Comments (0)

By Rafael Otto, November 29, 2010 7:36 am

Imagine visiting one of America’s great natural wonders, Yosemite National Park, Monument Valley, Joshua Tree, or driving through the open plains from the Rockies to the Mississippi. There was a time when litter and pollution along America’s highways was of such concern that a national nonprofit organization, Keep America Beautiful, was founded to combat the problem. Well-known for their “Crying Indian” anti-litter campaign which began in 1971, the organization focused on three areas: litter prevention, recycling and waste reduction, and beautification and community greening.

Their work is ongoing, but the pollution problem hasn’t gone away. The world’s oceans are choked with plastic debris and waste. It is difficult to comprehend the magnitude of the problem, but researchers continue to document and examine the environmental impacts of such widespread pollution. Awareness of the issue is growing, spurring people into action. What will it take to keep the oceans clean and beautiful?

Some say it’s time to refuse single-use plastics. Others have suggested charging for plastic bag use to reduce consumption. Dianna Cohen helped found the Plastic Pollution Coalition and has garnered support from actors and musicians. She has also started educational projects for children to help raise awareness at an early age. Some prefer art, others politics. But one thing seems absolutely certain — if the Yosemite Valley was infused with plastic waste, we’d find a way to clean it up and stop it from happening again.

Here is a comedy/musical/awareness message: “Plastic State of Mind”

Related posts:

Ocean Plastic: Part One – 5 Gyres Institute

Ocean Plastic: Part Two – Evidence

Comments (0)

By Rafael Otto, November 10, 2010 10:15 pm

In 2010, more than 100 pounds of plastic will be manufactured for every man, woman and child on the planet – more than 330 million tons. In the United States, only 7 percent will be recycled. Everything not reclaimed or reused ends up scattered throughout the environment, most frequently in landfills, lakes, rivers, and the ocean.

In the North Atlantic Ocean, scientists from the Sea Education Association recently concluded a twenty-year study examining plastic debris. By dragging nets through the water and across the surface more than 6,000 times, they collected plastic and marine debris. More than half of the expeditions collected plastic, much of it in small pieces from low-density products such as plastic bags.

At the Midway Atoll in the Pacific Ocean, more than 2,000 miles from the nearest continent, photographer Chris Jordan started documenting the effects of plastic debris on the albatross. This photo illustrates the amount of plastic consumed by the birds, evident in carcasses on the atoll:

In a short video, Jordan says, “Beaches of the future will be made of plastic.” He demonstrates how every wave that comes to shore brings with it thousands of pieces of plastic debris, much of it as small as a grain of sand.

Public media station KQED recently produced a news story about ocean plastic and the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. In the video, Charles Moore reports that his lab analysis concluded “that the small bits of plastic outweighed the naturally occurring zooplankton six to one, plastic to plankton. More trash than life.”

The story contains footage of the ocean, blue as far as the eye can see, and small confetti-like pieces of plastic glimmering under the surface. The ten-minute segment is worth watching:

For current research by the 5 Gyres Institute, read Ocean Plastic: Part One – 5 Gyres Institute.

Comments (0)

By Rafael Otto, November 2, 2010 10:14 pm

The 5 Gyres Institute is leading the world’s first voyage of its kind to show that every ocean on the globe is polluted with plastic garbage. In collaboration with Algalita Marine Research Foundation (AMRF) and Pangea Explorations, the expedition will attempt to document the harm being done to marine wildlife and examine the potentially harmful effects on human health.

In geographical terms, gyre refers to a rotating system of ocean currents. It is here that floating debris accumulates. The research efforts aim to document plastic pollution in each of the five, global gyres located in the North and South Pacific Ocean, the North and South Atlantic Ocean, and the Indian Ocean.

Anna Cummins, co-founder of the 5 Gyre Institute, warns that the scourge is not confined to a single, mythical “Texas-size garbage patch.” She insists that no ocean is free of plastic pollution.

Part of the research effort will focus on whether or not humans are being affected by eating fish that have ingested plastic debris contaminated with pollutants such as DDT and PCBs.

5 Gyres’ Rio-to-Cape Town voyage will be aboard Pangaea Explorations’ racing sloop, Sea Dragon. The Sea Dragon crew will communicate via blogs with more than 1,850 Los Angeles school children through AMRF’s Ship-2-Shore Education program. Charles Moore, AMRF’s founder, was the first put the Great Pacific Garbage Patch on the map.

The expedition leaves on November 8. For updates, follow the Sea Dragon blog or the 5 Gyres blog.

Comments (0)

By Simmons Buntin, November 6, 2006 3:34 am

EARTH TALK
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that driving with soft tires wastes energy and results in more pollution?
– Nanci Graham

When tires are not inflated to the pounds per square inch (PSI) rating recommended by manufacturers, they are less “round” and require more energy to begin moving and to maintain speed. As such, under-inflated tires do indeed contribute to pollution and increase fuel costs.

An informal study by students at Carnegie Mellon University found that the majority of cars on U.S. roads are operating on tires inflated to only 80 percent of capacity. According to the website, fueleconomy.gov, inflating tires to their proper pressure can improve mileage by about 3.3 percent, whereas leaving them under-inflated can lower mileage by 0.4 percent for every one PSI drop in pressure of all four tires.

That may not sound like much, but it means that the average person who drives 12,000 miles yearly on under-inflated tires uses about 144 extra gallons of gas, at a cost of $300-$500 a year. And each time one of those gallons of gas is burned, 20 pounds of carbon dioxide is added to the atmosphere as the carbons in the gas are released and combine with the oxygen in the air. As such, any vehicle running on soft tires is contributing as much as 1.5 extra tons (2,880 pounds) of greenhouse gases to the environment annually.

Besides saving fuel and money and minimizing emissions, properly inflated tires are safer and less likely to fail at high speeds. Under-inflated tires make for longer stopping distances and will skid longer on wet surfaces. Analysts point to under-inflated tires as a likely cause of many SUV rollover accidents. Properly inflated tires also wear more evenly and will last longer accordingly.

Mechanics advise drivers to check their tire pressure monthly, if not more frequently. The correct air pressure for tires that come with new vehicles can be found either in the owner’s manual or inside the driver-side door. Beware, though, that replacement tires may carry a different PSI rating than the originals that came with the car. Most new replacement tires display their PSI rating on their sidewalls.

Also, tire pressure should be checked when tires are cold, as internal pressure increases when the car has been on the road for a while, but then drops when the tires cool back down. It is best to check tire pressure before heading out on the road to avoid inaccurate readings.

As part of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act of 2000, Congress has mandated that automakers install tire pressure monitoring systems on all new cars, pickups and SUVs beginning in 2008. To comply with the regulation, automakers will be required to attach tiny sensors to each wheel that will signal if a tire falls 25 percent below its recommended PSI rating. Car makers will likely spend as much as $70 per vehicle to install these sensors, a cost that will no doubt be passed along to consumers. However, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, some 120 lives a year will be saved once all new vehicles are equipped with such systems.

CONTACTS: Carnegie Mellon Today, “Save Gas, Money and the Environment with Properly Inflated Tires,” www.cmu.edu/cmnews/extra///050921_tire.html; FuelEconomy.gov, “Keeping Your Car in Shape,” www.fueleconomy.org/feg/maintain.shtml.

Dear EarthTalk: What exactly does “not tested on animals” mean on a product, like a shampoo? Where can I find products that are completely not tested on animals and are also eco-friendly?
– James Masarech

Many consumer products go through precise testing to make sure they are safe and healthy for people and the environment before they are made available in the marketplace. The downside is that many of these tests make use of live animals. According to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), safety testing of chemicals and consumer products accounts for roughly 10 to 20 percent of the use of animals in laboratories (or approximately two to four million animals) in the U.S.

The majority of animals used in product tests are rats and mice, but dogs, cats, sheep, hamsters, guinea pigs and primates are also used. Significantly more animals are used in biomedical and other kinds of research, but the use of animals in product testing figures prominently in the animal research controversy because it questions the “ethics and humaneness of deliberately poisoning animals [and] the propriety of harming animals for the sake of marketing a new cosmetic or household product,” says HSUS.

Governments often mandate that certain products, such as drugs, automotive fluids, garden chemicals and food additives, be tested on animals. In other cases, such as with cosmetics, personal care and household cleaning products, companies voluntarily test on animals to better understand the pros and cons of using certain ingredients, to see what effects a given product or ingredient will have on living systems–and to demonstrate due diligence should their products harm someone and a lawsuit be filed.

In response to these widespread practices, advocacy groups like HSUS and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) campaign vigorously to eliminate or reduce the use of animals in product testing, even recommending boycotts of companies that continue to voluntarily engage in what they argue is both cruel and unnecessary. This advocacy has been effective, as more than 500 cosmetic, personal care and household cleaning products manufacturers have vowed to stop testing their products on animals.

In 2003 the European Parliament approved a Europe-wide ban on the use of animals in cosmetics testing. Set to go into effect in 2009, the prohibition also mandates that no beauty or hygiene products tested on animals elsewhere be sold inside the European Union. Some exemptions do exist, however, such as products tested for toxicity or for their potential effects on human fertility. Some animal advocacy groups see these as unacceptable loopholes likely to undermine the ban or push back its implementation.

In 1986 an international group of animal protection organizations that includes HSUS formed the Coalition for Consumer Information on Cosmetics (CCIC). The coalition urges cosmetics and household products manufacturers to sign on to a “Corporate Standard of Compassion for Animals” policy and agree to not conduct or commission animal tests or use any ingredient or formulation that is tested on animals. Companies portray the coalition’s “leaping bunny” logo on products as proof of their commitment. CCIC publishes a pocket-sized “cruelty free” shopping guide which can also be downloaded from its website.

CONTACT: CCIC Shopping Guide, www.leapingbunny.org/pdf/ccicguide_full.pdf.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Comments (0)

By Simmons Buntin, October 14, 2006 11:02 pm

EARTH TALK
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Are there any environmental or human health risks to using nail polish?
– Deborah Lynn, Milford, CT

Conventional nail polishes dispensed at most drugstores and nail salons contain a veritable witch’s brew of chemicals, including toluene, which has been linked to a wide range of health issues from simple headaches and eye, ear, nose and throat irritation to nervous system disorders and damage to the liver and kidneys.

Another common yet toxic ingredient in conventional nail polish is a chemical plasticizer known as dibutyl phthalate (DBP). According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit research and advocacy organization that campaigns to educate consumers about the health risks of cosmetics, studies have linked DBP to underdeveloped genitals and other reproductive system problems in newborn boys.

As such, DBP is banned from cosmetics in the European Union but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States has taken no such action, even though a recent study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found DBP and other toxic phthalates in the bloodstreams of every person they tested. Further, five percent of women tested who were of childbearing age (ages 20-40) had up to 45 times more of the chemicals in their bodies than researchers had expected to find.

EWG attributes the prevalence of DBP in young women to widespread use of nail polish. “Women of childbearing age should avoid all exposure to DBP when they’re considering becoming pregnant, when they’re pregnant, or when they’re nursing,” says Jane Houlihan, EWG’s Vice President for Research.

Luckily, safer nail polishes do exist and are readily available at natural health and beauty supply stores as well as from online outlets such as Natural Solutions and Infinite Health Resources. These products, from such makers as Honeybee Gardens, PeaceKeeper, Jerrie, Visage Naturel and Sante, rely on naturally occurring minerals and plant extracts to beautify nails without the need for toxic ingredients.

Major nail polish manufacturers are also now getting in on the act. According to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of organizations that includes EWG and the Breast Cancer Fund, Avon, Estee Lauder, Revlon and L’Oreal confirmed last year that they would begin removing DBP from products. And leading drugstore brand Sally Hansen has said it is reformulating all of its products to remove DBP and toluene as well as formaldehyde, which is also known to cause cancer and reproductive problems.

Exposure to toxic chemicals is not the only health concern associated with nail salons, where nail fungus and bacteria can lurk on the underside of any emery board. Women’s health advocate Tracee Cornforth suggests checking out a salon for cleanliness before signing up for services. She also says to make sure attendants disinfect all tools and equipment between customers, and even recommends bringing in one’s own manicure or pedicure kit so as to minimize the transmission of any unsightly or painful maladies.

CONTACTS: Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org; Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, www.SafeCosmetics.org; Natural Solutions, www.bewellstaywell.com; Infinite Health Resources, www.infinitehealthresources.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I read a disturbing report recently that the long-banned pesticide, DDT, was being used in Mozambique to combat malaria. Malaria is a killer, but isn’t a return to DDT even scarier?
– Graeme Campbell, South Africa

Much of the developed world banned the use of DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) within about 10 years of the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson’s book, “Silent Spring.” Carson’s book, which is credited by many as having spurred the creation of the modern environmental movement, documented the ecosystem damage caused by DDT crop spraying throughout the United States and linked the pesticide’s use to the disappearance of songbirds and raptors.

Health officials at the time also linked DDT exposure to nerve damage in humans, and blamed DDT for causing cancer in people who had applied it recklessly. Today, because of widespread indiscriminate use up through the 1960s, most people have traces of DDT in their bodies. DDT has since become increasingly associated with childhood developmental problems, according to the organization, Beyond Pesticides.

Today, two dozen countries–including Mozambique and nine other African nations–permit the use of small amounts of DDT for controlling specific insect-borne diseases, including malaria. Malaria kills one million people, including 800,000 African children, every year. Dr. Arata Kochi, leader of the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) global malaria program, strongly advocates using DDT to fight malaria, claiming that it poses little or no health risk when sprayed in small amounts on the inner walls of people’s homes.

“Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes…and presents no health risk when used properly,” agrees Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO’s assistant director-general for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Asamoa-Baah insists that DDT’s public health benefits far outweigh its risks.

Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, disagrees and advocates for techniques that do not rely on pesticides like DDT. “The international community has a social responsibility to reject the use of this chemical and to practice sound and safe pest management practices,” he says. Feldman cites a recent study showing South African women living in DDT-treated dwellings to have 77 times the internationally accepted limit of the chemical in their breast milk. Researchers postulate that large amounts of DDT may have contaminated drinking water, exposing entire villages. “This highlights why no society can be unconcerned with DDT’s impact” on health and the worldwide ecosystem, Feldman says.

Feldman is calling for alternative strategies for disease control, including addressing the conditions of poverty that lead to mosquito breeding. We should “no longer treat poverty and development with poisonous band-aids, but join together to address the root causes of insect-borne disease, because the chemical-dependent alternatives are ultimately deadly for everyone,” says Feldman.

CONTACTS: Beyond Pesticides, www.beyondpesticides.org; World Health Organization Malaria Information, www.who.int/topics/malaria/en/.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.