Filed under: Waste + Recycling | Tags: compost, composting, environment, garbage, household, pet waste, recycling, waste stream, zero waste
- Coffee grounds and filter
- 2 egg shells
- 2 banana peels
- 2 lettuce leaves
- Yogurt container and lid
- Cotton stuffing from a new bottle of acetaminophen
- 7 tissues
- 4 dryer sheets
- 2 plastic straws
- 2 plastic lids
- Plastic “zip strips” from frozen fruit bags
- Plastic safety seal from syrup
- Plastic granola bar wrapper
- Dog hair
- 1 small plastic bag of dog poop (not pictured)
That’s a rundown of what ended up in my garbage over a 24-hour period. Weighing in at just over a half pound (not counting the poop – handling that once was enough), I would say our household of two plus a pooch is well under the average of 7.5 lbs of trash per person per week.
Of course, this list doesn’t include what was recycled. In the same time frame we added the daily newspaper, some paper packaging, a few beverage containers, and some plastic bags to the recycling. That adds another 1.75 pounds. Since I don’t typically polish off a 1.75-liter bottle of Jack Daniel’s every day, let’s call it 0.75 pounds.
Overall, I’d say we’re not doing too bad. But could we ever get to zero waste? A quick look in the garbage can tells me we could at least come close.
First of all, it is obvious that we need to start composting. I would guess that food waste in our house is higher than the 12% national average, and most of kitchen scraps we toss could be composted. The tissues could also be composted, and since I don’t have the time or talent to knit a dog-hair sweater, I could put those long golden dog hairs in the compost bin too.
We could cut out some addition waste with smarter shopping. I can drink my smoothie without a straw, and we could opt for liquid fabric softener to skip the sheets. But that still leaves a few scraps in the trash that are mostly plastic. The yogurt container isn’t recyclable in many communities (although TerraCycle is working on an innovative reuse program) and it’s hard to find frozen foods that don’t come in plastic bags or medicine that isn’t sealed with plastic.
So is zero waste possible in the modern household? Without giving up some modern conveniences, I don’t see zero waste in my near future. But through composting, more responsible shopping, and finding a solution for our pooch’s poo, we can cut our waste to next to nothing.
- Jeff Severin
Filed under: Food + Health | Tags: beef recall, chipotle, cows, downer cows, monsanto, posilac, rbgh, starbucks
Photo Credit: public energy
Maybe you heard about the 143 million pounds of beef that was recalled last weekend, a recall that was four times bigger than any beef recall in U.S. history. This is a lot of beef. To give you an idea of how much beef that is, 143 million pounds of beef could feed two hamburgers to every man, woman, and child in the U.S. You can check out the undercover video that started the recall here, but I warn you, it is not for the faint of heart.
The recall went into effect because “downer cows” were being accepted for slaughter and subsequently being consumed. Downer cows are cows that can no longer walk to slaughter. After the mad cow epidemic hit England in the 90s and the first U.S. case cam about in Washington in 2003, the U.S. banned downed cows from going to slaughter for fear of downer cows having mad cow disease. A recent exception last year allowed downed cows for slaughter so long as they were reinspected for illness, an exception that was obviously being exploited.
I walked into Local Burger this morning to find a pamphlet concerning legislation that would make the labeling of food as “rBGH-free” illegal. This means farmers who go through the effort to sell rBGH-free milk would no longer be able to label their products as such. This is both a major selling point for producers and a major concern for consumers. rBGH, recombinant bovine growth hormone, and all its synthetic forms (including Monsanto’s Posilac) are given to cows to increase milk production.
What’s so bad about increased milk production and cheaper milk? Well, there are concerns that rBGH milk leads to an increased risk of cancer. rBGH use has also been shown to increase the amount of pus in milk, birth defects in calves, mastitis (udder infection) in cows, and use of antibiotics needed to treat cows. These concerns have led Canada, Japan, the EU, Australia, New Zealand, and other nations to ban the use of the growth hormone. Monsanto, after being denied at the federal level, is pushing on a state to state level to ban the labeling of food as rBGH-free. With little to no international market for their product, Monsanto is trying its best to muffle these concerns and keep selling the hormones.
Now that you are up to speed on downed caws, the beef recall, and concern over rBGH, why do I bring all of them together in this post?
What the use of rBGH may be doing is increasing the number of downed, sick cows not fit for consumption. This is due to udder infection, the related increase in antibiotic use, and the development of antibiotic-resistant super bugs. Might cows be falling because rBGH is making them sick?
This hypothesis may need more testing, but reports from the Animal Wildlife Institute tend to agree. And as companies like Starbucks, Chipotle, and Ben and Jerry’s remove rBGH milk and milk products from their menus due to concern, you kind of get the feeling that people don’t want anything to do with the stuff.
If you don’t want anything to do with the stuff and want to prevent anti “rBGH-free” labeling in Kansas, you can email your legislators Senator John Vratil at jvratil@lathropegage.com andRepresentative Tim Owens at towens10@kc.rr.com. You can check out the Eat Local KC post for more information.
Bobby Grace
Filed under: Waste + Recycling | Tags: energy, facebook, global warming, oil, potatoes
With the words “green, oil and global warming” popping up everywhere these days, I am finding that every time I get into my SUV to drive; I am feeling a little more guilty about it. This could possibly also be because every week I am faced with the choice of either buying gas for my car, or eating for a week. Uh, screw that, I’ll eat more potatoes and ride my bike thanks.
You have to admit, it makes you think. In America we use our resources abundantly, and up until now have not given much thought as to what could happen if someday they run out. Take for example, our oil supply. The thought of Americans trying to survive without oil is like college students trying to survive without Facebook. We could live without it, but we are just too used to having it to suddenly lose it. It would be the like the apocalypse.
Here’s the deal: we are running out of oil. The most noticeable way to see this is by taking a trip to your local gas station. No, these prices are not the result of a conspiracy among the oil companies; they are the result of us using too much of it. We peaked our oil production in 2006, and it will only continue to decline.
The good news is, we can make minor adjustments in the way we use energy, and possibly avoid this apocalypse. Instead of driving everywhere ourselves, we can use public transit. Or in my case, I could trade my SUV in for a more fuel efficient car. We can shop and structure our lives to work within walking distances of our homes, or ride a bike. By taking these small steps, instead of living in the present culture we have become accustomed to, we could enter into a post-oil culture that we can be proud of.
-Sarah Nelson
Just a note that 60 Minutes is dong a story on the bees disappearing. I thought it might be interesting to see if and what slant there might be on this story, since we are all so intimately familiar with it.
-Adam
Filed under: Cars + Transport | Tags: bike riding in Lawrence; bike riding vs. cars
She’s got a ticket to ride—a bike that is! In the 1960’s when the Beatles released the song “Ticket to Ride,” there were not a lot of people riding—bikes that is.
In reality, the bike boom really seemed to take off in the 1970’s. However in today’s world, that trend has declined and Americans don’t really enjoy riding their bikes anymore. According to the League of American Bicyclists in 2002 less than one percent of the population, 488,497 people, used bikes to commute to work.
So what could be the reason more than 99 percent of Americans choose to spend money on an expensive and environmentally unfriendly car instead of a bike?
Lawrence writer Eric Farnsworth believes that the main reasons people don’t use bikes is because they are either unwilling or believe that their commute is too far. Eric believes that a manageable commute is four to five miles each way. He also says that the key to a good bike ride is to have a sturdy, comfy bike with working lights and either a rack or a basket of some kind to carry your things.
Before you head out, he adds that it is very necessary to check the thermometer and to dress appropriately. He gives the example of dressing as if you were going for a brisk walk. In the winter, make sure you wear a coat, gloves, hat and some kind of face covering.
In the summer, it is just important to ride slower, that way you won’t get to work soaked in sweat. On the other hand, if you pick up your speed in the winter, you are guaranteed to warm yourself up. And if the weather is rainy or icy, carpooling is a great alternative.
By following these steps, Americans (particularly those living in Lawrence) can do their part in reducing their eco footprint.
And if we teach our kids to start bike riding at an early age, hopefully they will maintain this habit the rest of their lives.
Lindsay
