Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Green Global Travel




http://greenglobaltravel.com/

Mary Gabbett and Bret Love founded this virtual magazine after travelling to South Africa's Kruger National Park on safari. Their experiences with wild animals in their natural habitats changed their lives and they were inspired to help preserve these natural habitats and the wildlife that live in them.

Green Global Travel's site is full of green tips, information on endangered species, history, cuisine, photos, videos and more. Bret and Mary use their words and their images to promote ecotourism and inspire people to travel sustainably.

I was inspired by their story and have recently started a virtual internship for the magazine in which I am responsible for promoting their site via StumbleUpon and other social media platforms.


Monday, April 20, 2015

Efficiency = Profitability

In an article titled It's time to stop managing waste and start preventing it, Frank E. Celli and Rick Perez write about waste within businesses. They discuss how many companies' focus in terms of the waste which they produce currently lies on managerial methods through traditional means of recycling. Recycling materials such as paper, plastic, cardboard, glass and aluminum are commonplace but they are simply not enough; they do not help the underlying problem of waste production, nor do they target the largest component of municipal solid waste - this component being food. Food waste "accounts for a significant portion of the U.S. methane emissions" as millions of tons of food are dumped into landfills every year. Reducing waste in this area as well as all others through efficient practices can benefit businesses by reducing companies' overall expenses since they will be consuming less resources and simultaneously generating less waste. The issue is that many businesses are not thoroughly informed about their own production, consumption, and disposal. They blindly believe that taking the initiative to learn about these aspects to potentially reduce them would be expensive and time consuming. The opposite is actually true. Analytics tools are available to businesses to monitor their "performance metrics" and these metrics can easily assess what could be reduced and where. A company that fully understands its consumption patters will be able to save time and money by implementing more sustainable and efficient operational practices. As the zero waste movement gains popularity and the technology to make it happen becomes more readily available and recognized, we can hope that businesses will take a turn for efficiency.

http://www.greenbiz.com/article/its-time-stop-managing-waste-and-start-preventing-it

Monday, April 13, 2015

Cosmetics Are Carcinogens, Too

Of the cosmetics that I use on a daily basis, I chose to look into the toxic danger posed by my Eucerin lotion. I've been using this lotion on my face, arms, and legs on a daily basis since it was recommended to me by my dermatologist when I was 13 years old. After watching The Story of Cosmetics (1), I started feeling a little concerned as to what chemicals I've been putting on my body for so long. After all, many of the ingredients on the label sound foreign to me. Even if I had taken the time to read the list, I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to pronounce the words let alone know what they were or, most importantly, what danger they pose to my health.

The ingredient list on my bottle of Eucerin reads: 
- Water
- Mineral Oil
- Isopropyl Myristate
- PEG-40
- Sorbitan Peroleate
- Glyceryl Lanolate
- Sorbitol
- Propylene Glycol
- Cetyl Palmintate
- Magnesium Sulfate
- Aluminum Stearate
- Lanolin Alcohol
- BHT
- Methylchloroisothiazolinone
- Methylisothianzolinone

Like I predicted, I haven't a clue what any of these are. After searching for the lotion on the Environmental Working Group's Cosmetic Database, I discovered that Eucerin Original Healing lotion scores a 4/10 on the hazard scale that the site provides for each cosmetic (2). Despite my relief that the score was not that high, this lotion still poses a moderate threat to my health. Of the ingredients listed, the most hazardous is BHT (Butylated Hydroxytoluene) - scoring a 6 on EWG's site. This ingredient is used for preservation in both food and personal care products and has several health-risk factors such as irritation, allergies, and organ-system toxicity. In high doses, BHT has been shown to cause cell mutation, developmental effects, respiratory irritation, and tumor formation in animals (3). I'm an animal, too! Although BHT is not specifically mentioned in Okala Practitioner, the text reads that the "Effects on laboratory animals are usually similar to those observed in humans at comparable doses" (4). A small exposure to BHT would be harmless, I'm sure, but what happens when this small exposure is added to every day and accumulates for years? "Harmless," at that point, might be an understatement.

According to an article from Berkeley Wellness about BHA and BHT, there is insufficient evidence as to the real harm or lack thereof in these preservative compounds. Although some studies have shown BHT to be a potential carcinogen, there are other studies that show it may actually reduce cancer risks and also act as an antioxidant. At this point it's just difficult to tell. What Berkeley suggests is to keep an eye on your consumption of the preservatives, but it's not necessary to go out of your way to avoid them (5).

There's no denying that I will reconsider every time I apply Eucerin to my skin from here on out. For now I have decided that I will continue to use it (at least until my $12 bottle runs out), but in the meantime I will search for a better and healthier lotion alternative. In my opinion, moisturizing my skin is one of the most essential parts of my daily cosmetic ritual, by in no way am I limited to Eucerin. I'm sure there are countless lotions out there that have much less health uncertainty.

This study has also inspired me to look into the toxicity in all my other cosmetics. After all, I use a number of them: shampoo, conditioner, body wash, facial wash, shaving cream, detangler, deodorant, foundation, mascara, and toothpaste. The chemicals from all of these could potentiate, bioaccumulate, and pose many threats to my health. It's time to be more careful!

Sources

1) http://storyofstuff.org/movies/story-of-cosmetics/
2) http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/product/464326/Eucerin_Original_Healing_Soothing_Repair_Lotion%2C_Fragrance_Free/
3) http://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredient/700741/BHT/
4) Okala Practitioner. Chapter 15: "Understanding Toxicity."
5) http://www.berkeleywellness.com/healthy-eating/food-safety/article/two-preservatives-avoid

Monday, April 6, 2015

My Ecological Footprint

According to the Center of Sustainable Economy, my ecological footprint was calculated to be 3.33 Earths. This means that it would take 3.33 Earths in order to be sustainable if everyone lived the way that I do. Considering the fact that I live in an extremely environmentally conscious city and actively try to live a relatively green life, this number is shocking. What's even more shocking is that my footprint is about 52% of the average American's. In other words, the average American would need over 5 of our planets to sustain their lifestyles. Yikes.






Of the different sections, my Food Footprint was the largest contributor at 52.59 global acres. Being an omnivore, I eat an assortment of all kinds of foods including meat, seafood, and poultry. The majority of the food that I buy is organic, but unfortunately I have a habit of shopping at stores such as Fred Meyer or Haggen instead of the community food co-op.

The portion of my footprint that was closest to the country's average was my Carbon Footprint. This one doesn't surprise me too much since I drive myself to school every day, to work every couple days, and home to my parent's house about once a month. I'm embarrassed to admit that I hardly ever use public transit or methods of active transport.

As for my housing footprint, this section is almost entirely out of my control since I am currently staying in a fairly old rental home. It is lacking in energy efficient appliances and fixtures, and I'm sure it was not made out of sustainable materials when it was built. However, as a household we try our hardest to recycle all that we can, keep the thermostat down low, and leave lights off as often as possible.

To reduce my footprint, I vow to:
1) Only eat meat 3 days a week
2) Unplug all appliances in my bedroom and kitchen every night (besides the fridge)
3) Buy all my food from the Community Food Co-op

I hope these things will help my lifestyle grow a little greener. As I make small adjustments like these, one step at a time, I will be working towards a more sustainable future for not only me, but those (such as my roommates) whom I am able to influence along the way.

Friday, April 3, 2015

How TDM Benefits All

In an article called How to Orient Cities for People, Not Cars, Juan Miguel Velasquez discusses the use of transport demand management (TDM) as means to "improve mobility and quality of life in a rapidly urbanizing world." With growing populations in cities around the world, there is an associated growth in the number of cars on the road. Nobody likes to be stuck in traffic. TDM is a proposed solution to this problem. Most methods of mitigating congestion (such as expanding roadways) have been more or less focused on the supply side of transport. TDM offers opportunities to lessen the number of cars on the road through the demand side, or by "disincentivising unnecessary driving." Employers have great opportunities to encourage their employees to seek active modes of transport by providing facilities such as showers, lockers and bike parking, organizing methods of carpooling, or having lenient work-hour expectations so less people are driving during peak hours. If more companies engage in these forms of encouragement, there will ultimately be less people on the road which in turn means less emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. These emissions are a leading contributor to global warming and climate change and should be taken seriously by everyone. People are all too comfortable in their commuting habits. Expanding roadways may lessen congestion temporarily, but in the long-run more people will choose to drive and the congestion will return to it's formidable state. Clearly this is not an effective method. Besides, the health of our planet will not improve with less congestion. It will, however, improve with less cars on the road and in turn less fuel emissions. Providing drivers with convenient alternatives to driving alone could be a step towards this improvement. But what's in it for the businesses? Why would they spend time and money developing such incentives when it only benefits the environment? Well, it turns out businesses will benefit as well. It's a win-win scenario for everyone involved. With less vehicles showing up to the site every day, companies will experience reduced employee parking costs and tax benefits. Drivers who participate in ride-sharing or active transport will save money on gas and will be happier overall when their commute time is cut down due to decreased traffic. And of course the environment will benefit as well with less cars on the road emitting carbon dioxide. These benefits could all be realized as TDM becomes a more widely recognized concept.

http://www.greenbiz.com/article/how-orient-cities-people-not-cars

Sunday, March 15, 2015

Business or Sustainability: An Ethical Dilemma

                Living in a world where the dominating inhabitants tend to value progress and comfort over anything else can pose some major issues for these people and their environment. It’s difficult to escape an anthropocentric state of mind when so much of a human’s life depends on their individual success, especially when the stakes for success are reaching ever higher. While struggling to keep up with the rapid progression of societal expectations, all too often people lose their sense of intrinsic fulfillment – the feeling that it doesn’t matter whether or not an outcome will heighten your success or diminish it. What matters is the actions themselves, how they coincide with your own values, and how they will better you as a person. In my pursuit of happiness – which I then believed to be contentedness and financial stability – I was faced with a choice between a degree in Business Management and a degree in Environmental Studies. The former was a seemingly safe and comfortable route, and the latter a newly evolved passion which put into question the morality of blending in with the masses. My choice is better described as a compromise. With a Business and Sustainability degree, I am able to honor my intrinsic motivation to protect the environment while maintaining a level of respect for the nature of our species to strive for economic growth.
                As I progressed in my education, I became overwhelmed by the increasing seriousness of my decisions. Immersed in the ambiguity of my interests and the external pressure for choosing a career path, Business Management seemed like a fair decision. It provided me a broad array of options as to which companies I could work for and I knew that I would be content in wherever I may end up. What this path lacked in ecocentric and holistic motivations was substituted with instrumental value and financial stability. I was so focused on the final outcome; I wanted my education to be successful by providing me with a stable job. Isn’t that the point of an education after all? To be able to prove my own worth to others through all that I have learned and accomplished? It was enough for me at the time to be one among countless business students striving for success. It was enough to know I would be comfortable, content, and safe. My contribution to the business of my choice would be appreciated and recognized by many. What I quickly came to realize, however, is that although my worth would be seen by others, the worth that I saw in myself was buried in my outcome-driven mind. I had lost sight of things I am passionate about as if the opinions of others in the future mattered more than how I thought of myself right now. As Aldo Leopold states in A Sand County Almanac, “…things hoped for have a higher value than things assured.”[1] Business Management could assure so many things that I had grown to value: possessions which would ultimately be replaced and absorbed by the Earth, a job with a business which, in its economic growth, takes no consideration for environmental damage, and status among my peers which is useless when my actions provide no self-fulfillment. In the end, these assurances were no match for the things I now hope for.
                Opportunities in life are presented to us in all shapes and sizes. The seizing of these opportunities are sometimes very easy and other times can be extremely difficult. On this subject, Leopold states, “How like fish we are: ready, nay eager, to seize upon whatever new thing some wind of circumstance shakes down upon the river of time! And how we rue our haste finding the gilded morsel to contain a hook. Even so, I think there is some virtue in eagerness, whether its object prove true or false.”[2] When I decided to set sails for Business and Sustainability, I felt this eagerness. I felt a new form of yearning for what lay ahead of me and the value I saw in my decision was refreshingly non-derivative. I no longer cared for the outcome I would achieve, but rather the fulfillment I would receive along the way. My passions became reality as I tried to lessen my own environmental impact through my actions and inspire others to do the same. These actions, as obligatory as they may seem, were purely voluntary and entirely enjoyable. As happy as I am with my decision, my choice to take a more ethically sound career path has added a level of complexity to my life. An ecocentric perspective doesn’t resonate with everyone and I find myself frustrated with people who do not share my point of view. It is this sense of ethical relativism that inhibits the world’s sustainable opportunities. A person’s morals are often based on the morals instilled in them by their culture, and when the environment holds no importance in a society, change becomes very difficult. Generations before my own were not aware of the damage they were causing to the ecosystem and to the planet. Their fossil fuel-burning, materialistic, and wasteful ways of life have been passed down and will continue to do so until enough people remove themselves from this cultural “morality” and begin to see things with moral objectivism. It is then that we can allow our environmental morals to overrule some others. A parent may feel an ethical responsibility to buy their children the newest cell phones and provide them with a car when they turn 16, but maybe someday they will feel a more powerful responsibility to spare the earth those fumes a few years and decrease the demand for consistent technological upgrades. My optimism can be finely stated by Robert Finch: “If all things are in a state of constant change, then human behavior can change too – and for the better.”[3]
                In regards to my hopes for the future, they are not as they were before. Success no longer depends on my status or my worth in terms of others’ opinions. As long as I am acting according to my own values and am still working passionately toward a more sustainable community, I will be successful in my own mind. What a better world this would be if everyone’s goals were to better their community and their character rather than their social status! Too often do people let go of their moral obligations for some monetary or socioeconomic gain and too often does our environment have to pay the price. With the growing amount of environmental data and research and so many historically passionate people, there is no longer any legitimate reason why someone should ignore their impact on this earth. If Leopold is correct in saying “We grieve only for what we know,”[4] then humanity knows very little of our ecosystem. Real human grief occurs at the loss of an emotional relationship. We as a species have yet to fully develop a relationship with nature that extends to the emotional level. Until then, we don’t know nature and therefore cannot grieve its destruction. So how can this relationship be built? We may realize “That land is a community is the basic concept of ecology,” but as Leopold states, and I agree: “that land is to be loved and respected is an extension of ethics.”[5] Once again, it all boils down to our ethical responsibilities.
                The first step to making ethical decisions is to be aware that these ethical dimensions exist. As I had done when choosing Business Management, ethics are often overlooked or disregarded. But once you are aware that there is a more ethically sound alternative, and that this alternative will not only feel better but be better for all, it is difficult to make a morally unsound decision. Once this awareness is in place, a person is bound to make better choices even if it be at first out of guilt or obligation. The satisfaction felt when making a sound, educated choice is undeniably sweet and more of these decisions are bound to stem from it. What I felt when I switched my career path was a feeling of pride. I was awarded a clear conscience that I was no longer willing to dishevel with bad judgement. To ignore my ethical obligations at that point would be selfish and embarrassing considering all the other passionate people like myself that devote their lives to a sustainable future. Environmentalists are taking on an immensely intimidating task. We are facing generations of cultures and societies, each with resonating habits and ideals accompanied by a desperate unwillingness to change. It is amidst these challenges that Leopold sees two alternatives: “either [we] insure the continued blindness of the populace, or examine the question whether we cannot have both progress and plants.”[6] It is surely a slow process, but I believe with the growing number of people making decisions like my own, the eyes of a sustainable future are beginning to open.
                In conclusion, people everywhere are faced with ethical dilemmas of all different sorts. My recent dilemma happened to be between a career path in Business Management – which would provide me comfort in my occupational options as well as financial stability – and one in an environmental field. As I became more aware of my own passions and the planet’s troubled ecosystem, I chose to study Business and Sustainability. This choice not only added to my own self-worth, but also contributed to the number of people that are willing to put their status-striving, habit-ridden lives aside in order to focus on something with less moral uncertainty. Science alone may not solve the environmental crisis we face today, nor literature, nor history or time, but with the addition of ethics, the combination of these factors could be the key to environmental improvement.



[1] Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac. (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1949). 54.
[2] Ibid., 39.
[3] Finch, Robert. Introduction to A Sand County Almanac. (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1949). Xxv.
[4] Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac. (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1949). 48.
[5] Ibid., Viii.
[6] Leopold, Aldo. A Sand County Almanac. (New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1949). 47.

Past Issues Are Present

            In 1962 Rachel Carson published a revolutionary piece of work, Silent Spring. This book, in all its realness and horror, shocked the world and spawned future environmental movements. Despite the unexpected impact that it had on pesticide use around the world, there are still modern-day issues of surprising similarity to those discussed and reprimanded in her book. Mark Winston presents an example of this in his article titled “Our Bees, Ourselves.” Both Carson and Winston speak of the significance of bee health in the balance of our ecosystem as well as the detrimental impact that pesticides have on this balance. Despite fifty years of improved science, technology, and awareness, human ignorance and a resistance to change have delayed the eradication of chemical-use on Earth.
            To start off, Carson’s Silent Spring speaks of pesticide impact on all walks of life – including the startling effect on animals, plants, soil, water, and humans – whether it be intentional or not. Let us turn our attention to that which the chemical companies insist we must destroy: the insects themselves and the plants which are essential for their survival. During Carson’s time, propaganda had a way of fabricating the harm of insects such as the fire ant, whose “sting was said to make it a serious menace to human health.”[1] Although their sting causes pain and annoyance, the fire ant can hardly be considered a serious health risk. On the other hand, the sting of bees and wasps killed 33 people in 1959 alone and yet there was no indication by chemical companies that these insects should be eradicated.[2] My point, however, is not to say that bees should have been targeted in place of fire ants. The case of the fire ant only proves that chemical companies were not trying to protect human health, but rather trying to make money. If they thought they could have increased profits by targeting bees then surely that’s what would have been done. Fire ants’ seemingly insignificant lives simply made for an easy target, while even at this time the importance of bees and pollination was at least partly respected. Carson attempts to guide the reader towards a more full understanding of this concept. To do so, she discusses how chemicals are used to kill roadside plants and pesky weeds – flora which commonly lacks appreciation. She claims that “such plants are ‘weeds’ only to those who make a business of selling and applying chemicals”[3] which, in her time, was the general public. But what the general public didn’t realize was that:
“Such vegetation is also the habitat of wild bees and other pollinating insects… Some agricultural crops and many wild plants are partly or wholly dependent on the services of the native pollinating insects… [and] without insect pollination, most of the soil-holding and soil-enriching plants of uncultivated areas would die out, with far-reaching consequences to the ecology of the whole region.”[4]
In short, insects such as bees and plants such as weeds, although small and quite seemingly pesky, are not to be disregarded. Nature has found a balance on this planet and each living organism is an essential piece to this balance. To destroy weeds would be to destroy bees, and to destroy bees would be to destroy ourselves.
            Since the publication of Silent Spring, there have been numerous attempts to slow down the production and use of the harmful chemicals that threaten the health of Earth’s ecosystem. Carson’s impact on the environmental perspective was immense, but was it enough to, in a sense, save mankind? Unfortunately, the abundance of modern research is hardly enough to cause concern let alone stop the sale and use of chemicals. While the farmers are dying of cancer, the bees are suffering as well. According to Winston, the bees’ health and prosperity (or lack thereof) is a sure indication of the fate of the human race. He states that “about one-third of hives collapse each year”[5] and that this should be considered a catastrophe to all, especially considering how “the honeybee is a remarkably resilient species.”[6] Humans have dwelled on this planet a mere fraction of time that honeybees have. Our chemicals and our boundless obsession with controlling nature is killing a species that has so clearly earned their precious place in it. Humans are so keen on finding a quick fix for our problems that we are blind to the long and longer-term consequences (long-term being the riddance of our hives and longer-term being that of humans). We are also blind to any potentially beneficial and sustainable courses of action. Winston believes that “bees provide some clues as to how we may build a more collaborative relationship with the services that ecosystems provide.”[7] For example, there are many kinds of bees that could be of service for agricultural purposes, yet they are all threatened by pesticides, weed killers, and the ruin of their nesting sites. A study was conducted at Winston’s university that discovered how uncultivated land and therefore the pollination of unthreatened wild bees actually increased crop yields.[8] In short, it can be stated that “we manage too much.”[9] Humans have so arrogantly grown to assume that our interference with nature will make things better – that somehow, despite our obvious insignificance from the perspective of Time, our actions can be considered improvements. If we do not come to terms with our triviality, our ignorance in turn will be the root of our demise and nature will prevail as it always has.
            The works of Carson and Winston clearly have very similar motives. They see the planet’s ecosystem as one living being – every part essential and every system so tightly connected that the ripple effect of any small interference could be catastrophic. Take the human body for example. A person could lose an arm or a leg and survive, but remove the immune system of microscopic size and they wouldn’t last a day. The balance of nature is not totally, as people often see it, about preserving a forest here while building a city there. It is also about the minute details that we have grown so used to ignoring. Chemicals in our ecosystem, if we aren’t careful, become the seemingly minute infection that will kill first the immune system and then the body of life on Earth. And as both Carson and Winston discuss, mixings of these chemicals will bring a much quicker demise. On the topic of organic phosphates, Carson states that “1/100 of the lethal dose of each compound may be fatal when the two are combined.”[10] In this case the toxicity of the chemicals is ‘potentiated,’ which means that “one compound destroys the liver enzyme responsible for detoxifying the other.”[11] A harmless exposure to one chemical is still capable of killing so long as there is a harmless exposure to another chemical to accompany it. Taking the food chain into account, once the fish have eaten the plankton and absorbed the river water which runs alongside suburbia, how many chemicals have compounded in the little piece of seafood sitting on your plate? Potentiation can happen in all life. Winston relates this concept to the collapse of the honeybees, since “there is no one cause, but rather a thousand little cuts” and it is the “synergy” and the “compounding impact” of all our controlling efforts that destroys these insects.[12] Although we may not realize it, Winston mentions that humans are all too familiar with the warnings of potentiation. Every commercial and every label for pharmaceutical drugs warn of mixing them together. Why? Because mixing the chemicals they contain can be very harmful or even fatal. What Carson and Winston are trying to demonstrate is that nature cannot warn us before we kill it with our chemicals. There are no labels that say “This chemical released on this farm will contaminate the surrounding plants, animals, soil, and waterways, and in turn be mixed and amplified by chemicals released elsewhere.” By the time the destruction becomes obvious, it is too late and every part of the ecosystem has been infected or even destroyed completely.
            In conclusion, both Carson and Winston see significance in the parts of our ecosystem that are so often and so carelessly overlooked. The passion and irritation is evident in their words as they desperately try to convince the public of the consequences of their destructive behavior. They maintain more than passion, though, since arguing against the use of chemicals is to argue against generations of people from all walks of life that have not experienced any harm. Passion is simply not enough. Carson and Winston’s writing can be taken seriously because of the obvious and extensive education they went through in order to argue their point effectively. But isn’t it a little terrifying that despite a 50-year gap, improved technology, and numerous environmental movements, Winston is essentially reiterating Carson’s point? After all, how many studies like Winston’s must be done to prove that the micromanagement of nature is ineffective in agriculture? How many farmers have to die of cancer each year to prove that these chemicals harm more than they’re intended to? How many weeds will we kill and bee hives will we lose before we have rid the planet of pollinating insects? Only time will tell. In the meantime, Carson and Winston’s claims must be broadcasted in order to mitigate the ineffective and detrimental use of chemicals in everyday life.


[1] Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962), 163.
[2] Ibid, 164.
[3] Ibid, 71.
[4] Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962), 73.
[5] Winston, Mark, “Our Bees, Ourselves,” The New York Times, 14 July 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/opinion/bees-and-colony-collapse.html?ref=topics&_r=0
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Carson, Rachel. Silent Spring (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962), 31.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Winston, Mark, “Our Bees, Ourselves,” The New York Times, 14 July 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/15/opinion/bees-and-colony-collapse.html?ref=topics&_r=0