by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
It is a misconception that the majority of those “free” plastic grocery bags are made from oil, especially foreign oil.
Plastic bags are either made of a byproduct of natural gas or of a byproduct of oil, not of oil or natural gas itself. It is a misconception to say that they are made from oil.
Plastic bags are made from ethylene, a byproduct of natural gas or from ethylene created from naphtha, a byproduct of petroleum.
Chemists string together long chains of ethylene to form polyethylene. Depending on the process used to create the chains different densities of polyethylene can be produced.
As polyethylene is a byproduct, whether from natural gas or made from naphtha, which is a byproduct of the petroleum industry, those bags, really, but no more demand on the oil reserves and oil imports or those of natural gas, than does the demand for oil for the refineries anyway but they still remain unsustainable products.
The bags you are given at retail and grocery stores checkouts are High Density Polyethylene or HDPE. They are fairly sturdy, able to hold quite a bit of weight without breaking, optically cloudy, and can be dyed any color.
Low Density Polyethylene or LDPE are optically clear bags, very light, and often described as wispy. These bags are likely to be found in the produce market or covering your clothing at a dry cleaner.
In some countries, such as the USA, for instance, most of the plastic bags given away by grocery stores and others are made not from oil but natural gas, and the USA has ample supply of natural gas within its own borders – so no costly imports. Other countries are not so lucky.
In addition it has to be said that that only applies if the bags are actually produced in the USA and not, as will be more likely the case, in places such as China (or India). The source of the ethylene from which the polyethylene is then constructed we do not know.
Whatever the source, the fact remains that Plastic Bags Are Bad For The Environment
Most of what you have read about plastic bags is true. Plastic bags kill wildlife, cause pollution, clog landfills and indirectly raise the price of food at the grocery store. There are also, aside from those made from PLAs, that is to say those that are made from a plastic made from corn starch and lactic acids and such, no biodegradable plastic bags about. That is a fallacy and absolute greenwashing. Ordinary polyethylene shopping bags do NOT biodegrade; they photodegrade. That is to say they break down into ever smaller and smaller particles of plastic in the environment, all the while releasing harmful substances into the soil and water.
I strongly recommend the use of reusable grocery bags. They hold more, look better, and are not likely to leave your groceries strewn around the grocers parking lot.
Let us, however, clear up the misconception that plastic bags are made from oil. If they are made “from oil” then it is from a byproduct of the petroleum industry, namely naphtha. They are not, however, made from oil as oil goes. Therefore they are neither made from primarily from foreign oil or such.
We have enough strong and valid points as to why we should reduce or even ban the use of plastic bags without mentioning the oil factor in it at all.
However, whether made from a byproduct of oil or natural gas, that is to say from ethylene, they may actually come a long way to us as well, as I have said already. That too should be another reason, atop of the others, why we should get away from the free plastic grocery bag.
© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008
Plastic bags are bad but they are not (all) “made from oil”
Free Goods At Throwplace.com Help Consumers in Tough Times
Washington, DC: Throwplace users continue to list computers, furniture and all sorts of free merchandise to give away at Throwplace.com - the Internet’s landfill alternative.
At Throwplace.com, charities, businesses and individuals from all over the world can "throw" their excess onto the Internet where others can view and "take" what they need for free. Each "throw" and "take" is recycled and reused, keeping countless goods out of landfills, and helping people and non-profits make ends meet during tough economic times.
Throwplace.com members donate an astonishing array of items, from furniture and appliances to computers and bric-a-brac. The site enables potential “takers” to view items and make requests. “Throwers” then may read the requests in “My Account” at their leisure, selecting a recipient with the click of a button. Then Throwplace.com exchanges the giver and taker’s email addresses so that they may directly make shipping or pick-up arrangements.
Current "takes" include dining and living room furniture, handbags and shoes in New York, plants and crutches in Washington, DC, a brass pendant & chandelier in Illinois, a $250 bed in Florida, as well as computers and electronics for reuse and recycling too. Throwplace.com users are from all over the world.
One Throwplace user named Jeannine, who has recently moved out of a shelter, has found the site useful in helping her obtain some of life’s barest necessities for her new apartment. “I have found items on Throwplace that I desperately need. I have severe back problems and had been sleeping on a hardwood floor each night, until I found a bed on Throwplace.com. It is wonderful to know that Throwplace offers gently used items from private donors and charities to people in need, like me.” A user from the midwest looked to Throwplace.com for help for recent flood victims who have lost everything.
Throwplace is organized into four sections: US Charity, International Charity, Business/Individual and Up-For-Grabs. Representatives of US-based charities like Community Health Connection and Computers for Schools that have 501(c)(3) status can "take" from the US Charity section, and are obliged to return a receipt to the donor. This US Charity section is intended to help non-profits obtain items for special needs families and individuals in their areas. Taking from Up-For-Grabs section is free for everyone. With a nominal fee, businesses and individuals may subscribe to the site, and take from the Business/Individual section. Subscribing businesses receive a directory listing.
In late 1999, Lomangino, the owner of a highly-regarded graphic design firm in Washington, DC, saw that the web needed a marketplace where goods could be exchanged rather than thrown away. She launched Throwplace.com in late March of 2004, having developed, produced, and financed the site herself.
Lomangino hopes that non-profits from coast-to-coast will find items for community members who have been victims of the natural disasters that have occurred across the country, and who have fallen upon hard times during this economic downturn.
Throwplace.com is a Web site where businesses and individuals can post and find items listed for donation to charities and non-profits, businesses and individuals. The goals of Throwplace.com are to encourage reuse rather than disposal; to raise awareness of responsible environmental practices by promoting the free exchange of goods; to help those in need; and to bring the business community, non-profits and the general public together by creating a central repository of donated merchandise available for recycling, reuse, and refurbishing.
Source: Throwplace.com
<>
Reusable water bottles -vs- Plastic disposable bottles
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
The concept of disposable plastic items has, honestly, got to be one of the most stupid ideas in all of human history. On the same level, about, as nuclear energy, disposable plastics are made for a one-time only use and then end up as toxic waste that lasts almost forever. Its convenient and cheap in the short term, and polluting and cancer-causing in the long term. Plastic also does not biodegrade and there is no such thing as biodegradable or compostable plastic with the exception of that kind that is made with corn starch or lactic acids. Other plastics simply are not biodegradable and especially not compostable. Plastics do not biodegrade, they just simply, slowly, break down in the environment, that is to say this is true for plastic bags and other products of the polyethylene and related ranges. Harder plastics simply do not break down and they will still be down in that landfill or in the bush in a 1000 years. Only glass lasts longer.
The greatest problem with plastic, whether bottles, cutlery, dishes, etc., is that they will last for centuries if not nigh on forever in the soil and if they slowly break down – into ever smaller and smaller particles of still plastic – they release harmful substances into soil and water.
A shocking factoid: Americans use 2.5 million bottles every hour. Oh my.
So, what is one to do? As far as water bottles and bottled water is concerned this is easy. Just stop using both. Get yourself one of those reusable water bottles – no, it does not have to look like the army on exercise. Get the best water bottle you can find and afford and carry it with you wherever you go.
Concerned about quality of tap water? Don't be! There is no need, at least not in our developed countries, in the main. Pepsi's brand of bottled water, Aquafina, is the best-selling brand of water in the United States and it is – well guess what? – tap water – plain and simple. Coca-Cola's brand Dasani, is also nothing but tap water. So, why are you going to buy bottled water in plastic bottles?
We must all, well those that buy bottles water for sure, be stupid – tap water in a bottle.. at what cost? Who in their right mind – then again, oh well – would pay $2 and more for a bottle of what is more than likely tap water, even though it way have been filtered through charcoal and such? Doh! The mind boggles. We can do that also at home and at the office with water filters of the various kinds.
What is really amazing is that those Whole Food and Health Food stores, those claiming to be “green”, are also selling bottled water, in disposable plastic bottles. This does not compute.
Lets change the number one selling item at Whole Foods from plastic bottled water to stainless steel water bottles, and turn our future landfills into future land trusts. And let us all go and get reusable water bottles – whichever one is irrelevant, just get one, or even two or three, and use them.
© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008
The Windjammers return
Wind-powered tall ships are once again gaining in importance as oil prices hurt trade and shipping
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
The first commercial cargo of French wine to be transported by sailboat in the modern era arrived in Dublin recently after a six-day trip. The 108 year-old boat, chartered by French shipping company Compagnie de Transport Maritime a la Voile (CMTV), was carrying 30,000 bottles of wine.
Though the ship travels at a top speed of eight knots half the speed of a modern cargo vessel it is completely pollution-free. The 50,000 other merchant ships traveling the world emit 800 million tons of carbon dioxide each year.
The Kathleen & May spent most of its life transporting coal and clay. It was taken out of commercial service in 1960. Now its once again hard at work, as CMTV has contracted for 80 vineyard owners from southern France to carry their wine bottles to Ireland on the ship. The company is also working on another deal to bring Irish whiskey and scotch to France using the boat, and it eventually plans on building its own tall ships for transport.
CMTV may be on to something; according to the French Association of Shipowners, wind-powered boats could capture .5% of the commercial shipping market. This may not sound like muchuntil you consider that 90% of the worlds traded goods are transported via boat.
Tall ships may move a bit slower than fossil-fuel powered ships, but their minimal environmental impact could make them sea trades best hope for the future.
In addition to this it would also bring back some good old trades and some good old products, such as proper sails and boat building.
There are some that are playing around with powering ships with some sort of wind-turbines and such like but I ask: “what for?” The old technology of sail and ship is as good if not better and it is a time-honored and time-proven technology. There are no trials to be run and no pitfalls. When we remember the speed that ships like the “Cutty Sark” had with full holds of wool from Australia to Britain then the windjammers sure can have a future, yet, again.
So, let's hear it for the tall ships and for freight carried the old-fashioned way.
Maybe cargo containers don't fit onto tall ships but, well, maybe we could also look at actually making things close to home again. Then again, with a little thinking maybe those boxes will fit.
© M Smith (Veshengro), August 2008
<>
Green Oil – Product Review
Aside from being environmentally friendly it lubricates as it should and I certainly think that my oil for the bikes in future will be nothing but Green Oil.
As far as I can see so far the chains lubricated with Green Oil do not seem to get clogged up with debris and dust and all as fast as they do when other cycle oils or such are being employed.
Green Oil contains advanced long-chain molecules to reduce friction and these polymers also repel water molecules, which inhibits rust and corrosion, prolonging the chain's mechanical life.
The bottle for Green Oil is made of a thermoplastic. This means that it can be repeatedly softened by heating and hardened again on cooling making it possible to recycle it over and over.
Green Oil bottles are made out of HDPE, or 'High Density Polyethylene' and this is the same plastic as that used in milk bottles so, therefore, ff your council recycles plastic milk bottles, it will recycle Green Oil bottles.
The cap, alas, is made of polypropylene, which is plastic type 5 and is not usual recyclable through council schemes though there may be commercial schemes that use those caps.
Each Green Oil bottle has a recycled paper label. This can be removed, and recycled again, possibly into a new Green Oil label, The label is printed with non-harmful inks.
Green Oil is manufactured from naturally occurring plant extracts, a blend of which produces a high performance lubricant. Green Oil contains no animal derivatives.
Green Oil protects from rust and gives a smooth, low friction ride. It contains no irritants or hazardous materials.
Other lubricants more often than not contain chemicals that are harmful to human and animal skin. Green Oil, on the other hand, is different, without compromising performance, however. Green Oil is not based on petrochemicals. It also contains no palm oil. Also, Green Oil contains no animal products or by-products, and is suitable, therefore, for vegetarians and vegans.
Green Oil is made in Kent, in the United Kingdom, and has a very low environmental footprint in that regard, not being imported from either the USA or even China.
As far as I am concerned as reviewer and a cyclist – please note I do not own a car and the bicycle to me is therefore vital as a working means of transport – Green Oil is a great lubricant and having those nice environmental credentials definitely gets a 5-star rating, that is to say, the maximum.
All we now need is to have Green Oil available in all bike shops.
Review by Michael Smith (Veshengro), August 2008
<>
Grocery Store Stupid Human Tricks
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
How often do you see this. You are at the grocery store in the veggie isle. You are waiting for the person in front of you to finish so you watch her.
She is looking at fresh corn on the cob. They are on sale. 10 ears for £1.20! She is picking up this corn, turning it, peering cautiously into the top like something is going to jump out at her, etc... Then she looks over and sees the prepackaged corn on the cob, looks back at the fresh one in her hand, and tosses it down, grabs the Styrofoam/cellophane wrapped corn and walks off.
This can be rather a shocking experience for the watcher! First of all, that person, like so many people, had no idea as to what she was looking at with, as in this case, the fresh corn, and then they choose the plastic wrapped corn over the no waste corn. I would guess they do this assuming that they think that the packaged corn – or whatever – is of higher quality than the lose one. Often it is not, however.
Aside from that the buyer chose the packaged corn that cost £3.40 for only 4 ears instead of the fresh, unpackaged corn was 10 ears at £1.20 – Doh?
The same is also true with supermarket “own label” goods, such as in the case – and OK, I may do a little advertising here – Sainsbury's (in the UK) “Basics” range or foods. There is, for instance, the canned Chilli Con Carne that is around 70pence now (since the prices all go through the roof) compared to the same size can of Chilli by a leading brand – in this case Princess. Many people will go for the pretty label leading brand believing it to be better quality and therefore, in their eyes, better value. I wonder, however, how many read the label. On the leading brand – and it does so on many leading brands of Chilli – it states “reshaped beef” and anyone who knows how reshaped beef is obtained would not pick that product (I certainly wont). The label on the “Basics” brand reads, on the other hand, “minced beef”. Which one is the better? No contest, for I tried both. The better one in taste, texture, and all is the Sainsbury's “Basics” label Chilli. And the same, I hasten to add, holds true for other such goods from that company. How other “value” brands compare, I cannot tell.
So, often label and packaging and price are more than conceiving and the public gets duped again and again.
© Michael Smith (Veshengro), August 2008
<>
European Union backs slowly away from crop-based biofuels
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
EU ministers for energy and the environment have revised their targets for renewable energy in the face of abundant new evidence that increased production of agrofuels is partly responsible for the worldwide increase of food prices.
The EU has had a declared objective of increasing the share of crop derived biofuels used in transport by 10 percent by 2010. This objective was announced during the spring of 2007, as part of the European Commission (EC) plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020. The European Commission is the executive arm of the EU.
Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are thought to be the main cause of global warming, and thus of climate change.
Please note that it says “are thought to be”, which means, as I keep saying, that this is not a proven fact, though we are, more often than not, presented with it as a fact. The story most of us hear again and again is that “greenhouse cases cause climate change”. Still no acceptance of the possibility, even of the possibility, that the climate change, which is a fact, is a cyclic phenomenon of the Earth and that we can do nothing to stop it. This “are thought to be” is not just my words; in fact the writers for the Eu seem to be using the same words.
German deputy minister for technology and energy Jochen Homann said after a EU ministers meeting earlier this month that the EU had "discovered" that the EC directives speak of "renewable sources", not just agrofuels.
Oh, the EU has “discovered”, much like the British government that “discovered” that one can use canals for freight transport – what the hell did they think they were designed and built for – and that one can burn wood (for energy) – something even the Neanderthals could have told them, that the directives of the European Commission, the governing body of the EU, speaks of “renewable sources” and not just (food) crop based biofuels.
Agrofuels are distilled from maize, sugarcane, soy and other crops, and were until recently considered a carbon-free combustible that could be used in automobiles without producing greenhouse gas emissions.
Recent studies and findings though seem to suggest that biofuels from such crops as mentioned above may cause more harmful emissions in fact than oil based fuels in the current ICE vehicles.
In a declaration to the press after the meeting in St. Cloud on the outskirts of Paris, French minister for the environment and energy Jean-Louis Borloo said agrofuels "are only one alternative, among others."
Numerous EU documents speak of increasing the share of agrofuels in transport.
Article 3 of an EC directive of 2003 (also known as the biofuels directive) asks member states to ensure "5.75 percent agrofuels" in fuel used for transport. The same year the French government – of which Borloo was deputy minister for urban development first, and minister for labour and social affairs later – approved a plan to increase the share of agrofuels to seven percent by 2010.
Another European directive, approved by the Council of the European Union in March 2007 establishes "a 10 percent binding minimum target to be achieved by all member states for the share of biofuels in overall EU transport petrol and diesel consumption by 2020, to be introduced in a cost-efficient way."
Now, after the correction in St. Cloud, the EU might change its official views on agrofuels, once considered the ideal solution to feed the growing demand for transport fuel while at the same time reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The EU about-face on this comes, as I indicated above already, after new scientific suggests that the ecological footprint of biofuels from crops is not as green as once thought. New evidence has also underlined the responsibility of agrofuels for the food scarcity crisis.
As I have said in a previous article, it would have hardly needed a study of any kind to realize that the use of food crops for the production of biofuels would push up the demand and with it the prices, leading to a scarcity, especially as commodity brokers play with the grains.
A World Bank paper says production of agrofuels is responsible for 75 percent of the increase in the price of food. The confidential report leaked to the media says higher energy and fertiliser prices accounted for only 15 percent of the increase.
The figure contradicts claims by the U.S. government that agrofuels have contributed less than three percent to food price increases.
The Agricultural Outlook 2007-2016 produced jointly by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group of 30 wealthy nations, and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) says "the pressure (on food prices) can be either direct, through growing demand and changes in consumption patterns as incomes rise, or indirect as alternative uses of food crops, such as inputs for fuels, have led to higher domestic prices."
For the EU, the OECD-FAO report says that "this growth in biofuel markets translates into strongly increased demand for feedstock products." The document says the "use of wheat (for agrofuel production) in particular is set to increase twelve-fold and to reach some 18 million tonnes by 2016.
"Growth in the use of oilseeds (largely rapeseed) and maize is less dramatic, but would still reach 21 million tonnes and 5.2 million tonnes by 2016 respectively," the paper adds.
Yet another study, by the Environmental Protection Encouragement Agency (EPEA, based in Hamburg, Germany), says agrofuels "create much more (ecological) problems than they will solve, including deforestation, increase in greenhouse gas emissions, requirements for land that does not exist to achieve positive environmental effects, enhanced food insecurity, creation of more poverty, increased soil degradation, decreased biodiversity, (and) accelerated depletion of natural resources."
Borloo says "over the years, agrofuels were the one and only (ecological) truth; now, we are about to change our minds at the highest speed. What we considered the solution a couple of months ago is now in disgrace."
With all this evidence before us why are the governments, whether the British, or the EU as a whole, still advocating the stupid notion of fuels from crops? If we are really serious about reducing emission – I will not call them “greenhouse gases” - then we must get away from the vehicles with internal combustion engines that burn fuels, whether oil-based or whatever-based.
© M Smith (Veshengro), August 2008
<>
Correct tire pressure saves gas and the environment
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
Inflate your tires and check the air pressure often to save on gas and reduce harmful emissions. The correct pressure should be found in your vehicle's owner's manual as well as, theoretically, on the side of the tire.
Check your tires. Keep wheels aligned and tires properly inflated. And keep that engine tuned. You will save up to 165 gallons of gas per year by minding those spark plugs, oxygen sensors, air filters, hoses and belts. Each gallon of gas emits 19.6 pounds of CO2 into the air. I know everyone keeps saying “into the atmosphere” but the atmosphere is high up and I have a problem with a gas that is heavier than air getting into the atmosphere.
In some vehicles the details of the correct and optimal tire pressure also, so I understand, can be found at the side of the driver door for that particular car.
Once you go to the filling station, get the tires checked for the correct pressure or, in most cases you will have to do it yourself, at the air points. It really simple to get all the tires to the right pressure.
Having talked here, initially about motor vehicles, whether car, truck, or motorbikes, the idea about the correct tire pressure also applies to bicycles, though not in regards to saving gas mileage but in regards to easier riding and, especially, in regards to getting a longer life out of your tires. If your bicycle tires develop a kind of diamond checkerboard pattern along their sides then you are running them on the incorrect pressure for the weight you are putting on them.
Keep them tires up to the right pressure and especially as far as bicycles are concerned you will be surprised how high the pressure actually is supposed to be on cycle tires. So get them pumped up.
© M Smith (Veshengro), July 2008
Firm fined over milk and food waste polluting watercourse
by Michael Smith (Veshengro)
Milk was among the food waste polluting the Towns Croft Drain, in Grimsby
A factory has been fined £30,000 after allowing milk and other food waste to pollute a nearby watercourse.
The pollution from the company's premises killed a large number of creatures in Towns Croft Drain, in Grimsby, and fish were also adversely affected by the discharge from the premises owned by Bakkavor Foods, magistrates heard.
Bakkavor Foods, which pleaded guilty to two charges, was also ordered to pay £1,710 in costs after failing to dispose properly of its waste.
The pollution was first spotted by a member of public in August 28, 2007 when it was noticed that a tributary of the Towns Croft Drain was milky white and smelt of rotten eggs.
An Environment Agency investigation traced the contamination back to the site of Bakkavor Foods.
The court heard the officer found that waste management at the premises was poor, and that yard surfaces had become contaminated with food waste including milk, which is the most highly polluting of all foods. Other foodstuffs such as pasta, rice, carrots and beans, too, were found in the Towns Croft Drain.
Following the hearing, Environment Agency officer Christian Martin said: "Despite being warned following the first incident in August, the company again allowed highly organic polluting matter to enter the watercourse.
"This should send out a clear message to companies that the Environment Agency will take action against those who disregard environmental law."
© M Smith (Veshengro)
