Recently, we saw the Plastiki – a sailboat made out of 12,500 plastic bottles – complete its 15,000 km journey from San Francisco to Sydney. The publicity surrounding this event has been used to highlight the perils facing the oceans and one of them is plastic waste.

Recently, we saw the Plastiki – a sailboat made out of 12,500 plastic bottles – complete its 15,000 km journey from San Francisco to Sydney. The publicity surrounding this event has been used to highlight the perils facing the oceans and one of them is plastic waste.

A big mess in the oceans
According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), over 13,000 pieces of plastic litter the surface of each square kilometre of ocean.

Charles Moore, the scientist credited for discovering the Pacific Garbage Patch said earlier this year: “Humanity’s plastic footprint is probably more dangerous than its carbon footprint.”

We’ve heard of the Pacific Garbage Patch, now scientists are warning that a floating mass of scattered refuse extends over thousands of square miles in the remote Atlantic.

Marine life – the victims of our plastic pollution
The NOAA estimates 100,000 turtles and marine mammals are killed by garbage every year. Turtles are particularly vulnerable as they cannot distinguish between jellyfish (their staple feed) and plastic.

Plastic pollution is also a hazard to human safety. Waste can clog up waterways and this can have catastrophic consequences. Plastics were identified as a major contributor to severe flooding in Bangladesh in the late 1990s and in the aftermath, a total ban was imposed on plastic bags.

An expensive mess
Plastic waste is expensive. Plastic products may be cheap to produce – just pennies for a typical shopping bag – but their cleanup (not to mention their effects on human and environmental health) can cost a lot more.

Is biodegradable plastic the solution?

It’s worth bearing in mind how plastics are made. They are petroleum products made from a non-renewable source and dependency on oil is continued with plastic use. Plastics do not break down easily. The time required for a typical plastic bag to decompose is believed to range from 20 to 1,000 years.

Biodegradable plastics have been around for over twenty years. These are made using products such as corn, hemp and soy. While this is not a solution to the plastic waste problem (because biodegradable plastics can also have an environmental impact), it is a serious consideration within the wider scheme of waste management.

Reduce, reuse, recycle
The fact of the matter is, if you use it, it has to end up somewhere. Only by following the three Rs motto, can the plastic problem be dealt with.

Using less plastic
The simple solution is to not create the waste in the first place.

Is that bottle of soda or water really necessary? Less than 20 per cent of plastic water bottles are recycled. We also have to ask ourselves if we really need those extra household items that won’t be in use for long and will create more waste.

Recycling is everyone’s responsibility
It is estimated that between 3 and 6 per cent of plastics are recycled around the world. There is need for improvement. The mindset has to change from “disposable” to RECYCLABLE.

Companies who have taken initiatives to make their products more recyclable are seeing rewards. At the government level, those municipalities and local governments that have incorporated recycling into their waste management schemes are dealing with significantly less waste going to the landfills.

Consumers have to play their part by making a greater effort to recycle. Too many recyclable items are still going to the landfills.

Dispose properly
We shouldn’t forget this important aspect. Carelessly tossed waste is more likely to end up in the waterways than if it was placed in a disposal unit. 80 per cent of ocean plastics come from land.

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lou_Kawakami

Last week President Obama and his administration outlined changes that would greatly alter the fuel economy and emissions standards of the auto industry. Not only would these changes reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions emitted into the air by cars, but they would also save the average car buyer thousands of dollars in fuel.

So far both environmental organizations and lobby groups seem to be on board for the car fuel economy changes.

Last week President Obama and his administration outlined changes that would greatly alter the fuel economy and emissions standards of the auto industry. Not only would these changes reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions emitted into the air by cars, but they would also save the average car buyer thousands of dollars in fuel.

So far both environmental organizations and lobby groups seem to be on board for the car fuel economy changes.

The best fuel economy standards?

So, what makes the 1,200 page fuel economy and emissions standards document so great for everyone? Besides completely altering the current rules of the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency, these rules will also:

• Push for a 5% increase in fuel economy standards per year from 2011 to 2016
• Increase  automobile fuel standards from 27.3 mpg in 2011 up to 35.5 mpg in 2016
• Ensure that cars with model year 2016 would have to meet an average limit of 250 grams of carbon emitted per mile driven

These are all great changes that could help everyone reduce their carbon footprint. The government even says that these would:

• Save car buyers $3,000 in fuel costs over the life of a vehicle
• Reduce CO2 emissions about 950 million metric tons
• Greatly reduce US dependence on foreign oil by about 1.8 billion barrels

Overall, this sounds like a great green initiative, and we hope that it will help us reach the best fuel economy standards in a reasonable amount of time.

What do you think? Are these goals within reach?

Source: Matter Network

From 1998 to 2005 scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey, an organization whose mission is to provide scientific information to describe the earth, studied over 1000 fish from 291 streams across the nation, and what they found in regards to high mercury levels was pretty astounding.

Every fish that was sampled had some of the toxic mercury substance in it, and that raises concern over the rising amount of pollution in water across the country.

From 1998 to 2005 scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey, an organization whose mission is to provide scientific information to describe the earth, studied over 1000 fish from 291 streams across the nation, and what they found in regards to high mercury levels was pretty astounding.

Every fish that was sampled had some of the toxic mercury substance in it, and that raises concern over the rising amount of pollution in water across the country.

Mercury Health Hazards

In a previous blog post we wrote about The Hazards of Eating Sushi. One of the most dangerous elements of eating sushi is the amount of mercury that can be found in it, and that means all types of fish are susceptible to the hazardous element, which is known to damage the central nervous system and cause birth defects in children.

So, what is the cause of this type of water pollution? Mercury is usually emitted by coal-fired power plants or smokestacks that release this toxic element into surrounding lakes and streams. The spreading of the mercury in the water makes it impossible for the fish to avoid.

Highest Level Mercury Areas

Here are some states that had the highest level of mercury found in the fish:

• North Carolina
• South Carolina
• Georgia
• Florida
• Louisiana

As far as the western states go, high levels of mercury pollution in the water were found in Dayton, Nevada.

With these findings almost all of the U.S. states, except Alaska and Wyoming, have enacted fish-consumption warnings to advise people about the hazards of mercury. Mercury is a hazardous water pollution problem, so by bringing attention to it we hope that the U.S. Geological Survey will inspire all U.S. states to find a way to clean up their streams and waterways.

Source: Yahoo! News

Along with the U.S., China is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. In 2006 the World Bank, which offers financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the world, declared that 16 out of 20 of the world’s most polluted cities are in China.

So last Friday China announced that it is considering collecting environmental taxes from polluting companies.

Along with the U.S., China is one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the world. In 2006 the World Bank, which offers financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the world, declared that 16 out of 20 of the world’s most polluted cities are in China.

So last Friday China announced that it is considering collecting environmental taxes from polluting companies.

The Chinese government, along with several environmental departments, are working together to see when the conditions will be right to actually impose an environmental tax in China. But it doesn’t look like they will need to search long with information like this:

• Last year the air quality in 2 out of 5 Chinese cities ranted from “polluted” to “hazardous”
• Surface water pollution is still a huge problem
• Coastal water suffers from light pollution
• City air pollution is still hazardous
• Rural environmental problems are increasing

It is obvious that the environment in China is not in good shape, but hopefully with an environmental tax the once flourishing study abroad location can become a healthier place for its residents and for tourists.

Source: Yahoo! News

Want to read other blog posts on China? Check these out:

• Beer Bottles Used in China for Solar Power
• Clean Air for the Olympic Games in China?
• China Bans Retailer Plastic

Using data from river groups, local governments and environmental organizations, American Rivers, the top conservation organization in the U.S. that supports healthy rivers, has determined the 10 most endangered rivers in the nation.

These endangered rivers are not just threatened by water pollution, but also by dams, industries, development, or all three.

Using data from river groups, local governments and environmental organizations, American Rivers, the top conservation organization in the U.S. that supports healthy rivers, has determined the 10 most endangered rivers in the nation.

These endangered rivers are not just threatened by water pollution, but also by dams, industries, development, or all three.

According to the annual endangered rivers report, these 10 rivers are in danger because of decisions that will be made this year. The most endangered American rivers of 2009 are:

• California’s Sacramento-San Joaquin River System
• Georgia’s Flint River
• Idaho, Washington and Oregon’s Snake River
• Maryland’s Mattawoman Creek
• Montana’s North Fork of the Flathead River
• South Carolina’s Saluda River
• Pennsylvania’s Laurel Hill Creek
• Alaska’s Beaver Creek
• Mississippi’s Pascagoula River
• Minnesota and Wisconsin’s Lower St. Croix National Scenic Riverway

If any of these rivers are located near your home, you should definitely do something to bring attention to their conservation.

Want to learn more about the American Rivers organization? Check out this 35^th anniversary video:

Source: CNN

The EPA has been in a lot of trouble this past year, as it has been sued for not regulating greenhouse gas emissions and for violating the Clean Water Act of 1972.

But now the agency is lowering the limit of lead that will be allowed in the air by 90%, all in an effort to protect children from health risks of airborne lead…

The EPA has been in a lot of trouble this past year, as it has been sued for not regulating greenhouse gas emissions and for violating the Clean Water Act of 1972.

But now the agency is lowering the limit of lead that will be allowed in the air by 90%, all in an effort to protect children from health risks of airborne lead.

Will it work?

So how does the EPA plan to enforce this huge initiative?

By October 2011, if any designated ‘lead’ areas fail to meet the new standards, then state and local governments will become involved in reducing the emissions.

The main focus will be put on huge lead manufacturers like metal mines and waste incinerators.

We’ve all heard promises from the EPA before, so we can only hope that this one will actually happen. It could be a huge factor in reducing pollution and saving our health.

Five environmental groups in Florida, the Florida Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, the Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida and the St. Johns Riverkeeper, sued the EPA last Thursday because they say the federal government has violated the Clean Water Act of 1972.

These groups claim that farm and urban runoff, such as animal waste and fertilizers, are polluting Florida’s waterways…

Five environmental groups in Florida, the Florida Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, the Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida and the St. Johns Riverkeeper, sued the EPA last Thursday because they say the federal government has violated the Clean Water Act of 1972.

These groups claim that farm and urban runoff, such as animal waste and fertilizers, are polluting Florida’s waterways. This runoff is also fueling algae bloom growth in the water, which absorbs a majority of the oxygen in the surrounding ecosystems and kills the wildlife.

The Lawsuit

The lawsuit is directed towards Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection, which recognized in 1998 that ‘nutrient pollution is the leading cause of impairment in lakes and coastal waterways.’

But even though this was noted by the Florida EPA, nothing has been done to stop it. The waterways are still polluted, especially the Chesapeake Bay, which has been harboring toxic algae blooms for years.

Here’s the entire story.

It seems like a lot of people are suing the EPA nowadays. We wrote a blog a few months ago about how 18 states are suing the EPA for not regulating greenhouse gas emissions properly.

What does this say about the performance of the EPA? It’s true that they have a very hard job, but if they keep making broken promises, eventually no one will have faith in what they stand for.

There are over 10,000 different kinds of plastic throughout the world, but only 5% of that plastic is recycled. The plastic that isn’t recycled is then thrown into our overcrowded landfills, where it can take up to 700 years to decompose and break down.

So besides giving your plastic to a recycling center or to a company like TerraCycle, you can prevent land pollution by reusing your bottles in creative and fun ways…

There are over 10,000 different kinds of plastic throughout the world, but only 5% of that plastic is recycled. The plastic that isn’t recycled is then thrown into our overcrowded landfills, where it can take up to 700 years to decompose and break down.

So besides giving your plastic to a recycling center or to a company like TerraCycle, you can prevent land pollution by reusing your bottles in creative and fun ways.

I Bet You Never Thought of’

There are literally hundreds of different ways you can reuse a plastic soda bottle. Just remember to thoroughly wash the bottle of all its liquid so you won’t contaminate whatever you put inside.

Here are 10 ways you can reuse a plastic soda bottle:

1. Potpourri Holder ‘ Cut out the bottom of the bottle, put in the potpourri and cover the opening with lace and ribbon.
2. Piggy Bank ‘ We all the value of a dollar, so saving every single penny counts. Cut a slit in the bottle and drop in your coins, but don’t open it and take it to a Coinstar facility until it’s full.
3. Coffee Maker ‘ Cut the bottle into two pieces. Turn the top upside down so it is a funnel. Hold the funnel in place, and then place a coffee filter inside. Put ground coffee on the filter and pour hot water over the filter. It’s the cheapest coffee maker you’ll ever find!
4. Motion Ocean Bottle ‘ If you’re the creative type, then you can fill the bottle with half water/half oil. Add some food coloring, glitter and anything else shiny that is small enough to fit, and be amazed at how cool it can look.
5. Planter ‘ Just cut out the bottom, add some soil and your favorite plant, and you have an eco-friendly plastic pot.
6. Ready-to-Use Ice Packs ‘ Fill the bottle about 2/3 full and freeze. You can use it to heal a sore ankle after a run in the park, or fill it up with a warm drink so it can be cold in a few minutes.
7. Flying Insect Trap ‘ Cut the top off the bottle and turn it upside down as a funnel. Tape the funnel in place and add some soda, orange juice or other sweet liquid. Any pesky flies or other flying insects will be able to get in, but since they can’t fly upward, they will be trapped inside the bottle.
8. Candle Holders ‘ If you have some long candlesticks and want to prepare a nice, cheap romantic dinner for you and your significant other, cut the top of the soda bottles off, sit them on the table with the funnel-side upward and insert the candles into the holes. Very useful and practical. http://www.designboom.com/eng/education/plasticbottle.html
9. Plastic Bottle Trellis ‘ Found the directions for this on DIYNetwork.com.
10. Paint Trays ‘ Cut out the bottom of the bottle and use it as a paint tray. It’s easy to wash and convenient to carry.

These are only a few ways that you can reuse plastic soda bottles instead of just throwing them away.

Don’t forget that you can incorporate your aluminum cans, old CDs and even bottle caps into your green works of art.

According to the EPA, Americans discard about 2 million pounds of electronic waste (e-waste) every year, but that’s nothing compared to the 50 million pounds that are produced by the entire world.

To battle the e-waste problem, the U.S. Postal Service is working with recycling company Clover Technologies Group to develop a free national collection program for small electronics…

According to the EPA, Americans discard about 2 million pounds of electronic waste (e-waste) every year, but that’s nothing compared to the 50 million pounds that are produced by the entire world.

To battle the e-waste problem, the U.S. Postal Service is working with recycling company Clover Technologies Group to develop a free national collection program for small electronics.

The Program

This would be the first ever national electronics recycling program in America.

The program would provide pre-paid envelopes to people to send in their unwanted electronics, like cell phones and cameras. Then Clover Technologies would refurbish and resell them.

If the program works, it would dramatically cut down or even discontinue our shipping of e-waste to developing countries.

Apparently the e-waste that is shipped to developing countries is either stripped for parts and then dumped into the ocean, or it is burned as fuel, emitting hazardous toxins into the air.

You can read the entire article here.

Not only would the program reduce U.S. shipping prices and encourage people to recycle, but it would also reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions around the world.

Right now the program is on trial in Chicago and Los Angeles, collecting only certain electronic devices. If it works, it will hopefully spread to other cities.

Let’s cross our fingers.

I search through various news sources every day to bring readers the latest news pertaining to the environment. And as much as I try to be unbiased or non-judgmental, I just couldn’t believe it when I saw the Yahoo! News headline ‘Environmentally Friendly Bombs Planned.’

After the initial shock of the headline, I decided to read the article first to try and understand the sense in using eco-friendly bombs that would destroy things over toxic bombs that would destroy things…

I search through various news sources every day to bring readers the latest news pertaining to the environment. And as much as I try to be unbiased or non-judgmental, I just couldn’t believe it when I saw the Yahoo! News headline ‘Environmentally Friendly Bombs Planned.’

After the initial shock of the headline, I decided to read the article first to try and understand the sense in using eco-friendly bombs that would destroy things over toxic bombs that would destroy things.

Here’s a summary of the article:

Scientists in Germany have discovered a more environmentally friendly alternative to the regular materials that are used in explosives.

Instead of using TNT, RDX and other common explosives that contain carbon, they decided to use a safer class of materials called tetrazoles, which contain nitrogen.

The results of the ‘safer’ explosions were less toxicity and pollution in the environment. And by mixing the two tetrazoles known as HBT and G2ZT with oxidizers, the bombs also avoided releasing hydrogen cyanide gas, which regular bombs usually emit after exploding.

Quoted German researcher Thomas Klapötke, ‘These compounds have great potential, especially for large caliber naval and tank guns.”

You can read the entire article here.

I’m hoping that I’m not the only one who finds this ‘discovery’ quite disturbing.

Instead of writing out my opinion (which would be long), I came up with a few questions for these scientists to think about:

• Maybe it’s just me, but regardless of what materials are in the bombs, when they explode, don’t they all destroy the environment and whatever else happens to be around? Is that safer?
• Does it really matter if hydrogen cyanide gas is released after the explosion if there is nothing alive to be subjected to those fumes?
• Nitrogen can cause asphyxiation, it can severely damage your mental judgment and liquid nitrogen can cause frostbite. Is it really that much safer than carbon?
• If you want to shoot eco-friendly explosives out of naval and tank guns, why don’t you just fill the guns with fruit? The sheer speed of the flying fruit would surely create an explosion upon impact, and the seeds would even replant themselves in the freshly exposed holes in the ground.

Okay, the last one was kind of sarcastic, but I personally think that every kind of explosive is dangerous. It seems silly to me to try and put a ‘green badge’ on something that is only used to de-green the planet.

But I still have faith in the advancement of technology. Maybe one day people will build zero emissions electric Hummers that will be used to transport food to impoverished third-world countries.