Buy Organic

The Story of Stuff is a great, informative video about how production and consumption of ’stuff’ is resulting in massive losses of natural resources, significant worldwide pollution, and many other negative environmental and social problems.

From its extraction through sale, use and disposal, all the stuff in our lives affects communities at home and abroad, yet most of this is hidden from view. The Story of Stuff is a 20-minute, fast-paced, fact-filled look at the underside of our production and consumption patterns. The Story of Stuff exposes the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues, and calls us together to create a more sustainable and just world.

Watch the video here.

If you’re not sure why you might want to save water around the home, Melanie from Bean Sprouts has brief explanation on why it’s something we should all be doing:

In one sense, water is an infinitely renewable resource. It never runs out because it just cycles round and round. You drink it, but it isn’t gone - sooner or later you’ll pee it out, it will get processed and return to the rivers and seas. You spill it, it evaporates and goes back to the clouds, to rain down and return to the reservoirs. Your pipes leak? So what? It all goes back to the groundwater where it was pumped out of in the first place.

Think of the resources needed to collect the water (how much energy does it take to build a dam?), to clean the water, to store it and to pump it to where it is needed. When you think of all the energy that has gone to produce each pint of tapwater, it seems much more important to conserve it.

Many parts of Australia are still in drought and the problem of diminishing freshwater supplies is far from being resolved. Current water supplies cannot support the growing population and it is just a matter of time before we start to run out of water. There are many water saving tips we can implement which will help reduce our consumption but that alone won’t solve the problem. What needs to be done to solve the water crisis? A few options are:

• significantly reduce consumption
• recycle water
• build desalination plants
• use storm water
• build more dams

There isn’t one solution to our water supply problems, multiple solutions need to be implemented by the Government and by individuals. The worst thing we can do is take no action now.

I was very happy to read the other day that Australia is planning to ban incandescent bulbs in favour of compact fluorescent light bulbs. I can’t believe the Government is actually going to do something useful. It’s great news - a good start to doing something for the environment.. It’s a simple change which everyone can make, which will lead to less carbon dioxide entering the environment. Let’s not forget the financial savings we’ll all make as well.

I hope that along with promoting compact fluorescents they will promote the proper disposal of these bulbs. They do contain mercury which can be dangerous for the environment if not disposed of correctly. It would also be great if they were to promote LED lighting, perhaps by putting money into developing these extremely efficient lights.

From the Australian:

Federal Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the standard incandescent light bulb, which has been around for 125 years, will be phased out by 2009.

It will be replaced by the compact fluorescent bulb which costs $5 more, but saves an average of $30 a year, and is around 80 per cent more energy efficient.

Mr Turnbull said the plan was expected to save up to two million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions in Australia over time and, if introduced globally, could have an enormous impact.

Low efficiency halogen lights will also be phased out but the more efficient ones will remain.

This has had numerous mentions in the blogosphere including:

Groovy Green

While this announcement is still just that, here’s to hoping that such a strong position becomes law. There’s no reason we should still be selling a light bulb that wastes so much energy.

Celsias

Legislation is being proposed in California to ban incandescent bulbs beyond 2012. Australia, however, in an example of enviro-friendly one-upmanship, is giving the antiquated and power-hungry bulbs the flick from 2009.

Treehugger

As best as we can make out from the myriad stories doing the rounds, the environmental group Planet Ark were about to announce a new campaign next week, in partnership with Philips. It was to be called Ban the Bulb. But the new federal Environment minister, Malcolm Turnbull, stole their thunder (and, it seems, their idea) by announcing today that incandescent light bulbs were to get the flick (as the newspapers are headlining the move).

Let’s hope it’s not all talk and it becomes law.

Every year we all receive the latest yellow and white pages. The production and delivery of these books is clearly is a huge waste of resources. I can’t remember the last time I even removed mine from the plastic they are delivered in. If I’m looking for a phone number I will, 100% of the time, do a search on the internet. I would think most people do the same thing. So why do we get these every year? Telstra (or Sensis) has an opt-out policy rather than an opt-in policy.

It is fairly easy to opt-out though, as mentioned by David at Greenomics:

In Australia, the phone books are produced by Sensis (a subsidiary of Telstra). They have a phone book opt-out: you can call them on 1800 810 211 and request not to receive one (and I’d encourage you to do so) but that seems a pretty inefficient way to reduce the number of phone books distributed - how many people know about (and will bother) opting out?

The annual deliver of phone books takes place in other countries too. It’s The Environment Stupid has this suggestion:

I think it is time for the phone book to go or at least be reduced. Maybe they can be sent out to those who specifically request one by checking a box on their monthly (landline) phone bill; or maybe a limited number of phone books can be made available at select locations for pick up by those who want one.

I don’t see why we couldn’t pick up a phone book from the local post office if we want one and leave it at that. It would save on paper, printing, and transportation costs. Of course the problem is that Telstra receives listing and advertising dollars from the thousands of businesses listed. This no doubt offsets the cost of production and delivery. It’s great that you can opt-out of receiving the phone books but if Telstra really wants to do something for the environment they should change their policy.

There is no way you can deny the existence of global warming. The undeniable proof is here.

Via Treehugger.

An online survey taken today at ninemsn showed that less than 13% of respondents believe the Australian government is doing enough about the problem of climate change. That’s not surprising really. Climate change was one of the most talked about topics last year with many complaining that the government wasn’t doing enough.

So more than 87% of people believe the government should be doing more to combat climate change.

What do you think?

Greenland has a slideshow of award winning photos of the melting ice in Greenland.

Visit the site to view the full size photos and to read their descriptions.

This is a picture of one of many young children who work recycling used batteries. The recycling process gives off carbon which the children breath, doing unknown damage to their young bodies.

Sathi is eight years old and lives in Bangladesh.

Her natural face is not this dark; the color comes from the carbon rods she and hundreds of other children extract from batteries at recycling factories.

She earns about US$3.50 a month for this work, inhaling carbon dust all the while

Does this mean we have to choose between the damage done to the environment by throwing our batteries out (into landfile) or recycling them at the risk of the health of child labour? Story and photo from Kauaian.

A New Zealand company has created Celsias to help you reduce your carbon footprint and easily trade carbon credits. It’s aimed at small to medium business but anyone can register for free. Here’s what they have to say:

Celsias.com, the world’s first online community that allows regions, businesses or community groups to be paid for reducing the carbon emissions from their everyday energy use.

We enable you to calculate the carbon footprint of your home, your business, your community group or any other entity. You can also create carbon credits for yourself by learning how to reduce your carbon emissions and by searching for and buying the world’s most energy efficient products and services. You can then sell these carbon credits to other Celsias members anywhere around the world.

So what can you do at Celsias?

• Calculate your carbon footprint.
• Create carbon credits.
• Trade carbon credits with other members around the world.
• Track your energy use.
• Learn how to reduce your energy use.
• Find energy efficient products and services.

I’d say they’d have to get a lot of members to be effective so they will need to do a lot of promotion. I’ll keep watching them to see how they go. I’m not sure it will work but I wish them luck!

I think this post is just rubbish. It quotes Norman Borlaug, an advocate of the use of synthetic fertilisers:

Perhaps the most eminent critic of organic farming is Norman Borlaug, the father of the “green revolution”, winner of the Nobel peace prize and an outspoken advocate of the use of synthetic fertilisers to increase crop yields. He claims the idea that organic farming is better for the environment is “ridiculous” because organic farming produces lower yields and therefore requires more land under cultivation to produce the same amount of food. Thanks to synthetic fertilisers, Mr Borlaug points out, global cereal production tripled between 1950 and 2000, but the amount of land used increased by only 10%. Using traditional techniques such as crop rotation, compost and manure to supply the soil with nitrogen and other minerals would have required a tripling of the area under cultivation. The more intensively you farm, Mr Borlaug contends, the more room you have left for rainforest.

It’s fine to say that synthetic fertilisers increase crop production. They do. In the short term. However, in the long term, this isn’t a sustainable method of farming. The use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilisers, kills pretty much everything except the crop itself. The result is poor soil with no beneficial micro-organisms and nutrients. This means to maintain the same level of crops each year the farmer needs to use more fertilisers. Mono-cropping also increases the risk of disease and as some insects become immune to certain pesticides, more and varied sprays will need to be used on crops further reducing soil quality and again increasing the need for more fertilisers. This is not sustainable in the long term.

There is also no mention on the pollution all these chemicals use. Runoff from farms enters our lakes, rivers, and other waterways, polluting them. There is no question about this. Look at the algal blooms you see in many rivers, killing off fish and everything else living in the water. This is mainly attributed to fertilisers used in the local area.

What about the harm these chemicals are doing to the people using them? The World Health Organisation reports that around 20,000 people die each year due to chemicals used on cotton farms alone. It’s also likely that the high number of cancers seen in children in Canada’s Prince Edward Island is the result of pesticides used on local potato crops.

Organic farming is better for the environment. It produces less pollution, encourages varied wildlife, and promotes healthy soil.