Let's Talk About the Environment: Where You LIVE

Great article. We are replacing our bulbs etc only I wonder about the mercury in the new bulbs. Is there a decent alternative to compact flourescents?

I think these videos are neat. Thanks for sharingthem and your agreat article.

I wish American hasn't become a throw away society. I wish more people knew what to do with old stuff. Instead of just trashing it.

i recycle, and rely on eco-friendly options.

*Replaced traditional bulbs with flourescents years ago.
*I compost, reducing my trash/ landfill contribution.
*Made the switch to carrying canvas bags recently to stop using plastic and paper bags. Need a few more of those to get my usage to zero or near zero.
*Check sprinklers and plant natives and low water use plants for most areas. Saving water for roses, citrus trees, for a zone or two. Natives also support local wildlife.
*Walk to nearby stores instead of driving. Use the car for long trips and heavy loads, otherwise walk or bike.

There maybe more, but I can't think of it right now.

Recycling. Always the most filled bin for us. I love the new compostable plastic containers for fruits and vegetables. I had my doubts, but they really breakdown. So cool!

Great videos.

Thanks for sharing them.

Sadly, Sundance is not part of our cable package.

As for me; I drive very little, recycle most everything, and conserve a fair amount of electricity by not burning very many lights and only running the AC only for short periods.

Standing Applause for all the Green efforts of Sundance and The Green Moderator.

Green-

"Global warming" is NOT a settled Science, and we are the cleanest "producers" on the Planet. Isn't THAT wonderful!

-I live in multi-family housing, which greatly reduces heating and cooling needs (and costs) and takes less land space. The structure was built on a reclaimed hazardous waste site and did not take land away from public lands or historic areas.
-I use fluorescent bulbs in all fixtures that take them.
-I mostly use cleaning products that do not contain ingredients that are harmful to the environment.
-I recycle, including tiny pieces of paper. I've been recycling since before municipalities set up recycling systems, dropping recyclables off at a recycling center on my way to work.
-I live within four blocks of a shopping area, the library, my dentist, and the post office, and often walk to these locations.

I've been transitioning big over the past few years. All the typical stuff that is listed here: recycling, changing bulbs, turning off electronics while not in use, unplugging stuff at night, planting more trees, supporting green groups financially, buying green products (eg Energy Star dryer) when old ones wear out. And, as a crafter, I've taken to haunting resale shops to make "new" items. My latest favorite: using old sweaters to make purses.

thanks for the great article!

p.s. Regarding the very reasonable question by Lyn about CFL's, I sent a briefer version of this note directly to Lyn and thought I would make the information available to all.

Hi. I saw your comment about mercury in CFLs. I just thought I would point out that CFLs in our homes present very small risks and actually reduce the amount of mercury released to the environment, because they cause less coal to be burned for electricity.

CFL's have more than 100 times less mercury than a home thermometer of the type we all used to have. Old-style thermostats for air-conditioning/heating used mercury switches with much more mercury than thermometers, and every home had one. I'm not asking you to take my word for it. Here is one article on the subject: Q&A on CFLs from Treehugger.com. There are quite a few other articles that confirm the treehugger answer and logic.

So, it is a good question to ask, but the answer is also good. Not that CFLs are perfect, but the environment is being poisoned by mercury from burning coal already (and this has been going on for a very long time). Using CFLs cuts way back on electricity use and brings very little mercury into the home.

I'm a professional chemist, very aware of chemical toxicity, and feel perfectly comfortable with CFLs in my home.

I write on environmental topics at gather and at Chemistry for a Sustainable World, Sustainability and the environment, and Solar Power lens.

Best wishes.

"..very little mercury into the home."

That's great news, but the biggest problem foreseen is not that of mercury in our homes (although inhaling the dust from a CFL could certainly cause some serious health issues). The biggest problem foreseen rises as we think of millions of CFLs ending up in landfills over the years, and how their mercury tainted powders will then end up in our water tables.

We need better solutions. We need cheap and effective solar power.

I replaced most of the lightbulbs with the energy effecient ones (and saved for college with Upromise at the same time!). I know that how well they work is sometimes questions but if nothing else, we don't have to climb a chair or ladder to change the bulbs constantly anymore!
I freecycle and recycle! I donate things like shoe boxes, toilet paper/paper towel rolls, egg cartons and more to school and other places that use those things for projects.
I bought a few canvas bags for groceries though now I need to REMEMBER to bring them with me.
I reuse my plastic bags all the time. There are a few in the car for trash bags, I use them when my son is going to stay overnight somewhere. At the pool. Anytime we need a bag for dirty clothes. They come in handy.
We try to turn off all unused lights (hard with kids though we are working on it) and I am working on unplugging unused appliances. We buy energy efficient appliances when our old stuff needs replaced.
I am going to start wrapping up all the papers I get to give to people with fireplaces or firepits to use as kindling.

I wish we could walk everywhere. That would be great!
I actually just read something about cows causing more environmental hazards than cars. With their need to have grazing land (cutting down trees) and that they emit so much methane gas into the air and some other things. If this is true I would be willing to not each as much beef (my family would kill me if I removed it altogether).
I plan to try to refresh our home with safer paint when the time comes to paint.
We plant native plants in our miniscule backyard. If I could keep them alive it would be better. Same with inside the house. Though our garage is SO humid that it just might make the perfect greenhouse if I open the doors for sunlight. Since our cars don't fit in it it could work!

I use canvas bag when shopping ,I plant only native plants for the last few years

I recycle nothing. I don't believe in all the "green" hype.

It has been said that only 1% of scientists agree with the theory. I think it is the latest hollywood propoganda.

Kind of like armageddon was 2000. The world would end. etc...

Well, Bill's Spirit, I was responding to the question that I perceived was being asked, not to a different question that wasn't asked. But, since you bring it up...

I have to say that you are not close to being correct. If you had looked at the information I provided, you would have seen that environmental mercury decreases even if the CFL's end up in landfill (and let's hope they don't). All because of decreased coal use.

There is one fundamental difference between a CFL and your TV, laptop, flat screen monitor, DVD player, CD player, etc.: CFL's decrease energy use while the others increase energy use. All of the modern electronic devices, cell phones, etc., are made with things that we don't want in landfill: arsenic, lead, mercury, tin, and much more (except for the new Apple Air book, which is essentially free of toxic components and exceeds EU standards that aren't even in place yet).

These electronic devices need to be recycled properly, not put in the trash.

You are living in a fantasy world if you think you can have some, most or all of your modern conveniences without a risk of environmental damage. There is no free lunch. Nevertheless, if we treat these devices properly and dispose of them in a way that recycles the component materials, we will be in far better shape than we are today: the dangers can be avoided. There's far more material of a dangerous nature in the equipment you personally used to post your disparaging note than in a whole lot of CFLs (even if you used a Mac air- what about your DSL or cable modem, and the coal burned to power your system, etc?).

Dawne: you must be proud. Do you also refuse to take medicine when you are sick? Do you believe that TV shows transmit through your cable, if you have cable, or the air waves, or do just disbelieve some scientists but not others? And what blithering idiot's claim that Armageddon would occur in 2000 are you referring to? That wasn't from the scientific community.

I don't know where you came up with the 1% figure, but just isn't true. It isn't close to being true. Things are much closer to 100% in the other direction. To quote a high-ranking official in the National Science Foundation from a lunch several months ago, "It is now almost universally accepted that global warming caused by man is a serious problem." He was speaking about the population of scientists.

Here's some proof:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth's climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

One of the things I've added to my repertoire in the last 18 months is keeping my canvas bags in the car trunk. That way if I shop with others who do not normally use them, I can offer the option. Since grocers in this area offer a nickel a bag for using these, the people I take shopping (older folks) are happy for the savings.

DON"T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ! Here is SourceWatch on the OSI:
(http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine)

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) describes itself as "a small research institute" that studies "biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine and the molecular biology of aging." It is headed by Arthur B. Robinson, an eccentric scientist who has a long history of controversial entanglements with figures on the fringe of accepted research. OISM also markets a home-schooling kit for "parents concerned about socialism in the public schools" and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.

And from desmogblog:
http://www.desmogblog.com/flawed-oregon-petition-rises-again

My prolog: In case you don't know, "scientists" who worked for the tobacco industry to claim tobacco was good for you, didn't cause cancer, etc. are among the most reviled and discredited group of scientists in the history of mankind. JKB

"Flawed Oregon Petition Rises Again
21 May 08

Climate "Science" by the Pound

A climate change petition started in 1988 by the tobacco industry's favourite scientist (Federick Seitz), has just been re-released with a reported 31,072 signatures of "scientists" - some of whom are reported to actually work in the field.

The Oregon Petition was originally started by Dr. Seitz (formerly the principal adviser to the RJ Reynolds medical research program) and by Arthur B. Robinson, a lapsed biochemist who now operates the one-man Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

Robinson himself was quoted recently saying that a survey was an inadequate way to pursue science. "The numbers shouldn't matter. But if they want warm bodies, we have them."

But that turns out to be an overstatement. Seitz, for example, died in March."

Great article

The comments were very interesting.