But not a drop to drink... I was checking out the news the other day and they had an article on the drinking water. In 15 southern Ontario municipalities they found traces of painkillers and other drugs. Samples taken from downstream of a sewage outfall were the most contaminated while samples taken from lakes had low but still detectable level of the drugs. In samples taken from wells they did not find any traces of the drugs. The article went on to say that sewage treatment plants are not designed to remove drugs. Now since some of the drugs they were testing for were painkillers does that mean I don't need a prescription or to buy some Advil? Maybe I should just pour a glass of tap water.... Mmmm tasty....
Almost makes me want to buy bottled water actually. But then a lot of companies claim you're getting pure water... when really it's no better then tap water. In some cases it really is tap water. *Cough* Dasani *Cough, Cough* Kind of makes me want to pick up my nice, shiny red can then since at least then it has all kinds of other additives and I know what I am getting into.
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
Speeding Up to Slow Down
I was walking down Landsdowne St. earlier today. I was watching all these cars speed down the road. Then I heard the sound of a train coming. Guess those tracks really are still in use. It got me thinking that all these people are speeding just to end up slowing down. And since there is no Via rail they were going to be waiting a while. In turn it got me thinking about the number of cars in use. Everywhere I looked it was like a sea of cars. More often then not there was only one person in the vehicle as well. What is the cost?
We really do live in a consumer society... Consume... consume... consume.... without any real thought to the consequences. This is just one more example. I understand the need for vehicles at times, and in certain locations. But there are times when the rest of us could actually take a walk, get some fresh air and exercise, and leave the car at home. Well okay I don't drive so that is pretty much my reality any ways.
The emphasis tends to be me and not we. We focus so much on "me" and looking out for number one that we don't stop and think about the impact on other people. We take cars when we're just going down the street because it's more convenient. It only takes 5 minutes to drive when it might take 15 to walk. It's also habit. We're lazy. Why walk when you can drive? Right now we really can't see the environmental cost of these decisions because we also tend to focus on the short term... the here and now. If we can't see it then maybe it won't really happen.
The car culture also leads to a social impact. Now this is more just speculation on my part but I would bet that the amount of driving that we do leads people to have less patience and more aggressive behaviour, as evidenced by the road rage. It's also more isolating. At least when you are walking down the street you can talk to, or at least acknowledge those people around you.
So what would I like to see? I would like to see more people taking a walk instead of grabbing their car keys. The environment and society will thank you later.
We really do live in a consumer society... Consume... consume... consume.... without any real thought to the consequences. This is just one more example. I understand the need for vehicles at times, and in certain locations. But there are times when the rest of us could actually take a walk, get some fresh air and exercise, and leave the car at home. Well okay I don't drive so that is pretty much my reality any ways.
The emphasis tends to be me and not we. We focus so much on "me" and looking out for number one that we don't stop and think about the impact on other people. We take cars when we're just going down the street because it's more convenient. It only takes 5 minutes to drive when it might take 15 to walk. It's also habit. We're lazy. Why walk when you can drive? Right now we really can't see the environmental cost of these decisions because we also tend to focus on the short term... the here and now. If we can't see it then maybe it won't really happen.
The car culture also leads to a social impact. Now this is more just speculation on my part but I would bet that the amount of driving that we do leads people to have less patience and more aggressive behaviour, as evidenced by the road rage. It's also more isolating. At least when you are walking down the street you can talk to, or at least acknowledge those people around you.
So what would I like to see? I would like to see more people taking a walk instead of grabbing their car keys. The environment and society will thank you later.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Lost in Translation
Yesterday I decided to try and download some of the clips from Live Earth... especially the environmental segments. I spent several hours on Google videos, AOL videos, Veoh and Youtube looking for footage. I found the commercial that aired ahead of time, Al Gore's speech and a couple of the clips that were used.... but that was it. Of the 75 pages that I looked at on Google's video search 99.9% of it was just the bands playing. And if you go to MSN's feed of Live Earth all you really get is the bands there too. So what happened to the message? Somehow it seems to have gotten lost in translation.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Live Impact
I took a test to determine my carbon footprint. My score was 209 which is a carbon output of 4 tons. So how does that compare to others? Scores range from 150 to 900 and the lower the score the better. The average individual living in a household puts out 12 tons and the average apartment/condo dweller puts out 8 tons. The average score in the US is 325 and in Canada it's 325. Since I don't drive I think I have a high carbon footprint and am definitely looking for ways that I can reduce the impact I have. Now there is talk of carbon offsetting where you do things like plant trees, or invest in alternative energy sources. So what did they estimate the cost would be for me to offset the carbon being produced? It would cost about $2000. Makes me wonder how much Al Gore would have to pay. See my post on Gore for further details.
Do as I Say and Not as I Do
I had a few different ideas for the title of this post. One of them was "Talking out the left side of your mouth" and another was "Standing for Nothing" but the first one sounded more like a slam on the former prime minister Jean Chretien and the second I just might use for another post.
Former vice-president Al Gore is known for his Oscar worthy film "The Inconvenient Truth." And today he is also going to be remembered for Live Earth. I am not knocking the message. I believe that we need to change our attitudes towards the environment and can't continue on the way we are going. There isn't a limitless supply of the resources and there are consequences to our actions.
However, I find it interesting that this message is coming from someone who has a 10,000 square foot home, including electric gates and an indoor swimming pool. His utility bill is $30,000 US a year. That is more money than I made last year. Hmmm.... funny how he criticizes others for their use of electricity and for their ecological footprint and yet he spent $30,000 in utility bills. Isn't it funny? I mentioned in my last post the carbon offsetting. So I guess Al Gore is paying penance for his actions by doing what, planting a few trees? Somehow I can't see him getting on his hands and knees and planting those trees so instead he'll buy his way out of it. Inconvenient truth or inconvenient hypocrite?
Recently I have seen a number of commercials with David Suzuki touting the use of energy efficient appliances and changing the lightbulbs in your home. Again, the message is good. Suzuki has also been on a cross country tour promoting his environmental message. He was using a diesel bus... not exactly environmentally friendly. On top of that the bus would hold about 30 people and at most there were 8 people in it. So why not get a bio-diesel van? Maybe it was because then he couldn't put as much advertising on the side.... Instead he'd rather add to the CO2 emissions.
But that's not all.... Back in February Suzuki went on air and said, "’Im not getting any money from my foundation. I’m getting my money, the foundation gets its money, from ordinary people. We don’t take government money, corporations have not been interested in funding us. We get it from ordinary Canadians across the country. 40,000 thousand of them and we get some foundations in both Canada and the United States. So that’s my agenda. We speak on behalf of the people that fund us." Hmm... no corporations eh? Then why is it that the 2005-2006 annual report for the David Suzuki Foundation list something like 52 corporations including Bell Canada, RBC, IBM, Microsoft, Toyota and Canon. The David Suzuki Foundation also received donations from EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development, ATCO Gas, Alberta’s principle distributor of natural gas, and a number of pension funds including the OPG (Ontario Power Generation) Employees’ and Pensioners’ Charity Trust. OPG is one of the largest suppliers of electricity in the world operating 5 fossil fuel-burning generation plants and 3 nuclear plants. So I guess that begs the question, whose agenda is he really pushing for? Can he be believed with the backing of some of these companies?
According to the government of Canada web site, "Canada’s New Government’s environmental agenda will be bolstered by the creation of a new Cabinet Committee on the environment and energy security. The Committee will pursue practical, results-oriented solutions to decrease Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, reduce pollution and improve the health and well-being of Canadians." Hmm... sounds nice. However, back in 2002 Harper said that the Kyoto Accord was a "socialist scheme" and felt it was designed to suck money out of rich companies. Thanks to Harper Canada will be the first country that ratified the Kyoto Accord to formally abandon its commitment to the international agreement. Harper may appear to be taking an environmental stand but it's a mask.... It's all for show.
I firmly believe that it starts at home. Don't just talk the talk but walk the walk as well. If they want to be believed they need to practice what they preach. I don't want hypocrisy. I want authenticity.
Former vice-president Al Gore is known for his Oscar worthy film "The Inconvenient Truth." And today he is also going to be remembered for Live Earth. I am not knocking the message. I believe that we need to change our attitudes towards the environment and can't continue on the way we are going. There isn't a limitless supply of the resources and there are consequences to our actions.
However, I find it interesting that this message is coming from someone who has a 10,000 square foot home, including electric gates and an indoor swimming pool. His utility bill is $30,000 US a year. That is more money than I made last year. Hmmm.... funny how he criticizes others for their use of electricity and for their ecological footprint and yet he spent $30,000 in utility bills. Isn't it funny? I mentioned in my last post the carbon offsetting. So I guess Al Gore is paying penance for his actions by doing what, planting a few trees? Somehow I can't see him getting on his hands and knees and planting those trees so instead he'll buy his way out of it. Inconvenient truth or inconvenient hypocrite?
Recently I have seen a number of commercials with David Suzuki touting the use of energy efficient appliances and changing the lightbulbs in your home. Again, the message is good. Suzuki has also been on a cross country tour promoting his environmental message. He was using a diesel bus... not exactly environmentally friendly. On top of that the bus would hold about 30 people and at most there were 8 people in it. So why not get a bio-diesel van? Maybe it was because then he couldn't put as much advertising on the side.... Instead he'd rather add to the CO2 emissions.
But that's not all.... Back in February Suzuki went on air and said, "’Im not getting any money from my foundation. I’m getting my money, the foundation gets its money, from ordinary people. We don’t take government money, corporations have not been interested in funding us. We get it from ordinary Canadians across the country. 40,000 thousand of them and we get some foundations in both Canada and the United States. So that’s my agenda. We speak on behalf of the people that fund us." Hmm... no corporations eh? Then why is it that the 2005-2006 annual report for the David Suzuki Foundation list something like 52 corporations including Bell Canada, RBC, IBM, Microsoft, Toyota and Canon. The David Suzuki Foundation also received donations from EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development, ATCO Gas, Alberta’s principle distributor of natural gas, and a number of pension funds including the OPG (Ontario Power Generation) Employees’ and Pensioners’ Charity Trust. OPG is one of the largest suppliers of electricity in the world operating 5 fossil fuel-burning generation plants and 3 nuclear plants. So I guess that begs the question, whose agenda is he really pushing for? Can he be believed with the backing of some of these companies?
According to the government of Canada web site, "Canada’s New Government’s environmental agenda will be bolstered by the creation of a new Cabinet Committee on the environment and energy security. The Committee will pursue practical, results-oriented solutions to decrease Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions, reduce pollution and improve the health and well-being of Canadians." Hmm... sounds nice. However, back in 2002 Harper said that the Kyoto Accord was a "socialist scheme" and felt it was designed to suck money out of rich companies. Thanks to Harper Canada will be the first country that ratified the Kyoto Accord to formally abandon its commitment to the international agreement. Harper may appear to be taking an environmental stand but it's a mask.... It's all for show.
I firmly believe that it starts at home. Don't just talk the talk but walk the walk as well. If they want to be believed they need to practice what they preach. I don't want hypocrisy. I want authenticity.
The Hypocrisy of Live Earth
As most people probably know today is "Live Earth" Al Gore's big concerts for climate change... I'm currently watching the New York concert on TV and I must admit that it is really slick. But, for the most part, the only environmental message is in between sets. So that begs the question.... why do we need pop stars rocking it out? Now some of these stars really do practice what they are currently preaching.... bands like the Red Hot Chili Peppers and Linkin Park. But a lot of them live in mansions, use limousines and have their own jet to travel in style. I'd want to go just to hear the bands.... which was the point. Get them in and then hope that they listen to the message as well. Maybe politicians should take note for when they are campaigning.
It's not just the messengers I question. I question the medium. As I watch the concert and see the stadium packed full of people you wonder what the ecological cost is of all this. All of those people had to get there somehow. Not only that but there was the stage construction and all the electricity going to the stage for all the lights and the equipment.
What is their answer to that? They plan on offsetting the carbon that is being used. So the message there is that it's okay as long as you pay for it. Reminds me of Catholicism actually. 10 hail Mary's and all is okay again. Prevention is worth a pound of cure. Shouldn't it be about reducing the ecological footprint and not damaging the environment in the name of climate change and then paying for it later? Seems to go against what they are supposedly promoting. I call that hypocrisy.
It's not just the messengers I question. I question the medium. As I watch the concert and see the stadium packed full of people you wonder what the ecological cost is of all this. All of those people had to get there somehow. Not only that but there was the stage construction and all the electricity going to the stage for all the lights and the equipment.
What is their answer to that? They plan on offsetting the carbon that is being used. So the message there is that it's okay as long as you pay for it. Reminds me of Catholicism actually. 10 hail Mary's and all is okay again. Prevention is worth a pound of cure. Shouldn't it be about reducing the ecological footprint and not damaging the environment in the name of climate change and then paying for it later? Seems to go against what they are supposedly promoting. I call that hypocrisy.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
A Greener Apple
After coming under criticism from Greenpeace Apple has announced plans to go greener, greener then other computer manufacturers. This announcement really made me take notice and made me proud... even more an Apple "fanboy" then I was before. Just don't get me started on spending my evenings reading MacWorld and MacLife. *lol* So what changes have occurred or are occurring?
Did you know that the typical CRT monitor contains 3 pounds (that's right POUNDS) of lead. Makes me want to trade in the monitor I have for my PC as soon as possible. The original iMac contained 484 grams of lead and the current LCD based model contains less then 1 gram. Back in 2006 Apple became the ONLY computer manufacturer to completely eliminate CRTs.
The European Union has more restrictions then the US and the latest restrictions are known as RoHS. All Apple products worldwide comply with these standards and do not contain cadmium, hexavalent chromium (think Erin Brokovich) and decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE). Other companies use loopholes in the law to continue shipping products with the last 2 chemicals.
Arsenic and mercury are commonly used in LCD displays. Ever get the feeling your computer just might be the death of you? Apple plans to completely eliminate the use of arsenic in all its displays by the end of 2008. iPods already use LEDs to illuminate their displays so they do not contain any mercury. Apple is planning to transition displays to also use LED backlighting to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of mercury. There is no time frame set up for this to be complete, just when it is technically and economically feasible.
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), a type of plastic primarily used in the construction industry but also found in computer parts and cables, and brominated flame retardants, or BFRs, which reduce the risk of fire are also being eliminated. Apple began phasing out PVC twelve years ago and began restricting BFRs in 2001. For several years now Apple has been developing alternative materials that can replace these chemicals without compromising the safety or quality of our products. They are close to eliminating them altogether. For example, more than three million iPods have already shipped with a BFR-free laminate on their logic boards. As stolen from the Apple web site, "A note of comparison — In 2007 HP stated that they will remove PVC from all their packaging. Apple did this 12 years ago. Last year, Dell began the process of phasing out large quantities of brominated flame retardants in large plastic enclosure parts. Apple’s plastic enclosure parts have been bromine-free since 2002." Apple plans to completely eliminate PVCs and BFRs by the end of 2008.
So far all I have talked about is the reduction of harmful products... but what about when the computer is no longer functioning and you're now replacing it. Obviously you can't just recycle it or toss it in the trash. I've been to the recycling facility in Peterborough... It's also where you go to take harmful chemicals to dispose of. There are several HUGE boxes full of computer parts. I often wonder what happens when these parts are left there over time. On second thought maybe I don't want to think about that.
Apple began recycling in 1994 and has taken the initiative for trade-ins or take-backs. Every Apple retail store has a take-back program in effect for the iPods. They even offer a 10% discount on a new one. This summer there is also plans to allow you to mail it back to Apple for free (if you live in the US). None of the e-waste that is collected is shipped overseas. It is processed in North America. Also, the components used are high quality and in demand for the recyclers.
I'm not a big environmentalist... but I do believe that we all need to do what we can to reduce our own footprint and support those companies that are also working to reduce their footprint. For more information on Apple's efforts to go green check out their web site
Did you know that the typical CRT monitor contains 3 pounds (that's right POUNDS) of lead. Makes me want to trade in the monitor I have for my PC as soon as possible. The original iMac contained 484 grams of lead and the current LCD based model contains less then 1 gram. Back in 2006 Apple became the ONLY computer manufacturer to completely eliminate CRTs.
The European Union has more restrictions then the US and the latest restrictions are known as RoHS. All Apple products worldwide comply with these standards and do not contain cadmium, hexavalent chromium (think Erin Brokovich) and decabromodiphenyl ether (DecaBDE). Other companies use loopholes in the law to continue shipping products with the last 2 chemicals.
Arsenic and mercury are commonly used in LCD displays. Ever get the feeling your computer just might be the death of you? Apple plans to completely eliminate the use of arsenic in all its displays by the end of 2008. iPods already use LEDs to illuminate their displays so they do not contain any mercury. Apple is planning to transition displays to also use LED backlighting to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of mercury. There is no time frame set up for this to be complete, just when it is technically and economically feasible.
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), a type of plastic primarily used in the construction industry but also found in computer parts and cables, and brominated flame retardants, or BFRs, which reduce the risk of fire are also being eliminated. Apple began phasing out PVC twelve years ago and began restricting BFRs in 2001. For several years now Apple has been developing alternative materials that can replace these chemicals without compromising the safety or quality of our products. They are close to eliminating them altogether. For example, more than three million iPods have already shipped with a BFR-free laminate on their logic boards. As stolen from the Apple web site, "A note of comparison — In 2007 HP stated that they will remove PVC from all their packaging. Apple did this 12 years ago. Last year, Dell began the process of phasing out large quantities of brominated flame retardants in large plastic enclosure parts. Apple’s plastic enclosure parts have been bromine-free since 2002." Apple plans to completely eliminate PVCs and BFRs by the end of 2008.
So far all I have talked about is the reduction of harmful products... but what about when the computer is no longer functioning and you're now replacing it. Obviously you can't just recycle it or toss it in the trash. I've been to the recycling facility in Peterborough... It's also where you go to take harmful chemicals to dispose of. There are several HUGE boxes full of computer parts. I often wonder what happens when these parts are left there over time. On second thought maybe I don't want to think about that.
Apple began recycling in 1994 and has taken the initiative for trade-ins or take-backs. Every Apple retail store has a take-back program in effect for the iPods. They even offer a 10% discount on a new one. This summer there is also plans to allow you to mail it back to Apple for free (if you live in the US). None of the e-waste that is collected is shipped overseas. It is processed in North America. Also, the components used are high quality and in demand for the recyclers.
I'm not a big environmentalist... but I do believe that we all need to do what we can to reduce our own footprint and support those companies that are also working to reduce their footprint. For more information on Apple's efforts to go green check out their web site
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
