Earth Friendly Shopping

The University of Oregon has come up with a Greenwashing Index

It’s greenwashing when a company or organization spends more time and money claiming to be “green” through advertising and marketing than actually implementing business practices that minimize environmental impact. It’s whitewashing, but with a green brush.

We like it -

It seems like it was just Christmas, and now it is valentine’s day.  Wow – the time goes fast.  Maybe this year we were just distracted by the inauguration, but here we are.

Well, whenever in doubt about what to get Mrs EFS  the number one choice is almost always organic chocolate.   One of her absolute favorites is this organic and fair trade vegan chocolate heart from Sjaak’s   The inside of the heart is hollow, and it is filled with vegan chocolate truffles.   This is one incredibly delicious and decadent treat, for only $12.45    Delicious.

Want something other than chocolate? While Mrs. EFS would consider it blasphemy,   you might want something to show your love that is just a little longer lasting.

Perhaps, in that case you will want to consider one of these lovely glass hearts.  Made from 95% or greater post consumer recycled glass, these lovely keepsakes are truly a delight.   They are available in a variety of colors, each one lovely.

Created by hand by the artists at Fire and Light Studies of Arcata CA, these hearts are a unique and lovely keepseek

OK – Valentine’s Day is starting to get closer, and it is time to start getting serious. And in our opinion, nothing says “I love you, let’s get it on” quite like these organic dark chocolate hearts of cherries. These chocolates are sensual and slightly mysterious. Each dark chocolate heart is individually wrapped, and filled with a velvety smooth and silky dark chocolate cherry truffle They are deeply satifying.

Made by master chocolatier Sjaak’s, these sumptuous taste delights are organic, combining old world traditions with Earth Friendly ingredients. Organic Chocolate simply tastes better.

Food policy in the United States needs a dramatic overhaul.  For the past 40 years, our agricultural policies  have on large, mono-crop farms, and large confined animal feed operations (CAFO).

We have known for some time that monocrop agriculture with the heavy use of synthetic chemical pesticides and fertilizers is robbing our topsoil and polluting our water.   We currently use 10 calories of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of modern, supermarket food.  As Michael Pallin put it

when we eat from the industrial-food system, we are eating oil and spewing greenhouse gases.

Confined Area Feed Operations (basically mono-crop agriculture for livestock) adds severe cruelty to animals to the negative environmental and health issues

Now we find that there is another health issue surfacing.

For over 50 years, farmers have injected livestock with antibiotics.  They have done this to reduce infections and promote growth.  As confined area feed operations have grown more crowded,  agribusiness has grown even more dependent on the use of antibiotics.    In fact, the Union of Concerned Scientists has estimated that 40% of the antibiotics sold in the United States is used for livestock.

So, what is the problem?  Well, the first problem is that the constant, pervasive use of antibiotics breeds strains of resistant bacteria

 This enormous amount of drugs is delivered to animals under conditions congenial to the development of resistance. Large numbers of similar animals are raised in the concentrated facilities that characterize contemporary agriculture. Chicken houses, for example, can contain 20,000 birds. And the Environmental Protection Agency has identified 6,600 operations with at least 1,000 beef cattle or 700 dairy cattle or 2,500 hogs or 100,000 chickens.

In such large operations, antibiotics are often delivered to animals in food and water over extended periods. Bacteria are constantly being exposed to the drugs and eliminated from the populations. It is hard to imagine how resistance would not develop under these circumstances. Indeed, industrial livestock systems are hog heaven for resistant bacteria.

This concern is shared by the World Health Organization

 Studies in several countries, including the United Kingdom (UK) and USA, have demonstrated the association between the use of antimicrobials in food animals and antimicrobial resistance. Shortly after the licensing and use of Fluoroquinolone, a powerful new class of antimicrobials, in poultry, fluoroquinolone-resistant Salmonella and Campylobacter isolations from animals, and shortly afterward such isolations from humans, became more common. Community and family outbreaks, as well as individual cases, of salmonellosis and campylobacteriosis resistant to treatment with fluoroquinolones have since been reported from several countries.

The antimicrobials used in livestock have become so pervasive, that they have even shown up in the animal’s excrement.   As the NRDC notes, these wastes can work into our environment in numerous ways.

On most factory farms,animals are crowded into relatively small areas; their manure and urine are funneled into massive waste lagoons. These cesspools often break, leak or overflow, sending dangerous microbes, nitrate pollution and drug-resistant bacteria into water supplies. 

And now, it would seem the icing on the cake – New studies have found that plants fertilized with manure from factory farms can contain these very same antibiotics. 

 
The Minnesota researchers planted corn, green onion and cabbage in manure-treated soil in 2005 to evaluate the environmental impacts of feeding antibiotics to livestock. Six weeks later, the crops wereanalyzed and found to absorb chlortetracycline, a drug widely used to treat diseases in livestock. In another study in 2007, corn, lettuce and potato were planted in soil treated with liquid hog manure. They,too, accumulated concentrations of an antibiotic, named Sulfamethazine,also commonly used in livestock.
 

As the amount of antibiotics in the soil increased, so too did the levels taken up by the corn, potatoes and other plants.

“Around 90 percent of these drugs that are administered to animals end up being
excreted either as urine or manure,” said Holly Dolliver, a member of the Minnesota research team and now a professor of crop and soil sciences at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls. “A vast majority of that manure is then used as an important input for 9.2 million hectares of (U.S.) agricultural land.”

In fact, farms that use this manure can be certified organic.  I think that a lot of people buying organic produce might be surprised to know that there might be antibiotics in their veggies.  The concentration of antibiotic taken up in vegetables is very low, but it is real, and no studies have been done on the long term effects of persistent, low dose exposure to antibiotics in humans.

It seems the public, at least at some level, understands that the use of antibiotics in livestock is not healthy.  Tyson foods, the second largest producer of chickens in the U.S. has gone to great lengths to label their chickens as raised without antibiotics.   Unfortunately, in the case of Tyson, the claim wasn’t quite true.  It seems that Tyson injected the chickens with antibiotics before they hatched,  and  continues to put antimicrobials into their feed.  The distinction they drew was that the particular antimicrobial Tyson uses, is not used as human medicine.   Even so, in light of these two issues, the FDA has told Tyson to stop using the “raised without antibiotics” label.

 It is becoming increasingly clear that large confined animal feed operations pose a threat to our health and our environment, in addition to being unnecessarily cruel to the animals involved.   We can’t expect these operations to go away immediately, but we do need to start making changes. 

1. It would be healthier for all of us to reduce our meat consumption – that alone will reduce the carbon footprint of our diet

2.   We need to enact reasonable laws to reduce the crowding of these operations

3. We need to reduce or eliminate the use of antibiotics and hormones in livestock

4. While we should encourage the use of manure as fertilizer, instead of synthetic chemicals, the manure should be composted first, to help break down the antibiotics and other potential hazards.  

Recently,  the massive spill of coal ash in Tennessee has highlighted the environmental and health dangers of coal combustion.  However, another environmental hazard is currently flying mostly under the radar.   The potential risk to drinking water from Hydraulic Fracturing of Natural Gas wells.

Background.

Natural gas has gotten a lot of attention in this country.  Natural Gas is considerably cleaner than oil or gasoline.   Burning natural gas emits 23% less carbon dioxide than burning oil.    Even the Sierra Club has referred to natural gas as a transitional fuel. As T. Boone Pickens said.  It is cleaner, cheaper, and ours.

In addition, new technologies have allowed the extraction of previously unrecoverable gas from wells all across the US.   One of the key new technologies is hydraulic fracturing. (fracking)  In a hydraulic fracture operation,  water and a mix of chemicals are pumped at high pressure into the formation where the gas is stored  At some point, the formation is no longer able to absorb the liquid and fractures.  The gas will flow more easily through the fracture and into the well.

What are the potential damages to the environment?

The biggest concern right now is the potential for contamination of underground sources of drinking water (USDW).    The hydraulic mix used most fracturing operations contains a variety of toxic chemicals. 

The EPA states that many chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids are linked to human health effects. These effects include cancer; liver, kidney, brain,  respiratory and skin disorders; birth defects; and other health problems. The draft EPA study included calculations showing that even when diluted with water at least nine hydraulic racturing chemicals may be injected into USDWs at concentrations that pose a threat to human health. These chemicals are: benzene, phenanthrenes, naphthalene, 1-ethylnapthalene, 2-methylnapthalene, fluorenes, aromatics, ethylene glycol and methanol. This important information was removed from the final study.

The exact mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing operations have not been made public.  The companies involved, Haliburton, Schlumberger and BJ Services, consider the contents of their hydrolic fracture mixtures proprietary.    The extreme nature of their positions was seen in the case of  Cathy Behr

Cathy Behr, an emergency room nurse in Durango, Colo., had almost died after treating a wildcatter who had been splashed in a fracking fluid spill at a BP natural gas rig. Behr stripped the man and stuffed his clothes into plastic bags while the hospital sounded alarms and locked down the ER. The worker was released. But a few days later Behr lay in critical condition facing multiple organ failure.

Her doctors searched for details that could save their patient. The substance was a drill stimulation fluid called ZetaFlow, but the only information the rig workers provided was a vague Material Safety Data Sheet, a form required by OSHA. Doctors wanted to know precisely what chemicals make up ZetaFlow and in what concentration. But the MSDS listed that information as proprietary. Behr’s doctor learned, weeks later, after Behr had begun to recuperate, what ZetaFlow was made of, but he was sworn to secrecy by the chemical’s manufacturer and couldn’t even share the information with his patient.

Because of this lack of disclosure, we don’t ever really know what chemicals are in the mixtures, or how toxic they are.   But we do know that at least one company considers them dangerous, and recommends that unused mixtures be disposed of as hazardous waste.

The hydraulic fracturing company Schlumberger recommends that many of its fracturing fluids be disposed of at hazardous waste facilities. Yet these same fluids are allowed to be injected directly into or adjacent to USDWs. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act no other industries are allowed to inject hazardous wastes –unchecked directly into USDWs. EPA does not provide any scientific data to demonstrate that the hazardous characteristics of fracturing fluids are reduced enough to make it safe to inject these chemicals into or close to USDWs.

In 2001 special task force on energy policy convened by Vice President Dick Cheney recommended that Congress exempt hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act.  The national energy bill passd in 2005 included this exemption.  As a result, states, municipalities, and property owners may have to bear the cost of cleanups. the health risks, and the reduced property values that result from contaminated ground water.

Has there been contamination?

Industry representatives insist that there has been no contamination of drinking water from hydraulic fracturing operations.

The industry insisted, as it has for years, that hydraulic fracturing itself had never contaminated a well, pointing to an anecdotal survey done a decade ago by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a coalition of state regulatory bodies and, again, to the 2004 study by the EPA [3] (PDF).

“You have intervening rock in between the area that you are fracturing and the areas that provide water supplies. The notion that fractures are going to migrate up to those shallow formations — there is just no evidence of that happening,” says Ken Wonstolen, an attorney representing the Colorado Oil and Gas Association who has worked with the petroleum industry for two decades. “I think fracturing has been given a clean bill of health.”

There are multiple issues with the industries claims.

First of all,  the 2004 study that the industry quotes and relies on is far from conclusive.  A lot of information that had been in draft copies was left out of the final report.    Even  so

Buried deep within the 424-page report are statements explaining that fluids migrated unpredictably — through different rock layers, and to greater distances than previously thought — in as many as half the cases studied in the United States. The EPA identified some of the chemicals as biocides and lubricants that “can cause kidney, liver, heart, blood, and brain damage through prolonged or repeated exposure.” It found that as much as a third of injected fluids, benzene in particular, remains in the ground after drilling and is “likely to be transported by groundwater.”

Chapter 3 of the study states

The hydraulically induced fracture may extend from the target formation into a USDW

The hydraulically induced fracture may connect with natural (existing) fracture systems and/or porous and permeable format ons, which may facilitate the movement of fracturing fluids into a USDW

A review of the study by the Oil and Gas Accountability project found the report to be incomplete.  Some of the major criticisms of the report included.

• EPA fails to examine long-term impact of fluids stranded in CBM formations

Most of the fracturing fluids are pumped out.  However, as much as 20% can be left behind, or stranded.  They could mix with naturally occurring compounds, degrade into even more toxic forms, and/or travel through layers of rock into USDW

• EPA does not seriously address the issue of residual fracturing fluids left when wells are fractured more than once; or the effect of infilling as CBM basins mature
• EPA uses a theoretical, best-case scenario, without any supporting data, to conclude that stranded fracturing fluids will not harm USDWs
•  EPA fails to thoroughly investigate the toxicity and health effects related to hydraulic
  fracturing fluid chemicals.

Meanwhile, evidence is growing that water supplies have been compromised in at least six states from hydraulic fracturing operations.   In Alabama, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming, incidents have been recorded in which residents have reported changes in water quality or quantity following fracturing operations of gas wells near their homes

While it has not been conclusively proven that hydraulic fracture caused water quality impairment. evidence is clearly pointing in that direction.   Consider these cases

• In Sublette County Wyoming, near to a large natural gas field, 80 out of 220 wells have been found to be contaminated with benzine.
• Larry and Laura Amos lived near to a fracture site in Colorado.  Methane from the fracture seeped into their water well, and exploded it.  Years later.  Laura developed a rare adrenal tumor. 2-BE a compound which has been shown to cause adrenal tumors was used in at least one of the wells.

There are many more of these stories.  For now, it appears clear that contamination from the wells is far more prevalent than stated in the EPA report.

What needs to be done?

Natural Gas production is crucial to this countries economy, and that means that we can’t stop hydraulic fracturing.  However, it is important that we take appropriate steps to make fracking safer.  The Oil and Gas Accountability Project has recommended the following 5 actions

1.  Further study of the effects of hydraulic fracturing on underground sources of drinking water should be conducted. (Phase II of the EPA study)

2. EPA should establish regulations for hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

3. Hydraulic fracturing should not be exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

4. Until they can be proven safe, all potentially toxic substances should be liminated from fracturing fluids.

5.  Public accountability mechanisms should be put in place.

This article drew heavily from Propublica articles, and  a Drinking Water at Risk.  A study performed by the Oil and Gas Accountability Project of Earthsworksaction.org

Jib Jab is always amusing.

Kate’s Caring Gifts is having a 50% clearance sale on a whole bunch of their Earth Friendly toys, body care, and more,