Since yesterday was Earth Day and I figure a lot of trash got picked up around the world (at least I hope!), and I don’t have a lot of time to write (Mom has been in town visiting, flying home today), here are some facts about the litter that we see laying on the side of the road and riverbanks most of us don’t think too much about. From American Rivers:

Percentages and Types of Litter Found Outdoors:

• Fast food waste (33%)
• Paper (29%)
• Aluminum (28%)
• Glass (6%)
• Plastic (2%)
• Other (2%)

How Long Litter Lasts In The Wild:

• Orange peel (2-5 weeks)
• Paper bag (1 month)
• Cigarette butt (up to 5 years)
• Leather shoe (45 years)
• Plastic bottle (430 years)
• Aluminum can (200-500 years)
• Disposable diaper (550 years)
• Glass bottle (Approx. 1 million years)
• Styrofoam container (1 million years)

Food for thought, no?

Comments on this post: 4

EarthTalk is a weekly installment from E/The Environmental Magazine.

Dear EarthTalk: I know there’s a big debate now as to why we need bottled water at all, but is anyone addressing the incredible waste of plastic bottles by this industry?

The plastic waste spawned by the recent astronomical growth in the bottled water business is significant. Environmentalists especially decry it because the water from our taps is usually as good as if not better quality than what’s inside the bottle (and indeed sometimes bottled water is just tap water). Further, water bottles are not subject to the bottle bill laws that have kept billions of soda containers—made from the exact same petroleum-derived PET plastic packaging—out of our bursting landfills.

According to the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), a Washington, DC-based non-profit committed to increasing the recycling of beverage containers of all kinds, sales of non-alcohol non-carbonated drinks—bottled water as well as energy and sports drinks—will likely surpass soda sales in the U.S. by 2010. More than seven times as much non-carbonated bottled water is sold annually in the U.S. than just a decade ago.

The fact that more Americans are switching over from unhealthy soda to water is a positive health trend, but reliance on bottled rather than tap water means that the environment is taking a big hit. CRI’s analysis shows that Americans have never recycled as much PET as in recent years. However, the sheer increase in bottled water sales means that even more of the material is going un-recycled than ever before. CRI says that if bottled water were covered under just the 11 state bottle bills currently granting five- to 10-cent refunds on returned soda bottles, the PET wasting rate could drop threefold or more nationally.

Besides being less wasteful, cutting back on the need to manufacture more plastic bottles from non-recycled (virgin) materials would also have a noticeable impact on America’s carbon footprint. CRI estimates that some 18 million barrels of crude oil equivalent were consumed in 2005 to replace the two million tons of PET bottles that were wasted instead of recycled. Some other negative environmental impacts of making more and more PET from virgin petroleum sources include damage to wildlife and marine life, air and water pollution, and greater burdens on already stressed landfills and incinerators.

CRI and others are working to get policymakers at both state and federal levels to mandate increased recycling for water bottles. Oregon is the first state to update its bottle bill—the first in the nation when it was enacted back in 1971—to include a five-cent refund on PET water bottles beginning in January 2009.

And just this past November, Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey introduced a bill on Capitol Hill calling for the creation of a federal bottle bill mandating a five-cent refund on all beverage containers—including water bottles. Entitled The Bottle Recycling Climate Protection Act, the bill is now with the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for review, and may come up for a vote this year.

Environmentalists are not optimistic, however, that such a bill can pass, given how influential the beverage industry is in protecting its interests, which include keeping the base price of its products like bottled water as low as possible, regardless of the availability of an after-purchase refund.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881 USA; submit it at EarthTalk; or e-mail us. Read past columns at our archives.

Comments on this post: 1

EarthTalk is a weekly installment from E/The Environmental Magazine.

Dear EarthTalk: What are the environmental consequences of leather? Are there any good alternatives? — Brianna Jacobs, Somerville, MA

Leather is everywhere—from shoes and belts, to purses, wallets, jackets, furniture and car seats. Most probably assume that the leather that finds its way into our wardrobes and living spaces is a byproduct of the meat industry. But while cows are certainly the most popular animals to use for leather goods, in truth most of our leather is sourced from overseas, from countries like China and India, where a host of animals may be raw material for our bags and belts, including horses, deer, sheep and, in more exotic cases, alligators or snakes. All of which may make an animal-lover or vegetarian queasy.

But environmentalists have reason to forgo leather, too. Processing leather requires copious amounts of energy and a toxic stew of chemicals including formaldehyde, coal tar, and some cyanide containing finishes. The tanning process is just as pollutant-laced, and can leave chemicals in the water supply (as described in the best-selling book and popular movie, A Civil Action) and on the hands (and in the lungs) of developing world workers.

Tanneries are top polluters on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “Superfund” list, which identifies the most critical industrial sites in need of environmental cleanup. Due to their toxicity, reports organicleather.com, “many old tannery sites can’t be used for agriculture, or built on, or even sold.” That website is the home of Mill Valley, California, retailer Organic Leather, which offers a return to the tanning practices of old—using animals that are organically fed and humanely raised and a tanning process that uses plant tannins, vegetable tannins or smoke to cure the leather with zero toxicity in the process.

But with the wealth of fashionable faux leather alternatives, there’s no need to ever wear animal skins. So-called “cruelty-free” fashions have advanced in leaps and bounds, with variations on every style of handbag, wallet, belt and boot. Online “vegan boutique”Alternative Outfitters even has a version of the ubiquitous Ugg boot made with microsuede “shearling” on the outside and synthetic wool inside, while Iowa-based Heartland Products sells western-style non-leather boots and non-leather Birkenstock sandals. Science has come up with plenty of comfortable, durable alternatives to materials made with animal products. These include vegan microfiber, which claims to match leather in strength and durability, and Pleather, Durabuck and NuSuede.

Products made with these synthetic materials tend to be less expensive than their leather counterparts and are being produced by major manufacturers like Nike, whose Durabuck athletic and hiking shoes “will stretch around the foot with the same ‘give’ as leather… and are machine washable,” according to company sources. And you won’t need to adjust your style, either. Vegetarianshoesandbags.com offers everything from purple faux snakeskin peep-toe pumps for hitting the clubs to hemp sneakers with recycled outsoles that look skate park-ready, to distinctive Pleather bags and versatile woven belts.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881 USA; submit it at EarthTalk; or e-mail us. Read past columns at our archives.

Comments on this post: 0

Well I guess I thought we were a pretty clean family for living in Los Angeles…but according to the calculator at Zerofootprint Toronto, my wife and I emit 9.5 tons of CO2 each year. And that’s for two people who live in an apartment, share a Mini, and barely ever eat meat. Now imagine the average family…yikes! I took the “1-minute calculator” test so I am sure that we would score lower if I took the whole test for the 2 of us, but I only had a few minutes. I do plan on going back in and taking the whole thing this weekend, so we shall see if I can get that number down any lower. If you want to give it a shot, check out Zerofootprint Toronto. Thanks for Green Daily for pointing the test out, I love taking these to see how they vary from test to test.

Comments on this post: 0

Reader Vicki sent me a link to the following story from the Honolulu Advertiser, about another city falling prey to industry forces, with politicians afraid of upsetting their big donors:

Bills before the city and state that would ban the use of plastic shopping bags were met with opposition by city administrators and retail industry advocates yesterday, leading lawmakers to defer action on the issue. At a meeting of the Honolulu City Council’s planning and sustainability committee, city Department of Environmental Services Director Eric S. Takamura told council members he sees no litter problem related to plastic bags.

Can you guess who is behind this “opposition”?

Grocery and business groups, including Retail Merchants of Hawai’i and Hawai’i Food Industry Association. And I bet the Grocer’s Union was somehow involved too, just like here in L.A. where they scared the politicians from approving the ban. The saddest (or funniest part, really) of the article is this quote:

“If the bill passes, prices go up, and there is going to be chaos,” Botti said. “They (Mainland retailers) will shut us off. We don’t need it. There are other ways to solve the problem.”

Yes, chaos will ensue if you ban the plastic bag. Just ask San Francisco, or better yet, the entire country of Ireland, about the mad chaos that ensued!

Comments on this post: 4

I had to run out and do some errands late last night and I was amazed that every single office building I drove by had at least 70% of their lights on at 10pm. Why is that? And on top of that, people had even left their monitors on as well, using even more power when no one needs it. Granted, I will give some excuse to a few of them as it is indeed possible that the janitors were inside cleaning up. But I guarantee that even if I had gone back out at 3am most of the lights would still be on. Is there a reason why businesses don’t tell the last employee out to hit the lights?

In the United States alone, businesses lose $5-10 Billion dollars per year on lighting their buildings at night. And for what? So I can look inside and see the diploma from Harvard on the wall? Add the environmental cost of the energy used all night and it all adds up.

So do us all a favor…if you work in an office building, try and turn off your lights in your office or cubicle before you head out for the night. Turn off the monitor and at the bare minimum put your computer to sleep as well. Maybe you can start a trend and get other people to do the same. Personally I kind of think it should be a law or something that businesses must turn their lights off at night unless they can show a good reason not to..like they are a bank or something. But I seriously doubt that the hundreds of companies in the building down the street need anything to be lit up for 12 hours at night.

Really…does anyone know why companies leave the lights on? I heard the rumor that it was so airplanes don’t hit the buildings, but if that is the case, why not just leave the lights at the top on? And why bother having the red blinking antenna on the roof?

Sorry, had to vent. Hope you don’t mind, it’s been bugging me….

Comments on this post: 8