Category Archives: Environmental News

Are Reusable Bags a Bad Idea After All?

I’ve seen a few stories on the news lately about many types of reusable bags having a high lead content. This is an issue because the lead can rub off and contaminate your food. Not immediately, as the bags tested used materials that would not leech lead too easily. But as it wears down, maybe a problem.

Does this mean buying reusable bags is a bad idea?

Not in my book. What it means is that you need to think about the type of reusable bags you get. The cheapies from the grocery store are likely not such a good idea.

Not that I’ve generally liked the cheap reusables anyhow. From what I’ve read, they don’t last well anyhow. I prefer to buy things that last. Better to buy once than over and over.

I love my cotton bag, for example. It’s sturdy, and even if it develops a hole or tear, odds are good that I can patch it. I have no worries about lead with it. I don’t have to worry that in the someday future that it needs to be disposed of, that it will leech horrid nasties into the landfill. Cotton bags are also more easily washable, which is great for getting rid of germs.

Of course, it also pays to remember that the media can hype these things up quite a bit. If you’re worried about lead getting onto your food from your reusable bags, make sure you rinse the food off before eating it. At the very least, you’ll cut it down.

Caps On or Off for Plastic Bottle Recycling?

Even when you try to avoid plastic bottles, most of us end up dealing with them sometimes. If you’re lucky and live in an area with easy recycling, you can toss them into the recycle bin. If you’re really lucky, they take all types of plastic, not just #1 and #2.

There’s one step that confuses a lot of people. It’s whether or not to remove the lid from their plastic containers before recycling. It’s a different type of plastic. Can the lids be recycled too?

That depends on where you live. The Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers says it is more often okay to leave the lids on now, but to check with your local recycler to be certain. Used to be they didn’t want the lids at all, and would toss any bottles with lids rather than take the time to remove the lid. The lids would jam their machinery. Now many of them are willing to deal with the lids. The demand for the type of plastic used in lids has apparently increased over time.

Personally, I don’t like to leave the caps on when I send a bottle for recycling. Not that I have a problem with recycling the lids. It’s just that I think it’s better to let the bottles dry out with the lid off.

You always need to pay attention to the recycling rules in your area. Where I used to live, their flyer only said they too plastics #1 and #2, and only in the shape of a bottle. When my husband talked to some of their representatives at a home expo, he was told they took all types of plastic, including plastic bags.

Where we are now takes plastics #1-7, but absolutely no plastic bags. They provided a great little chart we keep on the fridge that shows what they do and do not accept.

Just as with the rules about plastic caps, the rules for recycling other products can change over time and by where you live. You can’t take the answer from one place and be certain it’s right for another. You have to get answers that are specific to where you’re dealing with the recycling.

Overall, however, I’m just glad to hear that plastic caps can often be recycled. Much as I prefer to avoid using plastic at all, it’s nice to know that when it comes into my life, even that little piece may be able to be recycled. I just have to check the local rules.

Get Out to Vote Today

I’ll be heading out shortly to vote today. I’m in California, and we have some really important issues on the ballot to deal with… most to say “no” to.

Prop 23 is an easy no. It suspends recent environmental policies until California’s unemployment rate remains under 5% for a given length of time, a year as I recall. Only thing is that even in good times, our unemployment rate is rarely that low. It’s funded by oil companies. One guess why they want Prop 23 to pass!

Prop 26 is another easy no. They’re trying to claim it’s about taxes, but it’s really about fining companies who pollute, to make them pay for cleaning up their own messes, or rather an attempt to allow companies to avoid those fines.

Prop 19’s an interesting one. I’m for marijuana legalization, even though I’d never use it. I don’t smoke or drink either. What I’m not certain of is that this one is the right way to go about it. It looks like the rules could get a little convoluted with all the regions able to set their own policies. If it fails, I want it to be a close thing, and for a better version to be on next year’s ballot.

Then there are the politicians running for office. On the big races, none of them make me happy, but I’m going Democratic because they make me less unhappy than their Republican opponents. Sometimes that’s what it comes down to.

The Need for Clean Water – Blog Action Day 2010

This year’s Blog Action Day’s subject is water. Specifically, the need for more clean water around the world.

As a southern Californian, I have a lot of sympathy for those who don’t have water, even though we have plenty of water for our needs. We grumble about lawn watering rationing here, but that’s nothing compared to the desperate shortage of water others live with every day of their lives.

About one billion people on this planet don’t have access to safe, clean water. This results in 80% of diseases and kills more people weekly than war. This is hard to imagine, coming from a place where scarce water means to most people that their lawn turns brown – the horrors! But a lack of water is a harsh reality elsewhere.

A lack of water is a major contributor to poverty. You can’t do much if you don’t have water. You have to spend hours collecting water, and hope it doesn’t make you sick. The lack makes basic sanitation difficult.

Just think of all that water is necessary for on a daily basis. Drinking, growing food, sanitation, bathing. If you lack water, you have to prioritize which of these you can do when you get water, sometimes after walking miles to retrieve it.

There’s a question now about if access to water should be a basic human right. The UN says yes. Putting that into action and finding ways to supply water to those who don’t have it is going to be quite a challenge. It’s not a situation that can be fixed quickly, resolution or no. It’s going to take time and money to fix it. The problem has at least been recognized, and that’s the first step.

Those of us who have more access can help. First and foremost, look into charities and other organizations that are making water more accessible to communities that need it.

Also look at your own lifestyle. Water supplies are almost shamelessly wasted and polluted in many areas. That needs to change, for out own good as well as the good of others.

That means rethink your lawn. Is it the best choice and is it the right type of grass for your area? Are you using chemical fertilizers on it that wash off and end up in creeks and rivers?

Where does your water come from? Is the supply good now? Is it being overused to where there won’t be water available from that source in the future? Aquifers do dry up, as do other sources of water, when they’re overused. There are places in the United States where it’s not at all clear that water will continue to be readily available.

FTC Changing the Rules on Green Marketing

Greenwashing is a constant problem when you go shopping for eco friendly products. So many product claims have no legal definition. Fortunately, the FTC is in the process of changing that. They’ve proposed revisions to their “Green Guides” that help marketers avoid making misleading environmental claims.

Can I say about time?!

These guidelines haven’t been updated since 1998. A lot has changed since then in the marketing of eco friendly products.

There’s a comment period open until December 10, 2010, after which the FTC will make the final decision.

So what are the changes proposed?

The revised Guides caution marketers not to make blanket, general claims that a product is “environmentally friendly” or “eco-friendly” because the FTC’s consumer perception study confirms that such claims are likely to suggest that the product has specific and far-reaching environmental benefits. Very few products, if any, have all the attributes consumers seem to perceive from such claims, making these claims nearly impossible to substantiate.

The proposed Guides also caution marketers not to use unqualified certifications or seals of approval – those that do not specify the basis for the certification. The Guides more prominently state that unqualified product certifications and seals of approval likely constitute general environmental benefit claims, and they advise marketers that the qualifications they apply to certifications or seals should be clear, prominent, and specific.

Next, the proposed revised Guides advise marketers how consumers are likely to understand certain environmental claims, including that a product is degradable, compostable, or “free of” a particular substance. For example, if a marketer claims that a product that is thrown in the trash is “degradable,” it should decompose in a “reasonably short period of time” – no more than one year.

They’re looking for comments on any of the changes, so if you have thoughts, now is the time to share them.

These changes won’t cover everything. That’s really not a surprise. It’s hard to come up with a good definition for “natural” for example, that could never be used in a misleading way, as it so often is now. I expect that it’s going to continue to be wildly abused since it’s not going to be regulated. Such an easy claim to make, too.

The rules in general may not be terribly specific, but environmental claims are hard to define in general. Hopefully these new guidelines will encourage more use of concrete evidence of claims made. In other industries such as weight loss, claims must be proven, but that’s more difficult  when it comes to the environment and we don’t always know the full impact of what we’re doing.

These guidelines aren’t law, but they do give the FTC a basis for declaring claims to be deceptive or unfair. They can order companies to cease and desist making claims that aren’t reasonable to make, or fine them if they violate the cease and desist. It’s not perfect, but it’s a step in the right direction.

But it’s still going to be up to consumers to pay attention and spot the greenwashing claims. These new guidelines should help, but they aren’t going to solve the problem.