Environmental initiatives in Bangladesh

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:00:00 +0100

I recently visited Bangladesh and was very impressed by several of the environmental initiatives this small, poor, and overcrowded nation of a growing 150 million has achieved.

Bangladesh has already managed to completely ban polythene plastic bags in 2002, is successfully using a much cleaner alternative vehicle fuel of compressed natural gas (CNG), is reducing greenhouse gas by keeping vast amounts of waste out of landfills, and uses cycle-rickshaws, probably the most-green urban transportation around, which are abundant all over the cities.

Bangladesh has banned thin polythene bags since 2002; instead people bring their own reusable bag or must purchase a bag like these ones made from recycled materials.

Bangladesh is a relatively new country, becoming independent only in 1971; before this it was known as East Pakistan after the partition from India along with West Pakistan (now just known as Pakistan) in 1947.

This nation, wedged between India on the west and north and Myanmar on the east, is one of the poorest and most crowded places in the world; it’s also going to be most affected by global warming. Most of the time when you hear about this country in the news it’s for some kind of natural disaster like Cyclone Sidr in November 2007 or about a lot of its land disappearing if all the glaciers of the Himalayas melt and raise the sea levels.

So maybe because of this or despite it, Bangladesh has the environment in mind.

Bangladesh has thousands of cycle-rickshaws, which are by far the cleanest form of urban transportation.

One major problem is air pollution. The government has addressed this with the alternative fuel of compressed natural gas (CNG), which is less polluting than gas and diesel fuels. But industries such as brick factories are another major concern that several international agencies are addressing.

Compressed natural gas was implemented to clean the air and is now mandatory in all auto-rickshaws, which are now painted green and simply referred to as CNGs.

The Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Model (CDM) allows developed nations who signed the treaty to invest in clean technologies in developing nations. Bangladesh is a place that CDM is designed for and several CDM projects are operating successfully. One project is by an NGO named Waste Concern, which takes organic trash, turns it into salable compost, and sells the carbon credits in the overseas market. They keep the trash out of the waste stream and reduce greenhouse gases. In addition Waste Concern has created jobs for the poor and cleaned up the cities.

Tons of organic waste accumulates every day in city markets like this one, the Karwan Bazar in the capital Dhaka. Waste Concern takes the waste, makes compost, reduces greenhouse gas, sells carbon-credits, and has created jobs.

Making cleaner brick factories is the latest CDM project for a company that already has helped bring compressed natural gas to the country. Iftikhar “Sabu” Hussain, CEO of CNG Distribution Company, took me on a tour of the pilot clean-brick kiln on the outskirts of the capital city Dhaka.

Brick factories near Dhaka spew out smoke and pollute nearby farmlands.

The countryside adjacent to Dhaka is emerald green farmlands starkly contrasted with dirty white brick-kiln smokestacks belching black smoke. Bricks are essential building materials here; everything is built with bricks and the industry is in demand.

Bricks are essential building materials in Bangladesh; everything is built with them.

These seasonal factories spring up in the dry season and are unregulated and abusive to workers, says Hussain. They burn coal inefficiently and the smoke and soot fills the air and falls onto the nearby crops.

Workers at the pilot clean-brick kiln organize the bricks.

Mr. Hussain’s brick kiln uses technology from China that infuses coal into the actual bricks themselves. When fired, the embedded coal hardens the brick and combusts, therefore using less external coal and releasing much less smoke.

This pilot clean-brick kiln releases less smoke than traditional ones.

This factory seemed to release less smoke when I visited, but it wasn’t perfect. Some smoke still escaped, but as Hussain says, it’s still in the experimental stage.

The clean-brick kiln sits adjacent to farmlands outside of Dhaka.

keeping the earth ever green

Hazards of being green

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0100

For the past two years, most every ever green post has had an insight into how life can be made more eco-friendly. But just because I incorporate helping the environment into my everyday life doesn't necessarily mean that everyone else thinks it helps them, too.

Reusable bags:
I've written about and taken pictures of the scourge of plastic bags. Americans use billions of these bags every year and are adding to the plastic litter on the streets, in the landfills, and floating around in the oceans. The antidote to plastic bag waste is simply saying no to the offered plastic bag and carrying your own reusable shopping bag.

I have a few canvas ones that I use regularly. But most cashiers and grocery baggers seemed confused when I tell them I don't need their plastic bag and whip out my own canvas ones. The grocery baggers usually step away and I end up packing my own bags. Cashiers at other stores just kind of stare blankly at me and instead of packing my item into my canvas bag, they let me do it. As of late I have noticed others with reusable bags or other shoppers who tell the cashiers that they don't need plastic bags. And maybe if the six-cent plastic-bag-tax becomes law in New York, more people will bring their own bags and shops will become more accustomed to people bringing their own.

Using green transportation:
One post described my shunning of even the bus or subway in favor of walking to work. But I needed a bike for a vacation, so I got a very used one from craigslist (that was within walking distance of picking up), and have been biking now for the past few months.

It seems that more people dislike bikers than any other form of transportation. When biking through Central Park, for example, dog walkers and tourists regularly step into the path of oncoming bikes with careless abandon and seem appalled when we nearly collide. I don't go that fast because my bike is beat-up and old, and I ride defensively, so the look of disdain on the faces of non-bikers when I pedal by is a mystery. I had one guy, who was walking his mini-dog, look me directly in the face while stepping into my path and deliberately slowing down, forcing me to either run him over or veer around him. Would these same people step into the path of a car or bus?

Another hazard of riding a bike is bad weather. When it rains or snows or ice-storms, riding a bike is tough. Most of the time if I hear a report of bad weather, I'll walk instead of bike. But sometimes there's no warning and I end up getting out of wherever I am and have to ride home on a wet seat and have tons of back spackle when I finally arrive. One time the back spackle reached all the way up to my helmet.

Long-lasting, energy-efficient lightbulbs:
I actually needed to replace some of the first-generation energy-efficient lightbulbs that I bought five or so years ago because they slowly got dimmer. One of the complaints about these bulbs is that they are not as bright as incandescents and get worse with age. The new ones I got are a brighter wattage and were cheaper than the old ones. But I'm not sure how to dispose of the old ones since there have been reports about hazardous materials in the bulb makeup.

keeping the earth ever green

Make your own lip balm with natural ingredients

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 00:00:00 +0100

Store-bought lip balms are expensive and contain ingredients that probably aren't very good for you, so I decided to make my own.

Lip balm is one of those essential things that you have lying around the house in various places; in pants or jacket pockets, in the bathroom, or in various handbags. I have several tubes in case of a dry lip emergency and if I ever forget a tube and have to go a whole day without, my lips definitely suffer.

I've usually been buying the store-name brand, just because they are usually cheaper than the Chapstick or other brand names, but the ingredients are sketchy and I felt like I was always slathering up my lips more than should seem needed.

So the last time I ran out, instead of going and buying more, I decided to take the matter in my own hands and make my own. After making my own non-chemical house cleaners, I also started thinking about all the other store-bought things like cosmetics, shampoos, lotions etc. that have harsh chemicals that probably aren't that good for you either and decided to see if making these things would be possible and easy.

If you search up lip balm recipes on the internet, there are so many ones that I decided I should take the plunge and make my own. First I had to decide what type to make; I tried Burt's Bees once and liked it (but not the price of over $4) so I thought making a similar one would be easy.

There were lots of different ingredients but I chose to use a beeswax base with familiar moisturizers like cocoa butter, shea butter, and olive oil.

The one essential melting tool I needed was a glass Pyrex measuring cup; this can either be microwaved or used as a double-boiler to melt all the waxes and oils together.

Once I ordered the ingredients online and got my lip balm tubes and everything else, it was time to experiment. I chose to mish-mash a few of the recipes I found online together since none had the exact oils I wanted to use. So I just measured out equal parts of the beeswax and the oils into my Pyrex cup, which I put into a pot of water slowly heated up. I mixed my waxes as they melted and after they were done, I removed the Pyrex from the heated water, added the essential oil (this is a natural preservative), and poured the mixture into the lip balm tubes.

After they cooled I tried one out and it was a tingly peppermint surprise that really moisturized my lips. I was amazed at how easy it was to make and more than happy with the results.

keeping the earth ever green

Alternative-energy-powered gadgets

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:33:03 +0100

In this age of electronics — where most folks own iPods, cell phones, or laptop computers — having a fully charged battery is not only important but often a necessity. So when the battery is low, the most important thing is to be able to recharge ASAP. Finding an electric plug if you are out in public can be a problem, especially if you go to your favorite café and find someone parked next to and most often commandeering the electric outlet.

But there are portable alternatives that are also better for the environment. Here are a few below:

Portable solar chargers

Companies such as Solar Style and Solio make palm-sized solar chargers that can easily be toted around and used on the go. These chargers can be folded out and loaded up in the sun. Once the solar chargers are full, your electronics are ready to be charged.

Solar Style has a range of sizes and types depending on your needs. The smallest version, that is the size of a cell phone, costs under $40, takes 12-14 hours to charge fully in the sun, and has a 5.5-volt output.

{mosimage}

Solio's most popular chargers are palm-sized sleek pods that fold out into a three-petal design. These chargers are pricier, starting at about $100 with around a 3-volt output. Their non-foldout versions have been used by Kenyan Masai villagers who don't have indoor electricity. Solio's chargers are made with recycled and recyclable materials, and they urge their users to make others aware of renewable energy and climate change.

{mosimage}

Bags with solar panels

Juice Bags and Voltaic Systems are two such bag companies that not only have solar panels on their bags but also use recycled materials in their bag production.

{mosimage}

Juice Bags come in a variety of types from traditional backpacks to messenger bags to beach totes — and all with waterproof, flexible, solar panels on the outsides. The bags start at around $250 and charge using a car cigarette-lighter type of plug.

{mosimage}

Voltaic Systems bags start at $199 and you can even customize the color of the solar panels.

Emergency radios

Grundig and the American Red Cross both put out radios that operate with wind-up power or traditional plug-in power. Ambient Weather is a good place to find these.

There are also radios that have a hybrid solar panel and/or hand-crank power choice. Some of these radios also have cell phone chargers and flashlights.

I recently got a Kaito hand-crank radio with a flashlight that lasts for about 30 minutes on one minute of hand-cranking. The flashlight also worked well when I used it to locate whatever was blocking a kitchen drawer from closing properly.

Using less energy is one of the best ways to help the environment, so using portable solar chargers or wind-up technology is not only convenient but also relatively cheap and usable on planes where electric outlets are virtually non-existent.

keeping the earth ever green

What it's like to walk to and from work

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:00:00 +0100

Forget the hybrid vehicle or even a bicycle; the most eco-friendly way to get to work is by your own two feet.

Transportation options for the environmentally inclined are fuel-efficient vehicles, bicycles, or public transportation.

The government even gives tax rebates to people who buy hybrid vehicles; but cars — no matter how environmentally friendly — still use gas.

Biking is pretty good for the environment; but you need a bike, a lock, a helmet, and a good sense of not being hit by crazy traffic.

But no one is advocating just walking to work. Granted most people don't live close enough to be able to do this, unless they live in cities like New York. It's a shame because walking is one of the nicest and most eco-friendly ways to get to work; I should know because that's what I've been doing for over a year.

It takes me around 30 minutes to walk to work, and not being tethered to subway or bus is freedom.

I'll answer some questions below about my experiences:

Why did you start walking?
I actually started walking because the public transportation fares were going up. I figured it takes almost the same amount of time to walk as it does to: get to the subway, wait for it, get out at the stop, and walk the rest of the way to the office. It's also better for the environment, plus I get to enjoy nature along the way.

What about when the weather is bad?
I try to walk all the time, even if it's cold, really hot, or even raining. Walking, especially when it's raining, is really the quickest way, because sometimes the subways flood so the trains can get delayed. Sometimes when it's really hot, I'll go to the gym first which is fairly close to work, so I won't arrive all sweaty.

What do you see on your walk?
I see lots of different people out and about. There are dog walkers, tourists, and sometime movie or television production people setting up. Sometimes I see interesting wildlife; I've seen a raccoon, falcons, a dead rat, and lots of pigeons. In the subway you only see live rats.

What's the best thing about walking — and the worst?
The best thing is getting fresh air and knowing exactly when I'll get to my destination. When I walk I never have to worry about if the train will get me there on time or exactly what time I'll get there. Walking gives me the freedom to set my own time. The worst is when strange men make comments and get offended when I don't respond, and also if the weather is bad.

What about when you get to work — do you walk up the stairs too?
I do very occasionally walk up the stairs. I figure taking the elevator at that point is something I deserve. But I do walk up and down the stairs of my apartment building.

keeping the earth ever green

Eating bugs is good for the environment

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 01:00:00 +0100

Every news outlet that is reporting from Beijing during the Olympics always has the same slice-of-life report about eating barbecued bugs on a stick. They only care about the ick factor, not about the eco-friendly nature or history of why Chinese would eat bugs in the first place.

The reporters are usually non-Asian reporters from Western countries and always go for the most disgusting-looking bug-skewer. But as usual these Western media reporters didn't learn the history behind why these types of foods are eaten in China, nor do they delve into how eating these insects is much better for the environment than eating beef.

The Chinese province of Guangdong (also known as Canton) has an old saying: "Any animal, whose back faces sky, can be eaten." And Cantonese are known to eat everything, including snakes, snails, frogs, bugs, etc. But the real reason they started eating whatever was because when their crops failed, which happened often, they still had to eat. So if any of those reporters from NBC actually knew what it was like to starve and be so hungry they would even eat bugs, then maybe they could be justified in making fun of things like eating fried scorpions on a stick.

But there are other countries besides China, like Mexico and Southeast Asia, that have old cultural traditions that include eating insects; some were even considered delicacies only fit for royalty. Some of these countries are now encouraging poor people to raise insects as food, helping to lift them out of poverty. Insects are an ideal alternative to traditional protein sources, especially for developing countries because bugs are high in protein and easy to raise.

Eating insects helps save the environment because raising them has a much lower impact than raising stockyard animals.

From a previous ever green post: Eating meat worse for environment than driving or flying:

According to a United Nations report [Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options] published last November, animal agriculture emits more global-warming gases into the air than does transportation. And greenhouse gases aside, the report also shows how livestock degrade and pollute land and water sources.

This shows that rich first-world nations, such as the U.S., Europe, and Japan, directly cause environmental problems because of their high beef consumption.

So the Western media's fascination with insect kabobs has just skimmed the surface of the reasons why those types of alternative foods are available over there. What would happen if Chinese came over to the U.S. and started making fun of how fat everyone is because they eat so much meat?

And another thing that the media hasn't seemed to realize is that the markets that they got the skewers in were most likely in really touristy areas; so the bugs-on-a-stick could be just as touristy as getting your picture drawn in New York's Times Square.

For more on eating insects in China, here's a great clip from YouTube, where ethnic Asians from Hong Kong are breaking the stereotype that Asians actually enjoy eating bugs:

keeping the earth ever green

Chinese pollution vs. U.S. pollution: media misses the big picture

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 01:00:00 +0100

There is no escape from the frenzy of Beijing Olympics coverage. And the one thing that all the American media can't talk enough about is how polluted the city and/or country is.

There are daily haze reports, particulate meter readings, algae bloom cleanups, athletes arriving in the airport in masks, athletes training in other countries to only enter Beijing on the day of their event, etc.

China is polluted; there is no doubt about that. But the media coverage so far makes it seem like China is the only country at fault for polluting the Earth and ruining the environment.

All this pollution watch coverage doesn't deflect from the fact the United States still is one of the top per capita carbon emitters on the planet. But the media seem to overlook this and none have mentioned this in any of their reports about China's pollution.

China's population is 1.3 billion people and growing; but each person's carbon footprint is minimal compared to individual Americans. Most Americans own a car; sometimes a family owns more than one car. And most need to drive to get to work, or run errands, or even to get to spots where we can enjoy nature. We usually live in houses that consume a lot of energy from electronics like computers, flat-screen televisions, washing/drying machines, etc. A lot of rural Chinese don't have electricity or large houses or cars. Those that live in cities usually live in apartments, which use less electricity than houses, and get around by public transportation or bicycle.

But the Chinese lifestyle and country has changed over the past decades. The opening up of the economy has lifted many of its citizens out of poverty but, in return, has turned them into consumers. Many of the nouveau-riche now want cars, electronics, and other things that make their lives more comfortable, but at the cost to their environment. But why should the media criticize the Chinese for wanting and creating lifestyles that are similar to Americans at the same financial levels yet not pointing out the polluting ways of ourselves?

Foreign companies moved into China to take advantage of cheap labor and thus are directly responsible for creating factories that spew out the pollution that everyone is so critical to the Chinese about. The Chinese government is to blame because they should have put regulations in place to control the levels of toxins emitted instead of just seeing dollar signs in their eyes. But the foreign companies, many of them American, are responsible too, yet they turn a blind eye and also see only profit margins and moneymaking ability.

The media needs to dig deeper in their China pollution coverage to uncover the unpopular truths about who really is to blame and is responsible for the unfortunate environmental problems that China is dealing with now.

They would find that their coverage is hypocritical and irresponsible, especially considering all the airplane rides and energy-consumption their Olympics coverage is using up.

keeping the earth ever green

Examining the Environmental Protection Agency

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 15:52:23 +0100

On its website the EPA claims:

The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and the environment. Since 1970, EPA has been working for a cleaner, healthier environment for the American people.

The EPA, that many could now call the Environmental Polluting Agency, has taken some hits during the current Bush administration. Mr. Bush set his environmental agenda early by pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol (the greenhouse gas reduction treaty) shortly after coming into office, declaring it "fatally flawed."

In 2001 President Bush appointed former Governor of New Jersey Christine Todd Whitman as EPA Administrator. She resigned two years later after butting heads with the government over issues such as global warming and greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Ms. Whitman has also been questioned about her role in the environmental ethics of the agency when she was called to testify before Congress in 2007 about whether she misled World Trade Center site workers and residents about air-quality safety post 9/11. The EPA claimed the air was safe to breathe days after the attacks, subsequent collapse, and cleanup of the area in lower Manhattan - yet many people have been stricken with respiratory problems directly linked to having inhaled the tainted air.

Current EPA head Stephen Johnson has been called on to resign this week by four senators on the Environment and Public Works Committee. In a letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey, the senators claim that Johnson abused his position by lying under oath. They say he hindered a waiver for California to set their own vehicle emissions standards under the Clean Air Act due to presidential policy preferences, "rather than the lack of compelling and extraordinary circumstances."

Last December, the EPA blocked California's request to set their own law regarding vehicle emissions. Mr. Johnson said the decision was because "the Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules."

Sixteen states that wanted to adopt the California emissions standards could also back California if legal action is taken.

California's Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. also threatened the EPA with legal action if they don't start regulating the greenhouse gas emissions coming from port vehicles such as container ships and trucks.

"Ships, aircraft and industrial equipment burn huge quantities of fossil fuel and cause massive greenhouse gas pollution. Because Bush's Environmental Protection Agency continues to wantonly disregard its duty to regulate pollution, California is forced to seek judicial action."

The EPA has also come under fire this week by Florida U.S. District Judge Alan Gold who ruled that the agency failed to protect the Everglades under the Clean Water Act. Judge Gold said the agency turned a "blind eye" to the mandated cleanup program limiting the amount of damaging phosphorus runoff from sugar and dairy farms. The pollution reduction was set with a 2006 deadline, one that the sugar industry blocked with a bill that favored a more lenient 2016 gradual reduction schedule. Phosphorus is blamed for native vegetation die-off.

The agency that was built around the premise to regulate and help protect the environment has grown corrupt and needs some regulation of its own. The Bush Administration seems content to corrupt and manipulate the environment for its own agenda - and it seems to be happy to ruin the environment up until Mr. Bush's last days in office.

keeping the earth ever green

Eco-shaped bottles — better for the environment?

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 12:06:24 +0100

Half-liter eco-shaped bottles seem to be everywhere now, and they have already caused notice from environmentalists.

{mosimage}

The Numbers Guy, Carl Bialik, from The Wall Street Journal noticed these slimmer bottles last December and crunched all the numbers and stats about them. The Carbon Conscious Consumer really criticizes the so-called "oxymoron" of this environmentally-friendly bottled water. And Planet Trash slams the new shape as marketing hype.

So what is the big deal about these so-called more environmentally-friendly bottles? Most of the bottle water companies claim the following points:

1) Less plastic is used to manufacture the bottles.

2) The eco-shape bottle is 100 percent recyclable.

3) Other eco-features touted include a smaller label, the bottle can be crushed for recycling, and it's easy to carry.

The bottled water manufacturers are claiming that the eco-shape cuts down on the amount of plastic used to make one bottle — 30 percent less to be exact. But that's only 30 percent less plastic than the old bottles; the new bottles themselves are not made out of recycled plastic, which is what it seemed like the eco-shape was about.

They are being misleading when claiming that one of the new features is that the eco-shape bottle is 100 percent recyclable. They make it seem like the old bottles weren't recyclable when, in fact, they were 100 percent recyclable, too.

But it seems that the half-liter bottle size is the only plastic bottle with the new eco-shape. All the other sizes appear to look the same as they have for decades and there hasn't been any eco-hype about more enviro-friendly liter or gallon bottles.

The bottled water companies are at least going in the right direction. Although buying and drinking bottled water has been frowned upon, it is still healthier to drink water than other bottled alternatives like soda pop.

In an old ever green post about shooting down the negatives of drinking bottled water, the media was criticized for blaming bottled-water manufacturers with clogging up the world with plastic bottles. All bottled drink manufacturers, not just bottled water companies, have the responsibility to the planet for having easily recyclable containers — which for the most part they do. Aluminum cans and plastic bottles are all easily recyclable.

So the good news about the new eco-shape bottle is that it uses less plastic in the manufacturing process. No matter if the product is 100 percent recyclable, starting from the beginning by having less to recycle is always good.

But the most eco-friendly way to drink water is from the tap. Bringing your own refillable water container to work or wherever is always a better alternative than buying one — even if it is in an eco-shape.

keeping the earth ever green

Cleaning green

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:43:55 +0100

Type "green cleaners" into any online search engine and you'll get links to sites giving you "recipes" for do-it-yourself cleaners to brand-name environmentally-friendly cleaners.

Although buying Earth-friendly brands like Simple Green are fine for the environment and maybe a more familiar buying process, they can be much pricier than chemical cleaners.

On the other hand, making your own green cleaners is cheap and just as, or even more effective than, using harsh chemicals — and much better for your own health, too.

There are usually the same natural ingredients listed on most of the do-it-yourself sites:
1) white vinegar
2) hydrogen peroxide
3) baking soda
4) castile soap

{mosimage}

White vinegar has many different uses. Combine it in a spray bottle with water and it's a glass cleaner. It kills bacteria, so it can also be combined with the castile soap to clean countertops, floors, and toilets or to rinse dishes.

Hydrogen peroxide is a bleach alternative and non-toxic to the environment. Anything that usually takes bleach can be substituted with HP instead. HP is also an antiseptic that can clean superficial skin wounds, be used as an oral rinse to whiten your teeth, and work as a hair lightener. Combine it with baking soda and castile soap to clean and whiten the bathtub and sinks.

Baking soda is a gritty powder that can be used in places that need scrubbing. A very effective way to unclog drains is to combine one cup of baking soda and one cup of white vinegar to a pot of boiled water. It will fizz up when the ingredients are added, and that's what will purge your drains of clogs. Pour it down the plugged drain, flush with water, and voila — the drain will be miraculously unplugged. I actually used this as a last-ditch effort on a slow drain that has been backing-up for years. I had been using a chemical unclogger because it seemed so stubborn that only chemicals would unplug it.

Castile soap is a vegetable-oil-based natural soap. You can go one step further and actually make it yourself (there are lots of recipes online), but it's usually reasonably priced. Dr. Bronner's is a good brand that can be found online or at places like Trader Joe's. This soap is used in place of other soaps, like dishwashing detergent, bathroom cleaner, laundry soap, and shower gel. I've read online accounts of people even brushing their teeth with the soap.

Some other green cleaning ingredients (that I haven't tried but are also popular) are lemons and borax.

If you have chemical cleansers in the house, it's best to use them up before you go green — because if you throw them out, it's just as bad for the environment as using them.

{mosimage}

And not all your old standby cleansers are necessarily bad for the environment. Ivory Soap is pretty much natural and not bad for the Earth. Also look for words like biodegradable surfactants — and anionic and nonionic on dish and laundry soap labels.

keeping the earth ever green

The environmental hazards of fireworks

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 21:40:48 +0100

On this July 4th as many are celebrating the nation's independence by watching traditional fireworks displays, revelers should take note that these customary shows are an environmental detriment.

Gunpowder is the usual explosive device that launches the fireworks cartridge in the air. It consists of the chemicals potassium nitrate, charcoal (carbon) and sulfur powder, that when ignited, release large amounts of black smoke into the air. The familiar sulfur (rotten egg smell) and burnt smell that one associates with fireworks are concentrated amounts of pollution created directly from the ignited gunpowder.

Some solutions to the gunpowder-launching problem have actually come from Disney (which has a fireworks display every night over their fairytale theme parks). Disney has developed an air-launch technology that they have openly shown to the pyrotechnics industry.

The fireworks themselves are encased in plastic tubing, which litter the ground or bodies of water they fall into. The plastic can cause problems when their chemical makeup leaches out into the water or ground. Some now are encased in cardboard or paper maché which disintegrate in water.

The fireworks are made with many different chemicals and heavy metals that cause air pollution and can be hazardous to water sources. E Magazine writes that:

Depending on the effect sought, fireworks produce smoke and dust that contain various heavy metals, sulfur-coal compounds and other noxious chemicals. Barium, for instance, is used to produce brilliant green colors in fireworks displays, despite being poisonous and radioactive. Copper compounds are used to produce blue colors, even though they contain dioxin, which has been linked to cancer. Cadmium, lithium, antimony, rubidium, strontium, lead and potassium nitrate are also commonly used to produce different effects, even though they can cause a host of respiratory and other health problems.

Perchlorate, one of the chemicals used in fireworks, is of even greater health and environmental concern. Studies about its effects have been made by scientists from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Dr Richard Wilkin of the EPA and fellow scientists studied an Oklahoma lake before and after fireworks displays from 2004-06.

Within 14 hours after the fireworks, perchlorate levels rose 24 to 1,028 times above background levels. Levels peaked about 24 hours after the display, and then decreased to the pre-fireworks background within 20- to 80 days.

EPA studies have shown the chemical to affect the thyroid's intake of iodide.

In lieu of fireworks viewing to celebrate the holiday, environmental magazine Plenty suggests banging on pots and/or singing instead.

Happy July 4th.

keeping the earth ever green

Voice from Tibet in China — from a Han

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Thu, 22 May 2008 10:53:10 +0100

Although this isn't about the environment, it's about human relations and is the voice of an ethnic Han who lives and works among Tibetans in China.

Chen Lu* is an owner of a Tibetan business that operates from Langmusi in a traditional Tibetan area in China. Although of Han Chinese ethnicity, Lu works and lives among ethnic Tibetans without any conflicts. The protestations by monks and government crackdown have affected Lu's business as well as other businesses depending on tourism. These are Lu's words about how he as well as regular Tibetans view the situation, which is different than how the western media have portrayed it:

In Langmusi, the violence was not so bad as in Lhasa. There are two monasteries in Langmusi, one belongs to Sichuan [Province] and [the other] belongs to Gansu [Province]. On 16th March, around 200 young monks from Sichuan monastery went on the street to throw stones [at] the shops. No old monks joined in. And only the monks from Sichuan monastery made this violence. The monks from Gansu monastery and the local Tibetan people hadn't join[ed] in them.

Langmusi is very small town with only one street, so this violence only lasted for around half an hour. Later in the same day, policeman surrounded the Sichuan monastery. But the monks in Gansu monastery and all the local people's life are still as normal. This is very important. Not like the western news [who] said the police crack[ed] down [on all] the Tibetans, they were just taking action [on] the people who violated the law. The police need[ed] to find who organized this violence and need[ed] to prevent it [from] happen[ing] again.

I asked many local people [what] they thought about the things the monks had done. Actually, they can't understand why the monks did this very well and they don't want to this [to] happen again.

Especially when April arrived, the local people find the number of the tourists is much less than last year, they become worr[ied] about the influence caused by the violence.

Yes, [still] today the Chinese government doesn't allow the foreigners to go to the Tibetan area, but the Chinese people can go. But from the travel forums in China, you can see many Chinese are afraid of the situation in [the] Tibetan area, some of them will cancel their plan to travel to the Tibetan area in this year.

The Tibetans think the monks are the representation of the god. So they think they must follow what the monks request. But actually the monks are still human beings, when they get the power, some of them will become avaricious. Now some old Tibetan men have recognized that the monks are not as good as what they think. But [still] today, they still think Dalai Lama [is] their spiritual leader. But this doesn't mean they don't like what the Chinese governments do.

As an old Tibetan man told me, before 1949, the life for the normal Tibetans were very hard. They didn't have their grassland and livestocks. They worked [hard] for the monks or the aristocrats [but got] very little food to survive. But after the Chinese army [got] inside the Tibetan area, [the Tibetans] first got the grassland [for] livestock, so they could control their own life.

In these decades, the Chinese governments build many roads in Tibetan area; give money or corn to them when they suffer [bad] weather; help them to build new houses, etc. And they also can believe the Buddhism, as they like.

So actually, [the Tibetans] like the religion and the Chinese government both. The very important thing is that they want to have a peaceful life; they want their living condition [to] be better and better. They don't want violence or war [to] happen. So after this violence, 99 percent of the Tibetans when they talked about this, they don't think it's right and they don't want it happen [to] again.

First my country and all the Chinese people already know the Cultural Revolution is at fault. Second, it's already passed. When we are talking about something happening today, we should see what's going on, but not the history. As all the western countries have done some wrong things before, but should we still use the history to talk about these countries today?

All the Chinese have seen in these decades, although there are still many problems in our government, but our life is really becoming better and better. So we have the faith for our country. We need time to build our country and we need time to make our life better than now. We want the people in other [countries to] understand us, but not censure our government and ignore what we have already done.

*name has been changed

Religion advocating for the environment

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 21:00:00 +0100

According to the media, one of the latest green movements is happening in churches, synagogues, and mosques around the country. Several news organizations have already done stories about people from different faiths who all have the same goal of saving the environment.

The Weather Channel's "Forecast Earth" profiles Baptist pastor and environmental advocate Dr. Gerald Durely, who was inspired by the environmental film The Great Warming. Dr. Durely says in the piece: "As one who believes that the Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, is that we have an obligation to ensure that what God has created, we keep together." The pastor has taken his environmental message and movement to his congregation because he says it will "make a difference for my children, my grandchildren, and generations to come when we begin to conserve and do what it is on this Earth that is so important."

ABC News looked into a North Carolina church that for the second year in a row is having a so-called "carbon fast" for Lent:

"Lent is a traditional time when we talk about reducing," said the United Church's pastor, Richard Edens.

Lent is the 40-day period in which Christians fast and atone to prepare for Easter. This year the congregation has weekly themes; for example, one week they save water, another week they eat only locally-grown produce. And they are part of a growing international movement of carbon-fasters.

New Jersey Jewish News reports on a Jewish environmental organization's call to synagogues to become more environmentally friendly by changing their old incandescent lightbulbs to energy-efficient ones:

"We're trying to make our synagogue more energy-efficient, so it was a natural process," [Kevin Fried of Montclair, NJ's Bnai Keshet synagogue] said. "We're doing our part to help the environment. A couple of weeks ago we held a screening of An Inconvenient Truth (Al Gore's documentary on global warming) and had CFLs [compact fluorescent lightbulbs]" on hand for people to see and purchase.

The article also features other energy-saving tips from the Coalition for the Environment in Jewish Life.

CNN reports on the "greenest" Canadian Church that is a model of eco-renovation. Father Paul Cusack of St. Gabriel's Parish says he is "trying to raise the consciousness of people through the beauty of creation." And asks his parish: "What are we going to do as individuals in this community to change our lifestyle or anything else to facilitate the healing of the Earth?" The renovated church itself is a model of environmental-friendly architechture. Among its Earth-friendly features are large windows to draw in solar heat and a living wall that is a natural air purifier. And as Father Paul says, "It's not words that make the difference, it's actions."

The Washington Post and Newsweek's "On Faith" section online addressed interfaith environmental care. Eboo Patel's Interfaith Youth Core brings together Evangelicals and Muslims to work for the greater good. Patel writes:

The Holy Qur'an teaches that God created Adam to be His servant and representative on Earth with the primary task of caring for the beauty and diversity of creation...In my Muslim outlook, I believe this is moving creation in line with the intention of the Creator.

Among Patel's interfaith initiatives are Earth Day programs involving different faiths.

keeping the earth ever green

*Please note that ever green is religion neutral and does not advocate for or against any religion, but I am always happy to report on anyone or anything that is helping the environment regardless of motivation.

Barack Obama caught with plastic bags

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:21:30 +0100

Presidential hopeful-senator-supposed environmental advocate Barack Obama proves in this week's US Magazine that he's "just like US!" by happily accepting groceries in non-biodegradable plastic bags:

{mosimage}

One of ever green's very first posts in January 2007 was about the continuing scourge of plastic bags. The very first paragraph could be applied directly to this photo of Senator Obama:

Here's a familiar scenario. You go to the grocery store, get your items and, at the checkout counter, a bagger puts your items into several plastic bags. The bags are never filled to capacity, sometimes only a few items are put into each bag, and usually the bags are doubled. You then head out of the store with many more bags than you need.

Look closely at the two bags Mr. Obama accepts in the picture...they are barely full. He could have at least only used one bag instead of two.

Evironmental responsibility rests on many things, but it's really the individual person — as elected officials campaigning surely know about — that can make change for the better.

One would think that for such an important campaign and the environment as a high priority, Senator Obama's advisors or supporters could have given him a reusable canvas bag for him to shop with.

I looked around and found a nice bag for him to use:

{mosimage}

Mr. Obama may have scored a lifetime League of Conservation Voters score of 96 out of 100 for his first two years in the Senate — but ever green gives him a 0 just from this picture alone.

On the other side, Senator Hillary Clinton has a LCV score of 90 for six years service and her campaign is carbon neutral. Ever green has endorsed her as Democratic presidential nominee.

keeping the earth ever green

Check out another early ever green photo essay on plastic bag litter.

Nuclear power supports Barack Obama-should you?

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:44:40 +0100

NBC News reports on Democratic presidential nominee hopeful/Illinois Senator Barack Obama's murky ties to nuclear power. They claim that a nuclear power corporation has given a large donation to his campaign. Nuclear power is also supported by Senator John McCain as a "clean" power source. Certainly it does not emit carbon, but the radioactive waste that needs to be disposed of in a safe way is the environmental issue. Watch the Lisa Myers report below:

keeping the earth ever green

The presidential candidates and the environment

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Mon, 28 Jan 2008 14:48:24 +0100

With the February 5th primary almost here, where the majority of the states vote to choose who they want as their party's presidential candidate, ever green is looking at their environmental history to determine who the standout candidates are.

Senator Hillary Clinton is the Democratic presidential candidate who ever green stands behind. Her environmental record is ongoing; according to Grist, she has sponsored or co-sponsored almost 400 lawmaking proposals about energy or the environment. And this continues even as recently as last week. In the midst of her non-stop campaigning Clinton still managed to co-sponsor Senator Barbara Boxer's bill to reverse the EPA's global warming waiver decision. This controversial decision blocked states' own efforts to cut vehicle emissions. Also note that 17 other senators co-sponsored this bill, including Senators Barack Obama, John Kerry, Joe Lieberman, and Ted Kennedy, to name a few. Senator Clinton has also introduced legislation to amend the Defense Authorization Act to include global warming as a threat to national security. This amendment has passed congressional approval twice, was vetoed once by President Bush, and now again is pending his approval. For her campaign, she promises to reduce electricity consumption, support a $50 billion alternative energy fund, greatly increase fuel-efficiency standards, and green up low-income homes, among other things. Clinton's presidential campaign is carbon neutral. And the nonpartisan group, League of Conservation Voters (LCV), gives Senator Clinton a 90 percent lifetime environmental voting record, which is a very high average considering it spans from 2001 when she was first elected to office.

Although ever green is not Republican, I do stand up for Senator John McCain as presidential candidate for that party. As noted in a previous ever green post, McCain co-sponsored the 2003 Climate Stewardship Act that the Republican majority Senate at the time rejected. According to the League of Conservation Voters, McCain is the only Republican presidential candidate who has done or said anything at all about environmental issues and global warming. The other candidates have barely acknowledged global warming as an issue or problem. Senator McCain, although only receiving a 26 percent lifetime environmental voting record, was the only Republican who bothered to answer the LCV's questionnaire. For his campaign, McCain doesn't lay out any specific numbers as do the Democratic candidates on environmental issues; instead he acknowledges that there is an interdependence between economics and the environment and that they both need to be healthy to work. He also is an advocate for nuclear energy as an alternative and clean energy source.

keeping the earth ever green

How New Jersey became one of the nation's top solar power states

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:59:44 +0100

Rise in the New Jersey solar market
The Garden State is living up to its name by having one of the nation's top solar energy power programs. Since the program's conception, solar installations have dramatically risen by over 300 percent.

Originating in 2001, through the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU), New Jersey's Clean Energy Program (NJCEP) designed a model of green-energy plans and incentives that make environmentally-friendly energy consumption reachable and affordable for average consumers.

Especially attractive are the incentives for installing solar panels (also know as photovoltaics), which over a number of years can actually bring individual energy costs down to zero. These incentives include high rebates for cost and installation as well as special loans for businesses and schools.

New Jersey is now the fastest growing solar energy market in the U.S. When the program began in 2001, there were only six solar panels running. By 2006 the number of solar panel installations doubled and, according to the BPU, there are now over two thousand statewide. This number is second only to California — which, the BPU points out, has four times the population and energy needs of New Jersey.

New Jersey's solar power programs are even attracting wealthy investors such as Ted Turner. Last year he partnered with Dome-Tech Solar to create DT Solar, a renewable energy company. Turner's company just finished installing the nation's largest corporate solar system for Hall's Warehouse Corp. in South Plainfield.

Success through the Solar Financing Model
Leading the way for affordable solar power is New Jersey's Solar Financing Model. Through state rebates, government tax credits, net-metering, and renewable energy certificates, the cost-effectiveness of buying and installing solar panels is reduced to 10 years or less. Cost-effectiveness previously had been measured at 25 years.

This model has set a high standard that other states are using to create their own solar power programs. New Jersey currently matches cost and installation of solar panels up to 60 percent. Net-metering allows excess electricity generated to be sold back to utility companies. Renewable energy certificates compensate owners for every 1,000 kilowatt hours (1 MWh) generated by their solar energy installation.

Another incentive for solar panel buyers is a federal tax credit of up to $2,000 provided through the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT). This is the same act signed by President Bush that also gives rebates for hybrid vehicles and energy-efficient appliances, among other things.

However, the state's program will soon be transitioning from rebate-based to market-based, says BPU Public Information Officer Doyal Siddell. This market-based program still under review would phase out the rebates and in turn could refocus buyers' costs primarily on renewable energy certificates.

New Jersey as an environmental leader
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the net electricity generation for New Jersey was 4,709,000 megawatt hours (MWh) measured in November 2006. Nuclear, natural gas, and coal make up the largest energy sources comprising 4,588,000 MWh. Only 36 MWh are currently generated from solar.

New Jersey also houses the highest-capacity and oldest running nuclear power plants in the nation at Salem Creek and Oyster Creek respectively.

It is also one of the top five particulate air (soot) polluters in the United States.

New Jersey Governor John Corzine recently signed an executive order adopting strict rules and goals to actively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The order mandates limits on greenhouse gas emissions, and electric companies will be fined if found going over. "I'm proud that New Jersey is helping to blaze that trail," Governor Corzine said in a press release.

The state's goal is to have 20 percent renewable energy output by 2020, with 1,500 MWhs by solar power alone.

Growing market for solar power
The solar energy market currently makes up less than 0.1 percent of all energy produced across the country. The growing need for alternative sources of energy production could bring solar energy to a more prominent position. And in New Jersey, businesses and homeowners now have the cost-effectiveness and governmental support to utilize the power of the sun.

keeping the earth ever green

Cigarette butts are unsightly and pollute the environment

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:33:48 +0100

Billions of cigarette butts get tossed out onto the streets, creating ugly litter and causing toxic chemicals to be released into the environment. Watch as ever green explores this issue:

keeping the earth ever green

Eating meat worse for environment than driving or flying

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 07:56:50 +0100

According to a United Nations report published last November, animal agriculture emits more global-warming gases into the air than does transportation. And greenhouse gases aside, the report also shows how livestock degrade and pollute land and water sources. Livestock's long shadow: environmental issues and options is a free, downloadable report that explains in great detail how the animal agriculture industry hurts the environment, which in turn makes it clear that eating meat products helps to contribute to the Earth's demise. In the summary and conclusion chapter, the authors broke down their findings:

{mosimage}

Economic, social, and health impact:
Although the livestock industry accounts for less than two percent of the world's gross domestic product (GDP), its output is around 40 percent of all agricultural products. And in developed nations animal agriculture makes up 50-60 percent of all agricultural output. More important than its output, raising livestock provides livelihoods for people in developing countries, which is sometimes the only viable way the poor can live by. It has been shown that modest consumption of meat and dairy products can be beneficial for health. But the overconsumption of the same are to be blamed for obesity and its health-related problems, most notably in developed nations.

Environment, air, and water impact:
The animal agriculture industry takes up almost 30 percent of the Earth's usable land space. Many countries, such as Brazil, have clear-cut, massive amounts of once abundant forests for the purpose of installing cattle farms. And the agricultural land used to raise feed for these cattle has been polluted by pesticides and fertilizers, as well as degraded by soil erosion and water pollution. The livestock sector is also a "key-player" in water use as well as depletion, which is mostly used to irrigate the crops used for feed. Grazing livestock disrupt natural chemical patterns in soil as well as destroy wild animal habitats. Ironically livestock consume more than 77 million tons of "human edible protein" as opposed to the 58 million tons the animals actually contribute to the food stream. The major pollutants from this industry include animal waste, hormones, and antibiotics, as well as chemicals used to produce leather. In addition, animal agriculture contributes 18 percent of the total effect of global warming. And in terms of greenhouse gases, livestock overall contribute 9 percent of carbon dioxide, a whopping 37 percent of methane gas, and 65 percent nitrous oxide.

Solutions:
Unless changes are made and implemented immediately, the report states bluntly that "environmental damage will double." Some solutions include taxing livestock companies for environmental damage as well as creating incentives for environmental upkeep. Implementing new technologies at a fast pace could create higher productivity and therefore impact the environment less. Requiring industrial livestock to be located in less concentrated areas where it's easier to dispose their waste to neighboring croplands is another recommendation.

The impact of animal agriculture to the environment is already apparent, so being able to manage it in a way that benefits the producers, the consumers, and the environment is a problem that needs to be solved immediately. As a consumer, eating less meat is a small way to help.

keeping the earth ever green

Environmental detriment of bottled drinks?

schroederlis@yahoo.com — Mon, 20 Aug 2007 11:47:12 +0100

The detriment of the unenvironmentalness of bottled water have recently been the cause celebre in the media. There were lots of similar reports about the plastic waste that bottles have made and how bottled water doesn't necessarily taste any better or have less bacteria than tap water. It was even reported that cities and towns' local governments have been trying to tout the natural deliciousness of tap water to stem the plastic waste created from the bottled variety. Studies and statistics were cited on how many hundreds of thousands of plastic bottles end up on the planet just from bottled water alone. But these so-called media giants who jump onto any sort of trendy — ahem — "news item" only skimmed the surface of this subject.

History of bottled drinks encased in plastic
Beverages including soda and water began to be bottled in plastic in 1970 and 1968 respectively. Starting in the 1980s, the plastic used for bottling was of the PET (polyethylene terephtalate) type, which is recyclable. This type of plastic became the plastic bottling standard.

Number of bottles from water or other drinks
Nowhere in any of the media "reports" on the bad-for-the-environment-plastic-bottles-from-bottled-water stories were there any statistics about any of the other beverages in plastic bottles. What about the annual numbers of plastic soda bottles produced vs. bottled water? If some of the people who drink bottled water now are ones who used to drink soda, the number of bottles strewn about the Earth could possibly be the same.

International Bottled Water Association President Joseph Doss told the Agence France-Presse that their industry alone should not bear the brunt of the criticism: "If the debate is about the impact of plastic packaging on the environment, a narrow focus on bottled water spotlights only a small portion of the packaged beverage category and an even smaller sliver of the universe of packaged products. Any efforts to reduce the resources necessary to produce and distribute packaged goods — and increase recycling rates — must focus on all packaging."

{mosimage}

Health benefits from drinking water vs. soda
No matter where the water comes from, bottled or from the tap, it is much more healthful than chemical-laden soda pop. If there are these negative reports about how bottled water is bad for the environment, people might instead pick up some soda, thinking that there are no bad reports about that.

Plastic bottles can be recycled
Like stated previously, all plastic bottled drinks use the standard PET plastic, which is recyclable. Even if the bottles are thrown into the trash, most likely in large urban areas, someone will pick through the garbage specifically looking for plastic bottles so they can cash in the deposit.

{mosimage}

The best thing for the environment is definitely not buying plastic bottled drinks. But, if the bottle is the only thing a drink can be purchased in, it's good to know that at least the bottles can be recycled — and drinking water is definitely much better for one's health than soda.

keeping the earth ever green