apes

Up until the 1970’s phosphorus was used in laundry detergent to brighten clothes. However, the U.S. government recognized the problem of phosphorus pollution-  it can cause massive algal blooms in waterways that mess with ecosystems by robbing the water and aquatic life of all-important oxygen. States began to limit and restrict the use of phosphorus in detergent, and by the 1990’s, laundry detergent companies decided to phase them out in all domestic formulations.

But why are phosphates still used in dish detergent? They have many benefits- they essentially soften the effects of “hard” water, combining with the minerals in it, mostly calcium and magnesium, eliminating the spots and film on dishes that can form when the minerals and food bits combine during the wash. Phosphates also make the water’s pH more alkaline, which can help in food-bit removal. Today, phosphates remain in dish detergent because the alternatives (enzymes) were neither common nor cheap in the 90’s. Detergent makers also heavily lobbied to keep them in.

However, there are plenty of eco-friendly, phosphate-free alternatives that wash dishes just as well. Big-name detergents also have lots of other suspect ingredients that are derived from petroleum and aren’t so environmentally friendly. So the best thing to do is buy an eco-brand that will be phosphate and chlorine free.

chart courtesy of http://www.assabetriver.org/nutrient/detergents.html

http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2006/09/20/phosphates/index.html

Glass is 100% recyclable. It can go from recycling bin to store shelf in as little as 30 days! Even though the energy costs of recycling glass are greater than making glass from raw materials, there are still reasons to recycle it.

Environmental Reasons:

• Recycling Saves Raw Material. For every ton of glass recycled, over a ton of raw materials are saved- including 1,300 pounds of sand, 410 pounds of soda ash, 380 pounds of limestone, and 160 pounds of feldspar.
• Recycling Reduces Landfill Dependence. Recycling glass helps to preserve our natural resources while lessening the load on landfills, and helping communities avoid expensive disposal costs.
• Recycling Glass Reduces Environmental Impacts. Recycling glass helps lessen greenhouse gas emissions. For every six tons of glass recycled, one ton of carbon dioxide is reduced.

Economic Reasons:

• Recycling Creates New Jobs. The California Waste Management Board estimated that meeting the states 50% recycling goal will add $2 billion to California’s economy and create over 45,000 new jobs over the next seven years.
• Buying Recycled Products Contributes to the Demand For More. As the size of the market grows, recycled products will cost less. The increasing demand will save even more resources!

The debate over whether to use paper or plastic bags is another recycling dilema. The answer to the “paper or plastic”? dilemma is neither! They’re roughly equal in pros and cons, and they both use up natural resources and cause significant pollution.

Here are some facts:

• plastic grocery bags consume 40% less energy to produce and generate 80% less solid waste than paper bags
• plastic bags can take 1,000 years to decompose whereas paper bags take about a month to decompose

(charts courtesy of http://www.ilea.org/lcas/franklin1990.html)

• For paper bags, the life cycle stages consist of timber harvesting, pulping, paper and bag making, product use and waste disposal.
• For plastic bags, the steps involve petroleum or natural gas extraction, ethylene manufacture, ethylene polymerization, bag processing, product use and waste disposal.
• Paper bags are made from trees, which are renewable resources. Plastic bags are madefrom polyethylene, nonrenewable resources.
• Plastic bags weigh significantly less than paper bags do, which is something to consider because of landfill space.
• Paper is accepted in most recycling programs while the recycling rate for plastic bags is very low. Research from 2000 shows 20 percent of paper bags were recycled, while one percent of plastic bags were recycled.

Instead of going back and forth between paper and plastic, there is a solution. Use neither! Purchasing a reusable bag or reusing previous bags can make a huge difference. A study shows that in New York City alone, one less grocery bag per person per year would reduce waste by five million pounds and save $250,000 in disposal costs. Some stores even offer a discount for bringing your own bags! The debate over paper vs. plastic is never going to get anywhere, so be smart and use your own cloth bags!

http://www.gpi.org/recycling/environment/

http://www.urbanedpartnership.org/target/units/recycle/reasons.html

http://www.epa.gov/region1/communities/shopbags.html

Going along with our class discussion on alien species, I read an article on Palm Trees and how they are dying by the dozens in Los Angeles. Most palm trees in California aren’t native species- they were brought from places like Mexico by developers in the early 1900’s hoping to lure people to California.

Today, these palm trees are dying of old age and disease, and many experts think L.A. will be a lot better off without so many. Carmen Wolf, who is the program director of a native California plant nursery, says that “They have no ecological or environmental value whatsoever.” In fact, palm trees are not even trees, they are a grass, and do very little to trap air pollution.

These palm trees, which were once luxurious, are withered and infected with a fungus that actually chokes the tree. There is no cure for this fungus, and Steve Dunlap doesn’t recommend that these trees be replaced because the fungus stays in the soil even after the trees are gone.

Paula Daniels is heading a city-wide environmental plan to plant one million new trees, and palm trees are not included in this plan. On top of them having no environmental benefit, the cost of these trees has gone up way too high. Basically, palm trees are eye candy- they are shown around the Hollywood sign and in Beverly Hills, which is ok because they make L.A. what it is, but they do little for the environment.

Even though palm trees are dying off fast, NPR claimed that the day will never come when there won’t be any, because residents of L.A. are constantly filling trucks with palm trees and planting them in their backyard. Virginia Postrel, a longtime observer of Los Angeles society and author of “The Substance of Style”, says that palm trees are essential to Los Angeles’s sense of place. “For somebody that has lived here for many years, I have a positive response when I see the tall palm trees that represent L.A.”

“What the palm tree really represents is an oasis,” she adds. “Los Angeles is a manmade oasis; a place in the middle of the desert with water and people – lots of people – in it. So the palm tree is the perfect tree for Los Angeles.”
                   
(pictures courtesy of Wikipedia- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_trees)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6102228&ft=1&f=1025

http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=4239&IssueNum=168

With a new CEO for Levi’s taking office soon, the jean company will introduce “eco” jeans- it’s first organic cotton line! These jeans will be made with organic cotton, naturally dyed, and U.S.-made. (And come with a $250 price tag…) But don’t worry, a $65 to $80 version will hit department stores in early 2007, and a $40 to $60 line will come out next fall. According to a Levi’s spokesperson, these jeans will be made with impure cotton and will be manufactured “all over the world.” The USDA has not set an organic standard for cotton or clothing, but the trend is growing fast - according to nonprofit advocacy group Organic Exchange, clothing-maker demand for organic cotton is increasing at an annual rate of 93 percent.

But why should we dress in organic cotton?? It’s not like there are pesticides in our jeans.(are there??) For eco-conscious customers, it could just be a matter of supporting farmers who grow pesticide-free crops. It will be interesting to see how these jeans do in stores. The $250 price tag is printed on recycled paper and uses soy ink. Haha. I love it.

http://www.grist.org/news/daily/2006/09/12/?source=rss#5

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_38/c4001004.htm#ZZZDYKF0TRE

For my economics class, we had to find an article that has something to do with economics and write about it. As I was flipping through the business section of the Sunday Chicago Tribune, (9.10.06) I found an article that applies both to economics and environmental science, called “Tap Water Might Fit Your Bill Better than Bottled,” by Gregory Karp.

Basically, Karp argues that paying hundreds of times more for something you have already paid for is probably the silliest of all spending habits. Tap water is so cheap and convenient it’s dispensed from many faucets in your home and available free at public drinking fountains.

But the problem with this is that bottled water is healtier, right? Not always!

Karp explains the “dirty secret” about clean water- regulation of bottled water is weaker than regulation of tap water. And a quarter or more of all bottled-water brands obtain their water from the same place you do- municipal water systems. (Including brands such as Coca-Cola’s Desani and Pepsi’s Aquafina.)

Last year alone, Americans spent around $10 billion on bottled water, even though the EPA claims in a 2003 report that “Americans have one of the cleanest drinking-water supplies in the world,” and that Americans may be taking unnecessary precautions.

Here are some reasons why buying bottled water might be a bad idea:

Cost: Individual water bottles with name brands can easily cost more than $10 a gallon, while tap water typically costs about a half-cent per gallon. For what Americans spend on bottled water in a year, they could buy a refrigerator with a filtered water dispenser.

Taste: Study after study shows no evidence that bottled water is safer or tastes better. A group called Corporate Accountability International has a nationwide “Think outside the bottle” campaign, which includes blind taste tests of bottled and tap water. Over 1,000 people have taken the test in more than a dozen cities, and no one can tell the difference.

Tooth Decay: Tap water contains flouride, while many brands of bottled water don’t. That could lead to tooth decay and higher dentist bills for families.

Environment: Manufacturing all those plastic water bottles uses a lot of crude oil and energy. There’s also environmental harm from disposing of 150 billion litres of bottled water per year. Way too many fossil fuels are burned in the trucks that transport bottled water, while tap water is delivered in water papes already paid for with tax money.

Hassle: Buying bottled water requires you to travel to a store, stand in line to pay for it, and lug it home- while tap water is dispensed from several faucets in your home and available free at public drinking fountains.

But is it better to be safe than sorry? Each American on average drank about 26 gallons of bottled water last year. Personally, I was brought up drinking tap water, so it doesn’t bother me. However, I know many people who will only drink bottled. Any opinions?

• http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bottled_water