Dumpster diving adventure

A few weeks ago, my daughters (aged 9 and 11) convinced me to go dumpster diving out in the alley behind our house in the City of St. Louis. We've gone dumpster diving a few times over the years. Based on the prior expeditions, my daughters fully expect that if they look through a few dozen dumpsters, they'll find something valuable. You see, this is America, where people through away perfectly usable toys and games, as well as furniture, appliances and clothing. And even when you don't find usable merchandise, you'll see literally tons of single-use paper and plastic being thrown out. When you see the incredible piles of discarded usable things with your own eyes, it is all-the-more astounding. Even more surprising, if you're looking the highest ratio of usable stuff, look in the dumpsters behind apartment-dwellers rather than the dumpsters behind expensive single-family homes. Perhaps it sounds disgusting to go dumpster diving. If so, get over it, because it can be far more than an anthropological field trip--it can be like winning a mini-lottery. My kids and I have found several extremely nice coats, for instance (we washed them and gave them away to friends). We once found a working DVD player. We've taken home shelves and other items of furniture. We've found dozens of toys, which merely need to be cleaned up to become usable. As I'm finding these sorts of things, I keep thinking "Why wouldn't someone take the time to donate this to Good Will of Salvation Army?" When people throw a valuable thing into the landfill, it's gone forever--what were they thinking?yard-waste Here's what we found on our recent expedition. First of all, I must digress. The City of St. Louis provides special separate dumpsters for Yard Waste Only and other dumpsters for general rubbish. On our recent expedition, I looked into 20 of of those yard-waste-only dumpsters. About half of them contained non-yard waste. This astounds me too. Why would someone screw up this incredibly sensible system for recycling vegetation by throwing plastic, food and paper into a yard waste dumpster? And here's a typical example of what you often find in a yard-waste-only dumpster: [caption id="attachment_11660" align="aligncenter" width="300" caption="Contents found in a yard-waste only dumpster"]Contents found in a yard-waste only dumpster[/caption] As I mentioned at the beginning of this post, people throw away massive amounts of single-use paper and plastic. Probably the biggest single category is cardboard pizza boxes. In our one-hour expedition, I probably saw 500 used pizza boxes. pizza-boxesBut we also saw huge amounts of clearly recyclable goods that were not being recycled. Hundreds of glass jars, metal cans and plastics and immense amounts of paper, all of it headed for the landfill. We also saw hundreds of pounds of colorfully-inked food packaging. All of it carefully designed to catch your eye at the store, and then you toss it into the landfill. But, it's not like you really toss it in--instead, a huge fleet of city trucks carts this packaging far away from the city in order to dump it into the landfill. It makes me wonder how many toxic chemicals were released into the environment in order to produce all of this food packaging. recycle-materialWe found several toys and many items of clothing that had been saturated in pasta sauce, meat grease or who-knows what kind of fluid. We decided to keep looking. What my girls ended up taking home for a quick clean-up was a little toy dog that they found inside of a woman's big purse. You'll see his photo below. My girls named him "Oscar" (after Sesame Street's Oscar), and he now lives with us . [caption id="attachment_11661" align="aligncenter" width="450" caption="Oscar"]Oscar[/caption]

Continue ReadingDumpster diving adventure

How much filthy coal did you burn today?

Most people don't think much about how their electricity is produced. It turns out that half of the electricity in the United States is produced by burning coal. Maybe you're thinking "So what?" Here's why you should care. There is no such thing as "clean coal," it is still a fantasy, not a reality. Mining coal releases dangerous amounts of mercury into the human environment, including 48 tons of mercury, "the largest source of man-made mercury pollution in the U.S." Burning coal releases massive amounts of carbon dioxide. Coal is dangerous. And see here. In the United States, we burn a railroad car worth of coal every 3 seconds. This year, your family will burn 1,000 pounds of coal just to run your clothes dryer (yet many communities make it illegal to dry your clothes on a line outside). Each year, a 500 megawatt coal plant burns 1.4 million tons of coal. It also produces:

  • 125,000 tons of ash and 193,000 tons of sludge from the smokestack scrubber. A scrubber uses powdered limestone and water to remove pollution from the plant's exhaust. Instead of going into the air, the pollution goes into a landfill or into products like concrete and drywall. This ash and sludge consists of coal ash, limestone, and many pollutants, such as toxic metals like lead and mercury.
  • 225 pounds of arsenic, 114 pounds of lead, 4 pounds of cadmium, and many other toxic heavy metals. Mercury emissions from coal plants are suspected of contaminating lakes and rivers in northern and northeast states and Canada. In Wisconsin alone, more than 200 lakes and rivers are contaminated with mercury. Health officials warn against eating fish caught in these waters, since mercury can cause birth defects, brain damage and other ailments. Acid rain also causes mercury poisoning by leaching mercury from rocks and making it available in a form that can be taken up by organisms.
  • Tons of hazardous and acidic waste which can contaminate ground water. Strip mining also destroys habitat and can affect water tables.
Again, how much coal did you burn today? If you live in an area where most of the electricity comes from coal, the amount of coal you burn will astound you. Your family burned 30 pounds of coal today. And you'll burn another 30 pounds tomorrow. And the next day.
The average household in the U.S buys, on average, 900 kWh of electricity per month, roughly every 30 days. If we multiply 30 days times 24 hours, we find that there are 720 hours in a month. The average household, therefore, is responsible for consuming 1.25 pounds of coal per hour (900 kWh = 900 pounds divided by 720 hours). (Note: your mileage may vary, as we are assuming an ‘average’ house here. Check your utility bill for the past 12 months for your actual kilowatt-hour usage.) There are 8,760 hours in a year, so if we multiply 1.25 pounds by 8,760, we find that the ‘average’ house using 100% coal-generated electricity is responsible for the burning of 10,950 pounds of coal for the electricity they consume per year. That’s nearly 5.5 tons!
The question, then, is why we don't work harder to be more energy efficient? We could construct buildings that are close to carbon neutral (and see here). We could massively reduce our energy use without reducing our quality of life. Each of us could help in dozens of easy ways. Consider, too, that peak coal is approaching; don't believe the hype that there are many decades of cheap coal left. With all of these problems with coal, why does the U.S. Department of Energy website tout the virtues of coal without disclosing the dangers? Why doesn't the DOE discuss energy conservation as a means of drastically reducing the amount of coal we burn? The logic is indisputable: Those areas of the country that depend heavily on coal could cut the trainloads of coal they burn in half if they cut their use of electricity in half. There are easy ways to cut the our use of energy (and see here). We could live smart, if only we had the will, if only we would take the time to consider that there are far better options. If only we thought about it, we would realize that our energy-wasteful habits are killing American industry. Unfortunately, we live in a country that doesn't know how to stop bad things from happening and to make good things happen. We are squandering our future. It's pathetic for a country that talks such a big game to fail so miserably. Isn't it time to start writing a happier ending to this sad story? Here's how. Talk to your friends and neighbors about the dangers of coal. Take the time to learn more about coal. Read this Sierra Club publication: The Dirty Truth About Coal. And when you're trying to decide who to believe, remember that the Sierra Club isn't trying to make a profit, unlike those who want to burn ever-larger amounts of coal.

Continue ReadingHow much filthy coal did you burn today?

Walking the walk to encourage sustainable living – No Impact Man

I have just finished reading No Impact Man, an inspiring and informative book by Colin Beavan. Beavan was tired of merely preaching to others about how we need to change our ways with regard to sustainable living. The full title to his book is No Impact Man: The Adventures of a GUILTY Liberal Who Attempts to Save the Planet and the Discoveries He Makes About Himself and Our Way of Life in the Process. This book project complements Beavan's video documentary.

I made the mistake of thinking that condemning other people's misdeeds somehow made me virtuous. I become, I realize, a member of that class of liberals who allowed themselves to glide by on way to view political gestures and lifestyle concessions and then spent the rest of their energy feeling superior to other people who supposedly don't do as much.... I'd been complaining to anyone who would listen, telling people that we lived in an emergency. Yet, as much as I complained, I lived and acted as though everything was normal. I just let my usual workaday life. Wake up, take my daughter, Isabella, to the babysitter, spend the day riding, pick her up, watch TV, start all over. I didn't feel I could do anything about world problems. After all, if the government wasn't doing anything, what could I do? Write another history book?

Beavan concluded that his frustration was not only with the world, but it was also a frustration with himself.

I was sick of my comfortable and easy pretension of helplessness." Instead of simply preaching at others, he decided to dedicate a year of his life to "researching, developing, and adopting a way of life for me and my small family... to live in the heart of New York City while causing as little harm to the environment as possible. . . . I was not talking about taking easy environmental half-measures, by the way. I was not talking about just using energy-saving fluorescent light bulbs or being a diligent recycler. My idea was to go as far as possible and try to maintain as close as no net environmental impact as I could. I aimed to go zero carbon--yes--but also a zero waste in the ground, zero pollution in the air, zero resources sucked up from the earth, zero toxins in the water. I didn't just want to have no carbon impact. I wanted to have no environmental impact.

An early stage of his regimen involved taking an inventory of the family's trash, and trying to reduce it to zero by working hard to purchase food without packaging (mostly at the Farmer's market). Along the way, you will be shocked by some of his statistics. Food packaging is 20% of American solid waste. 80% of products are made to be used only once. It takes 70-times the amount of our stuff to make our stuff. As a result, 98.5% of the materials we use go straight to the landfill. Every American disposes of 33-pounds of paper every year and 1,600 pounds of trash every year. Nine football fields of Amazonian trees are cut down every minute, despite the fact that the "forests are the planet lungs." Beavan and his wife, Michelle Conlin (she obviously deserves much of the praise for the project), canceled their newspapers, gave up paper tissue and even gave up toilet paper, this last strategy drawing unrelenting attention to the project when it was reported by the New York Times (but also see here). The family traveled only under its own power, walking and using scooters and bicycles (and even a pedal-rickshaw). They ditched their TV (saving them from watching many of the 2000-5000 advertisements to which each American is exposed to each day). They decided not to take any mass transportation, including flying on airlines, which constitutes "about the most carbon intensive thing you can do." Much of this compelling story involves food choice. Beavan and his wife decided that they would not eat fish, because it has been predicted (page 127) that there will be no more ocean fishing by the year 2048. They gave up meat, since the cattle we raise generate more carbon dioxide than all of our transportation combined. They gave up coffee, at least until they couldn't stand it any longer (the story is one of many experiments, not all of them successful). They gave up many of the "necessities" of live because they, like most of us, live in a vicious cycle:

We work our butts off so we can get the stuff, but the making of the stuff destroys the planet, which makes us more depressed, so we think we need more stuff to cheer us up, so we work even harder.

It repeatedly occurred to me that the anti-consumerism angle of No Impact Man dovetailed well with Geoffrey Miller’s explanation of why we are the way we are. You might think that this was an exercise in asceticism, of deprivation and anti-progress, but many of the changes made by Beavan and Conlin had a dramatic life-enhancing effects. For instance, less TV means more time to do the things that the rest of us claim that we want to do (spend time with our family and friends). Not everything was easy, and, in the end, not everything was workable in the long run. For instance, doing without a washing machine might be fun for a few days, but it's a lot of time-consuming work that simply might not be feasible based on the other things that one needs to do with one’s precious daily hours. For the last five months of the program, the family opened its circuit breakers to live without any electricity coming out of a wall socket, giving up air conditioning and lighting their home with beeswax candles (created through sustainable solar power, unlike petroleum candles) and operating minimal lighting generated from a solar panel and some batteries. Beavan and Colin did many other things that many of us might merely talk about doing. They severely limited their use of water, as well. These strict measures were in reaction to the fact that the average American family uses 70-gallons of water per day, one fourth of that for flushing toilets. Beavan offers some ghastly statistics with regard to many areas of the world running out of water, including several states in the southwestern United States. He points out that our dwindling water supply should terrify all of us because much of our food is grown in these water-scarce areas. Speaking of food, Beavan spends quite a few pages questioning the source of our food supply. The average item of food on the American plate travels 1,500 miles to that plate. He and Conlin drew a much smaller circle for their food: 250 miles. He asks to what extent it could be considered "organic" lettuce when it travels 3,000 miles to Whole Foods. Amen to that. No impact Man is a how-to book published on recycled paper, but it is also a story that involves the social impact of attempting to truly going green rather than merely talking about it or green-washing. Truly being green is not always easy on one’s social life given that we live in a culture where social status is highly correlated with conspicuous consumption, including conspicuous waste. One is not able to get around as well as in a petroleum powered vehicle, and one's relatives in distant cities are not always understanding of one's decision to avoid using modern transportation. Dozens of family anecdotes illustrate the intense discipline necessary to accomplish what the this family did for one year. Beavan is an excellent writer who brings an earnest and often humorous inner story to the urgent need to actually do something about the huge set of environmental problems that seems to have our government permanently stalemated. The how-to aspect of the book is addressed throughout the body of the book, as well as through the detailed Appendix with dozens of suggestions and websites full of good information. As I read this book, I wanted to try out many of the ideas suggested therein. I want to strictly minimize buying food with needless packaging. I will entirely stop using plastic throw-away bags from the supermarket. I want to make increased efforts to avoid burning petroleum, so I will attempt to increase my usage of a bicycle for commuting purposes (I already pedal to my job more days than not). I want to do a lot more about electricity usage than buying high-efficiency light bulbs, but I'd definitely want to keep using high-efficiency light bulbs. My wife and I plan to take an inventory of the trash we throw out (discussed at page 35). I am talking to a teacher at the school attended by my children to see whether the school can make use of Beavan's mini version of a low impact lifestyle lasting one week. The most terrible things in life are often ruthlessly ironic. I've written several recent posts about one of the most important aspects of preserving resources and living sustainably: limiting population growth. No Impact Man does not address this issue head-on, and there are hints that it is simply too hot a topic to address in this particular book, given the struggle between Beavan and Colin as to whether they should add yet another human being to their family, above and beyond the charming young daughter they ready had. This, combined with Colin's miscarriage, a painful episode that was mentioned toward the end of the book. No-Impact Man had the desired effect on me. I did not feel that I was on the receiving end of a preaching. Rather, I wanted to do more by changing my own lifestyle and I want to do less preaching . I want to live more by example than by word and I have a long way to go. I was fascinated with the way that the no-impact strategy vividly brought home the widespread deleterious effects of local actions; I now find myself reexamining many things in my own home in a different. This book reminded me that much of the damage being done to the planet is not intentional. Rather, it results from conduct and omissions committed out of ignorance--I was often reminded of Hannah Arendt's concept of "The Banality of Evil." It is my hope and my faith that if people really knew the extent to which their local actions were crapping up the world, they would modify their ways, at least as long as they felt that it was a group effort. Many of us might try many of Beavan's top ten strategies for sustainable living. No Impact Man reminded me that we can do many things even when our government has been hopelessly paralyzed by corporate campaign contributions. But this story was ultimately bittersweet, because I was also reminded me that we really do need government action to complement our individual actions. Environmentally, we're headed on a sharp downward spiral and well-intentioned actions, even heroic one-year exercises, can't successfully turn this ship around.

Continue ReadingWalking the walk to encourage sustainable living – No Impact Man

Discussing the effect of many people . . .

Since writing a recent post where I joined the tiny chorus of people who are asking why we don't ask whether we have too many people on the planet, I've been noticing quite a few articles in which the authors could have, might have, suggested to some of us that the resource depletion/crowding/degradation/contamination considered in the article had something to do with sheer numbers of people. Here are two examples. The first one is from the May, 2007 edition of National Geographic. It is a story of Mumbai (formerly Bombay) India. More particularly, it is about a slum within Mumbai called Dharavi,

the teeming slum of one million souls, where as many as 18,000 people crowd into a single acre (0.4 hectares). By nightfall, deep inside the maze of lanes too narrow even for the putt-putt of auto rickshaws, the slum is as still as a verdant glade. Once you get accustomed to sharing 300 square feet (28 square meters) of floor with 15 humans and an uncounted number of mice, a strange sense of relaxation sets in—ah, at last a moment to think straight. Dharavi is routinely called "the largest slum in Asia," a dubious attribution sometimes conflated into "the largest slum in the world." This is not true. Mexico City's Neza-Chalco-Itza barrio has four times as many people. In Asia, Karachi's Orangi Township has surpassed Dharavi. Even in Mumbai, where about half of the city's swelling 12 million population lives in what is euphemistically referred to as "informal" housing, other slum pockets rival Dharavi in size and squalor.
The other article is actually part of a "Special Advertising Section" promoting the newest Ken Burns documentary featuring America's National Parks. I found this article in the September 2009 edition of Harper's Magazine. It was written by Robert F. Kennedy, who reminisced that his dad took him to the Grand Canyon in 1967. Based on his 2006 return trip to the Grand Canyon, things have changed dramatically:
Today, National Park Service employees are kept busy policing small infractions while our political leaders forced them to turn a blind eye to major abuses by powerful private interests. In 2006, I returned to paddle the Grand Canyon with my daughter, Kick. I was sad to see that the beaches where I camped with my father were gone; the sands that fed them are now trapped above the Grand Canyon Dam. The river itself, once a dynamic and specialized ecosystem, has been transformed into a plumbing conduit between the two largest reservoirs in the United States. The water, which should be warm and muddy, is clear and the frigid 46 degrees. Four of the eight native fish species are extinct, and the canyons of beaver, otter, and muskrat populations have disappeared. The reservoirs themselves are emptying to quench reckless developers and big agriculture, and the Colorado no longer makes it to the sea or feeds the great estuaries in the Gulf of California that once teamed with life. Instead, it dies ignominiously in the Sonoran Desert.
Kennedy never mentions that these "powerful private interests" are driven by the needs of large numbers of people to have direct or indirect access to water, admittedly oftentimes in wasteful amounts. Neither of these articles address overpopulation by name, and this is typical of most article that comment on stressed resources. People who dare to bring up this topic of overpopulation get crucified from all angles of the political spectrum. To mention this word suggests that we need to actually consider whether we have too many people on the planet, and that raises the specter of admittedly terrible actions that have been taken to limit population in the past. To avoid this criticism, though, it's only a rare writer that will dare to mention that we need to consider this issue. In my opinion, we need to consider the possibility of overpopulation and its effect on every square mile of land on the surface of the earth, from Antarctica, to Florida, to Great Britain, to Indonesia. If our goal has been to wipe out most of the biodiversity of this planet by shoving once-common plants and animals off of their native habitats with ever more humans, we are doing a great job of it. If we don't consider this issue, we will never able to deal with it. The current situation reminds me of many of the characters in the Harry Potter movies, who dare not refer to the character Voldemort by name. To mention that name would mean that they would have to risk dealing with the problem. Whenever we think about buying or renting a house, we consider the capacity of that living space. How many people will it comfortably hold? We consider the same things when buying a car. How many people can safely use this vehicle at one time? I think it's time that we consider the same basic question with regard to the entire planet. It is time to consider this issue to cause it's already difficult to think of a basic natural resource that has not been degraded, depleted, contaminated or put at risk. If it's not pressures put on these resources by increasing numbers of humans, it's hard to think of what the cause might be. And for those who insist that it's only our unsustainable lifestyles that are the problem, we are well past the point of making that argument. It is only thanks to our unsustainable use of water, fertilizers and fuel that have allowed the population to get to this point where humans fill every nook and cranny of the planet. For more information on this topic, see this prior DI post and the website of the Global Population Speak Out.

Continue ReadingDiscussing the effect of many people . . .