Group items tagged

And, just to further ensure my rightful position, erm I mean further encourage academic discussion... I have a series of articles and websites with useful information about waste to share with you all. The first of several, this UNEP report is a fantastic overview of and introduction to the idea of "waste." You all may or may not have already covered many of these ideas in 160, but if not, do take a look. Though much of it is basic, I did find myself learning a surprising number of things (e.g. I never considered just how many definitions of waste there are and how that can affect effective measurement of the human waste stream). It's worth taking the time to flip through the pages of this report as it touches on some of the questions I posed in my previous posting. For example, in the "Municipal Waste" section they report claims that, "Although our garbage bins represent only a small part of the total waste generated, it is an important part: the one in which everyone can take action. The part where we can take responsibility by deciding to reduce waste - by recycling and avoiding the purchase of over-packaged goods." Do you agree?

This is a report from Waste Management. WM is a company, not a governmental organization; this makes for an interesting report that addresses their "sustainability" from both the perspective of how their services contribute to global sustainability AND how they themselves are sustainable in their practices as a company. A great example, especially for an institution like Lewis and Clark -- as we also aim to contribute to global sustainability (e.g. ENVS department) but must also function sustainably as an institution (e.g. Facilities department). This report provides a model of how these two ideals can be integrated in one collective outlook. Additionally, following the trend of my previous posts, this report is yet another source of data about our waste stream. There is a strong focus on the future of our waste stream and the role WM hopes to play in it. There is a lot of emphasis placed on recycling, regenerative practices, and the use of waste as a resource.

If this counts as ecological modernization, then I'm all for it.

I feel like with great ideas like this one, I am always waiting for the catch, because this solution seems too good to be true. That being said, I am in complete support and I think that more thought could be put into the whole concept of human waste. Especially on campus I think there are opportunities for experiments with other methods of dealing with waste than flush toilets. I know that at other schools there are composting contraptions, point being the way we deal with waste now is not necessarily the best way.

I know what you mean about the catch... but if you think about this, it makes a lot of sense. Poop is compact energy sources that we just throw away (or better yet, use to pollute our water resources). It's energy just waiting to be used and if we can think of a way to get a little more use out of that material, then we should. This is exactly the kind of creative thinking we're gonna have to start doing. We've gotta realize that we dont have an energy crisis in the sense that we're running our of energy sources: we have an energy crisis in that we think we have to use external energy. We let so much that already exists in our local systems just pass us by! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanure

Fungi grow on coffee ground "waste," produce large edible mushrooms, and leave behind rich fertile soil for your gardens. Sound too good to be true? Incorporating and working within pre-existing energy cycles, and keeping the whole system in mind when addressing issues of "waste" and "resources" can result in some surprisingly beneficial and efficient solutions! The even more exciting news? We're doing this too! There's a large bin in the basement of Juniper, full of the Bon's coffee grounds, now sprouting several pounds of oyster mushrooms. Take home message behind inspirational change? Follow the ideas that excite you, and bring them to life in your framework of time and place.

A report from a waste stream analysis conducted in Arizona (cough cough situated research). Includes insights such as, "Feedback from small com- munity stakeholders suggests that mandating recycling in Arizona at this time could be counterproductive. It would require cities and towns with scant financial resources to initiate recycling programs having capital costs and transportation costs that, alone, make recycling economically burdensome."

We in ENVS are all over the bon for composting waste at catered dinners/events. But do we need that waste in the first place? And what about in the lunch room -- where there's a dishwasher! -- paper cups for the special drinks? Really? And until they stop putting them out in those lines, I'm looking at you, ENVS students; plastic cups are only a few steps away.

Not only do the disposable cups in the Bon suck, but at the meet your major events bottled water was served, while there are water fountains just down the hall. I don't get it. And I have a big problem with Maggie's and DoveCote not selling reusable mugs or promoting the fact they have mugs you can use if you stay there.. How can we discourage this practice?

Lucy I totally get what your saying. I know that Maggies has the reusable mugs but they don't advertise them, however dovecote doesn't--they do have cups though. Maybe that can be a topic we could bring up with the sustainability task force? Jim what do you think?

This is the sequel to my last post. Though still introductory in language and targeted audience (this is designed for the general public, not college students) this report does at least lead into some deeper, more fascinating, and perhaps more controversial issues. Of particular interest are: "Recycling - the right choice?," "The relativity of "basic needs," and "The making of international legislation."

I found this discussion very applicable to Environmental studies symposium.  It discusses not only why Americans do not eat healthy as well as how much energy americans waste by throwing away foods.  Annually America throws away as much energy in food as Switzerland uses for all energy purposes.

"... researchers were especially surprised to find that wealthy nations were no better at safeguarding their rivers than developing nations." GIS mapping used here too. After the Willamette River cleanup this past Saturday, this topic has been on my mind. I think we really need to address the chemicals we're dumping into our water, and this doesnt just mean the typical concerns around oil and extremely toxic compounds. We have a mentality that water is only here for us to use to get rid of our waste. We emphasize the importance of "clean water" for people's health because we use clean water for cleaning things, but we forget that even though we're clean, the water's not anymore. And the truth is, water does a lot more than function as a human waste disposal. We should know better than to think that we wont have to deal with the effects of the chemicals in our shampoos, toothpastes, and agricultural chemicals once the drain/rain takes them away. It just takes the effects a little longer to cycle back around, but clearly, they have.

HUMANURE? Almost. And its happening right here in Tigard OR. "...converts waste into small round pellets rich in phosphorus, magnesium, and nitrogen. The prills, as they are called, are a slow release fertilizer that keep most of the nutrients in the soil much longer than liquid or powder fertilizers because they take from three to nine months in the ground to fully dissolve..." "Producing the fertilizer locally also reduces carbon emissions as phosphorus is usually shipped to the Northwest from Florida, where it is mined."

Short, but significant. Jim Sensenbrenner has announced that his committee on energy independence will be shutting down. The Select Committee on Energy Independence was called a waste of money. Calls to mind Julie Guthman's call to turn to policy and work on policy for environmental issues. Granted, that was agriculture, and this is energy, but ultimately I wonder if in this climate that is a waste or resources, or if because of the antagonism efforts to work on policy were never more necessary. I tend to lean toward the former camp, but still. This may not be all bad news, due to Jim Sensenbrenner. I can't help but do a little bashing. He's from my district, and I've never seen a politician get into so many flustered arguments with high school student's - and adult constituents. Commonly he has given the response "its a complicated issue, you wouldn't understand" to those who have question some of his policy decisions. He also made headlines for storming out of a committee meeting, gavel in hand, after members of the committee asked him to follow the rules of parliamentary procedure. I digress, but this committee was never being run in a way that was tremendously supportive of the climate change initiatives environmental groups tend to desire, and would likely have returned to that state. So it may not be such a bad thing that it is out of the way. Still an important foreshadow of where energy policy has fallen in the political landscape - clearly less of a priority than in the past, for both parties.

I think it's depressing. Although climate change and energy independence could arguably fall under the committees on natural resources and energy/commerce, the fact that there is no longer a committee that specifically targets these issues means they can more easily be ignored. What types of climate change initiatives was the committee against? I don't agree that it might be worth it to cut a somewhat effective committee that specifically targets climate change when there's no replacement for it. Passing climate policy in this climate will probably be difficult. But it will probably be a lot more difficult now that there isn't a group of people working on it directly. I think it was important in changing the view that climate change is a "Democratic" concern and getting Republican support for climate initiatives. At minimum, I think its presence was important in making sure the debate continues to be about what the largest concerns are/ what we can do to address them rather than whether or not climate change exists or not. Sensenbrenner: "While I was initially skeptical of the select committee's mission, it ultimately provided a forum for bipartisan debate and an opportunity for House Republicans to share a different view on the pressing energy and environment issues that we currently face."

Gas companies resorting to flaring--questionable whether its efficient, or they are just lazy. It seems like the article is mainly trying to spark an interest by taking another view on an aspect of drilling for gas, and gas production. It seems crazy to partake in this, especially since the companies are too interested in the financial aspects than the practical. The product is expensive to bring to market which is why they burn it instead of take advantage of it. That seems crazy, especially now when gas production is such a popular and important topic.

Just noticed that I have been demoted from most active member position (not that I was paying very close attention to the group, ironically). And so, to feed two birds with one seed (as we environmentalists prefer to the phrase "to kill two birds with one stone"... unless of course, if the birds are proportionally overpopulated...) I figured I would both re-claim my hierarchical position and take part in shameless self-advocacy by sharing a link with you all about a project that my community in Juniper Dorm is currently undertaking... which many of you already know about because you live here. Nonetheless, in addition to the previously outlined motives, I figured that posting this link here could start up some needed academic discussions around this project; on both the specific questions we outline on the webpage, and the more general merits of this endeavor. What are the academic merits of endeavors like this? What are the potential academic drawbacks: could projects like this potentially encourage focuses that are too short-sighted? Is there value in examining the consumer sector's waste stream even if it is true that other sectors (e.g. industrial) have bigger contributions at the national and global level? I not only welcome, but explicitly solicit your thoughts and further questions on this matter.

This discussion is, I hope, an opportunity to start connecting the academics with other aspects of sustainability at LC (e.g. clubs like SEED and campus life groups like PEAS). I'll admit that, while I tried to be mindful of the academic/learning potential of this endeavor when I initiated in my dorm, I certainly haven't thought of everything we could learn from this, nor have I entirely digested whether or not this project is a worthwhile endeavor. My plea for your thoughts here is more than a formality -- this is personally important to me, and it also reflects bigger goals that have been developing this year regarding the future of sustainability at LC in the Sustainability Task Force and in other groups as well.

For those who aren't convinced that action at the individual level is the best focus of our energy and/or activism: "Management and recycling of industrial products and materials are key priority areas. While typically not seen by the general public or part of most of our daily lives, these wastes are often generated in large volumes. Learn about EPA initiatives, such as the Coal Combustion Partnership Program, and the recycling and beneficial use of industrial byproducts generated during manufacturing processes.

And lastly (for now), just to stir things up a bit, check out this piece on Environmental Health Perspectives (EHP), a monthly journal of peer-reviewed research and news published by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. This piece certainly raises interesting questions and offers unexpected claims. For example, in the Environmental Gains section it says, "Instead of recycling office paper, Gaines says, it should be used to generate energy in coal-fired power plants. 'Then you burn less coal and displace some of the coal emissions. Paper is a really good, clean fuel,' she says." I'd caution against jumping too quickly on the "rethinking" bandwagon, though, especially considering the fact that this claim is followed by, "But Dennison argues that Gaines' analysis glosses over an important factor. 'The wood has to be harvested from a forest and the forest has to be managed to produce the wood. And that set of management practices has important environmental consequences with regard to biodiversity, habitat, and so forth, that have to be counted...' " ... DUH. If this is where the debate is, I'm not convinced that these ideas have been fully flushed out yet. It's certainly important to challenge our dogmatic practices, but we also must make sure we've got our arguments all straightened out before we run with them. This is a place to start, at least. (There are, also, a number of other interesting points in this article, not all of which are so obviously undeveloped. I do recommend this piece if I've succeeded in interesting you with questions about "waste")

This relates to my critique of Walmart's claim that they're "working towards zero waste." I assumed no report would actually encompass the true effect of their product, but it seems like I was wrong. Granted, Walmart is not on the list of companies participating in the study, but they do sell products by some of the participating companies. "The term life cycle refers to the notion that a fair, holistic assessment requires the assessment of raw material production, manufacture, distribution, use and disposal including all intervening transportation steps necessary or caused by the product's existence. The sum of all those steps is the life cycle of the product. The concept also can be used to optimize the environmental performance of a single product."

Recently, a politician who may take a role in our energy committe made comments against the clean air act because it shut down coal mines in the United States that couldn't meet its standards. Demand for coal on a global scale still exists, however, and now China has pollution akin to that in our industrial era. When the U.S. makes laws that help make economic actions "fair", "green", "safe", or otherwise it makes the market function better according to our values. But when other nations don't have those same regulations, business moves out, and we ship things like our waste and pollution to the third world. This video highlights a means of solving that problem. While the speaker addresses common concerns, I'm not convinced. I think he's pretty optimistic all around. How does one convince nations operating for their own good to impose limitations on themselves that might slow their growth? Easy for us to sacrifice some growth for environmental health, but a higher standard of material living matters more in impoverished areas - the conception is that taking care of environmental issues, or social issues, is a luxury derived from wealth. I really don't see a solution yet - I like what the speaker is doing, but I'm skeptical about its reliability. The store price of a good remains, I think, most people's measure of a succesful buy. Is a culture shift required to change that? More information? I'd certainly start with the latter, for the sake of doing something...

More on the death of the Select Committee on Energy Independence. Details the reasoning behind eliminating the committee and the "laments" of people who supported the committee. Republicans argue that the committee was a waste of money because it overlapped with the House Committees on Natural Resources and Energy and Commerce. The opposing point of view: the committee was worth the money, it was influential in passing the first vehicle efficiency legislation in 30 years as well as other climate change-related legislation, and it was essential for initiating bi-partisan movement on climate change and in educating/persuading legislators that climate change does exist. Daniel Weiss (Center for American Progress Action Fund): "We're one of the only countries of the world where leading government officials deny settled science." Will likely be a major roadblock for future climate change legislation.

Relates to next year's symposium on cities: here are some of the popular (and impressive, though unsurprising) approaches cities are taking to becoming more environmentally friendly. Many are rooted in energy concerns and transport, among a few other social equity issues. However almost all commonly share large-scale government investment approaches to creating spatially isolated things (exceptions include bike shares and Curitiba's bus system). Look to Masdar City for one that is fully designed as an environmentalist's paradise (cars are banned). But I would point out that such cities are incredibly expensive to build, and in this case, they're almost guaranteed to be built on the sale of oil. While I don't like to play a game of blood money blame, there is some irony. I'd like to see some cost-benefit analysis that address whether the costs, both monetary and external from the use of oil, really make these projects "better", or if they are more of a show than a practical reality. Curitiba in Brazil is one worth researching as well, if you're interested in cities. Also a design-centric city, Curitiba also tries to build off popular demand, and alongside their environmental wins they have a good list of social records to lay claim to as well. Unlike Portland's own MAX, they have a decent percentage of citizens who actually pay to ride the public transit (despite the fact that it also is run via a system where fare checkers are few and far between), and analysts have credited it to the civic pride generated by the aesthetic value and efficiency of the system. The demand there is a little more organic and if I remember right, the bus system actually uses a few private businesses who compete to provide optimal service. Government steps in to keep things relatively well organized - an interesting economic approach as well. Interesting government programs that combine solutions to poverty, waste, and education in one as well.

Cleveland has an interesting thing as well - low-income, private efforts to address problems locally and at a smaller scale. Theoretically, their approach could be used in a whole range of places, and addresses social concerns in Cleveland far better than something like a new green stadium would. It just requires people willing to set up systems like the one in the article (and funding - the systems they have were funded by another organization, not reliable in terms of expanding the scale of the project or keeping it going into the long term It is also a fairly fancy system - and costlier too. But the idea can be done cheaply). As we prepare to enter discussions on the symposium (meeting on the 10th! A week from today) I'm curious which approach people find more appealing.