ENN: Environmental News Network -- Know Your Environment

A new survey has supported research that “green fatigue” in the consumer world. Grail Research’s, “The Green Revolution,” has concluded that 43% of “light” green consumers—customers who have purchased environmentally-friendly products in the past—have either reduced their usage of green products or have switched back to conventional products over the past two years. At the same time, the percentage of traditional consumers increased to 22%.

Image credit: planetpanels.com

Annica Blake, the Global Head of Research Services at Grail Research said that there is still a market for green products in today’s market because of a specific market which has slightly increased over the past two years. “The number of ‘dark green’ consumers – those who select earth-friendly products for most of their purchases – increased by one percent, and now make up nine percent of the consumer market,” said Blake.

Here are some other findings from the study:

The study has found that consumers who have not yet switched to green technology. Five percent of dark green consumers and 22 percent of light green consumers switched from green to conventional products. Nine percent of consumers say they never consider buying green products – an increase of four percentage points since the previous report, two years ago. Also, being green is no longer a growing market.

American green consumers are decreasing because of the continuous recession. Light green customers have decreased 16 percent over the past two years. Also, 43 percent of green consumers cited the struggling economy as their main reason for why they have not bought green.

With the green market slightly decreasing, it looks like companies will have to do a few things to increase consumerism in their respective markets. An idea would be to up their advertising to persuade and influence a green market. They also would need to bring new ideas to the table to increase buyer interest and make buying environmentally-friendly products, not a thing of the past, but a wave for the future.

REDD stands for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, and is a program created to assist developing countries prepare and implement national REDD+ strategies. REDD+ goes farther to include the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks.

REDD relies on the expertise of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) for sound science, opinion and funding.

From the UN-REDD website:

“REDD is a mechanism to create an incentive for developing countries to protect, better manage and wisely use their forest resources, contributing to the global fight against climate change. REDD strategies aim to make forests more valuable standing than they would be cut down, by creating a financial value for the carbon stored in trees. Once this carbon is assessed and quantified, the final phase of REDD involves developed countries paying developing countries carbon offsets for their standing forests. REDD is a cutting-edge forestry initiative that aims at tipping the economic balance in favour of sustainable management of forests so that their formidable economic, environmental and social goods and services benefit countries, communities, biodiversity and forest users while also contributing to important reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.”

The basic goal of REDD+ is to create and use market incentives (economics) to reduce deforestation and degradation and thereby reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. This is based on the premise that forests act as “sinks” for carbon dioxide (CO2) – trees absorb CO2 and release oxygen (O2) as a by-product. REDD+ can also create other benefits like conserving biodiversity, reducing poverty and social strife.

Countries, individuals, and companies would pay for forests to be conserved by the local government or indigenous people or whoever owns the land. Of course, those paying have to see the value in conserving or rebuilding the forests and the benefits they see from paying must outweigh the benefits of it being destroyed – for example fossil fuel acquisition, agricultural/pasture land development, or some other development that requires removing the trees.

Problems with REDD+

Three major problems with REDD that I will point out are ones which are hotly debated by scientists, economists and politicians. One is that the premise of forests being sinks for CO2 is scientifically inaccurate. They are not so much sinks as containers. Trees definitely absorb CO2; however they are just temporary holders of it. Eventually, trees die naturally or by other means, releasing the CO2 back into the soil and air when they decompose or burn. Additionally, it would take a very long time to re-plant all the forests that have already been destroyed or degraded to make any difference at all in the actual CO2 levels of our atmosphere, and preserving mature forests doesn’t help because mature forests give off just as much CO2 as they absorb.

That is not to say, of course, that we should forego REDD+ or re-planting trees. Deforestation and degradation is a large portion of CO2 emissions:

“The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has estimated that deforestation and forest degradation contribute globally to approximately 17 per cent of all greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC, 2007 Fourth Assessment Report), which is more than the global transportation sector and third only to the global energy (26%) and industrial (19%) sectors.” (UN-REDD)

Second, there is a lot of controversy surrounding carbon markets. Putting aside the complexities of creating a new market, many people claim that creating this market doesn’t really solve the problem; it just gives certain countries or polluters which have money to pay for carbon credits (offsets) an excuse or “justification” to continue polluting. However, supporters of a carbon market say that it is at least a step in the right direction, and in order for people to see the “value” of something, there has to be a monetary value on it that is integrated into everyone’s expenses. When people are hit financially they are much more likely to seriously consider change.

Finally, it becomes very difficult to implement REDD+ activities because of the diversity of people involved and varying socioeconomic factors. Indigenous people who live in the forests, local leaders, politicians, foreign companies interested in natural resources, or local businesses might all have conflicts of interest. These issues can be more pronounced in developing nations where economic growth is at a standstill, property rights are minimal or non-existent, or governments are willing to do or allow anything in order to make money.

Ben Caldecott,  head of European policy at Climate Change Capital and writer from The Ecologist says:

“In theory, REDD+ payments, together with the other benefits derived from intact forests (such as wellbeing, biodiversity, clean air, water and food), should be enough to convince local people and governments to protect forests. But, without secure property rights, how do you get the cash provided through REDD+ to those making the decision about whether to protect a habitat or not? If the cash from REDD+ goes to national governments, the only ones with clear ownership in many less developed countries, is the money likely to be passed on to those on the ground who are taking decisions? The answers to both questions are hardly satisfactory. “

Caldecott goes on to speculate that in areas without clearly established and secure property rights, the funds won’t get to those it needs to influence – like the indigenous people or communities who are greatly impacted by poverty and the temptation of clearing forest for more profitable business.

Market-based Solutions

What is a forest worth? While this is a fundamentally difficult question to answer, I would take a bet saying that we all have a hunch that forests are worth more standing than not. REDD+ is just a part of a climate change solution because it alone cannot solve the climate issues we are facing – it needs the help of other programs like a carbon trading scheme, taxes (we all like clean air and biodiversity after all, right?) and serious emission reductions by developed countries. REDD+ also has major hurdles to overcome in terms of solving socioeconomic factors that play into payments and preservation. This is no easy task.

For now, to make climate change a priority perhaps we should seriously consider putting a monetary value on it starting in developed countries.  In the U.S. and many other highly developed nations, progress and success are measured by economics. Who has the most money, who can buy the most stuff, who can pay off what – this is how people think and function in the countries which are the biggest consumers and polluters. It makes sense then, to convince these big polluters to control themselves by creating something that can either negatively or positively affect them financially.

If a carbon market forces people to reduce emissions because they can’t afford to pay for the credits, that’s one way to get the job done. Also, if a carbon market is an incentive for people to not pollute because they will make money by abatement, that is another way to get it done. Either way, it’s my opinion that a carbon market is a step in the right direction, albeit not a complete, final, or ideal solution. Overall, REDD+ is a great example of the complexities involved when dealing with environmental issues that we, as the problem creators and the problem solvers, will need to address now and in the near future.

For an excellent article on CO2 and sinks, check out this National Geographic piece.

For the article written by Ben Caldecott on REDD+, see the Ecologist website.

Image Credits:

Dariush M./Shutterstock

Teng Wei/Shutterstock

Kalim/ Shutterstock

It seems that breathing in toxic fumes may be able to improve a person’s stress level. According to a new research study at Tel Aviv University, Professor Itzhak Schnell asked 36 individuals to go into Israel’s busiest city for two days. The test subjects, in between the ages of 20 and 40 years old, moved to crowded places in Tel Aviv such as marketplaces, bus stations, restaurants, and shopping malls. The subjects also monitored how the subjects traveled throughout the city, whether they used public transportation, cars, or walked by foot.

Courtesy of: Guardian Media Trinidad and Tobago

The researchers were testing four specific environmental tenets on the people who went out into the city: how the people were affected by noise pollution, crowding of areas, carbon monoxide levels, and their thermal load (how the participants handled hot and cold). Contributors reported how stressful the four environmental factors made their experience in Tel Aviv.

According to the results of the study, Schnell reports that noise pollution was the largest stressor among the participants of the study. A surprising result of the study, as said by Schnell, was the amount of carbon monoxide (CO) inhaled by people was extremely lower than expected. He said that the reported one to fifteen parts per million (ppm) of carbon monoxide appeared to have a narcotic effect on the participants. The narcotic effect caused by the CO counteracted the stress level induced by the noise and crowds that the participants had to endure.

For more information on this study, please visit: http://nocamels.com/2011/11/breathing-car-fumes-can-actually-reduce-your-stress/.

Photo Credit : MouthPower.org

On January 25, 1965 the city of Grand Rapids Michigan added fluoride to their municipal water system, thus beginning what the Center for Disease Control(CDC) considers one of the top 10 public health innovations of the 20^th century. Fluoride’s dental benefits had been discovered during the 1930’s when dental scientists found lower levels of tooth decay with people who live in areas where their water supplies contained natural levels of fluoride. Six years after the initial fluoridation of Grand Rapids water the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council (NRC) reviewed the results of the experiment and found a significant decline in childhood tooth decay and declared fluoridation safe, effective and beneficial. Currently 195 million Americans (about 72%) are served by community water sources that have fluoride added. Cost benefit analysis by the CDC  show that for  large communities of more than 20,000 where it costs about 50 cents per person, every $1 invested in fluoridation yields savings of approximately $38 in dental savings.

But lately the fluoridation of community water has become a controversial subject. Many people believe that the practice of adding fluoride was initiated without proper testing and knowledge of negative long term heath effects.  Though fluoride is considered beneficial for most children, too much fluoride can lead to dental fluorosis, which appears as permanent color discoloration of the teeth formed in young children(<8 years of age) during tooth development.  In the United States fluoride dilution recommendations had been .7 to 1.2  mg/l depending on climate(people in colder areas need to drink less water so they needed a higher dilution) but the recommendation changed to .7 mg/l since fluoride can now be found in a multitude of products inclouding childrens’ products like baby formula.

  Fluoridation of water needs to be strictly monitored because severe overfluoridation can result in accidental acute fluoride poisoning. In 1992 in 296 Alaskans grew ill and one died during a fluoride poisoning outbreak. Organizations like the The Fluoride Action Network (FAN) are concerned that there are more negative health affects that can be attributed to the fluoridation of water and works together with communities to halt fluoridation of community water sources. If you go on to FAN webpage they can link fluoride to cancer, arthritis, thyroid dysfunction, neurological disorders, brittle bones, and the calcification of the pineal glands. Whether or not these links are true fluoride needs to be strictly monitored because of the risk of toxicity.

Fluoride can be found being added in water all over the world. In Middle Eastern countries like Israel law requires that fluoride be added to the water. But in countries like the United States communities are voting to halt this practice because of health concerns. Fluoride is found as an additive in everyday products like bottled water, soda and toothpaste and some people feel that it should be their choice how much fluoride they consume.  Since October 2010 29 communities, including communities in the United States, Canada , and New Zealand,  have voted to halt the fluoridation of their community.  Whether this is to the communities benefit only time will tell.

For more information on the Fluoride Action Network and their research visit: FluorideAlert.org

For the CDC’s recommendations on fluoride consumption visit : http://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/index.htm

We’ve all heard about the cost savings involved in cutting GHG (green house gas) emissions, investing in renewable energy and doing eco-friendly things around the home or office. But, have you ever thought about how much money it would save to interleave mass transit into your transportation routine? What about cutting out short auto trips and replacing them with biking?

Jonathan Patz, director of the Global Health Institute at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, and Maggie Grabow, a Ph.D. candidate at University of Wisconsin–Madison’s Nelson Institute conducted a study involving 11 of the largest metropolitan areas in the upper Midwest of the U.S.  What they found, was that adopting a routine that alternates driving with mass transit and/or biking results in health benefits and substantial cost savings.

The study, recently published in the scientific journal Environmental Health Perspectives, shows that replacing half of your short trips with bike trips – even if it’s only during the warm or comfortable months of the year – saves roughly $3.8 billion per year.

How? This incredible savings comes from avoided mortality and reduced health care costs for conditions like obesity and heart disease. Particulates, small particles suspended in the air we breathe, enter our lungs and can cause asthma, cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases. Even a small reduction in particulate matter in the air can result in improved health.

And it doesn’t end there, the study also concluded that this simple act of occasional biking and taking mass transit instead of driving would save about $7 billion annually, including 1,100 lives each year due to better air quality and improved physical fitness.

Grabow claims, “In a busy daily schedule, if that exercise can automatically occur while commuting to work, we anticipate a major benefit in stemming the obesity epidemic, and consequently a significant reduction in type II diabetes, which is a deadly epidemic in its own right.”

What should also be considered, which was not incorporated into the study’s calculations are the cost savings of reduced car usage – for example gas and wear and tear maintenance. That means more cash in your pocket – pretty enticing if you ask me.

It is recommended that just 5 mile-long round trips using bikes instead of cars could be enough to improve health, reduce pollution, reduce asthma cases, and have beneficial effects in terms of air quality even for areas outside of your city – considering that polluted air moves around the Earth regardless of county or state lines.

How can the individual help?

These little initiatives are important for our health and the environment because by lessening our use of fossil fuels, we are lessening our emissions from fossil fuels – which directly relates to human health.This alternative style of transportation would be a lifestyle change for many people, and in some cases, may be difficult due to distance, geography, infrastructure, or climate. However, the task is definitely not impossible. In some cities in Europe, about 50 percent of short trips are done by bike – think Amsterdam. Granted, European cities might have more bike-friendly areas, higher gas prices, and their cities may be smaller, but that doesn’t mean we can’t replicate to their efforts in our daily lives as well. Instead of driving down the street to grab a coffee – take the bike. Instead of jumping in the SUV to go to see a movie – take the bus or train. These changes don’t have to happen all at once either; we can take it one step at time. For example, we can challenge ourselves to bike or use public transit to get where we need to go once a month for 6 months – then increase this number as we see fit.

“Transportation accounts for one-third of greenhouse gas emissions, so if we can swap bikes for cars, we gain in fitness, local air quality, a reduction in greenhouse gases, and the personal economic benefits of biking rather than driving. It’s a four-way win,” Patz says.

How can cities help?

By investing in bike paths and infrastructure that is geared more towards pedestrians rather than cars, cities will encourage and support the use of bikes and mass transit. Instead of building parking lots or providing free street parking, cities can invest in improving their public transportation system. These changes would be important to individuals who want alternatives, but do not have access to them, and to inspire those who simply have not considered an alternative to driving.

Some cities that have been proactive in building bike-friendly communities are Minneapolis, Portland, Boulder, and Seattle – just to name a few. A list of the top 50 bike-friendly cities can be found at Bicycling.com. Even a city like New York, which is typically jammed with car traffic, is taking steps to build more bike paths. Check out their initiatives here, and look up bike paths in or near your city on Traillink.com.

Image Credits:

(Top) karnizz/Shutterstock

(Bottom) Amy Johansson/Shutterstock

Take-out food and sustainability – Is it even possible? Whether you pick up fast food for lunch or ice cream for dessert, the point of takeout is easy acquirement and disposability, not environment sustainability. But what happens to all the waste? If the waste is a plastic spoon it could take hundreds of years to decompose in a landfill. Luckily organizations like the National Resturant Foundation and innovative entrepreneurs are coming up with ways to make the food business more sustainable.

Peggy Cross, an entrepreneur and product packaging designer, founded EcoTensil as means to reduce “one taste plastic waste” (i.e. sample spoons used to taste test ice cream flavors or other in-store samples). Though carrying around usable utensils might be the most sustainable option, it is not always feasible. No one wants to be carrying around a dirty spoon in their bag. Plastic utensils can take hundreds of years to decompose and other bio degradable options like potato spoons can still take months to years to biodegrade. All four of EcoTensils products are made in the United States from renewable paperboard and are FSC certified as sustainably forested. EcoTensils are both recyclable and biodegradable making them easy and sustainable to dispose of.

EcoTensil’s smallest product, the EcoTaster takes only 3-5 weeks to biodegrade and won the award for Best Green Product at Natural Products Expo in 2010. The EcoTaster ,who’s texture resembles a milk carton, is a little trickier to use then a normal spoon but considering how much less of an impact it makes then a normal spoon is worth the trouble. Sustainability will be an important aspect to the future of the restaurant and food industry. According to the National Restaurant Association, 60 percent of consumers prefer to patronize restaurants that recycle, and 51 percent of consumers indicate that they are willing to pay more at restaurants that recycle. By using innovative products like the EcoTensil, not only will food related businesses be more appetizing to customers, but they will also be able to reduce their environmental footprint.

EcoTaster (top) vs. biodegradable spoon after 2 weeks

Image Credits : EcoTensil

When people are cooking at home, one would think that all you are paying for is the groceries to make the home-cooked meal. But, have you ever thought about how it actually costs to run your microwave or favorite espresso machine? Maryland-based firm Savenia Labs shows that some household technology cost more money to operate than other appliances.

The lab tested many common kitchen appliances from coffee makers to blenders based off of market research. The labs simply asked people, “What do you use to make food in your kitchen?” From there, the lab went and bought a whole bunch of appliances and tested it up to and past the code of the federal government’s Environmental Protection Agency. Savenia tests the machines for insulation, corrosion, and how much electricity is needed for the machine to run, among other things.

Courtesy of: SaveniaLabs.com

After the machines are tested, they are labeled with a sticker that notes the appliance’s carbon footprint, which measures the amount of carbon dioxide that the machine requires to run for its lifetime. The data for each product is also different because of the different power sources that are used to control items in various parts of the country. This testing goes along with the EPA’s testing for energy cost (the amount of energy used) over time, and how much a person’s financial cost will be to run the product.

When going out to buy a kitchen product, Savenia Labs suggests combining the actual cost of the appliance with its lifetime energy cost to determine whether to buy the product. Also, consumers can use more green technology from solar hot water heaters to wind-powered electricity. The lab also suggests that when going out to buy an appliance to think green, not in color, but in saving energy.

The dose-response relationship between physical activity and overall human health is not very well defined. That is, scientists are still unsure exactly how much physical activity any given person needs in order to keep their body healthy in the long term. To help shed light on this issue, a researcher in physical activity and public health, Guenther Samitz, based at the University of Vienna at the Centre for Sports Sciences and University Sports investigated this dose-response relationship involving more than 1.3 million people from Europe, Canada, the U.S., and Asia. Samitz and his colleagues used a meta-analysis, which combined the results of 80 individual studies over the course of about 11 years that addressed questions surrounding the dose-response issue.

As many of us already know, lack of physical activity could lead to heart disease, high blood pressure, strokes, depression, increased weight, and instances of cancer. With busy schedules, it can be difficult to find time or energy after work, school, or kids to dedicate to exercise. However, the study provides a good incentive to take the steps necessary to a healthy future.

What was found through the study by Samitz was that higher levels of physical activity were associated with lower all-cause mortality rates, and the more vigorously a person exercises, the lower their risk. Mortality is defined as chronic diseases and/or premature death. Of course, external factors like smoking, diet, social and educational factors also play a role in a person’s overall health and mortality. These factors were considered when reporting the results of the study.

What was also interesting about the results was that women tend to experience a greater benefit than men do when they incorporate light- to moderate-level leisure physical activity into their daily routines, such as gardening, biking, climbing stairs, or walking. Researchers were unclear as to why women benefit more than men do, but one hypothesis is that hormone levels and body fat distribution may play a role.  For both men and women, making the change from no activity to just one hour of light- to moderate-level physical activity per week showed a 4% reduction in mortality.

As expected, the more a person exercises per week, the lower the mortality rate they will experience. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 6% of deaths globally are attributed to physical inactivity. The WHO recommends 5 hours of activity per week for extended health benefits. These benefits, which were consistent with Samitz’s research, include a decrease in mortality risk by 19% for moderate-level activity, and 39% for vigorous-intensity aerobic activity and sports.

It isn’t that difficult to get started with increasing your daily physical activity. Simple activities like walking up the stairs rather than taking  the elevator, biking to the grocery store, joining an exercise class at a local gym or school, gardening, or taking the dog out one extra time per day can be beneficial.

Guenther Samitz explains, “…sedentary adults should start with moderate-intensity physical activities and slowly increase weekly dose and intensity, because in sedentary adults vigorous-intensity physical activity is associated with increased risk of musculoskeletal injuries and adverse cardiac events”

The results of the study have been published in International Journal of Epidemiology. You can read report’s abstract and full text here. More interesting and useful information can be found on the WHO website:  10 facts about physical activity.

Image Credits:

Andresr/Shutterstock

Warren Goldswain/Shutterstock

According to the National Retail Federation, Americans plan to spend 6.9 billion dollars this year on Halloween. Of this money about 2.5 billion will go to human costumes, about 300 million will go towards pet costumes, about 2 billion will go to candy and a little less then that will go towards Halloween decorations. That’s a lot of stuff that once Halloween is over will proabably never be used again.  But there are ways to reduce your eco footprint during Halloween. By reducing how much you consume you also reduce how much you waste.

Here is a short list of suggestions to reduce your eco imprint for halloween:

1. Costume Swap

-Instead of buying a new costume every year a costume swap would allow you to have a “fresh” costume without having to buy a new costume. Costume swapping is great for parents with kids of similar ages or if you are an adult who have friends with excellent taste but travel is different party circles for Halloween.  Though National Costume Swap Day already passed, it was scheduled for October 8th, it is still not to late to arrange on of your own.

2. Build a Costume from stuff you have around the house

–Homemade costumes can be simple or complex. Making a homemade costume can be as easy as taking an taking an stained shirt and splatter painting it so you look like a Pollock painintg or as complicated as taking old cardboard boxes you had been meaning to recycle and taping them together in order to make a transformers costume. For costume ideas I suggest the website Instructables.com, which includes a gallery of hundreds of creative home-made halloween costumes and the instructions on how to make them.

3. Buy Reusable or Recycleable Decorations

– By buying reusable Halloween decorations not only do you reduce your contribution to your local landfill but you also save money towards buying decorations next year. If you don’t plan on keeping your decorations instead use a more environmentally friendly decorations like a Jack-O-Latern (see next tip)

4. Get the Most Out of Your Pumpkin

– Your pumpkin can be used for more than just a Jack-O-Latern. Before you care your pumpkin use the insides for making toasted pumpkin seeds, pumpkin pie,or pumpkin soup. And when Halloween is over the pumpkin can be used for compost.

These tips should help you have a fun, eco-friendly Halloween.

Does going to bed on the early side make children healthy? A new study says that it does!

According to the October 1^st edition of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine’s journal, “SLEEP,” doctors recorded the bedtimes and wake-up times of over 2,200 youth and compared it with their weight and how they spent their free time over a span of four days.

Courtesy of:mychildhealth.net

The study, funded in part by the University of South Australia, said that mornings were more productive for youth than at night-time.

Youth do more activity if they wake up early, according to SLEEP, because it gives them energy for the day and also boosts their metabolism to live a healthier lifestyle.

The study shows that early sleepers/early risers said good night 70 to 90 minutes earlier than their counterparts. It also showed that they woke up about 60 to 80 minutes earlier. The early birds also received 27 minutes more of physical activity.

The study also shows that children who went to bed and woke up early received the same amount of sleep as the kids who went to bed late, and woke up late.

Even with this research, the study shows that youth are tempted to stay up late because they want to watch prime-time television shows. Also, the time period is when more youth hang out with their friends and not do productive physical activity.

The study also shows that late sleepers/late risers spend 48 more minutes playing video games or watching television than those who went to bed and awoke early. It also shows that their BMI (Body Mass Index) was higher, and are more considered to be overweight.

For more information on the SLEEP journal’s study, please visit the American Academy of Sleep Medicine’s website at www.aasmnet.org.