While California’s official plastic bag ban might have gotten the most media attention lately, a different bill from the Golden State could have a much bigger environmental and health impact on the whole country.
The Guardian reports that starting Jan. 1, the state will require furniture manufacturers to label consumer products containing flame-retardant chemicals — a change that could alter the entire furniture industry and literally change how we sit (for the better).
In case you didn’t know, the upholstered furniture in our homes, schools, businesses and hospitals are potentially toxic and dangerous. Why? Due to a well-intentioned but ultimately misguided rule called TB-117 which California enacted in the 1970s (that unfortunately trickled down to furniture manufacturers nationwide), our beloved couches are very likely stuffed with flame-retardant filling.
MORE: What Happens When a 13-Year-Old Girl Takes on an Oil Company?
What’s not good about that? Well, the National Resources Defense Council (NDRC) calls it a “classic example of a stupid use of a chemical: they are ineffective in preventing furniture fires and are linked to serious health effects.” This includes lower birth weight, reduced IQ (similar to lead poisoning), hyperactivity, poorer coordination, reduced fertility, birth defects, hormonal changes and cancer, the Green Health Policy Institute warns.
As the video below illustrates, these chemicals seep out through couch coverings, mix with the air and get into our bodies and the environment. Young children are particularly vulnerable to exposure because they crawl and tend to put things from the floor into their mouth. Additionally, not only are these couches still incredibly flammable, the chemicals in them can make fires even more toxic by forming deadly gases and soot.
And don’t think you’re safe if you don’t live in California. Most couches purchased outside of the state also contain high levels of many different kinds of retardants, meaning most Americans are exposed. According to the NDRC, “Americans carry much higher levels of these chemicals in their bodies than anyone else in the world and California children contain some of the highest levels ever measured.” (Check this link here to learn how to check if your furniture has flame-retardant materials)
ALSO: You’ll Never Believe What Those Popular Silicon Bracelets Can Do
The Guardian reports that while environmentalists and health advocates have been trying to fight TB-117 since it came out, the chemical industry has successfully pushed back their efforts through lobbying tactics for several decades. It wasn’t until 2012 when the Chicago Tribune ran exposés on flame retardant furniture foams that any serious legal efforts were made. (Last year, California lawmakers amended the outdated law, requiring that covers were flame resistant, rather than its filling.)
That’s why the new measure, Senate Bill 1019 (signed on Sept. 30 by Gov. Jerry Brown), is a big step forward to safer furniture, better health and cleaner air. While furniture makers can still technically create products with chemically laden material, they are now forced to indicate so on a label if they want to sell it in California. And since California has such a large share of the market, it’s likely that manufacturers will adapt this new rule for other states, too. Meaning that this law has the potential to affect citizens nationwide, not just Californians.
Hopefully, we’ll see toxic furniture phased out for good.
[ph]
DON’T MISS: Why Those Red Party Cups Are Also Big Red Flags
Category: Preserving the Environment
Which Cities Are Working the Hardest to Save the Planet?
With more green space and lower greenhouse gas emissions, cities nationwide are striving to become leaders and innovators in the environmental movement.
Recently, the International Business Times decided to take a look at the cities leading the pack, and while the publication didn’t use exact science, it examined criterion such as carbon footprint, LEED certified buildings (LEED stands for leadership in energy and environmental design) and green space, among others to find the top 10 eco-friendly cities in the U.S.
Among their findings (in no particular order):
SAN FRANCISCO
Not only is it the first city to ban plastic grocery bags, but it also has a curbside compost pick-up program, among numerous other eco-friendly projects.
SEATTLE
This rainy town is a leader in green space with seven parks per 10,000 residents. It also has over 20 buildings that are LEED certified or are being built with the intention of being designated as such.
PORTLAND, ORE.
In addition to building a well-structured mass transit system, Portland has taken the bike craze to a new level. It also boasts loads of green space, a strong recycling program and its carbon emissions per capita rank it in the lowest 20 percent of U.S. cities.
CHICAGO
The Windy City is home to the most buildings with green roofs, which not only help to control temperature by heating and cooling the inside, but they also improve air quality – which isn’t a bad asset for any urban area.
BURLINGTON, VT.
With a third of its energy coming from hydroelectric dams, another third from wind energy and the final third from biomass renewal, this northeast city of 42,000 people just began the first city to be powered by 100 percent renewable energy.
While this is just a small sampling of what this country is doing to go green, it demonstrates how cities are working to be more environmentally conscious all the time. To find out the remainder of the top 10, click here.
MORE: Yet Another Reason to Love Leonardo DiCaprio
3 Ways to Reuse the 300 Million Tires That Are Tossed Annually
Thanks to this country’s love affair with the automobile, Americans go through a lot of tires. Various estimates show that around 290 million tires are thrown away each year in this country.
Although most of these old tires are reused, recycled or end up in a stockpile somewhere, almost one quarter of them end up in landfills each year — taking up precious space while leaching toxic chemicals into the environment during the 50 to 80 years it takes a tire to break down. (The EPA found that nearly 5 million tons of tire waste was generated in 2007 alone.) As for all the tires that don’t go to the dumps, this country has a stockpile of scrap tires that’s 2 to 3 billion deep and only growing.
If all these facts about old tires are leaving you a little flat, just know that even old tires can come full circle. Besides these crafty Pinterest projects, there are a number of things that this country as a whole can do with them:
1. Asphalt rubber. You might have seen this squishy stuff on playgrounds, but even more potential lies in the millions and millions miles of open road that stretch across the United States. Compared to conventional roads, those made with asphalt rubber are found to last longer, require less road maintenance, reduce road noise and more.
The material is incredibly easy to make — just shred some tires into crumbs, melt them down and mix with asphalt. “Asphalt rubber is the largest single market for ground rubber, consuming an estimated 220 million pounds, or approximately 12 million tires,” the EPA says. But for whatever reason, only seven states in the whole country use this technology — Arizona (which has been adding rubber to their roads since the 1960s), California, Florida, Texas, South Carolina, Nevada and New Mexico. Wake up and smell the (rubberized) asphalt, America.
2. Tire-Derived Fuel (TDF). While this form of fuel isn’t exactly as sustainable and clean as solar or wind energy, it’s considered better than siphoning off the earth’s oil and gas. TDF has lower greenhouse gas emissions compared to traditional fuels and currently powers the pulp and paper industry, as well as the cement industry. About 30 states have TDF facilities that incinerate tires for fuel. “TDF is one of several viable alternatives to prevent newly generated scrap tires from inappropriate disposal in tire piles, and for reducing or eliminating existing tire stockpiles,” the EPA says. In 2003, about 130 million were reused as TDF. However, critics say that if these tires are not incinerated safely, fumes can be “extremely harmful to human health and the natural environment,” which is why it might not be smart for us to entirely rely on TDF for our energy needs.
3. Civil engineering projects. Rubber tires are inherently great for absorbing shock, so they can have multiple uses, the EPA suggests. A shredded-up tire can be used to construct or reinforce embankments on highways and ramps. Since tire chips are relatively light, they can also be used as insulation or filling for walls and bridge abutments. And with winter around the corner, a layer of shredded tires (about six to 12 inches thick) is not only permeable and ideal for draining melted snow, it can also prevent soil from freezing. Whole tires can also be turned into runoff barriers or boat bumpers at marinas.
DON’T MISS: Can I Recycle This? 5 Things You Should Always Recycle (and 5 Things You Shouldn’t)
[ph]
This App From MIT Tells You How Much Solar Energy Your House Can Produce
As solar energy continues to become more available, more Americans are getting on board with the idea of taking their power off the grid and embracing more sustainable sources like solar panels.
But with that decision comes a lot of research. Individuals must find out just how expensive it might be and how much money installing solar panels actually saves, which can be a costly process if it involves seeking professional consultation.
Enter, Mapdwell.
Mapdwell, born out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), helps individuals determine solar potential of their properties using massive data sets across cities including Washington, D.C., Boston and Cambridge, Mass.
The company taps into LIDAR data from aerial mapping flights to produce one-by-one meter resolution 3D models of landscape including the shape of a roof and surrounding greenery.
With up to 8,600 data points to illustrate, the maps then provide a rating of solar potential based on analysis and historical weather data. Users can also share visual components of the data with a systems installer.
“We had to show you all the information, which can be overwhelming, but you need to have it if you really want to make a decision,” CEO Eduardo Berlin tells Fast Company. “Many times designers want to communicate the minimum amount of information to get you interested. But in this case, it’s different.”
Mapdwell lets users simply enter their address to access the information, as well as helping design custom solar systems based on metrics such as price, energy and environmental impact.
“The challenge is: How can you get people interested? How can you get people informed and excited with all these little things that we can do. If I do it, and you do it, and your neighbor does it, it could really have a huge effect,” Berlin says. “…You can really empower change within a community by people having all this information — if you manage to get it to them.”
The technology is only available for a select few cities right now, but the company is planning to expand, as well as design similar systems for rainwater collection, small wind energy installations and green roofs at a city level.
While solar energy still only accounts for less than 1 percent of the country’s electricity, the potential of transitioning more people off environmentally harmful fossil fuels is evident. With the help of companies like Mapdwell, the process can move more quickly.
MORE: How Utah Stopped a Power Company’s Ridiculous Bid to Tax the Sun
[ph]
Do Trees Actually Cause Climate Change?
There’s probably nothing more symbolic of the green movement than a tall, leafy tree. Along with protecting our forests, planting a tree to offset one’s carbon footprint has now become de rigueur in fighting climate change.
However, in the recent New York Times op-ed, “To Save the Planet, Don’t Plant Trees,” Yale professor Nadine Unger smacks several holes in conventional green wisdom. And to no one’s surprise, it’s causing some backlash in the scientific community.
Unger’s article boils down to three (controversial) points about trees and forests:
1. Trees give off harmful pollution. “Trees emit reactive volatile gases that contribute to air pollution and are hazardous to human health…As these compounds mix with fossil-fuel pollution from cars and industry, an even more harmful cocktail of airborne toxic chemicals is created.”
2. Planting forests in colder places might cause the planet to bake. “The dark color of trees means that they absorb more of the sun’s energy and raise the planet’s surface temperature….Planting trees in the tropics would lead to cooling, but in colder regions, it would cause warming.”
3. Stopping deforestation is not the best way to mitigate global warming. “The science says that spending precious dollars for climate change mitigation on forestry is high-risk: We don’t know that it would cool the planet, and we have good reason to fear it might have precisely the opposite effect. More funding for forestry might seem like a tempting easy win for the world leaders at the United Nations, but it’s a bad bet.”
If your head is spinning, you’re not alone. After the article came out, a slew of top scientists came out to strongly rebuke Unger’s article.
MORE: 3 Reasons Why Sunday’s Historic Climate March Could Be the Start of Something Huge
“Nadine Unger argues that reducing deforestation and planting trees won’t help fix climate change but will rather make it worse,” Steve Schwartzman, Director of Tropical Forest Policy writes. “One might ask how the 2,000-plus scientists and experts on Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) got this one wrong — they found tropical deforestation a major source that must be reduced to control climate change – but in fact it’s Unger who’s way out on a limb here.”
And in another response called “Dr. Unger’s Four Scientific Fouls,” Michael Wolosin of Climate Advisers picks apart each of Unger’s points and concludes, “Normally, this type of scientific debate would take place in specialist journals with lengthy peer review processes to ensure accuracy. And for good reason – it is a process that keeps scientists from jumping to conclusions that aren’t implied by their work, and that should not be cited as fact by others.”
There’s also this piece that was signed by 30 scientists, including six members of the National Academy and four members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Unger has since defended herself where she lists all of the sources that she points to in the Times op-ed. She also points out, “The primary key to solving the global climate problem is the transformation of our energy system into one that does not use the sky as a waste dump for our greenhouse gas pollution.”
Well, it appears Unger does have a point there. Simply put, we can’t treat our planet like a trash can. As we’ve previously reported, there are multiple ways to preventing climate change, including leaving our precious forests alone. But really, according to near scientific consensus, the best way to stop climate change is by cutting carbon pollution through conserving energy and curbing our reliance on fossil fuels.
Hopefully this is something we can all agree on.
DON’T MISS: The Top 5 Ways to Fight Global Warming
If You Think Dirty Energy Always Wins, Think Again
Great news for renewable power in South Dakota!
Following intense outcry, the state’s electric company, Black Hills Power, has withdrawn a proposal that would have penalized customers who generate their energy through solar or wind systems, the Rapid City Journal reports.
The rate increase, called the “Residential Demand Service,” would have added an additional $5 to $20 on top of what a non-generating customer pays, Think Progress writes.
The decision to nix the extra charge is especially important because the state isn’t exactly friendly towards renewables. As one South Dakota solar family tells the Journal, “Thanks to years of consistent lobbying by utility companies that fear the growth of homegrown generation, the South Dakota Legislature has avoided creating the solar-power incentives other states have.”
As it happens, the state is one of only seven in the country that does not require net metering (which allows solar users to sell the energy they create back to the utility). Instead, the utility sets the rate — meaning South Dakota solar or wind users could potentially get much less money for what they put back on the grid compared to market prices.
However, Black Hill’s concession means that those interested in solar or wind power in the state no longer have to fear they will be penalized for making clean energy choices.
MORE: This Is What Happens When a County Bands Together to Get Cleaner Power
Still, other non-generating customers in South Dakota could see their bills increase. The solar surcharge was coupled with a proposal of a 13 percent rate hike for its 66,000 customers across the board, which would amount to an extra $13 per month to the average bill. Black Hills had asked to increase rates in order to cover repairs on the grid following an October blizzard. South Dakota’s Public Utilities Commission will decide on the rate proposals by early next year. But as we’ve said before, if anything, it’s likely that this increased fee will make more people want to make the switch to renewable energy.
And as we previously reported, unfortunately, Arizona and Georgia already levied this so-called “sun tax” on solar users, even though their homes use less power and return excess power to the grid with the energy generated by their panels. These extra charges stifle and discourage renewable alternatives, which doesn’t help us in this fight to curb our dependence on fossil fuels.
The good news is, however, more and more people are standing up to Big Power, just like South Dakota. Last month, when Utah’s Rocky Mountain Power similarly tried to propose a sun tax, residents fought back and the company abandoned the plan.
As climate change causes more Americans to embrace and shift towards renewable energy, the future of the planet is only looking bright.
DON’T MISS: The United States’s First Carbon-Neutral City Is…
The Best Narrator on the Planet Takes on the World’s Most Important Issue
From documentaries about marching penguins to Visa Olympics commercials, Morgan Freeman’s deep, soothing voice has brought gravitas to everything. Now, the famous actor is lending his vocal chops to one of the most pressing issues facing humanity: climate change.
Freeman narrates “What’s Possible,” an inspiring four-minute-long documentary directed by Louie Schwartzberg about how clean energy and worldwide cooperation can be used to solve global warming. Appropriately, the short was shown before world leaders and dignitaries at the recent United Nations Climate Summit in New York.
Amid daunting images of a quickly shrinking coastline and a floor of dying honeybees, the video’s overall message is one of hope. As Freeman says, “We have never faced a crisis this big, but we have never had a better opportunity to solve it. We have everything we need to wake up to a different kind of world.”
Check out the video below, and let’s help save the planet.
[ph]
DON’T MISS: Watch What a Climate Change Debate Should Really Look Like
Yet Another Reason to Love Leonardo DiCaprio
After marching with more than 400,000 individuals at the history-making People’s Climate March on the streets of Manhattan, Leonardo DiCaprio urged world leaders at the United Nations Climate Summit to take action.
“As an actor I pretend for a living. I play fictitious characters, often solving fictitious problems,” says the newly-appointed U.N. Messenger of Peace. “I believe mankind has looked at climate change in that same way, as if it were fiction, as if pretending climate change was not real it would somehow make it go away. But I think we all know better than that, now.”
The “Wolf of Wall Street” star isn’t just bringing a little Hollywood pizazz to a room full of suits and politicians. DiCaprio is a noted philanthropist and environmental activist, who started the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation that’s dedicated to protecting the planet.
In his speech, he urged the leaders to enact taxes on carbon emissions, as well as eliminating government subsidies for coal, gas and oil companies. “We need to end the free ride that industrial polluters have been given in the name of a free-market economy, they don’t deserve our tax dollars, they deserve our scrutiny,” he says. “For the economy itself will die if our eco-systems collapse.”
Someone give this man an Oscar already.
[ph]
The full transcript:
Thank you, Mr. Secretary-General, your excellencies, ladies and gentleman, and distinguished guests. I’m honored to be here today, I stand before you not as an expert but as a concerned citizen, one of the 400,000 people who marched in the streets of New York on Sunday, and the billions of others around the world who want to solve our climate crisis.
As an actor I pretend for a living. I play fictitious characters often solving fictitious problems.
I believe humankind has looked at Climate Change in that same way: as if it were a fiction, happening to someone else’s planet, as if pretending that Climate Change wasn’t real would somehow make it go away.
But I think we know better than that. Every week
, we’re seeing new and undeniable Climate Events, evidence that accelerated Climate Change is here now. We know that droughts are intensifying, our oceans are warming and acidifying, with methane plumes rising up from beneath the ocean floor. We are seeing extreme weather events, increased temperatures, and the West Antarctic and Greenland ice-sheets melting at unprecedented rates, decades ahead of scientific projections.
None of this is rhetoric, and none of it is hysteria. It is fact. The scientific community knows it, Industry and Governments know it, even the United States military knows it. The Chief of the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel Locklear, recently said that Climate Change is our single greatest security threat.
My Friends, this body – perhaps more than any other gathering in human history – now faces that difficult task. You can make history…or be vilified by it.
To be clear, this is not about just telling people to change their light bulbs or to buy a hybrid car. This disaster has grown BEYOND the choices that individuals make. This is now about our industries, and governments around the world taking decisive, large-scale action.
I am not a scientist, but I don’t need to be. Because the world’s scientific community has spoken, and they have given us our prognosis, if we do not act together, we will surely perish.
Now is our moment for action.
We need to put a pricetag on carbon emissions, and eliminate government subsidies for coal, gas, and oil companies. We need to end the free ride that industrial polluters have been given in the name of a free-market economy, they don’t deserve our tax dollars, they deserve our scrutiny. For the economy itself will die if our eco-systems collapse.
The good news is that renewable energy is not only achievable but good economic policy. New research shows that by 2050 clean, renewable energy could supply 100% of the world’s energy needs using EXISTING TECHNOLOGIES, and it would create millions of jobs.
This is not a partisan debate; it is a human one. Clean air and water, and a livable climate are inalienable human rights. And solving this crisis is not a question of politics. It is our moral obligation – if, admittedly, a daunting one…
We only get one planet. Humankind must become accountable on a massive scale for the wanton destruction of our collective home. Protecting our future on this planet depends on the conscious evolution of our species.
This is the most urgent of times, and the most urgent of messages.
Honored delegates, leaders of the world, I pretend for a living.
But you do not. The people made their voices heard on Sunday around the world and the momentum will not stop. And now it’s YOUR turn, the time to answer the greatest challenge of our existence on this planet… is now.
I beg you to face it with courage. And honesty. Thank you.
DON’T MISS: Watch What a Climate Change Debate Should Really Look Like
While Her Peers Stand Idle, This Teen Activist Fights for the Earth
Kelsey Juliana is proof that you’re never too young or too busy to save the planet.
The 18-year-old environmentalist activist is a co-plaintiff for the Oregon TRUST (a nonprofit fighting climate change for future generations), who is suing the state of Oregon “to take a more aggressive stance against the carbon emissions warming the earth and destroying the environment.” It’s a cause she’s been fighting for since the tender age of 15.
The impressive teen — who is also walking across America to bring awareness to global warming — recently sat down with journalist Bill Moyers on his show. The host marveled that when most kids her age are reading “The Hunger Games,” this young lady is delving into legal briefs about public doctrine.
During a poignant portion of the interview at the 4:30 mark below, Moyers asks, “Do some of your friends in high school think you’re weird [for your activism]?”
Juliana responds, “No. They seem to all support me but not join me, which is almost worse than not supporting me, you know, because they get it. And they don’t do anything.”
MORE: What Happens When a 13-Year-Old Girl Takes on an Oil Company?
What she says is completely true. Thanks to the proliferation of smart phones and social media, America’s youth is probably more informed about worldly issues than ever (just think of the virality of #BringBackOurGirls or the ALS #IceBucketChallenge). And while using a hashtag to promote a cause certainly helps, ultimately, actions speak much louder.
With warmer temperatures, rising sea levels and toxic air, we cannot afford to stand idle. Especially, the people who will be inheriting the earth.
As Juliana says, “I think that’s so important that people my age really get [that] into their heads. As a younger person, I have everything to gain from taking action and everything to lose from not… It’s important that youth are the ones who are standing up because of the fact that we do have so much to lose.”
DON’T MISS: When it Comes to the Planet, Children (Not the Government) Really Are the Future
Can One Farm Change How an Entire Community Eats?
Urban farm movements seem to be everywhere nowadays. But two farmers have a bigger vision in mind: they want to create a whole local food district.
Meet the Mullens, the husband-and-wife team of Derek and Kamise, who are the masterminds behind Everitt Farms in Lakewood, Colo. (a suburb of Denver). Just over a year ago, they began farming on the 7.5 acres that they own and an additional 18 acres that they lease. The fruits of their labor? A wide variety of produce, Christmas trees, horses, chickens and hay.
The Mullens use traditional intensive growing practices, which involve burying root vegetables within a single trench at different levels, surrounded by leafy greens and vine crops. The process is based on an old 1800s method, which is space saving.
Each weekend, Everitt Farms welcomes more than 100 families that purchase locally-grown vegetables and other products.
“We both have really wanted to do something like this for honestly, a good portion of our lives,” Kamise tells Sustainable Cities Collective. “It really wasn’t until we got married about four years ago that we actually started really growing food and trying to farm at all.”
To expand their urban farm even further, the Mullens held a Kickstarter campaign this past January, raising enough funds to add a greenhouse, irrigation system and the starting preparations for an open-air market with a farm stand constructed from the materials of an old barn.
Ultimately, the couple has a larger goal than just feeding their neighbors; they hope that their few acres of farmland will spark a lifestyle change and that others will see the benefits of a community food district complete with a bakery, restaurant, butcher and local products store.
“The people around us still all have at least a quarter acre lot and up to two or three acres,” Kamise tells Sustainable Cities Collective. “There’s a lot of people that grow their own food, there’s a lot of people that process, have jams and jellies, have products they make themselves. We’d really like to incorporate the fact that this was agricultural land and draw the community back into this area and back into farming through trading goods with them.”
She continues, “We’re still in the planning stages for the businesses we’d like to build, but the community is starting to realize when they have extra zucchinis they can come bring it to us and trade it out for tomatoes, jalapenos and things that they couldn’t grow.”
And with the success that the Mullens have had with their own farm, there’s no telling what this power couple can accomplish.
MORE: The Rooftop Decoration That Could Cut Your Energy Costs