Styrofoam trays have been quite the debate in many school districts over the past few years. Most schools choose to keep Styrofoam as the material for the trays because of the costs. Some students eat off of these trays three times a day. In other words, students eat off of these trays three times a day, for about 30 minutes a day, and then they throw them out. What a waste right?

Not only is it a waste in terms of the volume of trays that are thrown out, but the fact that these trays are made of Styrofoam makes it much worse. Styrofoam is terrible for our environment. Not only this, but there is also some concern that toxins can leach from Styrofoam when it comes into contact with hot food. There is no “good” way to recycle Styrofoam. If they are thrown out, then they will most likely go to a landfill. Once they have reached their resting point at the dump, it will take over one millions years to decompose. Yes, one million. So not only will it take a very long time to “decompose”, but the trays also just sit there, taking up space, in our already overfilled landfills.  Also, when expanded polystyrene enters aquatic environments, creatures could ingest it; this causes intestinal blockage that will ultimately lead to death.

So, why not recycle the trays? Some schools do try to have a separate spot to throw away trays so that they can be recycled, but even when the trays are recycled, not much good becomes of them. Also, trays are not often recycled because it costs a lot to do so and the facilities for doing so are few and far between. Some burn the Styrofoam, but because they are based on crude oil, and chemicals such as benzene and styrene, the burning of Styrofoam produces toxic gases.

These are all things that school districts are well aware of. The thing is, it costs close to nothing per tray (about 3 cents) — it is hard to convince a school district to pay more for trays when they are struggling with other costs. There are many other options out there, but costs are what are holding the schools back.

Cape Wind is a very exciting project that will be America’s first offshore wind farm. The site of this offshore wind farm will be on the Horseshoe Shoal in Nantucket Sound. There has been a ton of opposition to the placement of the wind farm and there are plenty of efforts that are trying to “Save the Sound”, but the permits have been put in place and the project is a go!

I honestly do not see why people think that wind turbines are ugly. I think that it will look kind of cool to have rows of wind turbines stretching across the water, but I can see how there could be opposition and how it would make the Sound less natural. They received state and local permitting in 2009 and federal permitting through April 2010. From when they start construction, it should take them less than 2 years to build the wind turbines that should last 20 years or more. Once the wind turbines are at the end of their economic life, the Cape Wind team will provide a decommissioning financial instrument that will fund the removal of the wind turbines down to the seabed.

In this project, they will place 130 wind turbines that will harness the wind to produce up to 420 megawatts of renewable energy. The 130 wind turbines will be spaced six to nine football fields apart so that shallow draft  boats can pass through or fish. It has even been endorsed by the Maritime Trades council and the Seafarers International Union.

It has been calculated that the turbines would provide about three quarters of the Cape and Islands electricity needs. It will also reduce global warming green house gas emissions by 734,000 tons per year and will provide enough clean, renewable energy that should replace about 113 million gallons of oil per year.

With numbers like that and events such as the major oil spill this year, who would not be in favor of this project in the Nantucket Sound? It is definitely time to start using more forms of renewable energy and to start using resources like the wind– which I don’t think we will be running out of any time soon.

For more information check out Cape Wind’s website.

Situation: It’s spring. The weather’s getting nicer, and the sun is finally starting to bounce off  the walls in your home. While you couldn’t be happier with the light, you could be happier about the color of your walls. It’s time for a change. You head to the hardware store and buy the first bucket of paint that matches the color sample you like.

Wait! Rewind. Instead of buying the first pretty bucket of paint that you see, consider the fact that there are many paint options that are much m0re environmentally-friendly than typical paints. Just how bad is the environmental impact of regular paint? The EPA discovered that VOC (Volatile Organic Compound) levels were 1,000 times larger than the standard outdoors amount in a room that was painted recently. They also were able to conclude that the VOCs (including benzene, formaldehyde, kerosene, ammonia, and other carcinogens and neurotoxins) are released at a higher rate from regular paint that is being applied than from any other indoor product. Furthermore, in that aforementioned sunlight that we love, many paints react with nitrous oxides in the atmosphere, a process which contributes to the formation of smog.

Not surprisingly, several companies have come up with paints that have no or a low level of VOCs. The Green Guide offers a comparison of the different brands that are available. You’ll find the type of paint (water-based acrylic, latex, milk paint, clay paint, natural paint, or recycled paint), level of VOC, area of use (interior or exterior or both), and the typical price per gallon. According to the Green Guide, the paint that is the best value is the Innovative Formulations Company Ecological Paint, which is a water-based acrylic, with no VOCs, for interior and exterior use, and just $20 per gallon. The greenest product is the BioShield Casein Milk Paint, while the Green Guide overall recommendation is the Bioshield Clay Paint, though its cost is $34 per gallon.

So, if you have that urge to repaint the walls, consider making the switch to eco-friendlier paint. Green paints come in a variety of different colors!

Did you know that sewage contains 10 times the energy needed to treat it? If you think about it that way, you would wonder why we have not been actively reusing what is available in order to produce energy. With all of the talk about finding new sources of energy, such as hydrogen fuel cells or solar power, why have we not been using our own waste?

Ironically, wastewater treatment plants are some of the major users of energy. In the U.S. alone, they consume about 21 billion kilowatt hours per year. Think about it, wastewater treatment plants can use their waste directly in wastewater treatment. This would reduce the facility’s overall need for conventional electricity. Turning sludge into energy is beneficial to the environment as well. Most methods of sewage sludge disposal are harmful to the environment. Some of these methods are land filing, ocean dumping, compost, and incineration. These methods contaminate the underground water reservoirs and ocean waters.

There are different methods of turning sludge into energy. One way would be to use a low temperature thermochemical conversion from sludge to oil. In this process the sludge is dried to evaporate any unwanted water and useful materials are conserved and extracted. These useful materials are substances, such as gas, oils, and chemicals. However, companies, such as Energy Answers International, have developed technology that will co-combust the different types of sludges with municipal solid waste to form energy in combustion facilities.

There are many different groups of people all working to find new sources of energy with the focus on renewable energy. Using sludge may be one of the cheaper ways to form energy, but it is still technology that needs to be developed. Seeing that the idea of using sludge is not that new, I am curious to see if this field really will ever expand into something big, or if fuel cells and other ideas will overpower the interest in sludge.

According to scientists, cows are responsible for about 75% of the world’s methane gas emissions. This methane is a  a greenhouse gas that is said to be contributing to climate change. How do cows emit all of this methane? Well, it is thought most of it is released in the form of potent burps. These potent burps are 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.

So, what is one way to stop these problems? Stop the burps from occurring! You may think that this sounds like a crazy idea, but scientists actually are working on breeding cows that burp less. Canadian scientists are breeding a special type of cow that hopefully will reduce a major source of greenhouse gases responsible for global warming. So far they are hoping to breed animals that produce 25 percent less methane than less efficient animals. Other than breeding cows that burp less, there are other ways that farmers have become more proactive with this methane problem. One of their solutions is to feed livestock a diet higher in energy and rich in edible oils.This is because these oils ferment less than grass or low-quality feed. There have been many companies that are trying out this theory and who have had success stories.

For instance, New Hampshire based Stonyfield was able to reduce the emissions by about 12 percent. Stonyfield is an organic yogurt producer. They were able to reduce the amount of emissions so drastically by adding alfalfa, flax or hemp to the livestock feed. I believe that other farms should follow this company’s example and try to reduce the amount of methane that is produced by their cows.

Nancy Hirshberg, the vice president of Stonyfield’s Natural Resources department, states that, “If every U.S. dairy farmer reduced emissions by 12 percent it would be equal to about half a million cars being taken off the road.” That sure could be a great investment and idea for our country and other places in the world.

Eugene, OR

Recently, National Geographic‘s Paul McRandle and Sara Smiley Smith considered what factors help designate a city as green, and with that they composed a list of the top 25 green cities in the U.S.A. Well, what makes a city green? Is it just having an abundance of recycling bins and bike routes?

Taking a look at the highlights of the top 25 green cities, it is clear that there are many diverse aspects that qualify a city as green. Eugene, Oregon, with a population of nearly 140,000, makes the top of the list; it uses renewable energy to supply 85% of the city’s power. It is the only one to break 9 points on the green scale of 11. Second on the list is the capital of Texas, Austin, with the largest population in the top ten (656,562 people). Making use of its location, Austin is committed to solar power and has a strong Green Builder program. Portland, Oregon, makes the list because of its exceptional public transport, St. Paul, Minnesota, stands out because 25% of its urban area is “green space,” and Santa Rosa, California, has admirably clean air and water, in addition to bicycle paths and lanes. (They are 3rd, 4th, and 5th on the list, respectively.)

With that said, even these top 25 have a significant amount of room for improvement. Kansas City, Missouri, rounds out the bottom of the list with a score of just 6.055 out of the possible 11. Hopefully, when this list is updated, we will see improvement in all of these numbers.

However, each one of these cities deserves applause, especially the ones that have populations above 500,000. I can’t imagine that it would be easy (or cheap) to get a place with over 100,000 (let alone 500,000) community members to do its share in the green initiative. San Francisco (population 776,733) makes the list as number 18 for its municipal composting, green design, high percentage of renewable energy use, and very high public transport use. Imagine the significant effect a city like Chicago or NYC would have if it could do enough to make this list! I hope there will be a day when I see that happen.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Today’s article is a guest post written by James O’Shea, representative of maacenter, the web’s leading organization for relevant and authoritative information regarding asbestos and health complications associated with asbestos exposure. Their organization is staffed entirely by writers and other developers who recognize the importance of building awareness in the fight against cancer.

In recent years there has been a great deal of national attention focused on the improvement of industrial environmental standards. Even as we attempt to rebuild our economy, we seem to be focused on not only restoring industry, but also using this as an opportunity to do it in a way that is not environmentally destructive. This provides us the opportunity to improve all aspects of these industries, including the workplace hazards among workers and the health hazards affecting members of the surrounding communities that were all too common.

What many people may fail to realize is that not only does the health of our planet depend on improved environmental standards, but our health may as well. Health complications of industry can essentially be divided into two categories, both direct and indirect.

Direct health conditions which have arisen as a result of the burning of fossil fuels, for instance, are increased asthmas rates in areas with high smog indices. Even mild cases of asthma can deteriorate overall respiratory capacity over time and leave breathing seriously diminished if the quality of the air people breathe is unimproved. Release of chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere has shown to lower  our filtered sunlight, increasing ultraviolet light exposure. Ultraviolet light has been linked conclusively to skin cancer. Perhaps it is no surprise then that skin cancer incidences in countries like South Africa and Australia, where the atmosphere is most diminished, is much higher than other areas of the earth.

Indirect health consequences include those which can be attributed to antiquated industrial infrastructure, including toxin exposure among workers. Oil refinery workers, for instance, are shown to have a much higher chance of developing mesothelioma, a rare cancer caused by exposure to asbestos, than those in cleaner industries. While asbestos was banned for most uses in the late 1970s, several of these refineries and factories still are using pre-ban equipment, which is exposing workers to harmful asbestos fibers.

We see then that there is a clear advantage to implementation of cleaner, more sustainable energy policies and environmental attitudes, not only for the health or our planet and our posterity, but that of the world’s population even today.

Yes, as the title says, there is a boat made out of plastic water bottles. This boat, called Plastiki, is made completely out of plastic bottles and recycled waste products. They plan to sail this boat starting in August 2009. When it is complete, Plastiki will be comprised of 12,500 2-liter plastic bottles that have been collected by Waste Management. The whole  boat will end up weighing 9 tons and will support a team of 6 crew members.

The boat also has a composting toilet on board, renewable energy, and a garden.

Why was this plastic boat made? Well, David De Rothschild, founder of the company Adventure Ecology, wanted to raise awareness about the Eastern Pacific Garbage Patch. He plans on sailing this boat made of only plastic bottles and recycled materials from  San Fransisco to Sydney, Australia. He wants to raise awareness about the Eastern Pacific Garbage Patch because it happens to be a floating landfill that is, get this, twice the size of Texas. Ever heard of it? I had not until now, but it apparently is located between California and Hawaii. It is because of this landfill that there are masses of plastic materials floating around in the oceans.

Yes, this boat will help the problem of doing nothing with plastic bottles, but that is not the main goal. The point of building this boat entirely from plastic is to make people more aware of being green and of recycling. He wants to get people talking and involved. For instance, did you know that we consume 200 billion liters of bottled water every year but that about only one in five bottles is actually recycled? I did not know that until I read an article about this new boat.

I think that this boat is a great invention–not only because it will use 12,500 plastic bottles but that it will start conversations and turn some heads. I wish the crew the best of luck as they venture from San Francisco to Sydney, Australia, with Plastiki!

My jaw dropped to the floor in disbelief the other day. A person in one of my lectures actually had the nerve to speak up and say, “Nothing that we can do could save our world.” He then continued to tell us about how there was no way that we could reverse what we have done to the ozone later and that there was no way or process to turn CO2 into something usable. Okay, okay, first of all, studies have been done to show that we have started to prevent, and even reverse, the depletion of the ozone layer. It was the second comment that nearly killed me and the rest of the lecture. As soon as he told us that it was impossible to turn CO2 into anything, we looked at him, gave it a few awkward seconds, and then someone asked, “Uh… what about plants, don’t they turn CO2 into oxygen?”

This coming from a BioChem major. So plants can do it–why can’t we? Plants and algae take water and carbon dioxide and combine them by using the sun’s energy to make glucose. This process is otherwise known as photosynthesis.

Some engineers and scientists are trying to capture the CO2 that is produced by power plants and industrial operations and put it underground–which is almost just as effective as taking a broom and sweeping all of the dirt under a rug. Others, such as China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) and Carbon Sciences, Santa Barbara are trying to capture the CO2 to  turn it into useful, salable products. CNOOC is doing this already by turning waste CO2 into food grade CO2 to make the bubbly in soft drinks and is also making CO2 into plastics. Carbon Sciences says it has a process to turn carbon dioxide into methanol which then could be converted into other fuels.

In order to do this, companies are trying to create artificial leaves–I hope that it works out! These artificial leaves would make a hydrocarbon fuel that would be endlessly renewable and carbon-neutral.

For those of you who have dogs at home, where do your dogs relieve themselves, and where do you put their waste? Don’t you know that instead of throwing your dogs’ feces in the garbage, you can make fertilizer out of it?

We are renting a house with a spacious yard full of fruit-bearing trees and grass. My dogs can’t access the yard easily because there’s a bamboo fence. So, what they usually do is they relieve themselves in the grassy area of my garden which is disgusting to see. So, my husband and I decided to dig a compost pit in the fenced area of the yard. Every morning, we pick up their feces in the garden and drop it in the compost pit.

The advantage of making a compost pit for dogs’ waste is you can fertilize your soil and you can limit the spread of diseases and bacteria like E. Coli because you won’t have to throw the waste in the garbage. However, the disadvantage is you can’t use the dogs’ waste to fertilize the soil of your root crops.

Do you want to know how to make your own compost pit? Here’s how:

1. If you have a spacious yard, choose the area that is away from root crops or the vegetable garden.
2. Dig a hole in that area.
3. Put some stones at the bottom of your dug hole, just enough to cover the floor of the hole. You also can use gravel.
4. Choose the size of your bin. The bin I chose can hold 8-10 liters. You can choose bigger bins if you have many dogs at home. Make tiny holes at the bottom of the bin, this is for drainage purposes.
5. Finally, put the bin on top of the stones or gravel and make sure to cover it.

Now that you already know how to create compost pit for your dog’s wastes, why don’t you try it out, too? Let me know once you’ve tried it, I would be glad to receive your feedback.