placed back on store shelves.

The entire process—from the moment a can is recycled to the time it arrives back on store shelves—takes only 60 days, which means that a recycled aluminum can could potentially be reused up to six times a year. The Aluminum Association estimates that recycling saves roughly 15 million gallons of crude oil annually, and it is doing its part to reduce the amount of aluminum that is wasted each year. One of the biggest changes made in the past 30 years is the amount of aluminum used to make each can. In 1972, cans weighed about three ounces each, but in 2006 this weight was reduced to a mere half-ounce per can. This means that 200 million fewer pounds of aluminum are used to create the 100 billion cans made each year.

The Aluminum Association has set a goal of a 75% recycling rate for aluminum cans, and strives to make aluminum recycling production a closed-loop process. The closed-loop recycling method all but eliminates the use of virgin materials by recycling and remanufacturing a used product into the same product, and the aluminum can is the perfect candidate for this type of recycling, as it can be recycled indefinitely. This method is already widely used in the iron and steel industries, and with great success. With the current recycling rate of aluminum hovering well below 50%, there is much room for improvement and also money to be made—the industry currently pays out $800 million dollars for recycled aluminum each year.

With so much potential for recycling aluminum, and the significant savings in cost and energy that would result, why isn’t the recycling rate already much higher than it is? Some of the problems can be chalked up to the “human factor”—recycling isn’t as convenient as it could be, selling scrap metal isn’t as profitable as it once was (thanks in part to inflation and to the reduced weight of aluminum cans—one pound of aluminum required more than 34 cans in 2006, up from a mere 22 cans in 1972), and the current curbside recycling programs aren’t capturing a satisfactory percentage of used beverage containers, as most of these drinks are consumed away from the home.

What, you might ask, are the other factors that hinder aluminum recycling in ths country? Stay tuned....

National Bottle Bill

2008-10-31T15:23:00.004-05:00

According to studies conducted by the Container Recycling Institute, the recycling rate of beverage containers has fallen nearly 20% since 1990, from 60.9% to a dismal 41.5% in 2006. With industries and municipalities generating ever-increasing amounts of solid waste—and area landfills reaching capacity at alarming rates—the need to improve the reclamation rate of recyclable materials in Chicago (and throughout the nation) has reached critical mass. In fact, the Illinois EPA predicts that all of the landfills in the Chicago Metropolitan Area will be filled (and subsequently closed) within the next five to eight years.

Beverage containers make up nearly 80% of all containers sold in the United States, but traditional curbside recycling methods do not capture a satisfactory percentage of these containers. Perhaps this because more than one-third of these beverages are consumed away from home and emptied within minutes, which makes the containers particularly wasteful. In fact, 45-60% of litter in this country is comprised of used beverage containers.

Although the EPA reports that used soda containers (plastic and aluminum) make up only 2.7% of the Municipal Solid Waste stream, this is largely due to their small size and lightweight composition. More than half of the 200 billion beverage containers sold in the U.S. in 2006 wound up in landfills—58 billion of those containers were aluminum cans, one of the most easily recycled materials known to man.

Experts agree that the reycling industry would benefit from a multi-faceted approach, as no easy answer to this problem currently exists. First, recycling has to be convenient for consumers, which is why the Blue Cart Initiative (introduced in 2007, the program will be citywide by 2011) uses the single-stream recycling method. This means that recyclables are not separated until they arrive at the processing center. This method requires less effort by residents and takes up less space in the home, and it also reduces collection costs because crews are able to work faster when they don’t have to sort the recyclables going into the truck. The thought is that residents will be more willing to participate in a recycling program that requires minimal effort.

The second approach to the recycling dilemma is to provide consumers with an added incentive to recycle. One of the most successful incentive programs in existence is the bottle bill, which charges consumers five cents (ten cents in Michigan) per beverage container sold. The perceived added value of returning cans makes these programs more appealing than traditional buy-back programs, which fetch only one or two cents per can. The deposit is then refunded when containers are returned to the retailer. This program was first established in Oregon in 1971, and to date, eleven states have adopted similar programs (although only ten take back aluminum containers, which are exempted from the bottle bill program in Connecticut). Illinois, however, is noticeably absent from this list.

States with bottle bill programs report sharp increases in the recycling of beverage containers, averaging 75-80%. Michigan, with it’s hefty ten-cent deposit, boasts the greatest return rate of nearly 95%, while California, which offers only a three-to-five-cent refund, still has a 58% recycling rate, much higher than the national average. Litter from beverage containers was reduced by 70-83% in these states, with an overall litter reduction of 30-47%.

The money generated from unclaimed deposits (15-30%, as some of these cans are recycled through the municipal recycling program instead, and some are, sadly, thrown away) generally goes back to the state to fund environmental incentives, although some states give a portion to distributors and retailers to offset the costs of the take-back and pick-up. This translates into millions of dollars in most states—wouldn’t this be more effective than the exorbitant taxes imposed by Cook County and the City of Chicago? The current tax on canned beverages is 13.25%, and a liquor tax is added to alcoholic beverages on top of the initial tax. Many Cook County residents get around this by crossing county lines to purchase these items, (which makes the intended use of the tax as revenue generator less effective), and those who don’t never see a penny of that money back.

Last year, Massachusetts Congressman Edward J. Markey introduced the Bottle Recycling Climate Protection Act, a nation-wide bottle bill that would encourage large-scale recycling of glass, plastic, and aluminum beverage containers. Not only would the bill bring this program—its effectiveness already proven by 22% of the country—to the entire nation, it would also improve existing bottle bills, many of which have not yet been updated to include plastic bottles. As Representative Markey explains, “Congress can send the nation a global warming message in a bottle. We can still quench our thirst while reducing our thirst for energy. And we can have carbon dioxide in our fizzy drinks, while cutting down on heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”

Some leading environmental and recycling organizations, such as the National Resources Defense Council and the Container Recycling Institute, have already backed the National Bottle Bill, and it seems like the majority of the public would be in favor of the bill as well. According to the Bottle Bill Resource Guide, 70-75% of Americans support a nationwide bill, while 70-85% of residents in states where bottle bills already exist would be in favor of expanding the program to include plastic soda and juice containers. These solutions, combined with the third approach—education and outreach—should help Americans recover many more aluminum cans from the waste stream in years to come.

Alternative Gift Registry

2008-10-21T15:42:00.005-05:00

Although I have spent a great deal of money on shower gifts and wedding presents for friends and relatives who have gotten married over the years (and am starting the process all over again now that they're starting to have kids), the coolest gift I ever gave was one that the bride and groom couldn't register for. Instead of fine China, my friend was determined to collect place settings and serving bowls of a pattern her grandma used to have-- one that hasn't been manufactured since the 1950s. So my roommate and I scoured antique malls and thrift stores and managed to put together a tea set, replete with a tea pot, sugar and creamer, and four cups and saucers. She was so excited to receive the set, and we had so much fun finding all the different pieces; best of all, our dollars went much further than they would have in a department store.

I've kept that great idea of hers in the back of my mind-- if and when I ever get married, I would love to find a new use for old products, or at least give my friends and family a choice of where they purchase gifts. I can't imagine that I'll need to ask for nearly as much as a young couple who gets married right out of college would, for I've scraped together enough to fill my kitchen and apartment. I don't have a need for everything to be shiny and new-- some of my most prized posessions and one-of-a-kind pieces of furniture once belonged to someone else. In fact, I might not need to register for much stuff at all-- I'd love to be able to "register" for more abstract things, such as having someone feed my cats while we're on our honeymoon, make a donation to a favorite charity in our name, or offer up their musical talents during the ceremony in lieu of money or gifts.

I learned this spring that, thanks to the (non-profit) Center for the New American Dream, such a registry now exists. Known as the Alternative Gift Registry, engaged couples and expectant parents can now create such a list, free of charge. The sample registries include great ideas such as asking for recipes or volunteer babysitters. For material items, the registry makers may suggest a store or Web site where the item is sold, although gift givers may purchase it anywhere. When an item is purchased, found, or donated, the gift giver enters the information into their computer, and the registry is updated.

The site also includes environmental tips, statistics, and checklists for having a "green" wedding! It's such a neat, yet simple idea-- the bride and groom (or new parents) can customize the registry to include items from several different stores, and to ask for non-material gifts that are more meaningful to them than crystal goblets or toaster ovens, and it gives friends and family the opprotunity to donate their time, knowledge, or services without putting a strain on their wallet. I mean-- for me anyway-- when given a choice between receiving napkin rings and DVDs or having a group of friends spend the weekend helping us renovate our first home, the choice seems clear-- I'd much rather have the help and the memories than the meaningless stuff!

A Good Deed Gone Bad

2008-10-03T13:13:00.004-05:00

In a rare moment of financial stability, I made a $20 donation to an environmental non-profit organization last summer. Before I became a contributing member of this group, I distinctly remember reading the fine print on the donation slip about how they would NEVER sell my name to third parties, etc. I even got a free tote bag for my generosity. So I was saving the planet and saving plastic bags from the landfills-- what could be wrong with that?

Plenty, apparently, because the group I joined didn't sell my information-- they gave it away.

Shortly after my free gift arrived, I began receiving unsolicited mail from other environmental organizations. Wouldn't I join their efforts as well, to save the polar bears, to curb deforestation, to keep our wild places wild? I could become a member for just $25, just $16, just $9 a year, and would receive a free ruck sack, plush toy, or umbrella in return for my donation.

Before I know it, this deluge of charitable donation requests has expanded to include animal rights groups, scientific research labs, and even childrens' charities. Then I start receiving duplicate mailings from persistent organizations that had asked for (but did not receive) my help in the past. Next, the group I joined starts reminding me that they've been able to count on me for $20 in the past-- won't I give an additional $30 now to stop drilling in the artic before it's too late?

Some groups are so confident that I will contribute to their worthy cause that they send the free gifts up front-- I am the proud owner of three monogrammed pads of paper, five window decals, a handful of cards, three calendars, and more mailing labels than I can hope to use in a lifetime. I also get pre-printed petitions, addressed to my senators and congressmen, expressing my presumed outrage over some bill that has not been passed, or some policy that has not been enforced. All I have to do is sign at the bottom, print my credit card number on the back, and send it in.

Past presidents, prolific authors, and famous actors are writing to me almost daily about the plight of one underrepresented group or another, each plea more heartbreaking than the last. Wouldn't I like to save the blue-footed booby from extinction, give children with cleft lips a chance at a normal life, or feed and vaccinate scores of homeless animals? Of course I would, but I'm not willing to put myself in the poor house to do so.

Now, instead of feeling good about supporting a worthy cause, I feel like crap, because I can't afford to donate to every organization I feel passionately about. And because of my financial ineptitude, I will not be able to right all the wrongs in this world. One of my favorite sayings is "...to give freely of your time, your effort, and your means." I don't have any means, but I feel that I more than make up for it in the other areas, and c'mon-- two out of three's not bad, right?

Most annoying of all is the amount of paper wasted by these futile mailings. The gut-wrenching letters are sometimes three or four pages long, then there's a postage-paid envelope, a donation slip, glossy pictures of the free gifts I could receive, and more.

Some of the letters proudly state that they were printed on recycled paper using soy-based inks-- but since I never wanted these mailings in the first place, who cares!?! It's still junk mail that clogs up the postal system, that I have to take the time to shred and/or recycle, and it's cluttering up my life. I had signed up for all sorts of opt-out services a few years back, services that I will now have to find and sign up for all over again.

In the meantime, however, my course of action is to NOT renew my membership with this group, thus letting the polar bears drown and the grey wolves be hunted to extinction-- and hope they eventually forget my name and lose my number-- at least until I can afford to make a donation to another group-- one that won't exploit my good intentions.

Dryer Balls

2008-09-20T19:50:00.008-05:00

I don't intend to post many product reviews on this blog, mainly because I can't afford to test all the new products on the market boasting "green" and "environmental" qualities, but also because writing about such inane things bores me to no end. For the most part, I'll leave the testing and polls and feedback charts to the folks at Consumer Reports, but tonight, I want to tell you why I have decided that the Dryer Balls I purchased last winter were a good buy.

I hate dryer sheets. I hate the way they smell, I hate the way they leave a thin film of chemical residue on my clothes, and I especially hate how quickly I go through a box of those little papers, disposing of multiple sheets each week.

I got my first set of Dryer Balls for Christmas, and gave them a test run for about a month, using them only when I dried linen loads. I noticed a little more static with some fabrics than I did with others, but the overall difference was not that noticeable. What impressed me more was the marked improvement in the fluffiness of my towels-- my linen closet looks much fuller than it did at this time last year. Granted, some of the towels are new, but even the old ones look more inviting than they have in ages.

Satisfied that they worked well enough for my liking, I bought another set a couple months later and made a complete switch. My fingers no longer feel weirdly sticky when I finish folding my laundry, and my clothes smell clean-- not like a "spring rain", a "tropical breeze", or even like "fresh linens"-- just a good, pure clean. Not quite as good as if I had hung them on a clothes line, but pretty close!

While dryer sheets may seem like a relatively insignificant addition to our overall waste output, eliminating even this wisp of a chemically laden solid helps with waste minimization efforts. Good for up to 1,000 uses, these Dryer Balls will last me 10-15 years will keep me from buying 20-30 boxes of disposable dryer sheets. I'll save money in the long run, so I approve!

Abt Electronics-- Pleasing the Planet...Since 2006

2008-09-14T21:06:00.004-05:00

Earlier this spring, I spent a blustery Saturday morning searching the Internet for a place to recycle the small pile of broken electronics and appliances that had been accumulating in my dining room all winter. I had a toaster, a cell phone, two cameras, a tuner, and a handful of batteries that didn't qualify for Walgreen's recycling program. Nothing big, but nothing I wanted to trash, either. I found places that recycled computer parts, and others that accepted obsolete (but still functional) electronics, and even a site that charged exorbitant amounts of money for me to pack my e-waste in their special box and ship it to some recycling company in another state.

Frustrated, I was about to give up when I stumbled across this small, inconspicuous link on the Abt Electronics web site. Their flagship store in Glenview has a stand-alone recycling center, located on the southwest side of their lot, slightly behind their main building. Not only would they accept all the odds and ends in my bag of miscellaneous electronics, all but a select few appliances (such as TVs, computers, air conditioners, and refrigerators) are recycled free of charge. They are also one of 75 drop off centers for Sony-- meaning that all Sony products may be dropped off for "e-cycling" at no cost to the consumer.

According to their web site (and some related links), they also accept cell phones, cardboard, and styrofoam-- STYROFOAM!-- and recycle "...five tractor-trailor loads of appliances each day". Much of this volume includes the old appliances they haul away when new ones are delivered, but word is spreading and the public is catching on fast. They also recycle much of the packaging the new appliances arrive in, as well as the wooden pallets on which they are delivered. The company has implemented an impressive number of other green initiatives, but I'll try and limit my focus here, so I don't get all giggly about solar panels and green fleets. You can read a number of articles on their environmental prowess, linked from their site, provided you can find it!

The recycling center opened in 2006, and-- according to the guy who helped me recycle my sad old TV, a styrofoam cooler, and a friend's broken printer last week-- "e-cycling" was made available to the public late last year. From 2:00-7:00, Thursday through Saturday, people can just drive up and drop off whatever they want to recycle. The only complaint I have with this program is that the information isn't posted more prominently on their home page, and that they don't really advertise these services. If it were me, I'd be shouting it from the roof tops!

While I try to avoid a trip to the North Shore as much as the next city dweller, I have yet to find a place in the city that accepts such a wide range of appliances. Some chain retailers of electronics and office supplies do accept a few of these items for recycling, but the fee they charge is pretty steep by comparison. So, in my mind, the remarkable environmental service that Abt Electronics provides to the Chicagoland area at little to no cost to the public makes it well worth the drive.

Old Linens get New Life

2008-09-06T15:26:00.017-05:00

I feel like I've been taking a lot of pictures of trash cans lately (which I have), so I want to take things in a different direction today, because recycling glass, plastic, aluminum, and paper is only part of (what can be) a much broader solution. I like to think of the mantra "Reduce, Recycle, and Reuse" as the three R's of the twenty-first century, and any discussion of recycling would be incomplete without addressing this triumverate of waste-reduction techniques in its entirety.

I volunteer at a local animal shelter, and one of the ways I help out is by doing laundry. I wash, dry, and fold blankets, sheets, towels, throw rugs, and even placemats, which are used to line cages and provide soft places throughout the shelter where residents can sleep, hang out, and play. These linens are washed daily, which is a seemingly endless task, and an astounding number of them are needed to replace the soiled linens that are being washed and readied to use again the following day.

At home, I've recently replaced my threadbare towels, and now that I've upgraded to a queen-sized bed, my full-sized sheets are obsolete. Since the towels are no longer fit for human use, and my sister only needs so many sets of sheets for her guest bed, my first thought was to donate them, along with some bathmats and throw rugs given to me by my mother during her "you can never have too many bathmats" phase. This way, I won't feel guilty about giving crappy towels to Goodwill or anything, and I know they'll be put to good use for a bunch of deserving and grateful recipients.

Shelters always have a need for blankets and towels and the like, and they always welcome donations-- not all donations have to be monetary. In fact, many shelters have "wish lists" posted on their Web sites-- they can use more than just pet food, toys, and blankets! A perfect solution to the overstuffed linen closets of America, donors can't help but feel all warm and fuzzy about providing a touch of home for some warm fuzzies, still awaiting a home of their own.

A True Architectural Feat....

2008-09-04T14:55:00.010-05:00

You know how, in my last post, I was saying how nice it would be to have compartmentalized trash/recycling receptacles in our parks? Well, it turns out that we do. The city installed eleven of these shiny new receptacles near "The Bean" in Millennium Park earlier this summer. These 40-gallon receptacles are the result of a design competition. Not just any design competition, mind you-- this contest pitted teams of young architects-- ARCHITECTS!-- against each other.

These brilliant structural engineers put their heads together, sketched blueprints, and toiled for more than three years to come up with the object you see here-- an elliptical catch-all with a trash bin on one side and a recycling bin on the other. The magnitude of this competition reminds me of a contest held back in the early 1890s before Chicago's Columbian Exposition. The object of this competition, however, was to design a structure that would rival the Eiffel Tower in Paris, which was unveiled at their World's Fair back in 1889. The winner of that competition was a bridge builder from Pennsylvania, George W. Ferris, who invented-- you guessed it-- the Ferris Wheel.

All sarcasm aside, these receptacles are pretty cool. They look sharp, incorporate some recycled and reclaimed metals in their design, and seem to work pretty well. The winning team of Deborah Kang and Amanda Smith calls their design the EcoTrio "Millennium" model. The original design had three compartments, but was later scaled back to two. I assume this was done to increase capacity and to reduce the risk of confusing the tourists.

The duo has several different models out, including receptacles for home and office use, with more models in the works. I am particularly excited about the "Restaurant" model (I cringe every time I think about the amount of recyclables that enter the waste stream at food joints every day, simply because these restaurants don't have the time/space to source separate). The different-shaped slots on the recycling sections are not new, but as the designers explain:

"The receptacle has a circular opening for containers and a rectangular slot for papers. These openings invite users to recycle. The waste section of the container has a lid that is opened by an attractive elliptical foot pedal. The extra second it takes for users to access the waste section of the container will give them a chance to think if the material they are throwing out could be recycled instead."

The "Pricing available upon request" part leads me to believe that these snazzy bins cost a pretty penny, but I still would like to someday see more of these receptacles (or something similar) throughout our great city. The idea is so deceptively simple, it's brilliant. And c'mon-- if the tourists can figure it out, we all can.

IKEA that's brilliant!

2008-08-28T15:23:00.004-05:00

IKEA, the faux-Swedish furniture chain, is one of many retailers leading the way in large-scale recycling efforts. Not only do they have color-coded, source-separated trash and recycling receptacles prominently placed throughout the store, they also have recycling stations near the entrances that accept plastic bags, household batteries, and CFL (and incandescent!) light bulbs. Store patrons can bring their spent batteries and light bulbs to the nearest location for recycling instead of tossing them in the trash, where they would inevitably leak toxic chemicals and heavy metals into the soil and groundwater.

IKEA also began charging for plastic bags back in 2006, and has since reduced the number of bags handed out each year by 90%. By design, the minimal packaging of the largely unassembled furniture they sell allows for easy stacking and less expensive shipping, which leads to less waste all around. Although the do-it-yourself aspect of assembling their furniture can be frustrating (the instructions are kept to a minimum as well), theirs is a novel concept indeed. The latest catalogs also advertise certain items made from recycled materials, yet another way the retailer is trying to minimize their environmental impact.

According to their Web site, many IKEA stores also have stand-alone recycling centers, and a simple phone call to the "environmental specialist" can arrange educational tours for school children and scout troops. By educating the public in addition to taking back hazardous products and creating a market for recycled materials, IKEA has hit upon the triumverate of actions necessary for a highly effective recycling program. IKEA is a model for other retailers of how to manage their business in the twenty-first century. They are taking greater responsibility of more stages in the life cycles of the products they sell-- from product design to end-of-life management. And like their stores-- those enormous blue and yellow beacons alongside the nation's highways-- the overwhelming benefits of their trailblazing recycling program are hard to miss.

Covered trash, recycling bins now in area parks

2008-08-21T10:05:00.003-05:00

Earlier this summer, I noticed that the black wire trash bins in the park near my house had been replaced with large plastic carts, much like the ones that line the alleys in Chicago's residential neighborhoods. The carts are color-coded-- trash carts are green, and the recycling carts are blue. The lids help to prevent trash from blowing out, and the recycling option is a great and much-needed addition to our parks.

Unfortunately, the program doesn't seem to be as successful as one would hope-- there are only a handful of blue carts in the park by my house, and many of them are either empty or filled with regular trash. Another park down the street from me seems to be faring much better-- almost every green trash cart is paired with a recycling cart and people in that neighborhood seem to be making more of an effort to separate what they throw away.

How can we improve participation in the Chicago Park District's recycling efforts? Through awareness, education, and publicity, of course, but I really think that, for public recycling programs to be most effective, we need to make recycling as easy as-- if not easier than-- just dumping everything in the trash.

I think restaurants such as Potbelly's and Schlotzsky's and retailers like Ikea have the right idea. Their trash cans and recycling bins are in one big receptacle. These restaurants make the openings for the recycling bins just large enough to accept bottles and cans and reduce the size of the garbage cans, and Ikea's receptacles are brightly color-coded and even post pictures of the items that go in each compartment (for those who still can't figure it out).

If all trash bins also had recycling compartments, I think it would be hard not to recycle. Maybe someday even the garbage trucks will be compartmentalized-- the recycling company in downstate Springfield, for example, has trucks like this (minus the garbage portion) so I think it could work. That way, the city won't have to continue to try and make us believe that our recyclables get sorted out of the trash once it's been collected and compacted and arrives at the waste management facility (sorry people, I'm still not buying it!) In the meantime, though, compartmentalized receptacles would certainly be a start!

One Impressive Recycling Event!

2008-08-09T12:40:00.005-05:00

This morning, I collected a modest bagful of expired medications and caustic cleaners, hopped in my car and headed to today's Hazardous Materials Recycling event at Northeastern Illinois University, hosted by the City of Chicago. Because of a road closure, I had to detour a bit and approach the University from the west, and was shocked to see that the line for the event was backed up almost all the way to Pulaski!

Fortunately, the event was very well staffed, with workers directing traffic, providing updates, and talking us through every step of the process. By the time I got there (at 10:30 a.m.), the rain barrels were long gone, and the last of the compost bins was claimed while I was waiting in the line, which snaked its way through several parking lots, not unlike the rollercoaster queues at many amusement parks. Many of those who came out solely to get one of these containers were turning away at the entrance-- I just hope they weren't leaving with thier trunks still full of hazardous chemicals!

I was about 10 minutes into the endless procession of conscientious Chicagoans when I realized I left my camera at home-- I tried taking some photos from my car with my camera phone, none of which turned out-- so I'll have to describe what I saw as vividly as I can. On my way to the back of the lot, I passed at least four semis waiting to haul away the massive amounts of chemical and e-waste being collected. As I wound my way through, I gave my zip code to one event staffer (to verify my residency), collected a mini-booklet on other programs and recycling incentives offered by the Department of the Environmnet (complete with Web sites and contact numbers, which I fully intend to look into) and branched off into the paints and chemicals line.

The makeshift tables stretched nearly 40 feet, and were covered with recyclables. Staffers with rolling carts were able to unload trunkfuls of paints, motor oils, caustic chemicals, and cleaning supplies from up to 12 cars at a time-- I found myself wishing I had more to offer!

Behind the sorting tables, dumpsters full of paint cans and the like were filling up fast. Further down the lot, staffers were shrink-wrapping countless computer consoles and monitors into large cubes, which would undoubtedly be forklifted into the waiting semi trailers. Back even further still was a more modest (but still sizable) pile of gas-powered lawn mowers. I even came across an industrial-sized recycling bin and was able to empty my trunk of regular recyclables, which saved me a trip to the Far North side. I don't know whether NEIU is a regular drop-off site, or if the bin was just there for the event, but I'm hoping that it is-- it's much closer than the one I normally go to! And finally, as I was leaving, I got a free CFL bulb for my efforts.

I think residents' overwhelming response is very telling of how badly these services are needed in Chicago, and hopefully this will spur even more events in the future (or at least expand the hours at the permanent hazardous materials recycling center!). Rain barrels are such a hot commodity right now that the city can't quite keep up with the demand. It sounds like, until they manage to keep some in stock, your best bet of getting a rain barrel is to attend a recycling event like this one (just be sure to arrive early!). The next event is on Saturday, September 20, at the City Parking Facility at 900 E. 103rd Street, from 9:00-3:00.

The sheer size of (and participation in) this event was a powerful visual indeed, providing perspective on just how many tons of computer monitors and motor oil containers and such will not be clogging area landfills or leaking toxins into our soil and groundwater for centuries to come. I can't help but feel all warm and fuzzy today, thinking about the number of Chicagoans who suddenly find themselves with more shelf space in their garages and basements, all because they cared enough to load up their household hazards and wait patiently in a long line of like-minded folks to properly and responsibly dispose of these items.

Recycle Hazardous Materials THIS SATURDAY

2008-08-06T12:55:00.012-05:00

I got an email from the "City of Chicago Green Team" yesterday, advertising a major recycling event that is being held on the campus of Northeastern Illinois University this Saturday, August 9th, from 9:00 to 3:00.
Residents can bring "household hazards" such as unused medications, household chemicals and paints, computers, cell phones, fax machines, scanners and keyboards, and also old gas cans or gas-powered lawn mowers. In exchange, the City-- along with NEIU and the Illinois EPA-- is offering residents free CFL bulbs and environmentally friendly gas cans (for trade-ins only), and a $100 rebate toward an electric or push mower to those who relinquish their gas-powered mowers. In addition, residents can pick up a compost bin for $30 or a rain barrel for only $40 (payable by check or money order only, and only while supplies last). A similar event will be held on the south side on September 20th, minus the lawn mower turn-in.

These are some really great incentives-- especially for homeowners-- and a great way to get hazardous chemicals, expired medications, and e-waste out of the house. For those who can't make either of the upcoming events, the City does have a permanent recycling facility at 1150 North Branch Street that accepts these same items for recycling, albeit with limited hours (Tuesdays 'til 12:00, Thursdays from 2:00-7:00, and the first Saturday of each month from 8:00-3:00) and presumably minus the incentives.
The only other thing I would like to know is who this "Green Team" is, because I take issue with the way they signed off on the email-- by thanking me for my "continued diligence in making Chicago the Greenest City in America"... While the city does have some great programs in place, until we drastically increase the participation rate in everyday recycling, we are nowhere near that statement being true!

"One man's trash..."

2008-08-04T13:14:00.008-05:00

This report, which aired on NBC Nightly News earlier this summer, really caught my eye. It details the robust, booming business at one garbage-collection service turned sorting and shipping center of recyclables, which is based in Chicago Ridge. This company collects recycled plastics, metals, and paper products and ships them-- 700 tons worth each day, in fact-- to Asian markets such as China and India. These countries apparently have an insatiable desire to turn our discarded recyclables into new products and packaging. The on-air reporter went so far as to say that recycled materials are currently our largest export.

The report goes on to describe the pros and cons of exporting recyclables, like how it helps the environment by reducing deforestation, mining, and the processing of raw materials. It also costs less to make new products from existing scraps, and it's currently cheaper to send these scraps overseas (in the same ships that brought us craploads of imports) than it is to process them here. In an age where we're not making many products that other countries want to buy, it's nice to know that at least we have something on the trading table.

Among the downfalls are the fact that we don't yet have the ability to recycle all these products ourselves, which would create new jobs here at home in a growing and necessary industry. Some who commented on the story speculate that the recent increase in recalls of imported products are because of lax recycling standards overseas. Ergo, by sending them products to recycle, we're bringing this problem upon ourselves. I don't know what those standards are, and personally, I don't see the connection-- I thought most of the recalls were due to lead-based paint, not recycled plastics-- but I'm no expert, and anyways, that's not my focus here.

Whatever the glitches in this current system are, I am confident that they can and will be resolved, or at least improved upon, in the future. In the meantime, the main points that jumped out at me (and embedded themselves in my brain) are these:

The economy sucks and we don't export many products anymore
Somebody has found an export that is in very high demand
The country's largest export facility of its kind is in our own backyard
Developing countries are paying top dollar for this export and they can't seem to get enough of it
While the export isn't appealing or glamorous, it is keeping tons upon tons of garbage out of area landfills

Chicagoans could very easily help to bring more-- a LOT more-- money into the local economy simply by recycling, which would help to supply the continual and overwhelming demand from overseas. I've seen studies that report a dismal 8% to 15% participation rate in Chicago's recycling programs. Even a modest doubling or tripling of that number would significantly increase the number of products available for export. So, Chicago... Save the economy! Save the planet!

Turkey vs Chicago

2008-08-02T11:07:00.010-05:00

On a recent trip to Turkey, I saw many incredible and astounding sights, but their remarkably high level of energy conservation impressed me most. From the moment I stepped off the plane in Izmir, I noticed that the escalators in the airport and subway had motion sensors that would kick on only when someone approached-- the hallway lights in our hotels had sensors as well. Once in the rooms, we had to insert our key card into a slot in the wall to turn on the lights and A/C, which powered off the second the key card was removed to ensure that the hotel wouldn't be paying to light or cool an empty room.

The dolmuş, or shuttle bus, was all the rage in Selçuk and Şirinçe, and the overnight buses were packed-- not with tourists, but with local residents. In Cappadocia, shop owners throughout the region operated their businesses with the lights off when the natural lighting was sufficient, and many sat outside in the fresh mountain air to avoid running fans when no customers were present. Even the cave hotel we stayed in was lit with CFL bulbs!

In Istanbul, the efficiency of their waste management system was truly a sight to behold. The city is roughly four times the size of Chicago, and trash is collected several times a week. I asked a waiter about some guys I saw methodically going through trash bags on the curb one night, thinking they were like our bag ladies or scrap metal guys, and was told that they were in fact employed by the city to separate out any recyclables before the trash was picked up. The ones I saw were even pulling out scraps of food to feed the overwhelming stray population! Apparently theirs is a respected profession; "yes please, my friends" the waiter told me, nodding at the men.

So how is it that Turkey-- a country whose people still conduct business over a water pipe and cup of tea-- is light years (light years!) ahead of us when it comes to recycling and conservation? Perhaps it is their location-- Turkey is bordered by (and a fraction of it is even in) Europe on the west, and most countries in the EU have been battling outrageous gasoline prices for years now. Maybe the Turks have adopted (among other things) a conservationist mentality from their European neighbors. However, Turkey is bordered by the "axis of evil" on the east, and its proximity to these oil-rich countries keeps gasoline prices relatively low (compared to Europe anyway!)-- roughly $2.00/liter where I was. It seems to me that they could easily afford to use much more energy than they do, but they choose not to.

While not all of these strategies would work in Chicago, many of them could! It's not hard to imagine our city with smart escalators in department stores and el stations, or motion-sensor lights in public restrooms. I'm sure we can (and will) come up with ideas like these (and many others), but although we've made great strides in greening our city, we still have a long way to go.

An Assault on Batteries

2008-07-31T18:59:00.000-05:00

You know that episode of Sex and the City-- I think it was in Season Six-- when Berger, Carrie's boy du jour, admits that he picks up playing cards he finds on the streets of New York in hopes of collecting an entire deck, then suddenly Carrie starts seeing these cards everywhere? I have an admission of my own, in that I do the same thing with discarded batteries.

While I am not looking to start a used battery collection, I am compelled to pick them up because of what will happen if they are left to the elements. Batteries contain hard metals and chemicals such as nickel, mercury, acid, alkaline, and cadmium and have no business in our landfills OR on the side of the road, as exposure to extreme temperatures and moisture causes the casings to crack and allows the chemicals to seep into the soil and groundwater.

I'd like to think that I look slightly less crazy than I would if I went around picking up, say, empty cans, nor am I infringing on those who try to profit from collecting and recycling other people's trash. Not only are batteries easier to pick up and carry than aluminum cans, they are also (at the time of this posting) easier for me to recycle. Household batteries can be recycled at any area Walgreens or Chicago Public Library for free, and considering that there's now a Walgreens on almost every corner, it couldn't be easier!

So if, after reading this, you start seeing discarded batteries everywhere, instead of cursing my screen name, at least consider picking up those little nuggets of encased toxins and recycling them. And when it comes time to replace some spent batteries, know that tossing them is the equivalent of replacing the ice cubes in your next glass of water with some frozen AAs-- gross! From what I can tell, household battery recycling is not yet available nationwide, but if our local program is an overwhelming success, maybe it will be.

More on the bag debate...

2008-07-23T16:42:00.001-05:00

I saw on the news this morning that Los Angeles, much like San Francisco did last year, will fully ban plastic bags by 2010. When I looked a little further, I found this artice from NPR dated March of this year, with plenty of examples from around the world that this trend of charging for-- or entirely banning-- the flimsy, disposable plastic bag is not new, nor is it unique. Ireland has apparently been charging customers upwards of twenty cents per bag since 2003, and some African countries have imposed "minimum thickness requirements" on the bags they distribute. Germany charges a recycling fee to retailers who offer plastic bags, and China's free plastic bag ban went into effect last month.

In this country, several smaller cities in California and Alaska have adopted similar bans, and a number of large cities have plastic-bag policies in the works. Chicago, however-- despite the city's claims that it is one of the greenest in the country-- is notably absent from this list.

I have a number of canvas totes that are in near-constant use, and all of them have plastic produce bags inside that I reuse until they fall apart. I also have a handy nylon bag that folds down smaller than a cell phone that I carry in my purse in the event of a spontaneous purchase. Despite my best efforts, I am not able to avoid the plastic bag entirely, and little irks me more than the double (or triple!) bagging required in stores that use the flimsiest of bags-- why should I need six bags to carry four items!? Even though I try (like many people) to reuse them-- usually as garbage bags-- not all of them are sturdy enough, and the city doesn't accept these bags for recycling, so I am left with no choice but to throw them away.

Whether you're for or against the plastic bag ban, I don't see this trend going away any time soon-- in fact, I think the movement is just beginning to pick up steam. And isn't it better to make the switch now while it's still a matter of choice, than to be forced to switch later as a result of a (what I think will be an inevitable) city ordinance? I'd like to think that it is.

Bugged about bags?

2008-07-20T19:39:00.001-05:00

A front-page article in this morning's Tribune portrayed a visionary, yet unwittingly controversial vendor at the Evanston Farmer's Market. It described how the farmer's un-earth friendly act of putting his organic, locally grown produce into more than 30,000 plastic bags a year was weighing heavily on his eco-conscience. So this year, when he decided to start charging people a quarter for up to four of these plastic bags, his noble attempt to reduce his impact on the environment was met with grumbles, complaints, and even outrage!
I have long seen the irony in doling out market-fresh fruits and veggies in scores of plastic bags, and personally, I applaud his efforts. I was just stunned to hear that the Farmer's Market patrons (who, by definition, are usually greener than the average citizen) would meet this action with so much resistance. Indeed, the online poll (at the time of this posting) revealed that 54% of respondents would refuse to pay extra for a plastic bag.
While I realize that the initial gut reaction most people have to new and unexpected charges is one of moral outrage, I see this as less of an attempt to nickel-and-dime struggling consumers and as more of an incentive to change the way we shop. Think about it-- these petroleum-based bags have littered roadsides, vacant lots, and dormant tree branches for years-- few people can argue that finding a way to produce (and discard) fewer of these bags is a bad thing. And stores like Aldi, and (more recently) Ikea and Whole Foods have proven that charging even a nominal five- to ten-cent fee per bag drastically reduces the number of bags their customers use. These bags are still available to consumers, but their convenience is no longer complimentary.
Another thought came to me tonight as well... Even though we can't control the price of a gallon of gas or a barrel of oil, and few of us can get by without using either at this point in time, we can control, reduce, and nearly eliminate our use of a product created from this exorbitantly priced resource-- the plastic bag. While the initial impact may be small, I believe the implications will be far-reaching.

The farmer in question estimates that he has reduced plastic bag use by 90%-- if he stays on track, he will have managed to keep roughly 27,000 bags from being wasted by the end of the season. That's pretty impressive! So to the market-goers of the North Shore (and everywhere!), please continue to support local farmers if you can, just bring a bag if you're able.