Blog 8

Blog 8

            A frequent topic in this class has been the Urban Ore store. It reminded me of something I stumbled across on the internet awhile back, called Biotecture, or Earthship Biotecture. This is a type of architecture that is created by using old trash—bottles, old tires, and other trash—to make new homes and buildings.

            Urban Ore often focuses on using conventional building materials to build homes. They take old materials and sell them for homemakers to buy ethical and eco-friendly building materials. They take things such as old windows, doors, wooden beams, and flooring. They also sell things such as old jewelry, appliances, and furniture.

Similarly to Urban Ore, Earthship Biotecture recycles old materials that can be used to make new homes. Urban ore focuses on reusing things. Earthship Biotecture however, is more about repurposing. The idea of Earthship Biotecture is really cool because it makes something really useful and necessary out of trash. This creates the opportunity for a building material that is much more affordable along with being much better for the environment. They focus a lot on making these homes affordable, and have a small village where people can stay that is made of recycled materials.

Earthship Biotecture also has a goal to reduce CO2 emissions, and they think that waste products should be used within 100 miles of where it was used. this strategy will help with both CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions  because it prevents the materials from having to be shipped.

The Earthship Biotecture homes do not keep people from living without power, sewage, and other modern technologies that we enjoy. They use solar and wind power, which helps with the greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. They can store this energy in big batteries that are connected to the outlets of the home so that residents still have the option to use electronics and appliances within the homes

They also grow their own food to reduce their emissions from transporting food as low as possible. They only grow enough for themselves, and if they grow too much, they sell it to local people.

I think that this system has a lot of potential because they are not only a great solution to pollution, they also create a user-friendly environment that does not prevent its residents from living in comfort. In addition, they are actually very aesthetically pleasing, and definitely do not look like what they are made from—trash.

blog 7

blog 7

I enjoyed reading this chapter a lot I feel like it addressed a lot of issues that have not really been touched on. One of these is the gap in the sustainability movement between whites and people of color.  As MacBride points out, our waste has a large effect on many of them because often landfills are near low-income neighborhoods. Even though many of these areas are lower income, a lot of people still consume as if they have an upper class budget in order to fit in with social standards.  This means buying brand new cars and wearing name-brand clothing.  This means that they have to skimp on something else in their budget.  Often time this is food.  Many low-income families are not able to afford organic foods and buy cheap foods which are often high in artificial sweeteners and chemicals.  This often contributes to the obesity problem in the US.

Something here needs to change, and it begins by just getting rid of landfills so that they are not put in these low-income areas where they are a health concern.  However, the chances of that happening are slim.  Landfills are not placed in high income areas because the people there can afford to pay and so the landfills get moved.  

blog 6

In the second chapter of Samantha MacBride’s Recycling Rediscovered she gives a brief history of Earth Day and its original impact. I thought this was really interesting and I guess I was always unaware of how new Earth Day is.  On page 55, there was a phrase that really stood out to me, “the right to produce is not the right to pollute.”  I think that this line often gets blurred when it comes to large manufacturers.  In fact, it seems as though most manufacturers have lost sight of this idea completely and lose all sense of morals in the pursuit for money.  This reminded of a recent controversy in Missouri.

In August of 2014, the state government was looking to add a “Right to Farm” provision.  This law states that “the right of farmers and ranchers to engage in farming practices shall be forever guaranteed in this state.” The law was introduced for industrial farms to protect them from Missouri laws created to protect the environment.  The only people or businesses that would benefit from this would be huge industrial farms.  The law basically allows these farms to do whatever they want.  If that means allowing hog manure to run off into crops then so be it.  Or using dangerous pesticides next to large bodies of water or residential areas.  This is an insane law and anyone with an ounce of common sense should be against such a law.  Neither consumers nor smaller local farms benefit from such a law.  Partly laws like this get passed because many citizens are ignorant or indifferent about the source of their food.  This is a good example of when education of the public would be helpful.  If people were more aware of where their food is coming from I think that they would become smarter consumers and dangerous practices used by large industrial farms would eventually die out.

It is just very difficult for me to understand why such a law would ever even be considered.  This makes me very pessimistic about any future in sustainability.  It is clear that larger companies such as these industrial farms really do not care about morals and that they are only after money and servicing their own agendas.  

http://www.ewg.org/agmag/2014/07/right-farm-right-pollute

Blog 10: Make-Up For Monday

January 22, 2015

Blog 10: Make-Up For Monday

       

        In the text, Recycling Reconsidered: The Present Failure and Future Promise of Environmental Action in the United States by Samantha MacBride, the author informs readers about the environmental success story of the recycling movement that has gain the public support. In fact more people actually recycle than vote. MacBride encourages recycling due to the fact it saves the earth and conserves our natural resources. However, in her argument she discuses that although recycling has been effective, there is plenty of our waste that go to landfills and incinerators. This is bad because landfills only bury the evidence and incinerators only burn the evidence. MacBride states that is the jobs of the consumers to stop this and the government to create long-lasting policies against the big companies and corporations.  MacBride suggests that zero waste is the best way to go about our waste.

In MacBride’s conclusion she stated a few things that she want to propose and bring specific changes to Zero Waste movement. One of the things she addressed was “Second, I controversially suggest that paper and metal be the only material collected in commingled curbsides form for recycling in cities” (MacBride 217). I completely disagree with this statement because I believe that we need to recyclable ALL items! Why? Because this is important, we need to make sure that consumers recycle all items. If we use MacBride’s suggestion and only collect paper and metal, consumers will think that other recyclable goods such as glass, and cardboard and not recyclable and throw it in the trash! This is wrong! Moreover, this confuses consumers and makes them think that only paper and metal are recyclable, when this is not the case. Similar in New York, they had a system similarly to what MacBride’s suggestion. In New York the recycling curbside system was to only collect plastics. This did not work well because many people were angry that the city did not do much in enforcing recycling. In addition, many people were confused.

I personally think for the Zero Waste movement to be successful we should have local living economies. These economies are controlled by the people and for the people! This method promises green chemistry in the creation of products. In addition due to this, there would be safer environment for the workers. Consumers would have a safe and “no-toxic” product in their homes. Lastly, consumers would be recycling, reusing, and reducing on consumption. A combination of this creates a zero waste movement that starts with me and ends with you.

Blog 9: Make-Up For Thursday Field Trip

January 22, 2015

Blog 9: Make-Up For Thursday Field Trip

        On January 15, 2015 the class of Zero Waste and Ethics of Stuff visited the Republic MRF, which is a recycle plant. Based on the class discussion I learned that Republic MRF picks up the trash and recycling from a location, it is then sent to 96th located in Indianapolis, Indiana. Upon reaching the destination, the trash and recycling is separated. The recycling goods are then transformed into subcategories, which are sent to other places. For example, imagine all the trash and recycling goods located at DePauw. The workers of Republic MRF would come pick up their trash and recycling goods with their big amazing trucks, all of it would be sent to 96th street where the trash and recycling goods are separated. The recycling goods then are separated into its own subcategory: glass, cardboard, newspapers, plastic containers, and etc. Then all of these goods are sent to different locations so it can be reused and recycled: all of the glass goes to Chicago, newspapers go to paper mills, and etc.

This is an example of Paul Connet’s attempt of breaking the linear system and recycling and reusing our products. This makes me really happy because I feel that the current linear system the United States is using sucks! I mean big companies and corporations are going into our natural resources and extracting our limiting resources, creating products with toxic chemicals that are only affects us. I mean because of the chemicals in our products, Annie Leonard has come to a conclusion that breast milk has the highest level of toxic. This shows why the government and us, citizens or consumers, need to step in and make sure there is a change in our system. I think the best way to go about this is to create close loop productions, where companies are using green chemistry to create products. If we use green chemistry, we could climate the creation of toxics in our products as well the pollution! Lastly this would create a healthy environment for our citizens.

In addition, these amazing revolutions are occurring. The Republic MRF is a great example of that. Currently in Las Vegas, Nevada they are creating another Recycling facility such as the Republic MRF. The facility will have advanced technologies, which includes highly automated control systems, touch-screen, Data Acquisition monitoring machines, and etc. Best of all the facility will be serving to 535,000 households. It is great to see the movement occurring, we are making a change and it is happening.

Blog 7

Blog 7

            In Chapter 4 of Recycling Reconsidered, MacBride points out that often the people who end up dealing with the wastes from everyone else are often working class people who are minorities. This was also fairly evident when we visited the recycling plant. I found it interesting that in MacBride’s book she talks about how minorities are the ones who get stuck with most of the problems that are hazardous to health. She also talks about how the Zero Waste movement supports communities that are trying to become more environmentally friendly, primarily in urban areas where the people are often lower class and of minorities.

           

            I think that this section of the book really reminded me of my older sister. My sister is majoring in Philosophy and English Studies at Ball State University. Her main focus in Philosophy is Feminist Ethics and Epistemology. Because she focuses a lot on social issues, she studies similar material to what MacBride was talking about in Chapter 4.

Awhile back, my sister and I had an interesting conversation, which made me see what MacBride was saying in another light. My sister was explaining the concept of Gentrification to me. Gentrification is basically the shifting of a community from lower valued property to higher valued property. This often occurs when the people of a lower class area try to improve their communities. While community improvements are always good, they actually do pose a few problems. One of these problems is that as the property value increases and the community improves, the people living there have more issues affording to stay in the homes where they have lived for years. Often, these people are forced out of their communities and have to find another place to live, which is usually about the same at the old community before it was fixed up.

Because of the gentrification, I worry for the people in the areas that receive the most waste. Even though people are trying to make improvements to these communities, I am afraid that the people who the improvements are supposed to be for will miss out on the nice improvements of the community because they will no longer be able to afford to live in those locations.

I believe that a good reason to strive for the Zero Waste is because of this. I think that if we lower our waste enough to where we have significantly less, maybe we will be able to improve all areas. Unfortunately, as we fix communities one at a time, the local people still may be forced out to find cheaper places. Maybe eventually we will get to a point where everywhere is cleaner, and no one has to live in the areas where waste gets concentrated. Hopefully this is obtainable. Living in a healthy environment should be affordable for everyone.

Blog 8

In class we talked about the importance (or lack thereof) of recycling glass. Professor Everett made the same basic point as MacBride, that with regard to both economics and environmental impact that costs of recycling glass outweigh the benefits; the financial costs often result in little to no profit (or even a profit loss), and the use of fuel for shipping, processing emissions, etc. make a larger negative impact than the energy and resources saved from glass recycling. Professor Pope made a note that, aside from filling up landfill volume, the effect of glass disposal in the environment is essentially irrelevant because glass is inert, not chemically hazardous. MacBride had addressed this point when she talked about why glass recycling became so important to us in the first place (for one thing, broken glass shards from littered glass bottles in cities had been a danger).

The discussion of the significance of glass recycling and the impact of glass in the environment reminded me of Glass Beach, in California. The beach was a local dump until 1967, when it closed and underwent cleanup, often involving garbage fires to burn away some of the trash. After the cleanup projects had finished, some stuff remained on the beach from the dump, including tons and tons of glass shards. In time, most of these glass pieces were worn out and smoothed, leaving a beach filled with thousands of “sea glass” pebbles that are safe to walk on. Although there are still the occasional sharp shards and pieces of trash to be found along the beach from its days as a dump, Glass Beach is now a major tourist site, especially for sea glass enthusiasts and collectors. Collection of the sea glass, though, is prohibited now to protect the beach from such glass collectors; although still a spectacle, the amount and variety of glass left on the beach has greatly diminished over the past 20 years. This presents an interesting situation in which what was once a gross display of human waste is now a protected part of the environment in the area. How ironic that we have prohibited the destruction of what began as an example of human destruction of nature and the environment!

To me this speaks to the idea that has been harped on extensively in this class, the idea that “waste” should not be a waste. In this case, broken, ‘useless’ pieces of glass have become something of beauty and value. Although there are different opinions on the topic, I appreciate the fact that such a disgusting place could become something so beautiful and enjoyed. I did read speculations on a few sites though that there might be a future effort to replenish the glass on the beach since the present amount is being depleted by tourists, and I don’t think that this is an endeavor that should be pursued. Despite the inert-ness of glass in the environment, I can’t see throwing piles of glass for purely aesthetic value as a positive thing.

Blog 6

Blog 6

            A common topic that I have noticed throughout this course is the recycling of materials, primarily paper products. Discussing and reading about paper products in this class really rang a bell with me. In my seminar class last semester, Materials of Art, I researched handmade paper quite a bit. For my final project, I actually made paper from old newspapers. I think that especially one thing that stuck out to me was when we were talking about the length of fibers, and how it affects what they can be used for. Paper is made from cellulose fibers that are essentially compressed so that they form hydrogen bonds.

            When I made new paper out of old newspapers, I also had to research a lot to figure out the science and chemistry behind it. A good article that I found during my seminar class was from the Turkish Journal of Agriculture & Forestry. The title of the paper is “Crack Propagations and Fatigue Characteristics of Some Handmade Papers.” I think this article helps explain how the chemistry of paper works very well. For example, it explains how the fibers are held together by hydrogen bonds. In the paper that I made from newspapers, I did not have to add any kind of adhesive. I just soaked newspapers in water until they became soft enough that they fell apart and then I put them back together using the same chemistry that had been used to put them together in the first place. I think that this must effect the way in which the fibers are put back together in recycling as well. This means that when paper is recycled, no additional chemicals are necessary for adhering the cellulose fibers.

           

            Although additional chemicals are not necessarily required to recycle paper, they can be very helpful. The properties and potential uses for recycled and handmade paper depend on a number of things, and “the physical properties of the fibers themselves and the bonds formed between them are the 2 factors that most affect paper properties,” (Karademir, Imamoglu, and Cetin, 2003, 115).  I think that this would mean that even if there are already added chemicals in the paper that is being recycled, the fibers themselves and not the added chemicals would be the most important part of determining how difficult the recycling process will be. In addition, this means that it is less important to use additional chemicals in the new paper that is being made, which will result in a decreased need for the manufacturing and producing of the chemicals, saving energy and resources.

            I think that this article also relates a lot to when we were discussing the length of the fibers determining what they can be used for. Something that I learned during my seminar class is that more surface area of touching fibers results in a stronger paper due to an increase in hydrogen bonds. Ergo, the longer the fibers, the more hydrogen bonds each individual fiber will have, and the more additional fibers that it has room to bond with. This relates to how we were discussing high quality paper—such as printer paper, which is stiffer and more brittle—loses value when it is recycled. It is less likely to end up as printer paper again because when the paper is recycled, the fibers are cut up and lose some length, resulting in less hydrogen bonds with less other individual fibers, and therefore, a more flimsy and softer paper. This softer paper is mostly used for things such as paper towels and toilet paper. It is also the reason why those are both compostable, because they can be degraded further more easily and have less value as recyclables.

Blog 7

                When MacBride was talking about why textile recycling would be more beneficial both economically and environmentally than glass recycling, she mentioned the slight problem that synthetic fabrics can pose to textile recycling. It got me thinking about synthetic materials in general and some of the problems they cause, and after one of our class discussions this was more specifically with regard to plastic synthetics. What bothered me most about these problems was that we ever let synthetics become such an integral part of our lifestyles that they are so hard to get rid of, even now that we know some of the issues with them.

                Synthetic fibers are artificial fibers manufactured from chemicals, typically petroleum-based, into long polymer chains. Because of the ways in which they are manufactured, synthetic fibers have various qualities that make them ideal for consumer products in our society (durability, waterproof, stretching, etc.), but they are also usually a larger environmental hazard (both in production and disposal) than natural fibers as a result. Production usually involves a lot of carbon emissions and often many virgin resources, and the durability and composition of these compound typically makes it more difficult for them to break down at the end of their life cycles. Some synthetic fibers, like PLA (polylactic acid), are produced from more natural materials (like corn starch or agricultural byproducts) rather than petroleum-based chemicals and are called bioplastic because they come from biological materials. They are frequently hailed as more biodegradable (and thus less environmentally harmful) than petroleum-based plastics, but often, even under optimal conditions, the time frame required for the material to degrade is ridiculously long.

                Since 1931, over 21 different synthetic fibers have been created (like Rayon, Nylon, Vinyon, PVC, etc.), one of the most recent of which is PLA, created in 2002. Considering this time frame and the currently rapid rate of innovation and technological advancement, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me to think that even more new synthetics (plastics or otherwise) may be created in the near or distant future. I think it is important to consider this possibility and to establish regulations for testing the environmental or health hazards that would be associated with such synthetics before they were allowed to be manufactured or used in any products. There are many problems associated with current synthetics, like Styrofoam, of which we have only realized the severity now that products involving such materials are widespread and almost a necessary part of our culture and lives. It is a great effort now to try to eliminate such materials after they have already taken such a large role in our day-to-day products. Had we not allowed them to be used in the first place, then society and industries would have developed and grown without them and would have had to find other ways to produce and sell products.  If there were a system to investigate new kinds of materials and types of synthetics before they became widespread in any way, we wouldn’t have to face such challenging consequences down the road and could in the future avoid problems similar to those we are already facing.

E-Waste (Forgot to post this a couple days ago)

Another issue within waste and sustainability that I was unaware of until a documentary presentation last semester was also acknowledged in Samantha MacBride's text; the issue of electronic waste, or e-waste. The documentary I was exposed to last semester is called "Terra Blight", this film highlighted the typically unseen realities and consequences of electronic waste and the externalities it has concerning third world societies. The trailer for the documentary (available on Youtube.com) notes that a typical computer monitor from the 1990's contains at least 48 pounds of lead. When these monitors are labeled to be waste (even though they are technically still of value) they are crushed by various sources, inevitably releasing this potent lead into water streams as runoff.

MacBride explores the battery component of e-waste in that Minnesota and New Jersey passed laws requiring battery manufacturers to fund re-collection or proper disposal programs of their products which contain hazardous toxins such as nickel and cadmium; Another example of mandated producer responsibility. MacBrides also notes that this state level legislation push led to a voluntary effort regarding the matter, the Portable Rechargeable Battery Association was formed to further encourage the proper recycling of these matters. MacBride continues to explain that State-level policies for requiring electronics manufacturers to manage computers and other e-waste items are in place in 23 U.S. states and are "the leading example of strong extended producer responsibility today" (MacBride 190).

An article on e-stewards.org explains how most of e-waste is generated in rich, already developed countries while as the electronics become outdated and "lose value" they tend to trickle down to poor, currently developing countries and societies. While this can be viewed to be beneficial because of the essential donation of technology that still holds value. These electronics are often near their breaking points once they reach these developing countries which leads to the improper disposal or improper recycling of these electronics as the poorer country cannot afford these methods. This in turn leads to the hazardous effects and negative externalities that result from the improper disposal of e-waste in this developing country, this is strongly supported by the "Terra Blight" documentary. The e-stewards article also mentions the idea of a boomerang effect when considering e-waste. Even though our e-waste may be sent to other countries which could lead others to an out of sight out of mind easing point. This article acknowledges that the boomerang effect can bring these waste right back to your doorstep. If we send our e-waste to China because of its value, it is likely that it would be placed in a landfill or incinerator there. Because much of our food supply from comes from China and we share the same atmosphere as China, just because it is disposed of there does not mean its effects will go unfelt by Americans.

Blog 8: Bags I Always Thought Were Recycled in Curbside Collection, and Alternatives for Dog Duty

               On Thursday, we went to Republic’s MRF located on 96^th street. This was my favorite place we went for our field trips. It was really neat and eye opening to see where my recyclables through such a detailed process. It is really cool how the machines work to help the picker workers be more efficient. There was one thing that caught my attention, and that was the fact that plastic bags weren’t recycled there. I saw the line go by as the workers picked off bag after bag. These would all go to the trash shoot/can, to later be sent to landfill or incinerator. This MRF used to collect bags when it had a vacuum machine, but they don’t do it anymore. Plastic bags are worth 2 cents a pound, which isn’t much value compared to the other recyclable materials. There is also not much of a market for these bags. They used to produce 1 bail of plastic bags a week. The bad thing about plastic bags is they are quickly polluting our earth. They are currently seen as the easiest option to carry items when going places like the grocery, but they are killing the environment.

            Before this class, my family would mostly recycle our plastic bags at places like Marsh. Though there was always the option to bring the bags to the grocery, I always thought I could recycle them in my curbside-recycling bin. I always knew that my local CGS took number 2 plastics. CGS in my area takes 1-7 plastics. But as I have been learning, just because a product has the same number, it doesn’t mean they have the same melting points and process of being recycled. Before this class, I would have just thrown my plastic bags in the curbside-recycling bin. But now I know that they aren’t recycled in the Republic MRF, I’m thinking that CGS is the same way. There is a reason that plastic bags have specific collection bins at the grocery stores. Plastic bags are generally not collected in curbside recycling collections. Most recycling facilities are mostly set up to handle hard materials, which are easier to separate from one another. Plastic bags require a different collection system and equipment that the average recycling facilities.  Plastic bags that are recycled can be made into plastic bags again, or backyard decking, fences, playground equipment, and pipes. But the best thing would be to eliminate plastic bags completely.

            After learning more about one of the most wasteful items in America and its pollutants, I’ve become greater opposed to using them. When I went to the bookstore to buy books, I didn’t grab a bag because I could just put my books in my book bag and carry the rest. They are so wasteful and take much of our non-renewable resources to produce. But as I’ve been thinking, there is one thing my family uses plastic bags for, and that is dog duty. Though we try to bring reusable bags when we go to the grocery, we always want enough bags for when we walk my dog around the neighborhood. When you think about how many dogs there are, and how many plastic bags are used for dog waste, it’s a little difficult to wrap your head around…

            I was looking into alternatives for picking up dog doo. I found bio-degradable bags, compostable bags, and flush away bags. I was surprised to see that the EPA recommends flushing pet waste in the toilet. It says it is the best disposal method. Pet waste has bacteria and can put excess nutrients into local water. It never crossed my mind to flush my dog’s poo. There are even bags that you can flush down the toilet. The only downside of such bags is that the prices are more expensive than just getting a bag for free at the grocery store. Plastic bags for dog duty can be prevented by buying more sustainable-friendly bags.

Overall, I was happy to see the efficiency and the cleanliness of the clean MRF. Republic shows how clean MRFs are the way to go. Dirty MRFs have contaminated products, the materials are not as high of quality, and in all honesty it is gross to think of recyclables mixed with waste like dirty diapers, rotten food, and other contaminants. The best way to go is to try and recycle as little as you can by reducing, reusing, then recycling. Though I’m glad companies like Republic have such MRFs to recycle goods, they still require energy, which results in pollution. I admire this Republic MRF because their efficiency is good, they provide healthcare to their workers, and they try to do the right thing. For example, they ship their glass to a manufacturer in Chicago and lose $15 a ton. Rick says they do this to do the right thing. I think his heart is there, and that he truly wants to help, but I question whether it is the best thing sustainability wise. You still have to ship the glass which requires a lot of gasoline for those trucks with bad gas mileage. This was a great way to end our field trips with seeing a plant that gives hope to where our recyclables go so they have a second life. This plant helped shift my views on plastic bags. I also want to educate people who put their plastic bags in the commingled recycling bins, to avoid these bags being thrown away. Perhaps curbside-recycling collectors should better inform local residents and customers of what all is included in curbside collection.  This information would inform others that such bags aren’t recyclable and it would make their jobs in the MRF a lot easier. 

Can’t I Put Plastic Bags in My Recycling Bin? (2015). American Chemistry Council. Retrieved January 17, 2015 from http://plasticsmakeitpossible.com/2013/06/cant-i-put-plastic-bags-in-my-recycling-bin-read-this-to-makeover-your-recycling/ 

After the Storm (2013). Environmental Protection Agency. Retrieved January 17, 2014 from http://water.epa.gov/action/weatherchannel/stormwater.cfm