ShadesofGreen's Blog

I’m not like the grumpy old man down the street who would chase kids down when their baseballs landed in his perimeter. But there is something that makes me grumpy as an environmentalist: cigarette remains.

For the most part, it is socially unacceptable to toss certain items out the window as you cruise down the highway, like McDonald’s bags, empty Starbucks cups or the entire week’s trash collection. Why, then, am I under attack of the cigarette butts every time I switch into a new lane? Isn’t this littering just the same?

I’ve never smoked a cigarette before, but research tells me that cigarette filters are composed of cellulose acetate, which is a form of plastic. This plastic can persist in the environment just as long as many other forms of plastic do. To paint a prettier picture, plastic bags take 10 to 20 years to degrade and plastic 6-pack holders and plastic bottles can thrive in our environment much longer than we human beings can. 

These cigarette butts make our sidewalks, parks and beaches ugly, but what they do to our environment is even uglier. Trillions of cigarettes are littered every single day across the world, making them the most commonly littered item in America. It makes sense. Just look around and you’ll see them everywhere. They have been found in the stomachs of birds and various marine life. Young children often ingest them while playing in the sand at parks, and the toxins can make them sick. The National Fire Protection Association finds that cigarette-caused fires result in more than 1,000 civilian deaths, 3,000 critical injuries and $400 million in direct property damage each year. Our health and safety are not the only costs in which cigarette litter contributes. MoDOT spends more than $5 million annually just to pick up litter.

Some argue that the development of indoor smoking bans has contributed to cigarette littering. The smoking ban is not an excuse. Here in Columbia, we have an ordinance that states that dog waste is not permitted to be left on any public or private property. Rover has to do his business outside, and we pick it up. Smokers have to smoke outside, and they can responsibly place their cigarette butts where they belong in an ashtray. The butts and the poop go hand in hand. Just a thought.

-Lesley

Clearly, Lesley's post questioning the effect of the new president on the environment sparked much debate and conversation: exactly what we are looking for.

As a group, the three of us have had discussions on where we think the "Green" future is going, and we honestly aren't sure.  Something needs to be done, and whether or not you think Global Warming is a hoax, I believe we can all agree on that.

Gas is $1.89 in Columbia as of last night.  I heard a friend say as we drove by a station, "Huh, I guess our environment is horrible after all." I quickly reassured him that low gas prices really does not have a direct effect on the environment, and that we still have a long, long road ahead.

Where should that road lead? Who should be traveling with us?

Even my conservative ideals tell me that Al Gore needs to be somewhere in President Obama's cabinet.  I may not agree with him on certain issues, but that man cares about our environment.  His entire cause now (after vice presidency and other political ventures) is in "saving our planet."  His Web site alone is a discussion for what's next in our nation.

The Climate Project is an organization based in Tennessee that was created to spread awareness of the increasingly worse global warming crisis.  Al Gore backs and trains members of the organization.

Live Earth uses entertainment to spread the word and attempt to create a global movement of citizens wanting to make the impact we leave on the environment a positive one.  Al Gore is a partner of this organization.

These are just two examples of Gore's work in the arena of "Going Green."  He has ideas to further, and a spot on Obama's cabinet, or at the very least in partnership with Obama, would help the conversation become forefront in our nation.

Barack Obama has been elected the 44th President of the United States of America. You’re either dancing in the streets and making excessive use of the word ‘change,’ or moping around with your arms crossed, muttering phrases about socialism and guns. But what does Obama’s historical victory mean for what we like to talk about most on our blog: the environment.

 

Among Obama’s energy and environmental goals: get one million plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015, ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025, implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050, and eliminate foreign dependency on oil within the next 10 years. It’s clear that Obama recognizes that environmental change cannot happen overnight, but do you think these goals are realistic? Do you expect these changes will happen? Is Obama’s plan better than what McCain was proposing?

 

Also, to those of you who voted with the environment in mind – a pretend green star to you.

 

Lesley

 

 

...is voting tomorrow.  Our Blog has been preaching for the past several weeks about saving our planet.  Well, tonight, we want to change our focus to saving our nation.  The way to do that is to vote.

In all honesty, we don't mind who you vote for.  Both Obama and McCain realize that our earth's valuable resources are being depleted, and both have various ways of counteracting that.   The environment is very important to us as a generation dealing with the "non-environmentally friendly" decisions of the past.  In the coming months, our new leader will make decisions helping to change the decisions into good.  Wouldn't you like to see your candidate of choice voted in to make those decisions?

Do you still not know who to vote for? Is that what's holding you back?  Take a few minutes and just surf the candidates' Web sites.  Better yet, read other blogs in the MyFox political tab.  There are hundreds of others with opinions and facts to help guide you in this process.

http://www.johnmccain.com/

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

You may not take us seriously since we are beginning to sound like a broken record about voting, but this is your right.  And, whether you agree with our ideas of off-shore drilling, or if you think global warming is a hoax, you don't have an excuse not to vote.  

Plus, if you don't vote tomorrow, you can't complain on Wednesday when the results are in.

 - Missy

So I was flipping through the latest "TIME" magazine the other day and found something interesting. In "TIME's Best Inventions of 2008," invention number nineteen is Montreal's public bike system. The bike-rack stations are evidently Web-enabled and solar powered and are easily trackable.

I believe Europe has been doing this for awhile. What a great idea that would be if we brought it here. Here in Columbia, MO, there are several people who ride bikes everywhere they go. I ride to class and to my boyfriends house. But there are several people I know who do not own a bike or are saving up for one. What a great opportunity it would be for the city of Columbia. (Other cities would have great opportunities as well. I just bring up Columbia because we're very bike friendly here. Friendlier then Kansas City, where I'm originally from.) It could work just like a parking meter, put a couple quarters in and use the bike for a couple hours.

Ah, well, if only. Maybe one day.

Here is the article if anyone's interested: http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28
804,1852747_1854195_1854146,00.html

Or just type "public bike system" into Google and the first few hits are about this.

-- Lauren

I think we’re forgetting two important steps.  What happened to reduce and reuse?

I was talking with my self-proclaimed “hippie” friend Sarah the other day about this blog and my class with Professor Bentley, and she kind of harped on me.  “You know, if we reduced our product intake and reused many of the things we’re throwing away, there would be no need for recycling.”

Sarah has a point.

If I used real silverware in my dorm room rather than plastic spoons, I wouldn’t throw anything away.  If exercisers would invest in permanent water bottles, countless of disposable water bottles would not get thrown away.  There are so many things we can reduce in our lives, recycling could actually go down.

My Mom frequently reuses wrapping paper sheets and bows.  That may be a little strange, but it saves money and trees.  So, what kinds of things in your life can you reuse or reduce your consumption of?

Since it’s so close to election time. What about the use of electronic ballots?  I realize they are mostly being used for speed and accuracy, but it’s saving trees as well.  Should all voting spots be electronic for the simple fact that it’s environmentally friendly?

 - Missy

Why can’t we be more like Ireland? In 2002, Ireland passed a plastic bag tax for 22 Euro cents (about 33 U.S. cents, according to an article in the International Herald Tribune, http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/31/europe/bags.php)
that you would pay at the register if you wanted a plastic bag. Weeks later, plastic bag use dropped 94%, according to this article. Plastic bags are sociably unacceptable in Ireland. Why can’t we be like that?

Why, when I go grocery shopping or clothes shopping or to Walmart or even get something from work, am I faced with so many plastic bags? It seems to be ingrained in me, I forget there is the paper option and I ignore the crappy cloth-like bag hanging from that little counter separating me from the cashier. No, I will not buy that black bag with “WALMART” printed on it, I’m going to go get something more fashionable. A fashionable cloth bag I’m going to carry apples, frozen yogurt and tofu in? What is wrong with me? It’s a bag, who cares what it looks like?

My roommate complains to me about forgetting her reusable bags, yet time after time she leaves them sitting in a drawer in our apartment. My father leaves his reusable bags in his car, sitting next to him so he remembers.

Perhaps, if we were to have some sort of tax, we could be like Ireland and nearly eliminate all of those damn plastic bags. I know that if it’s going to cost me money and there’s nothing I can do about it, I’m going to go out and get those reusable bags. Nice plain cloth ones from Hobby Lobby or Michael’s or one of my old purses even.

-- Lauren

Everything has its price. But the value of that price cannot be determined by dollar signs alone.

 

Offshore drilling is a hot issue on the minds of just about every American who pumps their own gas. We consume nearly one-fourth of the world's oil but produce only about 10 percent. Quite a few feel that we should decrease our dependency on foreign oil and start drilling right here at home. Polls upon polls have concluded that more and more Americans support the drilling, including both presidential candidates, mainly in attempt to lower gas prices.

Perhaps the fumes from the pump have gone to our heads.

 

If anything, the price reduction would be slight. The amount of oil that the U.S. would produce would be significantly small – some estimates report that 18 billion barrels of oil can be produced from areas that are off-limits, which would be enough to fuel the country for 2½ years. Also, the oil production would take years. We would be ridiculous to expect extreme relief in gas prices overnight.

 

When and if offshore drilling does benefit us financially, there are other costs we have neglected to note. The possibility of oil spills threatens marine life and our ocean waters. Bringing oil up from beneath the ocean floor also brings chemicals and toxic substances such as mercury and lead that can contaminate the ocean. Simply transporting oil back to shore carries pollution right along with it. The Minerals Management Service says that every three to four years, a spill of at least 10,000 barrels can be expected. So ultimately we would be subtracting oil from our supply and adding it back in as a harmful pollutant.

 

The cost of gas is not the only cost involved in offshore drilling. We would be optimistic to a fault to think that oil companies would sell to U.S. consumers for any less than they sell to anyone else. If we’re that concerned, maybe we should just stop driving altogether. Sure, it would be inconvenient; so would an ocean full of dead creatures and polluted water.

-Lesley

 

I was reading through our posts and comments, and there was one on Sunday's post that made me think. Mr_wildflower, I have heard that other states have laws that give aluminum cans a $.10 return rate. You are right; I do not think there is such a law in Missouri.

 

My family lives outside the city limits, so we take all trash and recyclable material to the county dump and recycle center, so we do get cash for our cans - one of the reason my dad loves to recycle!

 

Lauren mentioned in her last post that there were not any recycle bins at the mall, which definitely needs to change.  But, what if there were a mechanized bin that gave a dime for every aluminum can or plastic bottle put in the container?  I have no idea how to create one, or if it is even possible, but I think more people would recycle.  Our society is already centered around instant rewards and money, so why not attach that drive to a good cause?

 

On the opposite end, what if citizens were CHARGED ten cents every time they threw such material away? If there were somehow a machine that could do such things, how much money would that thing generate in a day?  Caffeine addicted soda drinkers would go bankrupt!  My friends that drink four to five cans of soda a day (and those that drink four to five bottles of water a day) would think twice before throwing away that precious resource.  The money generated, of course, would go back into a government program that promotes reducing, reusing and recycling.

 

So, what do you think?  Would you be more apt to recycle if you were charged $.10 for every item you threw away?

 

- Missy

I’m a student here in Columbia, MO, but I also work in the mall at Victoria’s Secret. Usually, I’m working the fitting rooms. It gives me an opportunity to work more with the clients instead of showing them were the free cotton BOOGEDY are before asking them if they want to sign up for a Victoria’s Secret credit card. In the fitting room, I run around the store finding a bra with a bitter cup, smaller cup, bigger band, smaller band, etcetera. Working the fitting rooms often turns into running errands for other people. And oftentimes, clients ask me to throw their water bottles and aluminum cans away.

And, of course, there are no recycling bins in the mall. None. There are only trashcans. How many people come through the mall on a single day? There are vending machines full of bottles and cans surrounding the mall. They’re at the entrances, they’re near the bathrooms—they are everywhere. How many bottles and cans pass through people’s hands there? How many bottles and cans that could be recycled are not? How much money would it take to put a recycling bin next to all of the trashcans? How much money would it take for employees to take the recycling out as they take out the trash? How much money would it take to have the recycling picked up and taken to a center?

It’s ridiculous the amount of waste that my store produces that could be recycled. A lot of the girls buy plastic cups from Panera that can be refilled whenever. But they get left behind and thrown away. I know, it’s happened to me to.

Whenever a client asks me to throw something that can be recycled away, I keep it and take it with me to a place where I can dispose of it correctly. Yeah, I’m carrying around someone else’s trash for a while, but I don’t care, because that’s one less bottle or can in a landfill. Less energy used means more for later. Or maybe I’ll bring another trashcan in, only write, “recycling” on it, and be the one responsible for emptying it. I remember my current roommate in high school doing something similar. She would walk around the empty lunch tables, pick up bottles and cans that were left for the custodians to grab, wash them out in the bathroom, and take them home to be recycled. She did it for a bunch of apathetic high school students, I can do it for the people who come through the dressing room while I’m on shift.

-- Lauren

Nope. Going green is the best thing for the economy right now.

Some say the current financial problems we are facing will deteriorate our drive to go green. I say nay. Perhaps if you are thinking on the biggest of terms, like taking out a loan for a brand-new energy-efficient Prius, or deciding that you need solar panels on your home this instant. This probably isn’t the best time to make those decisions. However, think of the ways we are going green just by being wise about how we spend.

Going green is frequently associated with going broke. Once again I argue that it doesn’t have to. A lot of the ways we reduce our carbon footprint also reduces our spending. Pick up some extra dough for your recycled cans, and conserve the energy used to produce new ones. Put your spare change toward public transportation instead of forking over for gas to drive, or get your bike out before winter gets here. The list goes on. What do you think? Is the future of going green really in danger?

I’m not saying the financial crisis is some kind of blessing in disguise. I’m just trying to see the piggy bank as half full.

-Lesley

I was laying on my couch Sunday night trying to get over a sinus infection when 60 Minutes came on CBS.  I saw a "tease" for a story that would appear later in the show about "The Race for the Electric Car" I was very confused.  I thought we were racing for hybrid cars?

Turns out...that plan failed.  

The story was very interesting.

Hybrid cars have not sold very well because of their high cost in our low, low economy. In the long run, you do save money by purchasing a hybrid vehicle, but we live in a world of "Give me more, now."  The "long run" doesn't have a place.

So, what about the Ethanol boom we had just a few years back? Corn (E-85, as the gas is called) was supposedly going to be our saving grace in the sense of fuel economy.  Well, that failed, too.  

E-85 reduced greenhouse gas emissions, but what the creators didn't tell was was that one of the emissions is needed in order to produce corn into ethanol: it basically kills itself for future use.

The next step, you ask? Electricity.  We already use tons of it in our tech-savvy world, so why not use it to power our cars?  It's a cute plan.  It's a great plan if it will save us money in gas, but what about the environment.

In order to produce electricity enough to power these vehicles, coal must be burned.  We know that, but what most people don't know is that the burning of coal produces an obscene amount of greenhouse gasses that will eventually deteriorate our ozone layer completely.

GM is already publicizing the newest electric car, the Volt.  But they don't even have a working proto-type.  It's supposed to be available in our market in 2010, but we can't even look at it yet? 

I'm glad we're trying to save the environment, and I'm glad car companies are starting to think green.  However, Mr. Lutz, if you really want to do something good for our environment (because man-made Global Warming isn't a "crock of stuff") don't drive your hummer while you're trying to decide which of your two private jets to take to your next meeting. 

- Missy

When I was a kid, people often asked me if I believed in the Boogey Man. Now that I’m all grown up (in exception to occasionally eating dinosaur-shaped chicken nuggets for dinner), people are asking me if I believe in global warming.

 

Boogey Man: shadowy figure who lives under beds, in closets and behind large pieces of furniture, waiting to go “boogey,boogey,boogey” at unsuspecting children.

 

Global warming: the observed and projected increases in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans; makes presence known – melting of Arctic glaciers, shrinking penguin and polar bear populations due to declining sea ice habitats, dangerous weather patterns like flooding and wildfires; will get you whether you’re in footy pajamas or not.

 

 

I’m 21, and I’ve yet to see the man of Boogey. The Natural Resources Defense Council (http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/), the Environmental Protection Agency (http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/index.html) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.h
tml) have some pretty real proof of the effects of global warming. So, do we want to believe these guys or our 12-year-old brothers?

-Lesley

I’ve had airborne allergies for as long as I can remember. One of the earliest memories surrounding allergies I have is going to the doctor to get tested for what was making me sneeze so much. It was right before I started kindergarten, so around August. I remember the doctor telling me he was going to make these little marks on my back with a pen and then scratch me with various needles that housed various allergens. Whatever swelled up was what I was allergic to. I was six. This was scary, very scary. I had them do it to my mother before I let them do it to me. And I eventually let them do it to me and found that if it grew in the ground during August and had pollen, I was allergic to it. Especially ragweed. The ragweed scale from one to ten, I’m an eleven.

Each year from about August to the first frost (which usually happens around October) I am absolutely miserable. I am either sneezing so much I can’t concentrate, blowing my nose until I’ve filled up each trashcan in my apartment with tissues, or on so many antihistamines I’m a walking zombie. August, September, and October are hazy months for me, I just wait them out until the first frost comes and the ragweed is killed.

What does this have to do with the environment, you ask? Well, I’ve noticed (and I’m sure other people have too) that it was a little wetter this year and plants grew a little taller. Especially ragweed. My allergies were so bad this year; I came down with bronchitis and sinusitis (both of which I am still trying to get over.) Usually, it takes another month or two until I’ve developed some sort of respiratory sickness. But this year my airborne allergies came strong and hard.

What does our changing climate (global warming, there I said it) mean for people who suffer from airborne allergies? Next summer will probably be just as wet as this one (if not more so), and therefore, allergies will be just as bad. Are us allergy sufferers doomed to spend hundreds upon hundreds of dollars on medication that our bodies will build up tolerance to later on? What about allergy shots that take one to two years to finally start working? How much will those cost us? Will we have to spend more and more time indoors, increasing our carbon footprint as we hide next to our air conditioners and our dehumidifiers?  And, in the case of myself, will I come to expect to drop over fifty dollars each fall on antibiotics, inhalers for asthmatics, and cough medicine with codeine to help me with bronchitis and sinusitis?

Is it just going to get worse? Or will we have to move up north where summers are shorter and winters are longer?

-- Lauren

I do some of my best thinking while leisurely perusing brand name merchandise I cannot afford. While rummaging through a table of t-shirts this weekend at Old Navy, I picked up this little number: a bright green tee with an across-the-chest message reading “Green is the New Black.”

 

Oh? Perhaps I should consider replacing 75 percent of my closet with items green in color. There were a few more with recycling symbols and one with a sweating Earth saying “I’m Too Hot,” which I found to be just the right amount of cleverness and cheesiness. That’s funny, I thought to myself. I don’t remember any t-shirts caring about the color green or a perspiring Earth five years ago. By the end of the day, I note the fact that at three different stores I saw reusable canvas tote bags for sale, each branded with snappy pro-environment phrases or really hideous artwork. I am reminded of the “I’m not a plastic bag” phenomenon that took place a few seasons back when designer Anya Hindmarch had people bidding hundreds of dollars on Ebay to obtain the popular, yet scarce bag (with an actual retail price of about $15). It was like the beanie baby fad, only with good reason behind it. Why didn’t we think of THAT five years ago, I wondered. And just what are the beans in beanie babies made of? Is it environmentally safe?

 

While I could go on about fashion and beanie babies, the real point is the hype behind this whole idea of going green. It’s great that the idea has become so mainstream, but just wearing a “Love Nature” t-shirt isn’t going to solve the problem. The promotion gets us thinking, but still not doing. Some argue that environmentalists are doing more harm than good. I think it’s those who fall into the hype without actual knowledge of the issue who are failing to contribute to the solution.

 

For example, it peeves me to see a college student in a “Tree Hugger Planet Lover” sweatshirt tossing her plastic water bottle into a regular trash can when the specifically marked recycling can is just a foot away. And who doesn’t have some form of a bag that they can tote their groceries in already at home? Is it necessary to mass-produce designer shopping bags for us to rid ourselves of plastic ones? Just wearing the merchandise alone is not contributing to solving environmental problems. Are those t-shirts made of organic cotton, or cotton that used billions of dollars worth of harmful pesticides to yield higher production? There are little steps like these that could really make an impact if we all contributed.  

 

 

 Don't just sit around proclaiming that it's a waste of time or that all the methods are too pricey. There is no harm in separating your plastics and cans now and then -- the harm comes from doing nothing at all. You don't have to go out and buy a completely new organic wardrobe. If you pay more attention to how you live your life, your "I Heart Earth" t-shirt will be less of a hypocrite.

 

 

-Lesley