Think Salmon Before You Flush

I've recently come to the conclusion that my mind works in strange ways. I have two big papers to write this quarter, that are both worth a large part of my grade in each class. Keep in mind, I have 3 group projects going as well, and each are coming together very well, except for one. I am having the hardest time with a policy focused Ecology paper.

I've loved amphibians since I was a very small kiddo, and had a great outline prepared for a science based paper. Unfortunately, with the extension deadline came a stipulation. The paper must be written based on your major. I picked Environmental Planning and Policy, so my paper must be from a policy perspective. I immediately thought of wetland buffering, and protecting the metapopulations of Western Toads, a threatened species in Washington.

We must have as many primary sources as possible, and in this field, that means peer-reviewed journals. I've searched the EBSCO library as many boolean ways I could figure out, and can't find a primary source on any amphibian in our state. I did find excellent sources for my points, but nothing on the topic. I'm so frustrated, but it's back to the grindstone today to find one.

My other major paper is for my Senior US Environmental Policy class. I will be making the argument that a drug take-back program is much needed in Washington State, and that the current pilot program that exclusively contracts Group Health as take-back sites discriminates against poor and rural communities. According to the Puget Sound Partnership, a lot of pollution that ends up in the sound starts at the base of the mountains. When rural citizens have to commute over fifty miles to dispose of unwanted prescriptions, they are likely to flush them or throw them away. (Odd note - Carly Simon's "Let the River Run" just came on t.v. as I'm about to talk about salmon and orcas - keep that in your head for salience people).

Even our best sewage systems cannot clean out pharmaceuticals from the water, and it is flushed out as "clean water" because the "best available technology" is just coming on the market. I have family in Huntsville, Alabama, where the drinking water has tested positive for estrogens, mood stablizers and cholesterol medications. Yet, there has been no government incentive to install UV filtering in the water treatment plants, and communities are only "looking into them." In Maryland, where I used to live, male fish have been developing female parts and eggs for multiple generations now, because of high estrogen levels in the water.

The WA Department of Ecology released a report in 2007 that made every citizen responsible for the ultimate pollution of the Puget Sound. The report mainly focused on storm-water run-off from communities all along the watershed, but took a wholistic ecosystem approach on how all of the contaminants flow into the Sound. If you think about every community along the watershed of all of our major rivers in the Puget Sound Region, you can see how the pollution problem multiplies as you move downstream. Remember, Puget Sound Chinook Salmon and the three Puget Sound Orca pods are listed on both the federal and state Endangered Species List.

Currently, state and federal policy is to seal unwanted drugs in a plastic container, and throw them away. If it is a narcotic, they require that you flush it. There are three major problems with this policy, and I've already discussed the problem with flushing. Landfills do not have any policies in place to prevent seepage of unwanted pharmaceuticals into the groundwater, and they end up in the rivers and ultimately, the Sound. Not to mention, you and the garbage collector are breaking the law when you transfer those prescription drugs into their hands, because if you read any Rx label in Washington State, you've agreed to those terms.

As a private pharmacy, we walk a fine legal line accepting drugs from other pharmacies, unless the customer has asked us to repackage them for Assisted Living use. The Federal DEA has restricted us from accepting unwanted narcotics for destruction, and only a Regional District DEA hearing can grant a pharmacy the special permit. The formation of the Puget Sound Action Team, which became the Puget Sound Partnership in 2007, spawned a committee called WA PH:ARM which constructed a pilot project to take back unwanted prescriptions at Group Health pharmacies, and reimbuse them for their participation.

Group Health allows us to bill them for prescriptions, because they acknowledge that their pharmacy is up to 65 miles away from some municipalities in Snohomish County. Yet, the state and the Regional DEA will not allow us to accept unwanted prescriptions from our rural patients, even if we were willing to do it on behalf of Group Health, as we do with filling prescriptions. Do you see where I'm going here?

I know I sound like a lawyer, but I was appalled at how slow the pharmaceutical community is responding to the charges given to them by the Puget Sound Partnership. I want the community where I live and the community where I work to be able to hold Partner Status in the future, so they can continue to receive grants and funding from state agencies such as the Department of Ecology. Don't worry, I promised my uncle (who is a lawyer) that I would never go down that road, and I intend to keep that promise. This is a small action the Department of Health can take that would make a large difference in the health of our streams, rivers and groundwater. After that, we can move on to installing UV filtration into our water treatment centers to take care of those chemicals we excrete from our bodies.

Working With Wetlands

Last Friday and Saturday we experienced torrential rains as two Pineapple Express Storms blew through the area. I went into town Saturday morning to meet my Ecology team, and was driving down a river of highway flooding. As I went over the bridges, I noticed all the creeks and rivers were spating as well, and knew sample collection would be difficult that day.

We all pulled into the flooded Safeway parking lot and got soaked trying to come up with a rescheduling strategy. With fall wind and rains, we knew plant integrity would continue to decline the longer we waited, so we decided to go out the next day, rain or shine. It turned up to be decent on Sunday, but the marshland had filled up with the 4 inches of rain from the previous two day, and we weren't able to get samples in the marshy area.

It was still a good study, and the good news is that from the samples of juvenile plants in the underbrush, the wetland on my property is recovering. A healthy wetland equals healthy frogs and salamanders in my woods. I've decided to focus on wetlands and frogs for my Ecology final paper, and selective logging and wetlands and streams in my US Environmental Policy class. I can't believe how much I've learned just in the first quarter. I actually feel confident enough in what I know that I could volunteer for a municipality now.

Anyway, here are some pictures from Saturday's study.

Wetland at Fortson Wildlife Area

Salamander Eggs at FWA Wetland

Fungus at FWA Wetland

Cattail at FWA Wetland

Snail on Lichens on my Wetland

Good News and Bad News

This last week has been full of bad news and sickness. Our whole family came down with some kind of a virus that hit my kids with asthma pretty hard. And now it looks as if the hubby may have some kind of secondary throat infection. Just as everything seemed to be coming together with our Ecology field project, bad news kept coming and coming.

First, I found out that today's class was cancelled because my professor's husband had passed away from cancer. Then, my sister called to let me know my great-nephew had been diagnosed with Cerebral Palsey, and that he had suffered a stroke in-uetero. I can't imagine what my niece and her husband are going through, but I have been to the ER multiple times with all 3 of our kids that each suffer from a chronic illness, and I know all the tests and results can be exhausting.

Then I went to a urologist today to find out why I have recurring bilateral kidney stones, and found out that it is probably some kind of metabolic disease. So they gave me a list of foods that I'm supposed to avoid which really conflicts with my low-cholesterol diet. I am proof that small people who exercise can inheirit high cholesterol, so it really is important to get that yearly physical. I had to make another appointment with my regular doctor just to figure out what to eat. For now, I'm drinking lots of water, but I have to avoid all black tea, chocolate, nuts, berries and ground pepper. Those are in my top 10 favorite foods!

There was some great news this week, as I mentioned above, my Ecology group is getting a big help from the DNR! One of my neighbors is a Forester for the agency, and has set me up with GIS maps of our study areas, and official DNR guides. She is also planning on coming with us on Saturday, and bringing her GPS for detailed mapping. One of the sites she helped me select has a beaver dam in a lake, that has created a dry path dividing the lake, and the water level on each side is higher than the trail. I can't wait to get pictures of that!

America's Big Problem with Food

America’s Big Diet Problem
Abstract:

It is obvious that with the growing waistlines of Americans, their diet must be changed, if not for health reasons, then to reduce their carbon footprint. According to Christopher Weber and H. Scott Matthews of Carnegie-Mellon University, cutting red meat and dairy out of the diet one day a week can reduce a family’s household greenhouse gas footprint by about 4%. This is almost equivalent to obtaining 100 percent of their foods from local sources. Even food writer Michael Pollan has declared that if Americans combined a white-meat and vegetable diet with local food purchasing it would be equal to taking 30-40 million cars off of road for a year.

Cattle Facts:

According to the study, transportation emissions from the distribution of meat and dairy only account for less than 5 percent of their total emissions. To quantify it, John’s Hopkins research has shown that it takes 40 calories of fossil fuels to produce 1 calorie of beef, which also includes fertilizer application for growing cattle feed. However, Methane and Nitrous Oxide emissions that occur with beef and dairy production are far more potent greenhouse gasses than the Carbon Dioxide that is emitted during shipping and feed production.

Many environmentalists argue that grass fed cattle are better for the Earth than grain fed cattle, due to the reduced acreage needed to produce grasses versus grains, but studies have found that ruminant gasses emitted from grass fed cattle are higher in methane. Manure management also increases the greenhouse footprint of cattle production, as many farmers may pile it or reuse it on the feed field where it is free to emit the biogases. The discarded manure is also bleached into the soil where it can pollute ground water or streams.

Diet Change Facts:

The Carnegie-Mellon study broke down a diet change to its equivalent of greenhouse gas mileage reduction, and came up with the following results. If Americans would purchase 100% local, it would be equivalent to reducing their driving emissions by 1,000 miles per year. If they were to change their diet just one night a week from red meat to white meat it would reduce their miles by 760. A one night a week change from red meat to all vegetables would reduce their miles by 1,160. If red meat and dairy were given up completely, or switched to a completely vegan diet, miles would be reduced by 5,340 and 8,100 miles respectively.

A reduction in red meat and dairy in the diet can also be healthier for consumers. A John’s Hopkins study has shown that diets abundant in red meat significantly increase the risk of digestive cancers. It also found that about two-thirds of Americans are obese and that a low-meat diet or a vegetarian diet will decrease body weight and body mass index along with reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and Type II Diabetes.

Conscientious Eating:

For those Americans who love their red meat and cheese or for those who can’t afford to change their diet, there are technologies some farms are using to reduce their own greenhouse gas footprint. According to the EPA, about 110 anaerobic manure digesters are being used on dairy farms across the nation with about another 70 under construction. These digesters combine the cattle waste with bacteria to drive methane-powered generators. They produce enough energy to power about 350 homes, and since they make the farms completely energy independent, they usually pay for themselves within 5 years. Other smaller farms are sealing their manure in bins and collecting the methane gas to use for heat.

The Carnegie-Mellon study found that shipping accounts for 11% of the greenhouse gas emissions from fruits and vegetables. Vegetarians can almost eliminate this footprint with buying from local greenhouse farmers. According to the British Colombia Greenhouse Growers Association, greenhouses use only 0.01% of B.C.’s total farmland while growing 11% of B.C.’s total agriculture production. If this amount of produce was grown in a field it would require 5,436 acres. The greenhouses in British Columbia also use Integrated Pest Management practices, or good bugs eating bad bugs, zero herbicides, collect and recycle rain water, and computerized hydroponic bags to ensure no more chemicals are used than what is necessary for nutrients.

With all of the abundant land available for growing and a thriving international trade business, America has not incorporated much greenhouse technology into its agricultural economy. If it was used more widely, Americans could buy local, sustainable produce 10 months out of the year and reduce their carbon footprint even more. Until then, they should cut their consumption of red meat and dairy considerably. They should also pressure legislatures to provide more incentive for sustainable cattle and vegetable farming and promote public awareness campaigns such as “Meatless Mondays.”

Seattle Plastic Bag Ban Can Cause More Problems Than It Solves

Incentives not Taxes

Abstract
Many cities and counties across America have introduced policies banning plastic bags, and have found just as much opposition as they have support. Environmentalists argue that plastic bag pollution has major affects around the globe, and that a tax, fee or ban would reduce these problems. Retailers and plastic manufacturers argue that the taxes are unfairly waged against them, and that there are other ways of reducing the pollution by plastic bags. A public tax or ban would result in a greater hardship on lower income families as the fees or costs of reusable bags are proportionately higher for their incomes. Retailers would respond better to tax incentives, and would be more likely to pass these to consumers as price breaks or rewards.

Fees versus Incentives

With the high levels of plastic chemicals in the nation’s rivers and the large accumulation of plastic waste circulating in oceans, plastic bag bans have become popular subjects in America’s cities. These bans and taxes have become a hot-button issue in city and county council meetings across the country. The American chemical and plastic lobbies have spent millions opposing these bans, and environmental groups have continuously lobbied to get them passed.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, Americans consume about 100 billion plastic bags a year. The main arguments for the ban are animal ingestion, and slowing the growth of the Great Garbage Patch circulating in the Pacific Ocean. Whether it is blowing down the street or floating in the water, many animals mistake plastic bags and bag scraps for food, and die resulting from the inability to pass the plastic through their digestive systems. As plastic breaks down in the ocean, it does not dissolve away, rather it becomes small particles that glob together resembling plankton patches. The Pacific Ocean current, specifically has collected the plastic garbage and particles into a patch larger than the state of Texas in a prime marine feeding area. High levels of plastic chemicals have been found in rivers on the East Coast, and as they are bio-identical to some fish hormones, fisheries experts have been finding inter-sex fish in these rivers, affecting their reproduction rates.

Other reasons cities such as Seattle are considering the bans are to curb urban flooding and to improve city aesthetics. Bags can clog gutters and storm drains preventing the drainage of storm water, increasing urban flooding. They can also get caught in trees and fences making an ugly garbage problem even more apparent as cities like Seattle and San Francisco reduce available dumpsters for disposal. The externality costs of plastic bag litter is passed on from the manufacturers and stores to the public through the cities’ disposal process, so the question becomes how to clean it up and who should pay for it.

In 2007, San Francisco banned the use of plastic bags, but still allowed the distribution of paper bags. This resulted in the consumption of 84 million paper bags the year after the ban was passed. Eighty-four million paper bags equates to 72,000 trees felled, 91,2000 pounds of sulphur dioxide emissions, 21.5 million pounds of greenhouse gas, and 40 million gallons of processed waste water from pulp mills. The American Plastics lobby also argues that plastic bags take up significantly less space in city landfills, and that paper bags can take much longer to decompose than thought due to the anaerobic conditions of the landfills. Seattle, in turn has proposed the ban of paper bags in addition to the plastic ban.

A 2002 ban on plastic bag ban in Ireland resulted in a 90% reduction in plastic bag consumption, but also revealed problems with a complete ban. According to Dublin retailers, theft increased with the use of reusable bags as did food-borne illnesses as people did not follow recommendations to wash them regularly. They also saw a large increase in sales of small plastic trash bags as most people reuse plastic shopping bags as liners for small cans.

So what are the alternatives? There are many. Of course, there are the fabric and burlap reusable bags many retailers sell as an alternative to their plastic bags. However, according to French retailer Carrefour, the most environmentally friendly bags are heavy-duty reusable plastic bags. Some advocate biodegradable plastics as an alternative raw material, but they require mass amounts of corn or potatoes for production. Food and livestock feed prices have already increased due to diversion of carbohydrate rich crops for biodiesel and ethanol production. Food price increases affect the poor and working poor much more than those with higher incomes.

Some legislators have suggested a national fee, or tax, on plastic bags which is also regressive towards those with lower incomes. Jim Moran (D-VA) has introduced national legislation that would impose a 5 cent tax on all plastic bags by 2010, increasing to 25 cents by 2015. He claims the tax would divert other costs borne by the public with 1 cent going to the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 1 cent going to state and local trash and watershed programs, and 2 cents applying to the national debt. The other cent would go towards a 1 cent tax credit to participating retailers.

The state of Massachusetts has taken a more centrist approach on the bag problem. Over 500 grocery retailers and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection have teamed up to cut plastic and paper bag consumption by 1/3 in their state by 2013. Currently, 1.5 billion plastic and paper bags are distributed across the state in grocery stores yearly. Retailers are offering free reusable bags or coupons for them along with money back incentives for customers that use them. Other stores have built in-store plastic depots for recycling. Most importantly, the state has decided to give retailers the choice of how to participate in the program.

It makes more sense to provide a tax incentive for reusable bags and plastic bag recycling. Recycled bags are used to produce other plastic bags, but more importantly they are the main component of fire-retardant building material. These plastic lumber products, like Trex, last the lifetime of a home whereas lumber fencing and decking need to be replaced every 10-20 years, if not sooner. Recycling reduces the plastic going into the waterways and landfills, and is less harmful than paper bag or biodegradable bag production. Most importantly, consumers and retailers are more likely to respond positively to a tax incentive rather than a fee or a ban.

References
Kaste, Martin “Debate Over Plastic Bags Heats Up in Seattle” NPR (2009): http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111662657. 27 Sep 2009
Eskenazi, Joe “Baggage.” San FranciscoWeekly (2009): www.sfweekly.com/content/printVersion/1297386. 27 Sep.2009
Truini, Joe "Plastic problem." Waste News 10.7 (2004): 1-23. Business Source Complete. EBSCO. Web. 1 Oct. 2009.
Johnson, Jim "Paper or plastic?." Waste & Recycling News 14.24 (2009): 22. Business Source Complete. EBSCO. Web. 1 Oct. 2009.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources “Frequently Asked Questions about Plastic Shopping Bags” (2009) USA.gov.Web. 1 Oct.2009.
Boyle, Katherine “New Bottle Deposit, Bag Tax Bills Touted for Combating Pollution” New York Times (2009) Moran.House.gov. Web. 1 Oct.2009