Everyday we go and check the mail only to find it filled with tons of ads, coupons, promotions, letters, "pre-approved" cards and fliers. Yes...junk mail. We all know what its like to go through these countless pieces of mail only to throw a good 85% of them away. Junk mail is constantly sent to many peoples homes in hopes that they will be interested in the item being advertised. Most times the person receiving the mail doesn't give it any thought. Instead they discard of it. If these letters are sent out in bulk to numerous people across the world and at the same time being discarded by numerous people around the world that can only lead to one thing: waste.
I did some research and found some interesting facts about the amount of waste produced due to the junk mail that ends up in land fills:
-In the US, the Enviormental Protection Agency estimates that 44% of junk mail is discarded without being opened or read
-The amount of junk mail being thrown away equals four million tons of waste paper per year
-Only 32% is recycled
-In 2002 advertised mail accounted for 500,000 and 600,000 tons of paper, only 13% of it being recycled.
-5.6 million tons of catalogs and other direct mail advertisements end up in U.S. landfills annually.
-The average American household receives unsolicited junk mail equal to 1.5 trees
The best way to help with the problem created by junk mail is to get you name off the advertisement mail isting. This prevents companies from sending letters that will go unopened to your house. Start by contacting the companies that are already contacting you and have them put you on a do not promote list. Next off try investigate websites that help find junk mails such as JunkBusters.com.
Monday, November 30, 2009
New Form Of Energy
Researchers from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory are looking for a new, clean alternative fuel source and are now looking to hydrogen. The question they are trying to figure out is how to obtain and form this hydrogen without turning to any high energy processes? One overlooked way is right above us. The sun provides photosynthesis, a process by which plants regenerate using energy from the sun. This process may be the answer to our source of a sustainable, clean source of hydrogen. Hydrogen has the quite possibly to be the cleanest fuel alternative. It also emits no greenhouse gas production. This new innovation allows hydrogen to be readily produced from non-hydrocarbon sources
It was found that when coupled with a platinum catalyst, algae has a inner machinery of that of photosynthesis which allows, when exposed to light, the production of hydrogen. A benefit of this method is that it cuts out the unnecessary in the process of solar conversion. It cuts out the the time normally required for the plant to capture solar energy leading to it to grow and reproduce where it will then die and eventually become fossil fuel. It also cuts out the substantial amount of energy required to harvest and process plant material into bio fuel. By ridding these options, we are taking a giant leap forward in helping our planet in a much better and efficient way.
It was found that when coupled with a platinum catalyst, algae has a inner machinery of that of photosynthesis which allows, when exposed to light, the production of hydrogen. A benefit of this method is that it cuts out the unnecessary in the process of solar conversion. It cuts out the the time normally required for the plant to capture solar energy leading to it to grow and reproduce where it will then die and eventually become fossil fuel. It also cuts out the substantial amount of energy required to harvest and process plant material into bio fuel. By ridding these options, we are taking a giant leap forward in helping our planet in a much better and efficient way.
How Big a Difference Can GoodGuide Make?
I think goodguide.com has tremendous upside. Just by casually browsing, it became obvious to me that the site was young and imperfect. It certainly needs to expand and cover more products, but I think its concept can help us and the environment at the same time. That being said, I'm not as optimistic as Daniel Goleman that knowledge of environmental friendliness will sway consumers.
I decided to look up three different categories of food on GoodGuide, and see how two companies compare within each category. I matched Frito-Lay against Wise Foods, Pepsi against Coke, and Peter Pan against Jif. I wanted to see if these companies, competing for the same consumers within their category, had significantly different ratings in the database.
First, the match-up between chip companies. Unfortunately, GoodGuide lacked the thorough breakdown of ratings for both companies. It did say that Frito-Lay earned a 4.3 brand rating, and Wise Foods edged them out with a 4.4 rating. I don't believe this to be a significant difference, but considering how seldom I actually eat chips, I would have very little difficulty being loyal to Wise Foods over Frito-Lay.
Second, I checked the ratings for the two soda behemoths. This time, GoodGuide had a full breakdown of the colas, but not the entire soda companies. Considering how similar in product and business the two are, I was surprised to find that Coke rated higher than Pepsi, 4.2 to 3.8. Though neither overall rating instills much confidence, Coke led the environment category 7.0 to 5.5. I will keep this in mind when next purchasing soda. If both products are interchangeable, why not choose the more eco-friendly one?
Lastly, I compared Peter Pan peanut butter to one of it's competitors, Jif. The difference between the two was a mere 0.1; the edge going to Jif. Whereas with chips and soda, I have very little preference, with peanut butter, I heavily favor Peter Pan. In the environment category, Jif prevailed by 0.2, but I don't feel like that difference is enough to make me abandon a product I prefer. This, I think, could big a problem for GoodGuide.
I don't believe consumers, especially Americans, will feel strongly enough about environmental impacts to avoid products they prefer. In the video we watched in class, Daniel Goleman and Bill Moyers discuss two shampoos, and their ratings on GoodGuide. They point out that the cheaper of the two is actually the more eco-friendly, and that this should dissuade consumers from the belief that pricier items are better. What they fail to mention, however, is which shampoo leaves the hair in better condition. If the more expensive, less green product outperforms the other, in terms of hair care quality, people will continue to buy it. Knowing a product is better for the environment will persuade some consumers to buy it, but many people will continue to buy the product they prefer, no matter the environmental impact.
I decided to look up three different categories of food on GoodGuide, and see how two companies compare within each category. I matched Frito-Lay against Wise Foods, Pepsi against Coke, and Peter Pan against Jif. I wanted to see if these companies, competing for the same consumers within their category, had significantly different ratings in the database.
First, the match-up between chip companies. Unfortunately, GoodGuide lacked the thorough breakdown of ratings for both companies. It did say that Frito-Lay earned a 4.3 brand rating, and Wise Foods edged them out with a 4.4 rating. I don't believe this to be a significant difference, but considering how seldom I actually eat chips, I would have very little difficulty being loyal to Wise Foods over Frito-Lay.
Second, I checked the ratings for the two soda behemoths. This time, GoodGuide had a full breakdown of the colas, but not the entire soda companies. Considering how similar in product and business the two are, I was surprised to find that Coke rated higher than Pepsi, 4.2 to 3.8. Though neither overall rating instills much confidence, Coke led the environment category 7.0 to 5.5. I will keep this in mind when next purchasing soda. If both products are interchangeable, why not choose the more eco-friendly one?
Lastly, I compared Peter Pan peanut butter to one of it's competitors, Jif. The difference between the two was a mere 0.1; the edge going to Jif. Whereas with chips and soda, I have very little preference, with peanut butter, I heavily favor Peter Pan. In the environment category, Jif prevailed by 0.2, but I don't feel like that difference is enough to make me abandon a product I prefer. This, I think, could big a problem for GoodGuide.
I don't believe consumers, especially Americans, will feel strongly enough about environmental impacts to avoid products they prefer. In the video we watched in class, Daniel Goleman and Bill Moyers discuss two shampoos, and their ratings on GoodGuide. They point out that the cheaper of the two is actually the more eco-friendly, and that this should dissuade consumers from the belief that pricier items are better. What they fail to mention, however, is which shampoo leaves the hair in better condition. If the more expensive, less green product outperforms the other, in terms of hair care quality, people will continue to buy it. Knowing a product is better for the environment will persuade some consumers to buy it, but many people will continue to buy the product they prefer, no matter the environmental impact.
Holiday's
I was reading today about 10 tips for having an environmentally friendly Thanksgiving, and I thought it was interesting that we have talked about all of these ideas that were listed in class. The ideas range from eating local and organic food to staying at home and inviting neighbors. Some other ideas are to reduce, reuse and recycle, and making your own decorations. The ideas are all very basic and something that every person could do this holiday season.
The holidays are a time of travel and shopping and in most aspects are a very environmentally unfriendly time. We buy things we don’t need and many times these things are packaged in plastic. We travel places we don’t need to go. We use electricity we don’t need to use; most of us light our trees and have decorations that use electricity. Many of us also make way more food than we eat. So much food is thrown away on Thanksgiving, Christmas, and at our holiday parties. For example for Thanksgiving my family had dinner for 7 people we had one large turkey, stuffing, mashed potatoes, green beans, corn, Brussels sprouts, rolls, squash, and 4 pies for desert. There was so much food left over like I’m sure there was around the country. All the leftover food was saved but not all of it will get eaten. I think that this is a time of year we should cut back a little we don’t need everything we get this time of year, and we need to realize that so we can have what we think we need to have for a happy holiday season other people around the world are being exploited and are not able to have even a fraction of what we have.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
Bike Lanes in NYC
On my way home for Thanksgiving Break i noticed something different about the streets of my neighborhood. Looking out the bus window I realized that there was only one lane of traffic where there used to be two. The "missing" lane had now been transformed into a bicycle lane. At first I thought about the bike lane and felt that it was a stupid idea. I felt that it would probably make traffic go much slower than normal, causing problems for many commuters. It was soon after watching the lanes in use that I realized how much of a great idea this was.
Most people who do use their bikes, whether for recreational uses or as a means of transportation, have to compete with the dangers of traffic. A new bike lane reduces accidents from happening and protects bicyclists. The increased safety this provides may also attract new people to riding their bikes to where ever they have to go. Using a bike instead of a car reduces pollution and carbon dioxide emissions from the air. Encouraging more and more riders to rely on their bikes will all together reduce the amount of carbon emissions that person would normally have emitted. In regards to my original thought about the bike lane slowing down traffic, I was wrong. I noticed that traffic flow was much more smoother. The two lanes before used to hit heavy traffic when it came to merging to another road however kepping the sinlge road prevents this buildup and keeps cars flowing at a much calmer pace.
Once skeptical, I am in great support of bike lanes and hope that the city continues to place them in more and more reads. Its great for the planet and the people.
How Boxed Wine Can Help Our Planet
Many times we hear about products and automatically associate stereotypical terms with them. This weekend I was watching the morning news and an special on boxed wine came up. Automatically I thought "cheap wine" just because the norm is that wine is suppose to be elegantly poured out of an dark, tinted bottle. Never do we see elegant commercials about wine being poured out of a box. It was later in the special that I learned all the important aspects of boxed wine and how it can truely help out planet.
Boxed wine has many benefits to our pockets and our planet. The first is that is it much more cheaper that the bottled version. In Australia it is valued at about $8 US dollars for four liters. Also unlike bottles wine, the boxed version lasts longer. When exposed to the air for a certain period of time, wine starts to go bad. The boxed version is in a vacuumed-sealed bag within the box, keeping it fresh due to the lack of exposure to the air. The benefits of boxed wine to the environment are also seen in the fact that the manufacturing of glass contributes greenhouse gas emissions, generates nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide all of which when inhaled can cause tiny particulates that can damage lung tissue. Transporting wine across the country also causes a lot of problems. Transporting wine from the West Coast to the East Coast generates a lot of carbon footprinting. A standard wine bottle which holds 750 milliliters of wine generates about 5.2 pounds of carbon-dioxide emissions when it travels from a vineyard in the West side to a store East side. However a 750 milliliters standard 3-liter box generates about half of that. By switching to boxed wine we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about two million tons which is also the equivalent of removing 400,000 cars from the roads.
A brand of boxed wine advertised is called Yellow+Blue. As the name suggests it is environmentally green. It is certified organic wine, made with no pesticides and no synthetic fertilizers. It is produced in Tetra Paks which are made from 75% paper harvested from responsibly managed forests. They weigh far much less and is less bulky than bottled wine when it comes time for shipping. If people start making small changes which greatly helps themselves save money, theay can also greatly help the environment.
population growth
Today the population of the world is growing at an exponential rate. If this growth continues eventually the human race will meet and then exceed the carrying capacity of the earth can support. At that time there will be drastic consequences and an almost yo-yo like effect on the human population. The population will probably drop rapidly then grow again then drop rapidly and repeat this process with less death and less growth each time until the population eventually stabilizes. We might be able to avoid this devastating effect if we can curb and stabilize our populations now.
Today the fastest growing populations are in countries that are less developed and less stable. Because even though they have a higher death rate and a higher infant mortality rate the number of children each woman has is much larger than in more developed countries. These are the countries that we need to focus on and help them find ways to lower the rate at which their population is growing. One way to do this would be to educate the woman. Better educated woman have more prospects and are less likely to have a large number of children. In less developed countries children are sometimes used as a source of free labor or cheap income. This is a way of life that needs to be stopped in order to lower the population growth of the world to a more manageable rate. Family planning is helpful but unless the women have control and are allowed to have a say in their pregnancies this method will not be as effective as we need it to be. Population growth is a serious problem we face today, as serious and as catastrophic as global warming and pollution. There are many things we can do to help under developed countries bring their birth rates down and keep the population at a stable rate that the earth can sustain. Population growth is a problem that is not as publicized as other environmental concerns. But as more and more people live on this planet the environment is strained more and more.
Today the fastest growing populations are in countries that are less developed and less stable. Because even though they have a higher death rate and a higher infant mortality rate the number of children each woman has is much larger than in more developed countries. These are the countries that we need to focus on and help them find ways to lower the rate at which their population is growing. One way to do this would be to educate the woman. Better educated woman have more prospects and are less likely to have a large number of children. In less developed countries children are sometimes used as a source of free labor or cheap income. This is a way of life that needs to be stopped in order to lower the population growth of the world to a more manageable rate. Family planning is helpful but unless the women have control and are allowed to have a say in their pregnancies this method will not be as effective as we need it to be. Population growth is a serious problem we face today, as serious and as catastrophic as global warming and pollution. There are many things we can do to help under developed countries bring their birth rates down and keep the population at a stable rate that the earth can sustain. Population growth is a problem that is not as publicized as other environmental concerns. But as more and more people live on this planet the environment is strained more and more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
