Palm | Kelapa Sawit

David Stanway PlanetArk 21 Feb 13;

China aims to spend $850 billion to improve filthy water supplies over the next decade, but even such huge outlays may do little to reverse damage caused by decades of pollution and overuse in Beijing's push for rapid economic growth.

China is promising to invest 4 trillion yuan ($650 billion) - equal to its entire stimulus package during the global financial crisis - on rural water projects alone during the 2011-2020 period. What's more, at least $200 billion in additional funds has been earmarked for a variety of cleanup projects nationwide, Reuters has learned after scouring a range of central and local government documents.

That new cash injection will be vital, with rivers and lakes throughout China blighted by algae blooms caused by fertilizer run-off, bubbling chemical spills and untreated sewage discharges. Judging by Beijing's cleanup record so far, however, the final tally could be many times higher.

Over the five years to 2010, the country spent 700 billion yuan ($112.41 billion) on water infrastructure, but much of its water remains undrinkable. The environment ministry said 43 percent of the locations it was monitoring in 2011 contained water that was not even fit for human contact.

"The reason why they have achieved so little even though they have spent so much on pollution treatment is because they have followed the wrong urbanization model - China is still putting too much pressure on local resources," said Zhou Lei, a fellow at Nanjing University who has studied water pollution.

A close look at publicly available documents shows limited environmental ambitions, as Beijing strives to prolong three decades of blistering economic growth and fill the estimated annual water supply shortfall of 50 billion cubic meters (bcm) required to feed growing energy and agricultural demand.

At the same time, the government faces growing pressure to address environmental effects of fast growth, as public anger over air pollution that blanketed many northern cities in January has spread to online appeals for Beijing to clean up water supplies as well.

The huge costs suggest that treatment, rather than prevention, remains the preferred solution, with industrial growth paramount and pollution regarded as just another economic opportunity, Zhou said.

"They always treat environmental degradation as an economic issue. China is even using pollution as a resource, and using the opportunity to treat environmental degradation as a way to accumulate new wealth," he said, referring to business contracts local governments offer to big water treatment firms.

"INDUSTRIAL-USE ONLY"

On top of the 10-year rural water plan, China last year vowed to spend another 250 billion yuan on water conservation, and has since allocated a further 130 billion yuan to treat small and medium-sized rivers over the next two years.

Local governments are also spending heavily, with Dianchi Lake in southwest China's Yunnan province being lavished with 31 billion yuan of investment in the next three years in order to produce "obvious improvements" in water quality, records show.

East China's Lake Tai, a test case for China's environmental authorities after suffering a notorious bloom of algae and cyanobacteria in 2007, has spent 70 billion yuan in the five years since, and more is expected.

Both cleanup projects have been designed merely to bring water up from "grade V" - meaning "no human contact" - to "grade IV", which is designated "industrial use only", according to detailed plans listed on local government websites.

Even such negligible gains could be crucial for a country that has the same amount of water as Britain although its population is 20 times as big.

Data from China's Ministry of Water Resources shows that average per capita supplies stand at 2,100 cubic meters, 28 percent of the global average. The government has vowed to cap total use to 700 bcm a year by 2030, but that will still require a big increase in supplies, with consumption now about 600 bcm.

Costly engineering and technological feats, though unlikely to address the underlying causes of pollution, could at least make more water available, allowing marginal quality improvements without interfering with industrial growth or the country's ambitious and water-intense urbanization plans.

"Part of this increase in the supply of water will come from removing all 'grade V' water supplies, which is actually useless even for agriculture," said Debra Tan, director at the China Water Risk organization. "Grade IV is not safe to swim in, but it at least is usable." ($1 = 6.2270 Chinese yuan)

(Editing by Ken Wills)

Stephanie Pappas LiveScience.com Yahoo News 13 Feb 13;

Good news from Antarctica: The hole in the ozone layer is shrinking, new measurements reveal.

Ozone is a molecule made of three oxygen atoms. It's relatively highly concentrated in a particular layer of the stratosphere about 12 miles to 19 miles (20 to 30 kilometers) above Earth's surface. This ozone layer prevents ultraviolet light from reaching Earth's surface — a good thing, given that UV light causes sunburn and skin cancer.

Ever since the early 1980s, though, a hole in this layer has developed over Antarctica during September to November, decreasing ozone concentration by as much as 70 percent. The cause is human-produced chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were once heavily used in aerosols and refrigeration.

By international agreement, CFCs have been phased out of use. The policy has real effects, new satellite observations reveal. In 2012, the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica was smaller than it has ever been in the last 10 years.

The new observations, announced by the European Space Agency (ESA) on Feb. 8, come from Europe's Met Op weather satellite, which has an instrument specifically designed to sense ozone concentrations. The findings suggest that the phase-out of CFCs is working, the ESA reports.

Antarctica is particularly vulnerable to ozone-depleting substances, because high winds cause a vortex of cold air to circulate over the continent. In the resulting frigid temperatures, CFCs are especially effective at depleting ozone. The result is that people in the Southern Hemisphere are at increased risk of exposure from UV radiation.

CFCs persist in the atmosphere for a long time, so it may take until the middle of the century for ozone concentrations to rebound to 1960s levels, the ESA reports. However, the hole in the ozone over Antarctica should completely close in the next few decades.

Nina Larson (AFP) Google News 19 Jan 13;

GENEVA — More than 140 countries agreed Saturday on a ground-breaking treaty to rein in the use and emission of health-hazardous mercury, the UN said, but environmental activists lamented it did not go far enough.

The world's first legally binding treaty on mercury was reached after a week of thorny talks and ends four years of heated discussions on how to cut global emission levels of the toxic heavy metal, which poses risks to human health and the environment.

"This was a herculean task .. but we have succeeded," Achim Steiner, UN under-secretary general and head of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), told reporters in Geneva.

The treaty has been named the Minamata Convention on Mercury, in honour of the Japanese town where inhabitants for decades have suffered the consequences of serious mercury contamination.

It will be signed in Minamata in October and will take effect once ratified by 50 countries -- something organisers expect will take three to four years.

Mercury, also known as quicksilver, is found in products ranging from electrical switches, thermometers and light-bulbs, to amalgam dental fillings and even facial creams. Large amounts of the heavy metal are released from small-scale gold mining, coal-burning power plants, metal smelters and cement production.

"It is quite remarkable how much mercury in a sense has entered into use in our lives... We've been creating a terrible legacy," Steiner said.

"Mercury accumulates in the food chain through fish... It is released through coal fired power stations and it travels sometimes thousands of kilometres. It affects the Inuit in Canada just as it affects the small-scale artisanal gold miner somewhere in southern Africa," he said.

Serious mercury poisoning affects the body's immune system and development of the brain and nervous system, posing the greatest risk to foetuses and infants.

The treaty sets a phase-out date of 2020 for a long line of products including mercury thermometers, blood pressure measuring devices, most batteries, switches, some kinds of fluorescent lamps and soaps and cosmetics.

It makes exceptions, however, for some large medical measuring devices where no mercury-free alternatives exist.

In a controversial move, it also excluded vaccines that use mercury as a preservative.

The risk from these vaccines is considered low and for many developing nations, removing them would entail losing access to vaccines altogether, Tim Kasten, head of UNEP's chemicals division explained.

Amid pressure from dentist groups, the treaty also did not provide a cut-off date for the use of dental fillings using mercury amalgam, but did agree that the product should be phased down.

The text gives governments 15 years to end all mercury mining.

While welcoming the treaty, a number of non-governmental groups said they were disappointed it did not go further.

The text, many said, fell short in addressing the greatest sources of mercury in the environment: artisanal small-scale gold mining, which directly threatens the health of the some 10-15 million people working in this field and contaminates water and air, as well as emissions from coal-burning power plants.

"We're disappointed... The two biggest sources of mercury have only weak controls on them," Joe DiGangi, a science advisor with the IPEN advocacy group, told AFP.

For coal-fired power plants, the treaty calls only for control and reduction of mercury emissions "where feasible", which is "vague and very discretional," he said.

As for small gold mining activities, using mercury will still be allowed, meaning imports and exports of the metal for this process will be legal, and governments will only be required to control the activity if they deem it "more than insignificant -- whatever that means," DiGangi said.

Richard Gutierrez, the head of Ban Toxics!, agreed.

"With the current text, it seems the mercury use in (small-scale gold mining) may go on indefinitely," he said in a statement.

Steiner acknowledged the criticism but stressed the treaty "is a dynamic instrument" and would evolve over time to address all concerns.

Switzerland and Norway, which initiated the process a decade ago, with Japan pledged an initial $3.0 million (2.2 million euros) to get things started.

Once up and running, the treaty will provide funds to ease the transition away from mercury through the UN's existing Global Environment Facility (GEF), and probably also a second mechanism, organisers said.

Nations agree on legally binding mercury rules
Mark Kinver BBC News 19 Jan 13;

More than 140 countries have agreed on a set of legally binding measures to curb mercury pollution, at UN talks.

Delegates in Geneva approved measures to control the use of the highly toxic metal in order to reduce the amount of mercury released into the environment.

Mercury can produce a range of adverse human health effects, including permanent damage to the nervous system.

The UN recently published data that showed mercury emissions were rising in a number of developing nations.

The deal was agreed after all-night talks.

UN Environment Programme (Unep) spokesman Nick Nuttall told Reuters: "A treaty to start to begin to rid the world of a notorious health-hazardous metal was agreed in the morning of Jan 19."

The rules, known as the Minamata Convention and named after the Japanese town that experienced one of the world's worst cases of mercury poisoning, will open for nations to sign at a diplomatic conference later this year.

The convention will regulate a range of areas, including:

the supply of and trade in mercury;
the use of mercury in products and industrial processes;
the measures to be taken to reduce emissions from artisanal and small-scale gold mining;
the measures to be taken to reduce emissions from power plants and metals production facilities.

Ahead of the five-day meeting, the UN Environment Programme (Unep) published a report warning that developing nations were facing growing health and environmental risks from increased exposure to mercury.

It said a growth in small-scale mining and coal burning were the main reasons for the rise in emissions.

As a result of rapid industrialisation, South-East Asia was the largest regional emitter and accounted for almost half of the element's annual global emissions.

Lasting effects

Mercury - a heavy, silvery white metal - is a liquid at room temperature and can evaporate easily. Within the environment, it is found in cinnabar deposits. It is also found in natural forms in a range of other rocks, including limestone and coal.

Mercury can be released into the environment through a number of industrial processes including mining, metal and cement production, and the burning of fossil fuels.

Once emitted, it persists in the environment for a long time - circulating through air, water, soil and living organisms - and can be dispersed over vast distances.

The World Health Organization (WHO) says: "Mercury is highly toxic to human health, posing a particular threat to the development of the (unborn) child and early in life.

"The inhalation of mercury vapour can produce harmful effects on the nervous, digestive and immune systems, lungs and kidneys, and may be fatal.

"The inorganic salts of mercury are corrosive to the skin, eyes and gastrointestinal tract, and may induce kidney toxicity if ingested."

The Unep assessment said the concentration of mercury in the top 100m of the world's oceans had doubled over the past century, and estimated that 260 tonnes of the toxic metal had made their way from soil into rivers and lakes.

Another characteristic, it added, was that mercury became more concentrated as it moved up the food chain, reaching its highest levels in predator fish that could be consumed by humans.

Alister Doyle Reuters Yahoo News 7 Jan 13;

OSLO (Reuters) - Green schemes to fight climate change by producing more bio-fuels could actually worsen a little-known type of air pollution and cause almost 1,400 premature deaths a year in Europe by 2020, a study showed on Sunday.

The report said trees grown to produce wood fuel - seen as a cleaner alternative to oil and coal - released a chemical into the air that, when mixed with other pollutants, could also reduce farmers' crop yields.

"Growing biofuels is thought to be a good thing because it reduces the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," said Nick Hewitt, who worked on the study with colleagues from England's Lancaster University.

"What we're saying is 'yes, that's great, but biofuels could also have a detrimental effect on air quality'," he added.

The report, in the journal Nature Climate Change, looked into the impact of a European Union scheme to slow climate change by producing more biofuels.

Hewitt told Reuters there would be a similar impact wherever biofuels were produced in large quantities in areas suffering air pollution, including the United States and China.

Poplar, willow or eucalyptus trees, all used as fast-growing sources of renewable wood fuel, emit high levels of the chemical isoprene as they grow, the study said. Isoprene forms toxic ozone when mixed with other air pollutants in sunlight.

"Large-scale production of biofuels in Europe would have small but significant effects on human mortality and crop yields," said Hewitt.

"As far as we know, no one has looked at the air quality of growing biofuel crops before," he added.

The report estimated that ozone from wood-based energy to meet the European Union's 2020 goal would cause nearly 1,400 premature deaths a year, costing society $7.1 billion.

The European plan would also would reduce the annual value of wheat and maize production by $1.5 billion since ozone impairs crop growth, the study added.

LUNG PROBLEMS

Siting new biofuel plantations far away from polluted population centres would help limit ozone formation, the study suggested. Genetic engineering might be used to reduce isoprene emissions, it said.

Ozone can cause lung problems and is blamed for killing about 22,000 people a year in Europe. Overall air pollution, mainly from fossil fuels, causes about 500,000 premature deaths in Europe a year, according to the European Environment Agency.

Sunday's study did not compare the potential damage caused by biofuels to the impact on human health from producing coal, oil or natural gas as part of policies to slow global warming. "We're not in a position to make that comparison," Hewitt said.

He noted that the main reason to shift to biofuels was to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, mainly from fossil fuels, that U.N. studies project will become ever more damaging this century.

The United Nations' World Health Organization estimates global warming has caused more than 140,000 deaths annually worldwide since the 1970s.

The biggest impact was recorded in developing nations where the floods, droughts and other disasters blamed on climate change left millions suffering from diarrhea, malnutrition, malaria and dengue fever.

Burning biofuels is viewed as neutral for climate change because plants soak up carbon when they grow and release it when they burn or rot. Fossil fuels, on the other hand, add carbon to the atmosphere from underground stores millions of years old.

Biofuels are often blamed for causing food price spikes by competing for cropland. Responding to such criticisms, the European Commission said last year it aimed to limit crop-based biofuels - such as from maize or sugar - to five percent of transport fuels.

(Editing by Andrew Heavens)

New Straits Times 1 Jan 13

JOHOR BARU: Representatives from various segments of society here expressed their wish for better things to come this new year.

Malaysia Nature Society Johor chairman Vincent Chow hoped more attention would be given to protect the environment.

He urged the state government to be serious in addressing river pollution as about 60 per cent of rivers in the state were polluted by household and factory effluents.

"It is my wish that the Department of Environment be more vigilant against people discarding waste into our waterways and carry out deterrent measures.

"We wish all heads of departments and politicians would attend courses on nature awareness and sustainability, so they can help the DOE in environmental issues."

Chow said without sufficient knowledge on the environment, decision-makers would not be aware of the seriousness of the matter, and this would jeopardise efforts to deal with the problem.

He also urged the state government to impose a ruling for all housing developers to set up a centralised sewerage system to ensure efficient management.

He said many of the sewerage systems in housing estates were decentralised and this did not augur well for the state capital.

For the benefit of wildlife, Chow hoped there would be a law to prevent plantation owners from encroaching on buffer zones at river banks, as this was vital for wildlife preservation.

"Buffer zones are important habitats for wildlife. Just let these areas be, and let wildlife have a place of their own to survive."

Malaysian Indian Business Association president P. Sivakumar's wish for 2013 was for a quantum increase in funding and less red tape in government agencies.

He wanted more fields and opportunities to be opened up for the Indian community to allow every race to have a share in the country's economic pie.

"We need more co-existence in social, economic, education and employment policies for all the three major races.

"I believe this will greatly foster unity among the races."

Sivakumar hoped the government would carry on with its good work, adding that the year was rather promising as the government had remedied certain long-standing issues such as funding for small-and medium-sized industries.

Semarang assemblyman and state Umno information chief Datuk Samsol Bari Jamali hoped 2013 would be a better year for Malaysians.

"I also wish everything that the government has planned for the country will be implemented successfully and all of the country's ambitions will come to fruition.

"Lastly, I hope every Malaysian will have success in whatever they do," said Samsol.

“Continued reliance on a strategy of setting aside land and marine territories as "protected areas" is insufficient to stem global biodiversity loss, according to a comprehensive assessment published today in the journal Marine Ecology Progress Series.”

There are five key technical and practical limitations this study states if we continue with heavy reliance on the protected areas strategy to curb biodiversity loss:

• Expected growth in protected area coverage is too slow
• The size and connectivity of protected areas are inadequate
• Protected areas only ameliorate certain human threats
• Underfunding
• Conflicts with human development


The authors underline the correlations between growing world population, natural resources consumption and biodiversity loss triggered by many human stressors. Protecting areas is mainly useful against overexploitation and habitat loss and isn’t addressing other human stressors like climate change, pollution, and invasive species.



According to Peter F. Sale, fellow author and Assistant Director of the United Nations University's Canadian Institute for Water, Environment and Health, “It is important to address the growth in size and consumption rate of our global population.” Both Mora and Sale agree the importance of recognizing our limitations and the heavy reliance we have on protected areas needs to change immediately. Furthermore, they say we need to allocate more time and effort to the difficult issue of human overpopulation and consumption.


"One of the most important things you can do is to keep learning more about our world, its wildlife and the problems it faces."
 For further information on this topic and learn more about this study go to:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-07/unu-ngb072211.php

Landscape Change Leads to Increased Insecticide Use in U.S. Midwest
Recently a study was published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences linking the increased use of insecticides to landscape simplification. Replacing natural habitat with crop land causes an increase in crop pest problems. The continued growth of cropland and loss of natural habitat have increasingly simplified agricultural landscapes in the U.S. Midwest. The cause of pest increases is brought on as the removal of natural habitats destroys the habitat for the beneficial predatory insects. Creating more cropland creates a larger target area for pests giving them what they need to survive and multiply. According to Tim Meehan, the leading author of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, counties with less natural habitat have higher rates of insecticidal use than counties with more areas of natural habitat. It was noted that perennial crops provide a year round habitat for insects, birds and other animals, which are beneficial to the area.
More on this article:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110711151455.htm


Simplified landscapes, with lots of cropland and little natural habitat, promote crop pest problems and increased use of insecticides. (Credit: Illustration courtesy of Tim Meehan, UW-Madsion)

Fewer Aphids in Organic Crop Fields, Study Finds
According to the results in a study done by the Department of Animal Ecology & Tropical Biology, conventional triticale fields treated with insecticides to kill off aphids does not show any improvement and produces a bigger problem as aphid numbers increase. The problem is when fields are treated with insecticides it not only kills off the aphids but it also kills their natural enemies. They compared this to an organic crop field where they discovered three times the amount of natural enemies and five times fewer aphids.
Read the article at:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110713101944.htm

By Carol Staats

 Edward J. Otten wrote many articles on the Effect of Human Population on Biodiversity. He states that according to Erhlich’s theory, humans must voluntarily control their numbers or nature will definitely control them. (through methods that are unpleasant for humans). The rapid rise of growth in the human population is having a grave impact on biodiversity. The destruction of other species by humans will ultimately lead to the destruction of the human species through natural selection.

This global impact is taking place through five primary processes:         

Furthermore, Otten explains the nature of human beings is to control their environment as much as possible, this is what allows us to spread to new habitat and obtain new food sources. However, during the 18th century a combination of scientific, technical, and industrial innovations enabled humans to overharvest not just land animals, but fish, whales, birds and any other species humans could find use for. The technologies of these tools, like harpoons, gunpowder, and driftnets have allowed us to harvest species much faster than they could replace or reproduce themselves. (Otten)

Image from Hawaii http://www.opala.org/solid_waste/Illegal_Dumping_Laws.html

Humans have an advantage and are the most mobile of all species; able to live pretty much anywhere on earth. When traveling from place to place we have often transported other species with us introducing alien species into a new environment where there aren't any natural controls. Hawaii is an example of such devastation. Prior to the arrival of humans Hawaii had thousands of species of birds, invertebrates, and plants that could not be found anywhere else on earth. Since the introduction of rats, pigs, dogs, mongoose and many non-native species of plants, over half the bird species and snail species have gone extinct. (Otten)


Genetically modified crops are being planted in farmlands at an accelerated rate. This is due to all of the supposed benefits associated with them. For example:

• Lower costs of production


• Fewer weeds


• More abundance and sustainable


• Less Soil erosion


• Cleaner Water


• Less carbon being emitted into the atmosphere

While all of these benefits are amazing in creating a lower polluted, more sustainable planet, we have to ask ourselves "what are we paying for this trade off?" There have been no conclusive studies as to the long term effects of consuming genetically modified foods. There need to be more tests conducted and more reports issued.

The population has been consuming genetically modified foods, sometimes without their knowledge, so we need to start the conversation of "is there a long term effect on humans who eat this food and if there is, is the trade off small enough to justify the continuation of planting these crops?"

Do you know how much of your food consumption contains genetically modified foods? I would love your opinion on this topic and potential ways to create more awareness in order to have a healthy life as well as a healthy planet.

Here is a link for an interesting video on the subject:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7727700015953778314#

(source: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/04/14/92138/overuse-of-genetically-modify.html)

Probably like many consumers, I feel that I should be able to trust the labels on the products that I purchase. However, as more and more research is done, it is becoming blatantly apparent that the companies of today have decided that they will sell their products to whoever, wherever, and at whatever cost to our planet and society. Long gone are the days where we as consumers knew what the terms we are faced with on product labels mean, or what the company behind those labels really stands for. While surfing the internet for some useful information on dishwashing liquid, I ran across an article written by Vanessa L. Facenda at Brandweek (http://www.brandweek.com/bw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003726559) regarding the dishwashing liquids that we have to choose from when it comes to taking care of the environment. These cleaning items state to be environmentally friendly and "green". However, upon a deeper look, it appears that the statements are nothing more than a blatant lie. In many cases, the manufacturers of these products are even facing threats of a lawsuit if they do not change the labels on their products and start disclosing the actual make-up of their cleaning products. As consumers, it is our duty and responsibility to make sure that we are aware of the products that we are buying and not believe everything that we are told regarding the items that we bring into our homes. The largest voice that we have is when we choose to buy, or not buy, a product. In choosing to give one company our hard earned money over another, we have the power to invoke change in the market place and show the large corporations what truly matters to us.

Visit our website:

http://sites.google.com/site/ecomerge2008/

Watching a 9-11 documentary on NGC last week, I happened to catch this short snippet. Check it out.



-AML

“The refuse from discarded electronics products, also known as e-waste, often ends up in landfills or incinerators instead of being recycled. And that means toxic substances like lead, cadmium and mercury that are commonly used in these products can contaminate the land, water and air.” (wired.com) 4.6 million tons entered U.S. landfills in one year alone. Some of the metal is removed and recycled but then we exploit poor in other countries to do the dirty work of removing the guts. The National Geographic states that: “Much of the waste ends up being discarded along rivers and roads. Often it's picked apart by destitute scavengers, who may face dangerous exposure to toxic chemicals in the broken equipment.”

Here is an interesting point from vital graphics: “The Computer Report Card says that some U.S. companies have a double standard when it comes to recycling. While some companies have implemented recycling policies in the European Union and Japan, where such programs are mandated, they've yet to do so in the United States.”

This is a real problem and we here at PSU would like your input. Take this quick survey with comments by others and see the results at the same time—but don’t hit “submit” until you see the results.

Here is the link

David Best-PSU student

Annual Oregon Beach Cleanup nets 110,00 Pounds of Trash in Beach Cleanup (kgn.com)


Did you know most of the trash on beaches is not local but from ships and super ships far out at sea. They still think the ocean is one big dumping ground because they are in international waters with little law and order. The trouble is they don’t break glass or throw steel that floats to the bottom but rather toss everything—especially plastics.There is now so much garbage out there that mindfully.org calls one place “the eastern garbage patch”—the size of Texas off the west coast. Plastic does disintegrate into smaller particles but is hardly gone. Basically this alters the ecosystem for different species and most likely creates those “dead zones” we hear of. “Science Daily” also says “marine pollution is linked to cancer and lung disease “. Here an animal actually died eating plastic: Courtesy: Trashed.








Massive environmental cleanup is not a good option for the taxpayer (like the Hartford cleanup) or anyone so why don’t we start new by making these ships store their trash if they want to do business with the western world. One container in a large ship that holds hundreds and hundreds of them is all it needs for their trash need, especially if it has a compactor.

A couple thousand dollars can buy one from buyerzone but the ships that come here simple have to keep one empty one usually, or one on a return trip. So it costs nothing except a little manpower throwing garbage in the container.

Enforcement is simple:

1.The pilot makes inspection before port—they better have a container of plastics and hazardous wastes.

2.Companies that don’t comply will also don’t sell any their products here.

3.Very small ships are exempt.

Let’s start complaining:

Unfortunately the US lags behind the rest of the world in this kind of prevention. (Probably to keep the economy going at all cost, and giving us cheap products from overseas)

1. Write your representatives in California, Oregon, and Washington.

2. The White House: Please send your comments to comments@whitehouse.gov. Due to the large volume of e-mail received, the White House cannot respond to every message. For further up-to-date information on Presidential initiatives, current events, and topics of interest to you, please continue to use the White House website.

David Best--PSU Student

"Global Warming is fundamently an energy problem and it can not be regulated away."

Recently I heard Michael Shellenberger speak on Friday Forum, a speaker event put on by City Club. I had no idea who he was. I soon found myself so inspired after being fearful for so long that due to global warming my son would live a hard and horrible life. He and Ted Nordhaus wrote an essay called "The Death of Environmentalism". Their thoughtful approach basically stems from 20 years of the same idea (regulating oil, coal, etc.) and very little results. Coal and oil just need to be a thing of the past entirely. They suggest that the world governments invest in clean energy. If the US invested $200 billion in solar panels then it would drive the price down. Generally after a massive public investment, private investors follow suit. It's hard for me to imagine $200 billion, but the government has already spent over $500 billion on the war on terror. Shellenberger's speech is, as I said earlier, inspiring. He calls on our strengths instead of our fears. He also reminds how inventive and creative we can be. Please listen to it.http://www.pdxcityclub.org/forums-events/friday-forums.php
Here is an interview he did with Willam Week http://wweek.com/editorial/3350/9845/

Visit our website:

http://sites.google.com/site/ecomerge2008/

One of my favorite publications is Real Simple magazine. Looking
through some old issues, I found some of their practical advice really
relates to our project, and can help us go green- environmentally and
financially!

In the March 2002 issue of Real Simple magazine, their tips section
suggests that we unplug large appliances, like televisions, when going
on vacation (find the blurb at: http://www.realsimple.com/realsimple/content/0,21770,689574,00.html).
This may sound silly, but even turned off, these appliances can still
consume up to 40 watts an hour when they're plugged in! If you went
away for a weekend vacation- leaving after work on Friday (5 pm), and
returning on Sunday night (8 pm), you could be using- and paying for-
204 watts of electricity for your television to just sit there. Now
imagine if you had 5 large appliances that you left plugged in and
turned off- you'd be paying for just over 1,000 watts of electricity,
not to mention the service charges that go with it. In other words,
unplug your appliances and save some dough for the souvenir stands!

Speaking of electric bills- and all the other pesky parcels that seem
to have a habit of popping up in our mail boxes, my trusty magazine
has another money saving tip, which can also help save paper! The
March 2006 issue says that the average household receives 15 bills per
month (Ouch!). However- there is a silver lining to this nasty little
cloud! If you use the internet or phone (or automatic billing) where
it's available, you could save some money to actually pay those bills!
With stamps now costing 41 cents in the USA, based on the average
household, you could save yourself $6.15 per month, which translates
to $73.80 per year!
If you live in the UK, and use Second Class postage on your 15 bills
(24p/letter), you could save £3.6, or £43.2 per year! Our Aussie mates
pay $.50 per letter, and 15 bills a month paid using a free
alternative would save you $7.50 per month, a whole $90 per year! My
exchange students from the Far East pay bills, too. Japanese postal
customers pay 60 yen per first class stamp. Our friends in the land of
the rising sun could save 900 yen per month, and that's 10,800 yen per
year! The article can be found at: (http://www.realsimple.com/realsimple/gallery/0,21863,1152145,00.html)

Visit our website:

http://sites.google.com/site/ecomerge2008/

Around the world the message is the same. In Asia they are also addressing ways in which to help our earth. Many of the same adjustments and attitudes toward change abound in the website listed below. This is very pertinent to the United States, as it is in other parts of our same world. Check it out.
http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/how_help/tips_savearth/green_tips.html

Visit our website:

http://sites.google.com/site/ecomerge2008/