Archive for the ‘environment’ Category
DDT then, BPA now
Back in the 1940s, DDT was a miracle of modern science. It quickly and conveniently killed bugs without disturbing larger animals (or so we thought). It was so safe, in fact, that we produced DDT-laced wallpaper for your children’s bedroom.
Today, we know about the dangers of DDT to all living things and we wouldn’t dream of exposing our children to the chemical.
But have we really learned? Now we use BPA in food packaging and containers (like baby bottles). BPA is a hormone disrupter and is not safe for human exposure (especially in babies and growing children). Yet,
A study by the Environmental Working Group tested commonly eaten canned foods from grocery stores in three US cities, including Oakland. Out of 97 cans, 57 percent contained detectable and often high levels of BPA. Pastas, soups, and infant formula accounted for some of the highest levels. The group estimates that BPA exposure is unsafe in 10 percent of all canned food and a staggering one-third of infant formula.
[Source]
In another 10 years will we look back on BPA the same way we think about DDT now? What have we learned?
Filed under Healthcare, culture, environment : Comments (0) : Jan 25th, 2010
Minnesota takes aim at North Dakota
Minnesota (my beloved home state) has just fired a shot across their western border towards North Dakota. From Scientific American:
To encourage the switch to clean renewable energy Minnesota plans to add a carbon fee of between $4 and $34 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions to the cost of coal-fired electricity, to begin in 2012, to discourage the use of coal power; the greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions.
To provide some context, North Dakota is a state with dwindling population and abundant cheap coal. There are a number of coal-fired power plants that export electricity across their borders to the more populated (and less coal-rich) Minnesota.
Continuing the article,
State officials in North Dakota are mounting a legal battle against Minnesota. State officials argue that this would unfairly discourage coal-powered electricity sales in favor of renewably powered electricity.
Really, North Dakota. No shit.
Fortunately for their state, North Dakota is also blessed with an abundance of wind resources. The same high voltage lines that carry dirty coal electricity could be used to export wind power instead.
There’s two ways they can play this:
1) Use the tariff as a direct financial incentive to agressively build wind farms and increase local employment
Or
2) Spend millions of tax dollars fighting the tariff in court and continue down the dead-end of coal power plants.
I wonder which path North Dakota will take?
Filed under climate change, economics, energy, environment, politics : Comments (1) : Jan 6th, 2010
Reusable bags get a leg up in D.C. [Updated!]
The local government of Washington D.C. has levied a tax of 5 cents per plastic bag for supermarket customers. This means that there is a small but direct financial incentive to use resumable bags. Nice!
I’ve been trying hard for the past few years to minimize the number of plastic bags I use. I have cloth bags for groceries and will decline a bag entirely if I’m buying only a few items. (Side note : why does every Walgreens employee think I need a bag to hold one tube of toothpaste and one stick of deodorant?!)
I’m sure there will be haters of this new policy who can’t be bothered by the perceived inconvenience of supplying your own bags, but I suspect in a few months we’ll all adapt and be better off for it.
I guess this is one of those perks in living in a very small independent city-state hybrid like the District of Colombia. We get to pass laws that would likely not pass a larger state legislature. Go local government!
(Then again, the District doesn’t get any representation in the U.S. Senate. So that’s a bummer.)
Update!
I just went to the local grocery store and discovered they’re giving away reusable bags for free this week to help their customers adopt. Three cheers to Giant for doing the right thing!
Filed under Washington DC, environment, politics : Comments (4) : Jan 4th, 2010
2008 Obesity Update
This just in – we’re fat!
The CDC does a study of obesity levels by state and publishes the results annually. The 2008 data are in, and we’re fatter than ever.
This is a problem.
One possible solution : reform agriculture policy. We (as taxpayers) heavily subsidize the corn industry so that we can get extremely cheap corn-based foods. One problem : corn-based foods (think high fructose corn syrup, not corn on the cob) are high in calories and low in nutrients.
We need to stop subsidizing corn and start encouraging sensible, sustainable agriculture for healthy crops like fruits and vegetables.
Filed under Healthcare, culture, environment, politics : Comments (2) : Jul 12th, 2009
How long will it last?
Most of us know that natural resources are finite. Due to those pesky laws of physics, there’s only so much stuff on this little planet of ours. New Scientist poses (and then answers) an interesting question: How much do we have left? And how long will it take to deplete these resources at present rates?
Not surprisingly, we don’t have a lot of years left with many of our favorite natural resources given current consumption rates. The chart presents both the rate of consumption for the U.S. (we’re #1! in a bad way) and for the world, based on an assumption that global consumption goes up to half that of the U.S. (with developing nations striving to match our standard of living, it’s not a bad assumption).
The takeaway here is not that we’re going to all of a sudden run out of Indium and stop making LCD monitors. Instead, this should remind us all that we need to drastically change the way we interact with natural resources over the next century if we want to maintain anything close to our current standard of living.
At the risk of politicizing an otherwise apolitical post, I’ll also add this: When you hear politicians tell you that we can’t do anything to change the way we produce energy or to increase the efficiency of everyday processes because it costs too much, ask yourself this: what’s the cost of doing nothing?
Filed under energy, environment, technology : Comments (0) : Apr 24th, 2009
