greenman

Story of Stuff.

If you are a parent of a school age kid in the U.S., it’s hard to avoid the back-to-school marketing that is in full swing, even with 3 more weeks of summer vacation left.

The last thing most kids want in the middle of a sunny August day is to be reminded of the impending return to school.

And the last thing parents want is to inadvertently expose their kid to hazardous chemicals.

Unfortunately, many of today’s common school supplies contain PVC, a toxic plastic found in items such as backpacks and 3-ring binders. Not only is PVC itself bad news, but many PVC items – including school supplies – contain additional toxic chemicals, like phthalates, that are harmful to children’s health.

So, before you stock up on school supplies, take some time to learn how to recognize and avoid PVC.

Today, August 8th, the Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ) released the 4th annual Back-to-School Guide to PVC-Free School Supplies.

The guide is huge a great resource for parents, teachers, school nurses and administrators looking for safer alternatives to PVC school stuff. It contains PVC-free options for backpacks, 3-ring binders, laptops, notebooks, lunchboxes, and more in over 20 product categories.

As concerned parents and educators, we need to:

A) Avoid PVC products in our homes and schools and

B) Join a campaign to get PVC out of all products, especially those marketed to kids.

You can learn how to recognize and avoid PVC by reviewing CHEJ’s Back-to-School Guide and other resources on their site. Once you’ve learned how to keep PVC out of your home and schools, forward the guide to friends and to your kids’ teachers to spread the word.

And then join the campaign!

CHEJ works with parents, teachers and others around the country who want to educate and organize to keep PVC out of our communities. Don’t worry if you haven’t worked on a campaign like this before; CHEJ welcomes new people and provides all kinds of training and support! To get involved, contact Makia Burns at CHEJ, MBurns@chej.org. Email her soon, because she is holding a national conference call for PVC organizers in the U.S. on August 11th – ask her for details if you want to join.

Some environmental health problems are really complicated and involve complicated or painful trade-offs. This is not. We need to stop using PVC plastic. It’s toxic. It’s unnecessary. Dozens of companies and governments around the world are already moving away from PVC. Let’s add our homes, our schools and our communities to the growing list of Safe, Healthy, PVC-Free Zones.

Originally posted on TreeHugger:

At NYC’s Density, the World’s Population Could Live in Texas

by Alex Davies, Paris, France on 07.27.11
 population-density-map-nyc-texas-1.jpg

Images Courtesy of Tim De Chant, Per Square Mile

It turns out that if you wanted every person in the world to move to Texas, finding room for everyone wouldn’t be your biggest problem. A series of maps produced by denisty blog Per Square Mile shows that if the entire world’s population- 6.9 billion people- lived at the same density level as New York City, we could all fit within the borders of the Lone Star State.

population-density-map-nyc-texas.jpg

At Paris levels, we would need Arkansas, Mississippi and Louisiana. If the world lived like Houston, we would take up most of the continental United States: 1,769,085 square miles.

This doesn’t mean that the whole world could actually live in Texas, considering the need for farmland, industrial space, and energy production. (Although what if all the roofs generated solar power?) And there’s a lot to be said for the benefits of living in the country.

But Per Square Mile’s density statistics are thought-provoking. Density is more sustainable than sprawl, and while it might be hard to convince every person on Earth to move to Texas, we could all afford to live a little closer together. (Though we don’t have to live like New Yorkers.)

Via Gothamist

More on density vs. sprawl:
How Urbanism, Building Efficiency, and Cleaner Cars Can Solve Climate Change (Book Review)
Israeli New Urbanists: Density Will Make Our Cities Better Places to Live
Are Cities Green, Or Are We Just Pigs in a Factory Farm?

Sham Panel to Decide on Fracking in South Africa

Sham Panel to Decide on Fracking in South Africa

In May, I wrote a cautiously optimistic article about the South African government’s decision to put a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, the super-controversial, water-intensive and environmentally dangerous technique for extracting shale gas from underground layers of rock, also referred to as fracking. I warned at the time that this was hardly likely to be the end of the story on fracking in South Africa and it’s increasingly becoming clear that my initial scepticism about the moratorium and government’s intentions was well founded.

After announcing the moratorium, the government established a task team of experts to investigate the implications of shale gas fracking in South Africa. On the 18th of July, a spokesperson for the Department of Mineral Affairs said that this task team was expected to report to the minister heading the department, Susan Shabangu, “in a matter of weeks rather than months.”

Opponents of fracking, myself included, were taken aback. How was it possible for the panel to come to a decision on such a complex subject in such a short time? The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently engaged in a multi-year investigation into fracking and its results are only expected to be made public next year. How could the South African experts conclude their work so much faster and without knowledge of the outcome of the significantly more high-powered EPA study? Sounds fishy, doesn’t it!

Until recently, the composition of the task team has been the subject of much speculation, but this week it became clear that it is everything but an inclusive or representative body. In reply to a question by an opposition politician, Minister Shabangu revealed in parliament that neither the Department of Water Affairs nor the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries are represented on the panel. Considering the fact that fracking requires – and potentially pollutes – millions of litres of water, it makes absolutely no sense to exclude these two ministries in the discussion, especially in a country that is already seriously water-stressed.

Of course there are also no members of the tourism or transport ministries, none of the farmers who will be affected, no labour representatives, local business or tourist groups, no civil society or environmental organisations and – heaven forbid – no members of the public on this panel of experts. Apparently Shabangu feels that the public has already had the opportunity to comment on the official applications made by various oil and gas companies that are planning to explore for shale gas in South Africa and that there is no further need for public participation in the process. Doesn’t sound very democratic or transparent, does it?

It turns out that the “working group” established by the task team includes only representatives from the Petroleum Association of South Africa, the Council for Geosciences and the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. Jonathan Deal, chairperson of the Treasure the Karoo Action Group, a civil society organisation opposed to fracking, expects that the task team will give fracking “the green light” and while it doesn’t have any decision-making powers, its recommendations will have a very significant influence on the course of action that government will take with regards to fracking. He warns that “the constitution of the team and the exclusive nature of its mandate renders any report from it worthless in the debate on fracking.”

Of course the task team could still surprise us all with a vote of no confidence in fracking, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. I suspect that we will have to continue to fight some very hard battles to keep this destructive and short-sighted technology out of our country.

——
Andreas is a book shop manager and freelance writer in Cape Town, South Africa. Follow him on Twitter: @Andreas_Spath

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/sham-panel-to-decide-on-fracking-in-south-africa.html#ixzz1TUpo1zlj

 

The inspiring story of Malawian William Kamkwamba: Unable to afford school and forced to drop out at age 14, Kamkwamba used his spare time educating himself at a local library. His interest was sparked by the sciences and in 2002, after coming across a diagram in a tattered textbook, he built a functional windmill out of scrap material and spare parts to provide the luxury of electricity to his family’s home in Masitala. Journalist Bryan Mealer turned this inspirational story into a book, The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind, and Kamkwamba has since gone on to speak at TED—he is widely seen as an emerging young leader in Africa.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/a-billion-seeds-get-fertilized-the-promise-of-libraries-across-africa.html#ixzz1RSwoCAXe

William Kamkwamba was born in Malawi, a country where magic ruled and modern science was mystery. It was also a land withered by drought and hunger, and a place where hope and opportunity were hard to find. But William had read about windmills in a book called Using Energy, and he dreamed of building one that would bring electricity and water to his village and change his life and the lives of those around him. His neighbors may have mocked him and called him misala–crazy–but William was determined to show them what a little grit and ingenuity could do.

Enchanted by the workings of electricity as a boy, William had a goal to study science in Malawi’s top boarding schools. But in 2002, his country was stricken with a famine that left his family’s farm devastated and his parents destitute. Unable to pay the eighty-dollar-a-year tuition for his education, William was forced to drop out and help his family forage for food as thousands across the country starved and died.

Yet William refused to let go of his dreams. With nothing more than a fistful of cornmeal in his stomach, a small pile of once-forgotten science textbooks, and an armory of curiosity and determination, he embarked on a daring plan to bring his family a set of luxuries that only two percent of Malawians could afford and what the West considers a necessity–electricity and running water. Using scrap metal, tractor parts, and bicycle halves, William forged a crude yet operable windmill, an unlikely contraption and small miracle that eventually powered four lights, complete with homemade switches and a circuit breaker made from nails and wire. A second machine turned a water pump that could battle the drought and famine that loomed with every season.

Soon, news of William’s magetsi a mphepo–his “electric wind”–spread beyond the borders of his home, and the boy who was once called crazy became an inspiration to those around the world.

Here is the remarkable story about human inventiveness and its power to overcome crippling adversity. The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind will inspire anyone who doubts the power of one individual’s ability to change his community and better the lives of those around him.

About the Author
William Kamkwamba is a student at African Leadership Academy, a pan-African high school in Johannesburg, South Africa. A 2007 TED Global Fellow, Kamkwamba has been profiled in the Wall Street Journal and his inventions displayed at Chicago’s Museum of Science and Industry. He’s often invited to tell his story, and in 2008, he delivered an address at the World Economic Forum on Africa.

from Bryan Meaker’s blog
Bryan Mealer is the author of All Things Must Fight to Live: Stories of War and Deliverance in Congo, which chronicled his experience covering the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Mealer is a former Associated Press staff correspondent and his work has appeared in several magazines, including Harper’s and Esquire.

Written by Stephen Messenger, a Treehugger blogger

Agent Orange is one of the most devastating weapons of modern warfare, a chemical which killed or injured an estimated 400,000 people during the Vietnam War — and now it’s being used against the Amazon rainforest. According to officials, ranchers in Brazil have begun spraying the highly toxic herbicide over patches of forest as a covert method to illegally clear foliage, more difficult to detect that chainsaws and tractors. In recent weeks, an aerial survey detected some 440 acres of rainforest that had been sprayed with the compound — poisoning thousands of trees and an untold number of animals, potentially for generations.

Officials from Brazil’s environmental agency IBAMA were first tipped to the illegal clearing by satellite images of the forest in Amazonia; a helicopter flyover in the region later revealed thousands of trees left ash-colored and defoliated by toxic chemicals. IBAMA says that Agent Orange was likely dispersed by aircraft by a yet unidentified rancher to clear the land for pasture because it is more difficult to detect than traditional operations that require chainsaws and tractors.

Last week, in another part of the Amazon, an investigation conducted by the agency uncovered approximately four tons of the highly toxic herbal pesticides hidden in the forest awaiting dispersion. If released, the chemicals could have potentially decimated some 7,500 acres of rainforest, killing all the wildlife that resides there and contaminating groundwater. In this case, the individual responsible was identified now faces fines nearing $1.3 million.

According to a report from Folha de São Paulo, the last time such chemicals were recorded in use by deforesters was in 1999, but officials say dispensing the devastating herbicide may become more common as officials crack down on environmental crimes.

“They [deforesters] have changed their strategy because, in a short time, more areas of forest can be destroyed with herbicides. Thus, they don’t need to mobilize tree-cutting teams and can therefore bypass the supervision of IBAMA,” says Jerfferson Lobato of IBAMA.

While Agent Orange was originally designed to clear forest coverage in combat situations, its use became a subject of controversy due to its impact on humans and wildlife. During the Vietnam War, the United States military dispersed 12 million gallons of herbicide, impacting the health of some 3 million, mostly peasant, Vietnamese citizens, and causing birth defects in around 500 thousand children. Additionally, the chemical’s effect on the environment have been profound and lasting.

Last month, over three decades after Agent Orange was last used in Vietnam, the US began funding a $38 million decontamination operation there. Meanwhile, in the Brazilian Amazon, the highly toxic chemical was being discovered anew and sprayed over the rainforest.

This post was originally published by Treehugger.

Right now, EU law makers are introducing an important bill which would impose strict pollution standards on car and lorry fuels and would effectively ban tar sands fuel, the world’s most filthy and environmentally destructive transport oil. But shockingly, the UK is opposing it.

Our government is bending under pressure from the oil industry and the Canadian government, who stand to make billions if they can get an ally to water down the law and remove the clause that bans tar sands. We can expose these dirty dealings, and demand the government support the law and protect the climate.

Tomorrow, campaigners will meet with Transport Minister Norman Baker. Let’s show him the British public is united against any attempt to undermine this critical legislation — sign below, then send this to everyone:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/crude_politics/?vl

Tar sands fuel is nasty stuff. Oil companies destroy and degrade millions of acres of pristine Canadian forest and displace indigenous communities just to reach the unrefined bitumen. Refining it spreads cancerous heavy metals and sulphur through the air and leaves a barren, toxic landscape. The US Environmental Protection Agency says refining tar sands causes at least 82% more carbon pollution than refining conventional oil. But for Canada and the oil companies, the returns are lucrative — oil giants recently announced a $379 billion investment in them.

The EU wants to help stop this catastrophe, but the UK is standing in the way. The EU’s proposed Fuel Quality Directive would set a binding 6% climate pollution reduction target for Europe’s transport fuels by 2020. We need to make sure that our government – which likes to parade green credentials – doesn’t cave to tar sands oil interests.

Our political leaders should be securing a cleaner energy future for us and our children, not caving in to polluters that bring oil spills and climate change. Time is short — we need to convince the transport minister by June 23rd. Let’s tell the UK government to keep dirty fuels out of the EU. Sign the petition now, then forward this email to friends who want clean air:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/crude_politics/?vl

In a world with a safe and stable climate, using energy will not come at the expense of our natural environment. Canada’s tar sands are an out-dated approach to energy, where profit outweighs pollution. We have a chance to make a change now. Together, we’ve influenced international climate summits, world leaders and our parliaments — now let’s take another decisive step towards a cleaner future.

With hope,

Alex, Maria Paz, Morgan, Iain, Ricken, Stephanie, Giulia, Pascal, Benjamin, Luis, and the rest of the Avaaz team

SOURCES

UK undermining EU tar sands ban
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/may/30/uk-undermining-tar-sands-ban

Pollution fears as UK blocks European ban on fuel from tar sands
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/pollution-fears-as-uk-blocks-european-ban-on-fuel-from-tar-sands-2291598.html

Why Europe could decide the fate of Canada’s tar sands
http://thetyee.ca/News/2010/10/20/EuropeDecidesFate/

Canada tries to hide tar sands carbon emissions http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2011/jun/01/canada-tar-sands-carbon-emissions

US Environmental Protection Agency review of tar sands impact http://yosemite.epa.gov/oeca/webeis.nsf/(PDFView)/20100126/$file/20100126.PDF?OpenElement (pdf)

YouTube – DON’T REVOKE BP’S CORPORATE CHARTER!.

“Biofuels” are transportation fuels like ethanol and biodiesel that are made from biomass materials. These fuels are usually blended with the petroleum fuels — gasoline and diesel fuel, but they can also be used on their own. Using ethanol or biodiesel means we don’t burn quite as much fossil fuel. Ethanol and biodiesel are usually more expensive than the fossil fuels that they replace, but they are also cleaner-burning fuels, producing fewer air pollutants.
What Is Ethanol?
Ethanol is an alcohol fuel made from the sugars found in grains, such as Corn, Sorghum and Barley. Switchgrass can yield almost twice as much ethanol as corn, estimates geneticist Ken Vogel, who is conducting breeding and genetics research on switchgrass to improve its biomass yield and its ability to recycle carbon as a renewable energy crop.
Other sources of sugars to produce ethanol include: Potato skins, Rice, Sugar cane, Sugar beets, Yard clippings, Bark and Switchgrass.
Most of the ethanol used in the United States today is distilled from corn, gving rise to concerns over world food shortages, as biofuels demand increases. Scientists are working on cheaper ways to make ethanol by using all parts of plants and trees rather than just the grain. Farmers are experimenting with “woody crops,” mostly small poplar trees and switchgrass, to see if they can be grown cheaply and abundantly.
Ethanol Is Blended With Gasoline: About 99% of the ethanol produced in the United States is used to make “E10″ or “gasohol,” a mixture of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline. Any gasoline powered engine can use E10, but only specially made vehicles can run on E85, a fuel that is 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline.

Ethanol Is Nontoxic and Biodegradable. Using ethanol means that we use less oil (a nonrenewable fuel) to make gasoline. Unlike gasoline, ethanol is nontoxic (safe to handle) and biodegradable; it quickly breaks down into harmless substances if spilled.
Ethanol Can Reduce Pollution. When small amounts of ethanol are added to gasoline, usually less than 10%, there are many advantages. Ethanol reduces carbon monoxide and other toxic pollution from the tailpipes of vehicles, making less air pollution. It also keeps engines running smoothly without the need for lead or other chemical additives.

Ethanol is made from crops that absorb carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. So growing crops for ethanol may have the potential to balance out carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. The impact of greater ethanol use on net carbon dioxide emissions depends on how ethanol is made and on whether or not indirect impacts on land use are included in the calculations.

What Is Biodiesel?

Biodiesel is a fuel made from vegetable oils, fats, or greases — such as recycled restaurant grease. Biodiesel fuel can be used in diesel engines without changing them. It is the fastest growing alternative fuel in the United States. Biodiesel, a renewable fuel, is safe, biodegradable, and produces lower levels of most air pollutants than petroleum-based products; below is a video of the backyard version of the process of making biodiesel:

Of course all this uses up land that could be used for food. This practice is better run at small-scale local levels, using waste products exclusively.

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research...
Image via Wikipedia

Your old sofa – and much more – could be composted, say University of Manchester scientists

22 Feb 2010

Polyurethane plastics used to make a host of products from furniture fillings to shoe soles, cable insulation and paints – and which can be difficult to recycle – could soon be degraded in compost heaps, thanks to a study at the University of Manchester.

Dr Geoff Robson and his team at the Faculty of Life Sciences have found that certain fungi can degrade the plastic in soil. Furthermore the rate of degradation increases when the volume of these fungi is increased or nutrients are added to the soil to boost the fungi’s activity.

They are now carrying out further studies to make sure the degradation of polyurethanes does not adversely affect the composting process or its products.

Dr Robson, whose Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) funded study is published in the Applied and Environmental Microbiology, said: “This is a significant finding. Polyurethanes are used to make many, many products and can take up a large amount of volume in landfill sites, which are rapidly running out of space. This makes it a major environmental pollutant.

“This study opens the possibility that fungi could be used to degrade these materials instead of dumping them into landfill sites.”

The team placed polyurethane pieces in soil containing fungi and bacteria. As the polyurethane, which is made from petroleum, degraded, the number of fungi increased as they digested the byproducts, showing that it was indeed the fungi that were breaking down the plastic.

Dr Robson added: “Fungi which naturally occur in soils have a remarkable capacity to degrade dead plants and animals, playing a pivotal and essential role in nutrient cycling in the environment. This study demonstrates some of these fungi also have the ability to degrade man-made polyurethanes.

“We demonstrated increased degradation of polyurethanes when buried in soil either by enhancing the activity of fungi already present by adding nutrients to the soil or by adding specific fungi to the soil that had previously been isolated from the surface of degrading polyurethane.”

The team is now investigating how best to apply their findings to polyurethane waste management. One possible method would be to spray fungi onto the polyurethane but another method would be to compost polyurethane along with other compostable materials – using already existing facilities.

Dr Robson, a biochemist and plant biologist who has studied fungi for many years, said: “Fungi are the classic underdogs. If we didn’t have fungi, we wouldn’t be here – we would be buried under mountains of stuff that they break down for us. They are also a treasure chest of pharmaceutical products, producing not just penicillin but also other antibiotics and immunosuppressant drugs. They are used to make arachadonic acid, the fatty acid essential for brain development in babies and used in baby milk formula, and their enzymes are used to turn milk into cheese, make bread dough rise better, clean our clothes in detergents and make fruit juice amongst many, many other applications.

“There is very little research on fungi compared to other microorganisms and only a fraction of them are actually known – around 20% have been identified.

“This latest finding just shows what amazing organisms they are.”

Notes for editors

The paper ‘Effect of Biostimulation and Bioaugmentation on Degradation of Polyurethane Buried in Soil’, in Applied and Environmental Microbiology, is available.

For more information, a copy of the paper or an interview with Dr Geoff Robson contact Media Relations Officer Mikaela Sitford on 0161 275 2111, 07768 980942 or Mikaela.Sitford@manchester.ac.uk.

via Your old sofa – and much more – could be composted, say scientists (The University of Manchester).

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
© 2011 Permaculture Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha
Powered by WordPress Lab