If you’re like me you’ve got a lot of broken stuff in your basement or attic or storage area. Thinking about my basement, I can picture the train table with a missing leg, some chairs with busted seats, and–oh year–an old laptop computer. I keep telling myself I’m going to have those chair re-caned and I’ll try to give the train table away to someone handier than me who would reattach the leg. But the laptop computer. It has never even crossed my mind that anyone–let alone me–could or would fix it. But we could.
First a little context: Ewaste is a devastating problem. According to National Geographic reporting, 80% of our used and broken electronics are landfilled in this country (this despite bans that seek to keep toxins from leaching into soil and water supplies). What about the 20% that is “recycled”? Well most of this gets shipped overseas where individuals are burning it–that’s right burning it–or ripping it apart in order to recover materials like copper that have a resale value. Meanwhile dangerous pollutants like flame retardants, arsenic and mercury are released into the air, water and soil. And how are the individuals conducting these “recycling” operations protecting themselves from exposure? They aren’t. And many of them are just kids.
There are solutions. On the legislative/regulatory side, we could and should require manufacturers to take responsibility for the end-life of their products. This would surely go a long way towards moving away from a conventional design practice called planned obselecense. Instead of designing products to become obsolete (motivating consumers to buy newer, better, faster products), such laws would incent manufacturers to design products that will last a long time and are easier to fix when they break and upgrade as new technology develops.
But even with better design, things will still break. Someone needs to fix them and most of us don’t have a clue to go about doing this. Enter solution number 2: Ifixit is an exciting young company that is working to create comprehensive online repair manuals for every electronic device and, thus, enable people to fix their broken down electronics. In a video on the company’s website, co-founder, Kyle Wiens, describes the effort as a “wikipedia-like” one. In other words, Ifixit is aiming to create a continually updated encyclopedia for repairing electronics. Not only that: they provide troubleshooting guides and sell parts and tools. Pretty exciting if you ask me.
If you want to learn more about the ewaste problem and how Ifixit is working to solve it, visit their website and make sure to watch the video. It’s devastating and inspiring at the same time–in my opinion, just the right combination to motivate change.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
A devoted New Yorker reader, I was quite chagrined when Monsanto began peddling its supposed commitment to sustainability in my favorite news magazine last year. Was anyone else struck by the irony that this paragon of journalistc excellence–very same outfit that publishes Elizabeth Kolbert’s trenchant and meticulously researched pieces–would also print greenwashing of the highest order?
To say I’m not a big fan of Monsanto and it’s “Roundup Ready” line of genetically modified seeds is putting it mildly. To my mind ongoing “questions” about genetically modified crops–Are they safe? Do they produce more? Are they environmentally-friendly? Are they the solution to world hunger?–have been definitively answered in the negative. No: GMO is not safe, does not produce more, is not environmentally friendly and is not the solution to world hunger.
Consider the following:
- In a literature review of two dozen academic studies of GMO published last year, the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that genetically modified crops have not increased yields.
- The introduction of Monsanto’s “Round Up Ready” GM seeds have increased the application of the pesticide Round Up (glyphosate). It is estimated that application has risen 1500% since GM seeds were first introduced in 1994.
- Recent research–which was shoved under the rug by the USDA–indicates that glyphosate is not nearly as benign as Monsanto has claimed it to be. For example: overuse of Round Up has created superweeds that are resistant to glyphosate. Industrial agriculture in the south has been particularly hard hit by this problem.
And yet… just two weeks ago The National Research Council issued a report that concludes that GM crops have provided “substantial environmental and economic benefits to farmers.” Although the report cautions that overuse (!) of the technology threatens to erode gains, it is largely positive on GM.
And yet… credible cases continue to be made, by those not beholden to Big Ag, for the future role of GM in addressing the problem of world hunger and creating a sustainable agricultural system. In Tomorrow’s Table, Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak, a plant scientist and an organic farmer, argue that “if responsibly managed,” genetically modified crops will “allow much of the world’s hungry to be fed from land already degraded by the plow’s slice and the tractor’s compressing wheel.”
Of course, “if responsibly managed” is a big caveat. But how do you square the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists with the report by the National Research Council? If it isn’t just to come down to polemics and shouting matches then the answer has to be: more research.
Although we can’t put the genie back in the bottle and let it out again only if and when its shown to be safe and effective, we can ask our government to exercise a little more precautionary oversight so that our health and environment aren’t sacrificed for the sake of corporate profits. Here’s a place to start: tell the Obama administration that you want clear food labeling that make it easy for consumers to avoid GMO.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
What is Bisphenol-A and why is exposure bad for you health? What about phthalates and perchloroethylene? Where in your everyday life might you encounter toxic chemicals and what can you do to protect yourself? If you have questions about chemicals and health, there is no better resource than Tox Town. Maintained by the National Library of Medicine, Tox Town provides easy to understand descriptions of toxic chemicals, information about exposure and links for those interested in learning more.
Watching West Coast cities push ahead with curbside food composting, I’ve been almost green with envy. Perhaps most highly publicized is San Francisco’s program, which began last year as part of the city’s ambitious goal to achieve net zero waste by 2020. Then there’s Seattle’s program, which has been running since 2005! And now Portland, OR has joined in with trial program that began last week.
Meanwhile, here in my home town of Newton, MA we are still struggling to adjust to single stream curbside recycling–as we continue to consign our apple cores, cucumber peels, egg shells and coffee grounds to the garbage disposal or trash bin. Which, by the way, accounts for a heck of a lot of trash: nationwide almost 30% of municipal solid waste nationwide is organic, compostable matter. And this figure doesn’t even take into account the amount of food we’re washing down the drain.
So what are those of us who aren’t blessed with curbside composting programs to do (besides agitating for them)? Well, we can start by setting up a home composting system.
My family has been composting now for almost three years and it’s really a lot easier to set up and maintain than people often think. We have a ceramic composting pail from Gardener’s Supply on our kitchen counter where we collect vegetarian food scraps (no dairy or meat).
When the ceramic pail is full we dump it into a large, heavy-gauge, covered, black plastic bin in our back yard, into which we also add a good bit of grass clippings, leaves and even shredded paper. We probably turn the pile a couple of times during the summer with a pitchfork, and we harvest the finished compost once a season from the bottom of the bin via a sliding door. That’s it.
Well, sort of. There are a variety of compost systems and a variety of ways to manage your pile, depending on your priorities. Here are some tips to get you started:
- If you are concerned about rodents or other animals, use a covered bin (like ours).
- The more you turn your pile the quicker you will get finished compost. If you want to make compost quickly, go with a rotating system like the Bio-Orb from New England Rain Barrel:
- For higher quality compost strive for a 30/70 ratio between “green” and “brown” matter. Green, or nitrogen rich, materials include food scraps and lawn clippings. Brown, or carbon rich, materials include dried leaves, hay, and shredded paper.
- If you live in a cold and snowy climate, make sure your bin is easily accessible in the winter or you won’t use it.
- For easier harvesting, get a bin with an access door. You can harvest finished compost from the bottom while adding fresh compostables to the top.
Of course curbside would be great–for one thing, the industrial composting facilities that process municipal composting accept all food matter including meat and dairy, which are not advisable in a home composting system. But we don’t need to wait for curbside. We can make black gold right in our own back yards. And divert 30% of our household waste from the trash.
If you’re ready to get started, you might also want to check out Earth Easy’s Guide to Home Composting and/or Mother Earth New’s article “Compost Made Easy” a comprehensive overview.
Happy composting!
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
I first got involved in green building when I renovated my master bedroom a year and a half ago. I hired a local contractor, Byggmeister, with a well-deserved reputation for energy efficient remodeling. But they weren’t really focused on other facets of green building that were a priority to me such as waste management, resource conservation and healthy materials.
So I took on the task of figuring out everything that didn’t have to do with energy. I found a place to recycle the carpeting, tile and toilets we ripped out. I required the lead carpenter to seal our plywood subfloor with AFM Safecoat when I found out that the plywood wasn’t no-added formaldehyde. I insisted on cast iron piping because I didn’t want the “poison plastic” (PVC) in my house.
I got my start in green home consulting largely because of this experience (and because Byggmeister brought me on as a consultant). In the beginning, I was very focused on product selection. What is the greenest carpet or cabinetry or countertop? I spent hours of time hunting for the greenest… whatever, only to find that there are frequently only shades of green and that the “greenest” choice depends on the particulars of the home, the needs and priorities of the occupants, and informed guesstimates about impacts. Green product specification is enormously complex.
But here’s the silver lining: It’s not really as pivotal as I thought it was. As I’ve learned more about green building, I’ve realized that focusing primarily on products and finishes can distract from other equally if not more important facets of green. Recycled tiles, cork flooring, low-VOC paint, and Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) cabinetry are great green choices. But they aren’t where I would suggest homeowners focus their energy, at least at first. These products are more like icing on the cake, or accessories to an outfit. They come after other important decisions are made.
To see how this is so, first consider that behind the finish work lies all sorts of materials: framing, insulation, pipes, wires, ductwork, subflooring. Then add to these all the visible but unsexy materials like roofing and mechanical systems and gutters and downspouts. Many of these materials–such as insulation–play a much bigger role in determining the impact of a home than all the finish work put together.
Then consider that decisions about design lie back behind and greatly influence decisions about materials. The process of building a truly green home must begin during the design phase, and more specifically with an effort to fulfill functional requirements and lifestyle objectives while minimizing scope. I would even go so far as to say that the single most important “green” choice that a homeowner can make when building is to minimize scope. The less you build–and in the case of a renovation, the less you change–the less waste you’ll produce, the fewer materials you’ll use, and–most importantly–the less energy and water your home will use over the course of its lifespan.
The importance of subsequent decisions is–at least for me–a toss up. Many in the green building world believe that energy trumps everything else. I believe that the health of the home environment is as important as energy performance. But water use and durability are important as well, as is material/resource conservation.
Of course at some level all design and building decisions involve materials choices. But the salient question isn’t really about this material or that material taken in isolation so much as how each component interacts with everything else and how the home performs as an integrated system. In short, a home isn’t green because its finishing touches are green–although in some cases these can matter a lot (think of dual flush toilets, for example, or LED lighting). A home is green because it performs well overall and over the course of it’s entire lifespan: with lower energy and water bills; higher market value; and healthier, more functional, adaptable and satisfactory living space.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
louisville auto repair…
You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog….
Trackback by louisville auto repair — July 24, 2010 @ 11:14 am
Maybe you should make changes to the webpage title The 4R: Reduce, Reuse, REPAIR, Recycle Greener Every Day Consulting to something more better for your blog post you create. I enjoyed the the writing nevertheless.
Comment by Team Roster — October 29, 2010 @ 10:04 pm