November 06, 2009 - by Molly Mann
This past Saturday, October 31, 2009, New York State expanded its "Bottle Bill," the five cent beverage container deposit law, to include water bottles. Starting from that date, all water containers below a gallon in size sold in the state now carry a five cent refundable deposit, though a "grace period," during which stores can still sell water bottles without the deposit label without incurring fines, will be in effect until Sunday, November 8, 2009. The new law also requires beverage companies to transfer 80 percent of the unclaimed deposits they collect to the state, in addition to other program changes and updates, which went into effect over the summer.
Environmental and community groups have been pushing New York lawmakers to update the Bottle Bill since 2000, seeing it as out of step with consumer tastes. According to the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), more than 3.2 billion water bottles are sold each year in New York, which amounts to nearly a quarter of the state's total beverage sales. Before the legislature enacted the deposit, fewer than 20 percent of these bottles were recycled; instead, they constituted the number one most commonly found item of litter. Now, the 1982 Bottle Bill will cover nearly 90 percent of New York's beverage containers, with the exceptions of iced teas, sports drinks, juices, and other non-carbonated beverages.
We can always improve our recycling habits, but this expansion of the state Bottle Bill is an exciting milestone for those who want to clean up our state. So remember, if you sip from a plastic water bottle (though I encourage you to opt for stainless steel instead), make sure you recycle it. You'll get a five cent deposit and the satisfaction of having taken steps to keep our communities beautiful.
October 31, 2009 - by Molly Mann
From community gardens to school lunches to the organic
produce aisle at the grocery store, it seems that the best place to make a
political statement these days is on your plate; what you eat defines what you
believe.
But have some groups taken this commitment to morally
superior eating too far? Can dinner just be dinner again?
Consider, for example, the New York Times "Dining" article from this past Wednesday about D.I.Y. butchering. Alex Williams, the reporter, documents a growing trend in New York dining: "self-conscious carnivores" who seek to justify their meat-eating by learning to slaughter and butcher their food, especially pigs, and
"honor" the animal. They believe that by sparing the animals the horror
of a factory-farmed death and getting closer to the natural predator-prey
relationship, they somehow reach a higher degree of humaneness with their
eating habits.
Others take this idea a little further. They won't actually
kill an animal just to serve themselves dinner, but rather feed off of what's
already there. Urban freegans (anti-consumerist dumpster-divers) and rural road kill diners -- though from different ends of the political spectrum, usually -- subscribe to the same belief that you
shouldn't waste what's already there. Breeding animals for slaughter just
creates more waste; if you're going to eat meat, there's no need to take a new
life just to fill your stomach.
These are certainly extreme examples of groups who've pushed
food politics to the edge. I admire them for their wholehearted commitment to
their ideals and agree that the only effective change for the planet and
society is lifestyle change, but my beliefs about food are of Michael Pollan's
simpler stamp: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
October 19, 2009 - by Molly Mann
Tucked within the pages of my New York Times this morning was a report by Matthew L. Wald on an internal audit by the Energy Department, which jointly manages the Energy Star program with the Environmental Protection Agency. Or, rather, is supposed to manage. In reality, the audit reveals, the government doesn't really do much at all where this program is concerned. Apparently, retailers are being allowed to slap the Energy Star sticker, which consumers use to navigate home products by efficiency and reduced environmental impact, on just about anything.
The U.S. Energy Star program began in 1992 to certify products like kitchen appliances, washers and dryers, computers, television sets, windows, doors, heaters, and lighting as energy efficient. In order to earn certification, these products had to prove a 20 to 30 percent average savings on electrical and heating costs. The idea was that consumers would opt for the more efficient products once it was easier to recognize them, and the demand would drive the market to produce more environmentally friendly goods. Since President Obama entered the White House, the program has had a rebirth under the federal stimulus bill, which allotted $300 million for consumer rebates on Energy Star products.
But if upwards of 90 percent of all products have gained Energy Star certification without earning it, how are we supposed to tell a truly efficient appliance from one that isn't? This revelation is yet another reminder not to fall prey to greenwashing, the meaningless labeling of ordinary products as environmentally friendly. Don't just take the retailers' word for it that what you're buying is sustainable; take some time to do a little research and find out for yourself. When it comes to your food, your clothing, and your home, you want to know.
Where to look? Consumer Reports is a good place to start. The publication was actually the first to break this story a year ago in October 2008 by performing its own tests on products and finding out that they did not live up to the Energy Star standards.
To give the government some credit, this was an internal audit and the Energy Department has pledged to remedy its shortfalls. I think we can reasonably assume that these oversights are left over from the previous administration and will change now that President Obama is in office. Regardless of who's in the White House, however, we must never stop asking questions. No sticker or label can tell us the whole truth about the goods we consume.
October 16, 2009 - by Molly Mann
Small farmers are integral to the environmental movement because they are our connection to the land and make the decisions about what goes into our food. But life as a small farmer is not easy, especially in developing countries. Growing crops is labor intensive and the yield is usually unsustainable. Add in the unpredictability of weather and storms and one wonders why anyone would choose such a lot in life.
The truth is that most farmers in developing countries don't choose to cultivate the land but are rather forced to out of economic necessity. They need to make a living, no matter how inadequate. And it is certainly inadequate; most don't make enough money to feed their families all the time. Yet our consumer culture dictates that they must keep growing, because the food and other goods they produce supply all the items that we deem essential to our qualities of life.
Twenty-five years ago, in response to this problematic situation, the Fair Trade global cooperative arose to help Third World growers out of poverty by paying them above-market prices for crops. The most prominent advocate of Fair Trade is Starbucks, the world's largest purchaser of Fair Trade-certified coffee. This year, Starbucks pledged to double the amount of Fair Trade beans it buys to 40 million pounds, which amounts to approximately 40 percent of all the Fair Trade coffee imported by the United States.
So, in order to understand how the Fair Trade cooperative works, let's take coffee as an example. Fair Trade charges the retail customer $10 per pound of coffee so that it may give the farmer $1.55 per pound.
But here's the catch: that's only about 15 cents higher than the current market rate. And with Fair Trade cooperative fees, taxes, and expenses, the farmer is left with only 50 cents per pound; this amounts to about $1,000 a year. I can't live on $1,000 a month, let alone depend on that amount of money, which in coffee-producing Guatemala would be about half the minimum wage, to feed an entire family for a year .
What latte-sippers who congratulate themselves for buying Fair Trade coffee don't understand is that it's just not enough. We have a huge disconnect in our society in that we delegate our worst jobs, like growing coffee beans, to impoverished nations and then feel we can dictate the terms of their work (organic, human, cage-free, no antibiotics, etc.). It's an unsupportable system, and we need to fix it if we're going to make any progress on reaching a more sustainable way to live on this planet.
I'm not saying anyone should stop buying Fair Trade goods. I think it's a commendable response to an ailing system. But we need to look beyond the labels like "Fair Trade" and "organic" that seem only to lull us into complacency and address the system itself.
October 09, 2009 - by Molly Mann
Though the story has been eclipsed by other news, I've been following the progress of Ilya, a Florida manatee who has found his way into New York Harbor despite the tendency of manatees to remain south of Georgia. Biologists are trying to find Ilya, entice him with lettuce and fresh drinking water, and bring him home. Manatees require water that is at least 68 degrees Fahrenheit, so Ilya needs to end his northward jaunt before full winter arrives.
Manatees were once believed to be mythical sirens or mermaids. Their cachet has fallen dramatically, however; they're now on the endangered species list. Despite the fact that they have no natural enemies and can live to be 60 years old, human infringement on their habitat and pollution have threatened manatees to the point of near extinction. Historically, manatees have been hunted for their skins and meat. Fortunately, since protections were put in place in 1973, the estimated population along the U.S. coast has risen to 3,800 from 1,700 and the Obama administration announced on Tuesday, September 29, 2009 that it would strengthen these Ford-era regulations.
But saving the manatee is still a daunting task. The species is under constant assault from motor boats; 74 have died in collisions this year alone. They also have a very slow reproductive rate, which is why it's important to carefully guard every single one. That makes Ilya, who is distinguished by two scars from boats on his tail and head, important to the species' survival.
Visit the Save the Manatee Club web site to get involved with endangered species support and be sure to look out for Ilya in the news! Let's hope the big guy makes it home safe.
October 03, 2009 - by Molly Mann
After reading this piece by Elizabeth Kolbert in The New Yorker Magazine yesterday, and listening to President Obama's failed plea to bring the Olympics to Chicago, I wondered: what if the president saved his rhetoric of urgency for matters that were....urgent? And there is no matter more so than the need to halt climate change now.
The United States is the largest per capita emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, at 20 tons per person per year. That's more -- per capita, not total -- than China. Instead of being the leader in emissions, we need to be the leader in change and President Obama, who campaigned on the slogan of change, has to be the one to step forward on this. Forget Chicago; forget the Olympics. Focus instead on reversing the apathy of the Clinton administration's apathy toward environmental measures and the Bush administration's sabotage of them.
President Obama, my peers and I elected you because you held out promise of a future for us. We want jobs, we want affordable healthcare, and we need a clean and safe world. Games are fun, but please focus on the work at hand.
September 25, 2009 - by Molly Mann
Rickets is making a comeback. Rates of the disorder, a vitamin D deficiency that causes weak bones and bone deformities and is among the most frequent childhood diseases in developing countries, are rising in the United States. At least 70 percent of American children are "alarmingly" low in vitamin D, researchers at Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University in New York City told the Washington Post.*
The alarming statistics extend to adults, as well. Fifty to 75 percent of all Americans have vitamin D levels below normal, thanks to sedentary, indoor jobs, increased commuting distances that require us to use cars and trains rather than walking or biking to work, and an overall increase in outdoor activities. Not only does this put us all at a greater risk for developing bone diseases like rickets and osteoporosis, since vitamin D is essential to calcium absorption, but low levels of the nutrient are linked to several cancers, heart disease, diabetes, infertility, memory problems and obesity (a growing body of research has shown the relationship between adequate vitamin D and release of the hormone leptin, which controls appetite).
Vitamin D, which is fat-soluble, comes from a variety of sources, including fatty fish, liver, dairy and egg yolks. Rickets was last a problem during and after the Industrial Revolution, as children began working in factories rather than playing outside. Since the discovery of vitamin D in the 1930s, however, the government requires producers to fortify most of the foods we eat -- milk, orange juice, and cereals, to name a few -- with this key nutrient in bone formation, neuromuscular and immune function, and inflammation reduction.
But the greatest source of vitamin D is sunlight. For example, one egg yolk provides 20 international units (ius), or five percent of the recommended daily allowance (RDA), whereas only 10 minutes of direct sunlight provides you with 1,000 ius. Because very few of us are getting this amount, many experts recommend supplementation of 400 ius in the summer and 2,000 ius in the winter to meet our needs.
But pills are never as well absorbed by the body as the real deal, so go outside for at least 15 minutes per day. In addition to protecting your bones and preventing disease, you'll also considerably reduce your stress levels and build a greater appreciation of the world around us. Keep in mind that sunblock will also prevent vitamin D production (it comes from UV rays), so apply sunscreen after 20 minutes of exposure to get your vitamins while still reducing your skin cancer risk.
*"Millions of Children in the U.S. Found to Be Lacking Vitamin D" by Rob Stein, Washington Post August 3, 2009.
September 18, 2009 - by Molly Mann
Last night, I attended a lecture at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories entitled, "Designing Bioenergy Crops: Developmental Problems and Genetic Solutions." The speaker, Robert Martienssen, Ph.D., who is a world-famous expert on plant genetics, revealed his exciting new research, in partnership with Brookhaven Laboratories and Berkeley University, on lemna (duckweed), which he thinks is the most promising bioenergy crop to replace fossil fuels.
Unlike ethanol, which requires more energy to produce than it actually generates, duckweed consumes hardly any resources and actually cleans the water and air around it. Duckweed can grow in the dirtiest water without fertilizer or chemicals (it's actually grown as a commercial fertilizer in many countries, including Bangladesh), and sequesters carbon dioxide to use for photosynthesis. It multiplies at a remarkable rate, too; fronds bud once every two to three days, which means that duckweed could fill the entire earth in only 30 days. That's well on the way to supplying the billions of tons of biofuels we would need annually to replace gasoline.
Of course, there's a problem with that rapid growth rate, too, since nothing is perfect. Speak to any gardener, and he or she will no doubt tell you of the struggle to rid his or her yard of duckweed, which is considered an invasive species. Duckweed won't steal resources from the life around it, but it will block sunlight exposure to underwater plants once it covers the surface of a body of water, halting photosynthesis. That doesn't mean duckweed is totally evil, just that we must introduce it with care, making sure to only use native species, and to breed them in existing waste water, where they can do more good than harm.
Martienssen and his colleagues are searching for a way to increase the oil output of duckweed so that it can be harnessed for commercial purposes. Right now, the plant is mostly comprised of starches that can be turned into cellulosic ethanol, but that process is much less efficient than simply harvesting oil right from the plant. But by breeding duckweed to contain a symbiotic algae, which more readily produces oil, Martienssen hopes to generate an optimal bioenergy fuel source.
These developments are exciting if you understand them in the correct context. How many times have I read an article or seen a news broadcast on: "[Insert Plant Here]: The Next Biofuel" only to learn later that the problems with the so-called miracle crop outweigh its potential benefits? However, if you consider that there probably won't be any one replacement for gasoline, but rather many, and that we desperately need to reduce our fuel consumption anyway, this is pretty exciting research.
For more information about biofuels, check out Chris R. Somerville Ph.D.'s YouTube lecture on the subject. Somerville is the Philomanthia Professor of Alternative Energy at Berkeley University and a collaborator on the duckweed research. His explanation of biofuels and our future with them is both comprehensive and easy to understand. Watch and learn!
September 11, 2009 - by Molly Mann
My favorite food by far, far, far is apples. I can (and do) munch them all day. So I'm really excited that apple season is finally here!
Many people think apples are native to the United States, but not so. They actually originated in Asia Minor and were brought to America by colonists in the 1600s. The apple has made its way into most cultures, though, and has a mythological significance for many people around the world. The Greeks have the golden apples of Heracles and Atalanta, and the Norse consider apples a symbol of eternal youth (to name a few). And many Christians believe the apple was the forbidden fruit that Eve ate in the Garden of Eden, even though the Bible does not specify the type of fruit (John Milton was the first to call it an apple in Paradise Lost).
We all know, too, that "an apple a day keeps the doctor away," a phrase that comes from a 19th century Welsh proverb: "Eat an apple upon going to bed, and you'll keep the doctor from earning his bread." They're antibacterial, and contain nutrients and antioxidants to protect your skin, bones, brain, heart, liver, lungs, breasts, and colon. Apples are also full of fiber and have a low calorie density, making them a great snack for those trying to manage their weight (these days, that's all of us!).
The best way to eat apples is to go pick them yourself. Today's issue of Newsday features a listing of Long Island orchards that are open to the public. So go get outside and stock up on a delicious snack that your body will love too.
September 04, 2009 - by Molly Mann
This past Wednesday evening, I was very pleased to see Jane Goodall, the renowned primatologist and humanitarian, speak at the 92nd Street Y in Manhattan. She came on stage a frail-looking, diminutive woman, but her immense presence and magnetic personality soon held the audience in rapture, stealing the show completely from her interviewer, Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner.
Though Jane spent a good deal of time recounting her experiences as an apprentice to Louis Leakey and studying chimpanzees in the Gombe forest of Tanzania, which she has since helped turn into a nature preserve, I was most interested in her perspective on our environment and our future. Jane has traveled all over the world, from the deepest wilderness to the busiest city, so if anyone can speak wisely and candidly about the state of our planet, it is she.
"When I think about what we've done to the world," she said. It makes me shamed, angry, and desperate."
These are harsh words, especially from a woman who has been called pollyannaish in her outlook.
Of course, it is not in Jane's nature to leave us entirely without hope. Rather, she believes that "without hope, there is no future," and has plenty of reasons to maintain her famous optimism. Paraphrasing her book, Reason for Hope: A Spiritual Journey, Jane recounted what she believes are our paths to a brighter future: the human brain, the "indomitable human spirit," nature's resilience, and the determination of young people. You can read more about Jane's reasons for hope at the Jane Goodall Institute (JGI) Web site.
I find the last of Jane's reasons resonates most with me. She was 23 years old when she went to Gombe for the first time, to begin the work that forever changed the way humans relate to our animal brethren. That is the same age Charles Darwin was when he set sail on the H.M.S. Beagle. I am now 21. Though it often seems like I lack the experience or wisdom to effect any real change, and this frustrates me, Jane's example shows me how false that perception is.
"Because you did it, I can do it, too," Jane says young people often tell her. "You make me realize that my life has more value than I thought it did, that I can do more."
Perhaps we must add Jane herself to that list of reasons for hope.
August 28, 2009 - by Molly Mann
When I was about five years old, my kindergarten class went on a field trip to a local farm. I don't remember the whole trip, but I do remember very clearly milking a cow for the first (and only) time in my life.
The experience was such a tactile and immediate one. Not only was I touching a creature that I had previously only seen rendered in cartoons, but I could also witness the direct product of my labors in the pail below me. Now, every time I go to the grocery store to buy my weekly quart of milk (organic, of course!), I know exactly how that milk got there. But am I alone in that knowledge?
Well, to be fair, the way our milk gets to the grocery store isn't so idyllic as all that. There are no rosy-cheeked milkmaids perched on stools beneath softly mooing cows. Rather, cattle (even those raised organically) are herded into milking machines that suck the milk out of them through a vacuum. They get no soothing pat on the belly, no vocal reassurances to calm their fears about being forced into an enclosed space and hooked up to a computer.
Knowing this, I still think that milk tastes better when you get it straight from the cow. Maybe that's because it's unpasteurized, with all its raw goodness intact. Or maybe it's because it's the satisfaction of making such a primal connection with another creature. It's the difference between picking up a burger at the drive-thru and having someone special serve you a home-cooked meal. You can taste the love.
That's why I find it so sad when I hear children answer the question, "Where does milk come from?" with "the supermarket," as I've heard them do a couple of times so far. Those kids, through no fault of their own, are missing out on one of life's simple pleasures and a valuable lesson about appreciating the animals who sustain us.
August 21, 2009 - by Molly Mann
I am not a hunter and I don't ever want to be one. I can't squash a spider that has found its way into my house, let alone shoot a living thing and watch it die. The most horrifying and traumatic images I've ever seen - the ones that stick in my head and haunts my more cynical thoughts regarding the state of our society - were footage of aerial wolf hunting, in which humans use helicopters and planes to stalk defenseless creatures until they bleed to death and/or die from exhaustion. The whole idea of hunting and the fact that it is considered "sport" sicken me, and I've always thought that anyone with a similarly professed love for the natural world would feel the same.
So I was shocked to read in Newsday that a so-called organic farm in East Hampton, EECO Farm, is asking permission to invite hunters onto their 42-acre property and "control" the deer population there. Never mind the gun safety issue that this particular farm happens to be across the street from East Hampton High School; the real problem here is that there are other methods to deter deer from eating crops that are far more effective and humane. Yet, once again, we choose the quick and dirty answer to our problems.
Deer are not predatory animals. Anyone who has come face-to-face with them - as I often have just driving the roads of New Hampshire, Vermont, as Pennsylvania - knows that they're skittish creatures who mean absolutely no harm. As Patty Gentry, whom Newsday reporter Dave Marcus interviewed for his article, "Deer not so dear here" in the August 19, 2009 issue, proves, all you really need to keep deer away from your vegetables is a high fence, and some blood meal.
"There's just no reason to kill the deer," Ms. Gentry told Newsday.
Others have success with deer-repellent plants like birch, dogwood, Japanese maple, magnolia, oak, bayberry, beach plum, hydrangea, boxwood, daffodils, lilac, mint, geraniums, ferns, lavender....the list goes on.
There's also the probability that this is a problem of our making. Ecosystems are delicately balanced; add one element to interrupt that balance, and all other parts suffer. Have we eliminated the deer's natural predators? Disrupted their habitat in some way? Chances are we have, since humans are the most intrusive of all species (talk about pests!). Wouldn't it be better to address this underlying issue that to simply run around waving guns at any creature that gets in the way of our making a buck?
Of course, I do sympathize with the farmers and amateur growers whose hard work has come to naught because deer keep making raids on their gardens. I really do. But I also feel very strongly that sustaining life on our planet requires maintaining a very careful balance between our needs and the creatures who share this world with us. I mean, you wouldn't go around shooting your roommate if he ate your last package of Ramen noodles, would you?
Hmmmm...maybe you shouldn't answer that. Some people really like their Ramen, and college students get very hungry.
Well, you wouldn't really, and the relationship to deer is the same. They're our roommates on this planet, and they deserve to have their living space respected as much as we do.
How do you feel about hunting? Do you feel the farmers of EECO Farm are justified in wanting to "control" deer the way they would any other pest?
August 14, 2009 - by Molly Mann
So, President Obama's "cash for clunkers" idea is a huge success. The program (its official name is Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save [CARS], but no one calls it that) has helped drive auto sales up to an annual rate of 11.2 million vehicles from 9.7 million, and has improved the average gas mileage of cars on the road by 9.6 miles per gallon.
The concept is this: the government offers consumers between $3,500 and $4,500 to trade in their gas-guzzling "clunkers" for newer, more fuel-efficient vehicles. The money comes in the form of a credit on the new car payments. The dealers take the old vehicles and replace their engine oils with a sodium silicate solution so that they can never run again and send them to the scrapyard. Junkers have 180 days to sell any parts before shredding the cars.
Programs of this kind were first instituted by individual states in the early 1990s, and several European countries have tried similar car-swapping plans. They work on two fronts: first, by stimulating consumers to go out and by new cars, and second, by getting them to buy cars that will be better for the environment.
I have my concerns about the negative environmental impact of junking all of these old cars. First of all, according to R.L. Polk & Co., which collects automotive data, Americans junked 14 million cars last year and that number is sure to climb. I mean, trash is trash. Do we really need to be encouraged to throw more stuff away in favor of yet another upgrade?
In this case, the answer might be yes. The top three sellers during the cash for clunkers program have been the Ford Focus, Toyota Corolla, and Honda Civic; these are three of the most fuel-efficient cars on the road. Once again, environmentalists must make a deal with the devil; we have to take the benefits of lower emissions over the ill of landfill waste, and trust that the government will see that the disposal of the clunkers is environmentally sound.
After all, it's far easier to trade in a few million cars than to upgrade to a cleaner planet.
August 07, 2009 - by Molly Mann
They don't come in spaceships, but these little green guys will wreak havoc on our island if we let them. Invasive plants are a huge problem around the globe, as international travel becomes more common and plant spores often hitch a ride with travelers and traded goods. Close to home, some of these plants threaten to crowd out native species and upset the delicate balance of our ecosystem.
Where I live now, in Oyster Bay, water chestnut is a huge problem. On July 8, 2009, volunteers pulled up more than 4500 pounds of water chestnut from Mill Pond at the Oyster Bay National Wildlife Refuge. Water chestnut, which is unrelated to the edible Chinese water chestnuts, is native to Europe and Asia. It sets roots at the bottom of a body of water, and forms dense, floating mats on
the water’s surface. These mats restrict light availability to aquatic animals and plants, reduce the oxygen content of the water, and displace native vegetation. Water chestnut can also limit boating, fishing, and swimming, and can injure anyone who steps on the sharp, spiny adult seeds.
Like other invasive species, water chestnut's growth is fast and furious. It was first documented in the United States in Massachusetts in the late 1800s, and has been shown to increase tenfold within one year in some areas. Mill Pond residents first observed water chestnut growth in 2005 and the Wildlife Refuge declared an infestation in June 2008. Fortunately, volunteers are working had to remove the species, but they're working against a plant that can reproduce itself 300 times per year.
Invasive species come to an area accidentally, for the most part. Because such a wide range of plants are available in just about every nursery, people plant these foreign seeds in their yards and the runoff carries them to public lands. Seeds and spores can also hitch rides on the soles of shoes and be transported to different areas. It's much easier to prevent spreading these plants and animals than to try to control them after the fact, since most are incredibly hardy and prolific. Here's what you can do to be part of the solution:
- Familiarize yourself with native species of plants and use only these to grow your garden.
- Never release any animals you buy in a pet store, especially exotic animals.
- Use a reputable, local nursery and talk about where your purchases came from, as they can host hitchhiking invasive bugs.
- Inform others about the dangers of invasive species, and be on the lookout for unfamiliar plants around your community.
- And, of course, volunteer to help remove them!
Non-native species are mostly silent invaders; we don't tend to notice them until they've completely taken over and upset the delicate natural balance of our area. But there is a way to fight back, and we simply can't abstain from doing so.
July 31, 2009 - by Molly Mann
I can't count the number of times someone has confronted me with the conspiracy theory that recycling is actually worse for the environment than simply tossing your trash. This assertion is always followed by a seemingly well-reasoned but actually false argument that excludes any objections from the listener. So I was relieved to find that Adrienne Esposito, the executive director of Citizens Campaign for the Environment, has cleared the air on recycling in this week's "Green Street LI" section of Newsday.
It is absolutely more expensive to throw things away than to recycle them, and that's just counting the cost in dollars (not the impact on the environment). According to Ms. Esposito, it costs about $80 per ton to dispose of garbage and $40 per ton for recyclables. She also points out that recycling creates jobs (a major plus in this economy), and clears the record about the energy required to recycle containers. For those of you who've been led to believe otherwise, it takes 17 times more energy to make a new aluminum can than a recycled one.
So there you have it. There's no excuse for not recycling. It's the best way to help the planet by thinking globally and acting locally. And lucky for you, it's pretty easy. You just sort glass, plastic, and paper from your normal trash and put it out on the curb on days designated by your town. No excuses!
