Friday, October 31, 2008
Homemaking ABC's
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Loafing Around
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Throwing Away Oil
America's addiction to oil is not limited to fuel, contrary to popular thought. True, 81% of our oil use is for fuel, but where does the other 19% go?
Before crude oil can be used it must be refined into one of three products: (1) a fuel product such as gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, kerosene, or liquefied refinery gases, (2) a non-fuel product such as asphalt, lubricant, solvents, wax, or (3) petrochemical feedstock such as benzene, toluene, xylene, ethane, ethylene, propane, propylene, naphtha, or gas oil. Fuels are used to for space heating, transportation, electricity generation, crop drying, cooking stoves, water heaters, and lamp oil. Non-fuel oil-derived products include asphalt, lubricants, petroleum coke, road oil, solvents, and wax. Petrochemical feedstocks are used in the production of fertilizers, plastics, paints, pesticides, herbicides, medical equipment, and synthetic fibers. (Credit: Petrochemicals: Is Oil Too Precious To Burn?)
That the ubiquity of oil in American life goes unnoticed is astonishing. About 3% of the oil we use ends up as roads (asphalt is petroleum-based). We drive our cars on those same roads to get to the stores where the products are wrapped in plastic and sit on plastic shelves and get rung up through a plastic price scanner. Plastics are petroleum-derived products as well. Even "wood" furniture is rife with pressed foam mouldings, again a petroleum derived product. The vegetables we eat are fertilized with and protected from bugs by petroleum products. Artificial fertilizers and pesticides come from oil. Synthetic materials in our clothing are often petroleum derived as well. In a sense, we eat it, we wear it, we sit on it, we drive with it, we store our sandwiches and cola in it. Oil is absolutely everywhere. (Credit: Oil And Ethics: American Consumption and Entitlement Egoism)
When I was a kid, water came from a faucet and pop came in glass bottles. Only supermodels drank bottled water, and pop tasted so much better. I remember the quart bottle of Pepsi in our fridge and getting to keep the change after I hauled cartons of empty bottles into the store for my aunt.
Long before recycling became a mantra, grocery stores had bottle return bins at the front of the store and paid cents per bottle. I don't remember any awareness campaigns to encourage people to recycle glass bottles; you just did it. Collecting bottles for the refund was always an option, whether they were found along the roadside or in the kitchen.
Soon after I went to college, wine coolers became popular. That's the first time I remember seeing 2-liter bottles. It didn't take long for all of those glass pop bottles to be replaced with plastic. Shortly after that, the bottle return bins in the grocery stores disappeared, replaced by a decision on grocery bags--paper or plastic?
Each year, 29 billion plastic water bottles are produced for use in the United States, according to the Earth Policy Institute, an environmental organization in Washington, D.C. Manufacturing them requires the equivalent of 17 million barrels of crude oil. The amount of PET plastic on U.S. shelves has more than doubled in the last decade, according to the National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR). The increase is a result of the surging demand for bottled water. In 2005, seven and a half billion gallons of water flooded U.S. shelves – roughly equivalent to the average amount of water that flows over Niagara Falls in three hours. That’s 21 times more bottled water than the amount available on shelves in 1976, according to U.S. government data. Of the 2.7 million tons of plastic PET bottles on U.S. shelves in 2006, four-fifths went to landfills.
Credit: http://scienceline.org/2008/05/05/ask-intagliata-plastic/
In recent years, plastic waste has proliferated wildly with the spread of the plastic beverage bottle. Glass, and to a lesser degree aluminum, have given way to ubiquitous single-serving plastic soda bottles that now flood supermarket shelves. How did it happen? Here's the irony: It was the veneer of recyclability - cultivated by the plastics industry - that led to this explosion.
In 1988, the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) established a set of numerical codes to aid in sorting plastics for recycling. The codes - three "chasing arrows" surrounding a number as a sign of recyclability - were "deliberately misleading," says Daniel Knapp, director of Berkeley's Urban Ore, in his 1996 report on the plastics industry. In the words of Bill Sheehan, director of the Athens, GA-based GrassRoots Recycling Network: "The plastics industry has wrought intentional confusion with that symbol. They [packagers] were just getting out of glass, and this plastic had no recycled content, while glass did. [The SPI codes] gave plastic an environmental patina."
In 1990, the Coca-Cola Company, the world's largest soda maker with half the global market, promised to begin making its bottles with post-consumer recycled plastic. Although Coke produces over 20 million plastic soda bottles every day in the US, none of them contains recycled plastic, according to the GrassRoots Recycling Network. Nor is Coke held responsible for their disposal.
Instead of finding ways for manufacturers like Coke to close the loop on their waste, the American Plastics Council (APC) touts the recyclability of plastic, along with its significant weight benefit over glass (which allows some transportation fuel savings); on the other side, manufacturers like Coke fight against any legislation mandating the reuse of plastics that so many Americans diligently put in collection bins.
But what happens to the plastic after it is collected? Does it actually get "recycled," returning to where it came from, staying out of the garbage dump? Not according to environmentalists, industry experts, recycling managers, and plastics brokers. Despite collection efforts, only a handful of manufacturers actually take back what they make, and less than two percent of collected plastic gets made into new food containers, like soda bottles. The rest ends up in products like fleece jackets, non-food containers, commercial-grade carpet, plastic lumber, and park benches - or gets thrown out.
Plastics sold for recycling are divided into two broad groups: high grade, which is very clean, has minimal contamination with other types of plastic, and is made into containers; and low or fiber grade, which is made into much less demanding products like jacket fill, fleece, carpets, and industrial plastic strapping.
The vast majority of recycled plastics are fiber grade. Data from the Washington DC-based Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers (APR) show that, in 1996, 77.6 percent of recycled plastic went to fiber-grade non-container applications, 20.6 percent to non-food containers, and just 1.7 percent to new food containers.
Credit: http://www.grrn.org/resources/terrain.html
What is the Life Cycle of a Plastic Bottle?
America's dirty little oil secret: Plastic bottles and bags
2008 House Bill 2422 (Prohibiting the sale of petroleum-based water bottles)
During WWII, civilians participated in the "war effort" by rationing supplies, including rubber tires, passenger automobiles, typewriters, sugar, gasoline, bicycles, footwear, fuel oil, coffee, stoves, shoes, meat, lard, shortening and oils, cheese, butter, margarine, processed foods (canned, bottled and frozen), dried fruits, canned milk, firewood and coal, jams, jellies and fruit butter, and medicines. During the 1973 oil crisis, coupons for gas rationing were printed but never used. In both instances, a national speed limit was enforced to conserve fuel. There were major ad campaigns to encourage people to conserve energy.
Contrast that to today.
After the September 11 attacks, Bush simply asked Americans for their “continued participation and confidence in the American economy.” From the International Herald Tribune, 1/14/03: Bush did nothing to mobilize public opinion to accept the sacrifices that war implies — the first thing a leader would do. Tax cuts could go ahead as planned, and energy saving was dismissed out of hand. “Go shopping” was the administration’s message.
Bush added during a press conference in December 2006 that 2007 will “require difficult choices and additional sacrifices” from the American people: "As we work with Congress in the coming year to chart a new course in Iraq and strengthen our military to meet the challenges of the 21st century, we must also work together to achieve important goals for the American people here at home. This work begins with keeping our economy growing. … And I encourage you all to go shopping more." (video)
In July 2008, Bush touted last year's energy law that requires 40 percent auto fuel efficiency gains by 2020. He also urged Americans to conserve fuel but rejected any suggestion that he launch a national campaign to reduce energy use. "I think people ought to conserve and be wise about how they use gasoline and energy, absolutely," he said, stressing that consumers are "smart enough" to figure out how far they want to drive.
Without leadership at the top levels of government, there's a disturbing dichotomy. On one hand, there is the American Chemistry Council's ad campaign that asserts plastics are "essential" to life. On the other hand, cities, states, and even other countries are taking matters into their own hands by banning plastic water bottles and grocery bags.
Even when oil prices were predicted to top $200 per barrel, no one was really advocating conservation, and certainly no one was linking plastics to oil. The focus has continued to be on gas prices. It has become obvious that our government and corporate America, particularly car manufacturers, have no intention of weaning our country from our oil dependence. So we'll have to take the initiative and do what we can ourselves.
A first step should be to STOP THROWING AWAY 30 MILLION GALLONS OF OIL A YEAR in the form of plastic bottles and grocery bags. Bring back glass bottles and the infrastructure that was in place for recycling them.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
The Ant and the Grasshopper
Æsop's Fables (sixth century B.C.)
In a field one summer’s day a Grasshopper was hopping about, chirping and singing to its heart’s content. An Ant passed by, bearing along with great toil an ear of corn he was taking to the nest.“Why not come and chat with me,” said the Grasshopper, “instead of toiling and moiling in that way?”
“I am helping to lay up food for the winter,” said the Ant, “and recommend you to do the same.”
“Why bother about winter?” said the Grasshopper; “we have got plenty of food at present.” But the Ant went on its way and continued its toil. When the winter came the Grasshopper had no food, and found itself dying of hunger, while it saw the ants distributing every day corn and grain from the stores they had collected in the summer. Then the Grasshopper knew:
“IT IS BEST TO PREPARE FOR THE DAYS OF NECESSITY.”
-----------------------------------------------------Excerpt from When All Hell Breaks Loose by Cody Lundin, international self-reliance expert
-------------------------------------------Are you an ant wannabe? Do you constantly talk about the brown stuff hitting the fan, but do little or nothing to address your talk, preferring instead to crank up your headphones and dance?
Due to the nature of my profession, I know plenty of ant wannabes. They wail and gripe about Armageddon, the Hopi Indian prophecies, the end of the Mayan calendar, the return of Jesus, Elvis, or the mother ship, Y3K, the New World Order, black holes, plague epidemics, depleting ozone, judgment day, earth changes, killer asteroids, and exploding, dying, or newly created suns. After they have talked at me, ant wannabes typically end their monologue with a coy look and the phrase, "Well, when the end comes, I know where I'm headed... haw-haw." Where they're really headed is straight into my stew pot, so I hope their unwanted visit brings them prefattened.Ant wannabes, be warned, your less-than-positive actions are contributing to the mass hysteria of the planet. Please shut up, calm down, and do something useful with your time instead of needlessly scaring others. In addition, nothing could be more obnoxiously insulting and arrogant than assuming you will be welcome to take shelter and eat the food of anyone who has bothered to prepare as they saw fit while you spewed negative words and did nothing. Helping those who have been trying to be self-reliant and found themselves caught in a tight spot by a twist of fate is another thing altogether. When the talking stops, people show you who they are and what they feel is important by where they devote their action, time, and money.
Ants are social insects who form colonies ranging from a few dozen to millions of highly organized individuals. Colonies are sometimes considered superorganisms, because the ants appear to operate as a unified entity collectively working together to support the colony. Ants have colonized almost every landmass on Earth. The only places lacking indigenous ants are remote or inhospitable islands. Their success has been attributed to their social organization, ability to modify their habitats, tap resources, and defend themselves.
This behavior was noted over 2500 years ago by Aesop in the fable above as an example for us to follow. Human beings may have many of the same qualities, but we have one thing the ants don't: freeloaders. People who expect others to take care of them, particularly in hard times, when they are fully capable of doing for themselves. Worse than the grasshopper, who learned the lesson as it lay dying, freeloaders never learn that they are their own responsibility. The grasshopper did not play all summer and then take food from the ants; it died. Aesop's lesson was about being prepared, not about rewarding irresponsibility.
Once disaster strikes, it's too late to prepare for it. Even when a crisis is imminent, it's usually too late, as anyone who has tried to get gas, water, or batteries during a hurricane can attest. Only the first in line get what's in stock, so depending on getting it at the store when you need it is much too short-sighted.
I was raised from a very young age to believe that the end of the world was close at hand, during a time when living off the land was a popular ideal. Being prepared for disaster has been in-grained in me for years and has come in handy on several occasions. I am thankful for the fact that I've lived nearly all my life in a rural area, where self-reliance and frugality are the norm and where we have the room and the freedom to do more. I have learned lessons passed down from the Great Depression generation, which still have great practical value for those living in poverty and are generally better for the environment. I have great respect for those who live simply that others may simply live. I may not always practice as thoroughly as I'd like this way of life; I work hard to provide for myself so that I can enjoy some comforts while I can. But my husband and I have taken many things into account when establishing our own home, and we're doing what we can as we can. We're prepared for short-term crises such as power outages and blizzards, and we're working hard to bring longer-term plans to fruition.
If you haven't already developed a support network and a plan for the worst-case scenario, please do so soon. Discuss options that would take care of everyone in your 'tribe', which may not necessarily be family. Different situations may require different plans. Don't assume that you'll be able to pile everything in the minivan and drive to one location or that you'll be able to even know what's going on with some of your loved ones. Remember when the phone networks were overloaded on 9/11? Remember the chaos after Hurricane Katrina? Remember the traffic from the evacuation for Hurricane Ike? Start with the people (and animals) who live with you, and then widen the circle for circumstances that may allow or require more travel. By planning ahead and working together, big expenses may be more manageable.
Don't assume that you will be welcomed with open arms and fed from a limited supply that was stored with a certain number of people in mind. "Ants" who have a year's supply of food and water for 4 will not last long if 6 "grasshoppers" are invited in. I don't know if I'd go as far as Cody Lundin with his stew pot, but a locked door and a shotgun might be what you get if you come knocking at my door in dark times. Those who would be welcomed already know who they are.
Are you an Ant or a Grasshopper? As Frank Sinatra sang, everyone knows that ant can't move a rubber tree plant, but he's got high hopes!
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Let's Get Fiscal
Please realize that when the government spends money, it comes from the American taxpayers. They are spending OUR money. As citizens of this country, we not only have a right to demand responsible spending, it is our duty. We the People ARE the government; those folks in Washington are simply representatives who are supposed to work for us.
I don't understand the intricacies of the federal budget or the "house of cards" economy, but some financial basics apply to government spending the same as they do to household spending. The principle of not having more going out than coming in is a good example.
As of this morning, the Senate has passed a bill to provide hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out Wall Street. Like anyone responsible for a household budget, I think that something else is going to have to give. This money (or much of it) could come from other areas of the budget instead of raising taxes on already overburdened taxpayers.
So let's see where we're spending, shall we?
Right at the top is financing the "War on Terror". This includes both Iraq and Afghanistan. With enactment of the FY2008 Supplemental and FY2009 Bridge Fund(H.R. 2642/P.L. 110-252) on June 30, 2008, Congress has approved a total of about $859 billion for military operations, base security, reconstruction, foreign aid, embassy costs, and veterans’ health care for the three operations initiated since the 9/11 attacks.
Don't get me wrong. I fully support our troops, and I certainly don't advocate cutting spending that impacts their safety. But we were told, among other lies, that Iraqi oil was going to pay for this war. Now we see our own economy in real trouble, and the Iraqi government has billions in recent oil revenue surplus, much of which also came from us paying the highest oil prices in history. The American people should not be gouged at all, let alone twice, particularly at a time when oil companies are reporting record profits. Now that Iraq has gotten its oil production and exports back online, they should take over the cost of reconstruction at the very least.
According to Senator Joe Biden during tonight's VP debate, we've spent more in Iraq in 3 weeks than in Afghanistan since 2001. Recent reports are that Al Queda is rebuilding their stronghold there, bolstered by support from Pakistan. Considering the facts that these are the terrorists behind the 9/11 attacks and Osama Bin Laden is still at large, we should move troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan as soon as feasible. There's no doubt in my mind that the repercussions of the Bush Doctrine will require our military presence in that region for quite some time, which will cost taxpayers even more.
Next is the "War on Drugs". The mainstream media conveniently forgets that we are currently financing three failing wars, not just two. Check the War on Drugs Clock to see money spent on the War on Drugs this year.
So how about we stop funding DEA raids on the sick and dying? Yearly since 2003, Rep. Hinchey has offered an amendment to the federal appropriations bills that would prohibit the DEA from spending taxpayer money to raid, arrest, or prosecute medical marijuana users or their caregivers in the 12 states that have legalized medical marijuana, but it has never passed.
While we're at it, why not legalize cannabis altogether? Not only would eliminating the enormous cost of arresting, prosecuting, and incarcerating thousands relieve some of our financial distress, it would open the way for an economic boom that's as GREEN as it gets. There are 2 sides to that shiny coin: marijuana regulation and industrial hemp.
If marijuana were regulated in the same manner as tobacco or alcohol, for instance, the tax revenues from its sale could turn the huge loss into a profit. I'm not the first to suggest this; in June 2005, notable economist Milton Friedman and over 500 of his colleagues wrote An Open Letter to the President, Congress, Governors, and State Legislatures projecting $10-$14 billion annually in savings and revenue from legalization of cannabis.
Legalization could provide thousands of new jobs, from farms to transportation to advertising to sales. Marijuana prohibition takes valuable resources away from law enforcement that could be used much more productively to pursue other more serious criminals. The arrest and prosecution of 734,000 people on marijuana charges, almost 90% of which are for possession alone, costs taxpayers between $7.5 billion and $10 billion annually (NORML Report on Sixty Years of Marijuana Prohibition in the U.S.). More people are arrested on marijuana charges each year than for all violent crimes combined (Federal Bureau of Investigation table 29). It just makes more sense financially, particularly in rough economic times such as these, to abandon this failed prohibition policy.
Industrial hemp (by definition, industrial hemp refers to those strains of cannabis sativa l. containing less than 1 percent THC, a psychoactive compound) could help solve a number of issues. Nearly every country in the world has legalized hemp production––the United States is a rare exception, with more than $6 million in imports annually. Incredibly, hemp is the only crop that is legal for Americans to import yet illegal to grow. David Bronner, President of both the Hemp Industries Association (HIA) and Dr. Bronner's Magic Soaps, says, "Industrial hemp is about sustainable agriculture that saves our forests, reduces use of agricultural chemicals, and cuts carbon emissions by replacing petroleum-based products like fiberglass in insulation and natural fiber composites." Renewable, fast-growing hemp could allow major industries to reduce their dependence on nonrenewable, fast-disappearing resources and move toward sustainable production. Hemp fiber offers greater durability and breathability than cotton, which accounts for 25 percent of the pesticides sprayed on the world's crops.
The most successful emerging industrial use of hemp fiber is in the automobile industry. "Biocomposites" of nonwoven hemp matting and polypropylene or epoxy are pressed into parts such as door panels and luggage racks, replacing heavier and less safe fiberglass composites. European hemp fiber made into biocomposites by Flexform in Indiana has been used in more than a million cars and trucks in North America. Automotive applications alone are expected to push European hemp cultivation to over 100,000 acres by 2010. Emerging technology for injection molding of natural fibers is expected to accelerate growth of this sector.
Hemp grown for both seed and biomass has a stalk yield of up to 3.5 tons per acre, which would make it an economical source of cellulose for ethanol production. Farmers in the Midwest could welcome hemp as a profitable addition to their marginally profitable soybean and corn rotations.
Hemp oil contains the most EFAs of any nut or seed oil, with the omega-3 and omega-6 EFAs occurring in the nutritionally optimal 1:3 ratio. As a bonus it offers the higher-potency omega derivatives GLA and SDA.
Most industrial hemp facts above were copied from
Hemp is Hip, Hot and Happening So Why Are American Farmers Being Left Out? - Utne, September-October 2004 (Vote Hemp)
So my suggestion is for our government to rein in spending by ending the "War on (some) Drugs" and taking the "War on Terror" to the terrorists in Afghanistan. I'm sure that there are many other ways that spending could be cut, such as cutting the heavy subsidization of corn crops. I'll leave that to others more educated on those subjects. After all, this is just my opinion.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Sold - To Big Oil
Standing before a room of oil company executives in June, John McCain flip-flopped and declared support for coastal oil drilling. Now the Washington Post is reporting that, within days, oil and gas execs ponied up nearly $1 million to elect McCain.1 It's another piece of evidence that in a McCain White House, oil companies will call the shots—just as they have with President Bush.
Yesterday, MoveOn members jumped into action in response to the Post story, placing "For Sale" signs on McCain headquarters in 10 battleground states to call public attention to it.2 At the same time, McCain made our point for us, holding a photo-op yesterday in front of a California oil well and renewing his push for offshore drilling.3
McCain's hoping to use gas prices as a wedge issue to win the election. That's why it's so critical that we keep spreading the message that McCain's been heavily influenced by the oil companies—and so we can't count on him to solve the energy crisis. When people think of Bush, they think "oil," but that's not true of McCain yet—even though his energy policy is almost identical to Bush's and his campaign is literally run by oil lobbyists!4
Here's a video that makes the case, from our friends at Progressive Accountability. Please check it out, then forward it to a few friends, post it on a blog, or stick it on your Facebook page.
Click here to watch the video: Click here
The energy crisis is shaping up to be a decisive issue in the election. MoveOn's ongoing campaign on the energy crisis has two goals: 1) highlight the progressive solution—a huge plan to shift our economy to clean energy, prevent climate change, and create millions of jobs, and 2) work together to block McCain and the Republicans from pushing gimmicks like drilling to win votes.
Please forward this email to your friends and family to spread the word about John McCain's ties to big oil companies.
Thanks for all you do.
–Noah, Daniel, Tanya, Karin and the rest of the team
Sources: 1. "Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling," Washington Post, July 27, 2008 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3985&id=13351-6736519-Ql1R6gx&t=3
2. "Activist group protests at McCain headquarters," WHP CBS 21 Harrisburg, July 28, 2008 http://www.moveon.org/r?r=3986&id=13351-6736519-Ql1R6gx&t=4
3. "Offshore Drilling is Something We Have to Do," Time Magazine, July 28, 2008 http://thepage.time.com/2008/07/28/oil/
4. "Oil Money: John McCain's Close Ties to the Petroleum Industry," Campaign Money Watch, July 11, 2008 http://www.campaignmoney.org/mccainoilMonday, July 28, 2008
Vacation karma
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Some random thoughts on vacations
Saturday, May 31, 2008
On Universal Healthcare
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Racism vs Sexism
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Sacrificing Infrastructure for a "Feel Good" Moment
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Bonus!
Friday, April 25, 2008
Down with Dew, Up with Supplements
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Racism Officially Dead!
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
The Rivers Are A-Risin'
The first time I saw an EarthChanges map, something inside me clicked. A recognition of truth, if you will. Over the years, I've held steady in the conviction that the U.S. will physically change dramatically in my lifetime. When I saw the first image above in a news story a couple of weeks ago (days before my 40th birthday), I was struck by how obvious it is that these changes are already visibly happening.
The second image above comes from the I Am America map, which predicts less drastic changes than some Maps of the Future. Whether or not any of the predictions are completely correct, the fact that large parts of the U.S. have been flooding and continue to flood is inescapable. Those who do not heed the warnings that sounded loudly when Hurricane Katrina struck can only plead stupidity, in my opinion. MOVE AWAY!
When my husband and I first started discussing buying a home, and again when we considered moving out West, these maps gave proof that we are currently living in one of the more stable areas of the country. We've already seen an increase in the flooding in our area, but our home is situated in a high area topologically. There are no large bodies of water nearby, and we have been working diligently on redirecting runoff to work to our advantage.
In an area where manufacturing jobs have been dwindling, business is booming at my husband's workplace. His company produces pumps and basins for municipal and residential use worldwide. Rumors that they are going out of business are met with a hearty laugh in our household. Only engineers working to hurriedly build levees are busier right now.
If I seem a bit smug, it's only because I believe that knowledge is an important tool, one that we have been putting to good use in making decisions that affect our very survival. With some knowledge and preparation, many "disasters" need not ever happen. Human beings need to quit arguing about whether things like global warming are real and start reacting to the events around them as though their survival depended on it. The rivers are a-rising!