Earth Friendly Shopping

How often do we have to say it?  Mother nature bats last.

When we try to control mother nature, mother nature adapts.  And yet it seems as though we learn nothing.  Our latest case in point: Roundup resistant superweeds.

Roundup — originally made by Monsanto but now also sold by others under the generic name glyphosate — has been little short of a miracle chemical for farmers. It kills a broad spectrum of weeds, is easy and safe to work with, and breaks down quickly, reducing its environmental impact.

Sales took off in the late 1990s, after Monsanto created its brand of Roundup Ready crops that were genetically modified to tolerate the chemical, allowing farmers to spray their fields to kill the weeds while leaving the crop unharmed. Today, Roundup Ready crops account for about 90 percent of the soybeans and 70 percent of the corn and cotton grown in the United States.

But farmers sprayed so much Roundup that weeds quickly evolved to survive it. “What we’re talking about here is Darwinian evolution in fast-forward,” Mike Owen, a weed scientist at Iowa State University, said.

Now, Roundup-resistant weeds like horseweed and giant ragweed are forcing farmers to go back to more expensive techniques that they had long ago abandoned.

While mainstream media, such as The NY Times, may just be awakening to the issue of Roundup Resistant weeds, it is a problem that has been growing for 10 years.  Even Monsanto acknowledges that there have been herbicide resistant plants since the 1950s.   On the Monsanto blog,  Mica suggests that we go to the International Survey of Herbicide-Resistant Weeds,  so I did, and I found this graph

Now, maybe some of you find this graph reassuring, but it makes me say HOLY SH*T this problem is exploding!  Worse, the way our industrial farms have responded to the increasing resistance of weeds has been to use ever increasing amounts of herbicides.

“The basic finding is that compared to pesticide use in the absence of GE crops, farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides over the last 13 years as a result of planting GE seeds. This difference represents an average increase of about 0.25 pound for each acre planted to a GE trait. GE crops are pushing pesticide use upward at a rapidly accelerating pace. In 2008, GE crop acres required over 26% more pounds of pesticides per acre than acres planted to conventional varieties. The report projects that this trend will continue as a result of the rapid spread of glyphosate-resistant weeds” ^[1]. “‘This report confirms what we’ve been saying for years,’ said Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety. ‘The most common type of genetically engineered crops promotes increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of resistant weeds, and more chemical residues in our foods. This may be profitable for the biotech/pesticide companies, but it’s bad news for farmers, human health and the environment’

It is doubly bad news because of the way Roundup Ready Genetically Engineered crops have changed the way that glyphosate (Roundup) is used.  Originally, Roundup and other herbicides were applied to soil before the planting of crops.  Now, glyphosate is applied directly TO the crops, where it can be absorbed and become part of the food we eat.

To date, almost no study has been done of the effect of low level, continuous exposure of glyphosate to human health.

Action Alert:  The Union of concerned scientists is asking that we sign a petition to oppose the building of additional dirty coal plants

Here is some background on why this is important.

Right now, there are plans in place to build up to 150 new coal fired electricity plants in the United States by 2030.  While these plants will emit only a tiny fraction of the sulfur dioxide, mercury, and nitrogen oxides of older style plants, they emit only 15 percent less CO2,  mostly through increased efficiency.  None of these plants are designed to capture CO2, or easy to retrofit as carbon capture technologies improve. Burning coal for electricity produces 32% of the CO2 emmitted in the U.S.  If these new plants are all built, the US will be increasing the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere  no matter what else we do.  From Architecture 2030

If every household in the US changed a 60-watt incandescent light bulb to a compact fluorescent… The CO2 emissions from just two medium-sized coal-fired power plants each year would negate this entire effort.

That is JUST ONE PLANT  - and we are talking about 150!

CO2 is one of the main greenhouse gases responsible for global warming.  While a lot has been written on global warming and the potentially devastating  effects, every new piece of news tells us it is worse than we thought.  Scientific American reports on some recent research done by geologist Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University and a consortium of colleagues. The team analyzed 14 sediment cores from arctic lakes and compared the results with ice cores and tree rings.

In warm summers, relatively more sediment is deposited thanks to from the glaciers that create these lakes, and the abundance of algae in the sediment layers reveals the length of growing seasons. So, these sediment cores provide a picture of the climate that goes back millennia.

Combining this analysis with tree ring and ice core studies done previously, yields a fairly detailed climate history.   The result?  There has been a 2000 year cooling trend due to variations in the Earth’s orbit.

As the Earth has moved slightly further away from the sun due to vagaries in its orbit—it’s roughly 600,000 miles further away now than in 1 C.E.—some parts of the Arctic received as much as 6 watts per meter squared less sunlight than in 1 C.E. That, in turn, has led to a cooling rate of roughly 0.2 degrees Celsius per 1,000 years. But at some point in the 20th century, that trend stopped and reversed…. In the past decade, summertime Arctic temperatures have been 1.4 degrees Celsius higher on average than would be expected and 1.2 degrees Celsius higher than in 1900. And the Arctic is merely the trendsetter—the northern-most latitudes are among the fastest-warming parts of the globe due to various feedbacks. For example, melting Arctic sea ice exposes more ocean, which in turn absorbs more of the sunlight’s warmth and further increases warming… (the) cooling trend wouldn’t have reversed naturally for at least another 4,000 years. Yet, despite this decline, Arctic temperatures have soared and the most likely culprit is the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning, forest clearing and other human activity, Kaufmann and his colleagues wrote.

OK – So here is where we are at.  Solar activity (and yes, that includes sunspots) should be taking us cooler.  Instead we are warming at an ever increasing rate. How bad is the warming?

“The most recent 10-year interval (1999–2008) was the warmest of the past 200 decades,” they wrote. “Temperatures were about 1.4 degrees C higher than the projected values based on the linear cooling trend and were even more anomalous than previously documented.”

And this warming can have catastrophic consequences.  According to a recent report by the WWF delivered at the World Climate Conference-3, hosted by the World Meteorological Organization.

The combination of thawing Arctic sea ice and melting ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica is likely to raise global sea levels by about 1.2 meters (four feet) by 2100, more than previously thought, the report warns. “The associated flooding of coastal regions will affect more than a quarter of the world’s population,” the WWF said.

How bad is the arctic warming?  For the first time in history, commercial frieght ships have taken the NorthEast Passage,  the Arctic Sea route, from Norway all the way to Korea.

“It is global warming that enables us to think about using that route,” Verena Beckhusen, a spokeswoman for the shipping company, the Beluga Group of Bremen, Germany, said in a telephone interview.

So, in light of all this, why are we building over 150 new coal fired electric plants?

Ultimately, the reason for the “coal rush” going on in the midwest is economic.

Utility executives say that the coal expansion is needed to meet rising electricity demand as the U.S. population and economy grow. Coal-fired plants provide half the electricity supply in the country.

“A lot of congressmen ask me, ‘Dave, why are you building that coal plant?’ ” says MidAmerican’s Sokol. “And I say, ‘What are my options?’ “

Coal is an attractive option, because the US has at supply of Coal that will last for at least 100 years:

“There is probably sufficient coal to meet the nation’s needs for more than 100 years at current rates of consumption,” the study said. “However, it is not possible to confirm the often-quoted assertion that there is a sufficient supply of coal for the next 250 years.”

And the scale of these new plants can be huge

The new $1.1 billion MidAmerican facility will be one of the nation’s biggest, with 790 megawatts of capacity. Its boilers and pulverizers will devour 400 tons of coal every hour, 3.5 million tons a year, Sokol says. Combined with an existing plant next door, it will require a fresh train of coal every 16 to 17 hours; each train will be nearly 1.5 miles long and lug 135 cars about 650 miles from Wyoming’s Powder River Basin.

Aside from the environmental damage done by the mining of this much coal,  these new firing up these plants will add a lot of carbon to the atmosphere, significantly worsening global warming.

As the power executive asks, “What are the options?”

Option 1 – Conservation and efficiency.  Among other things, it has been estimated that 5% of all electricity is wated by vampire electronics.

Option 2-  Renewables  -  Currently, less than 10% of electrical generation comes from renewable sources, and the bulk of that is hydroelectric.  Less than 2% comes from wind and solar.  Clearly. we can do a lot more.   Can we meet Al Gore’s challenge to meet 100% of our electricity generation from renewables by 2018,  not at the rate we are going, but we can do a lot more.

Option 3 Nuclear – Many people think nuclear power is an option, but safety concerns alone mean that nuclear should not be an option, and that leaves…

Option 4 –  Coal – Given the economics of energy today, it is almost certain that coal will play a major role in electricity generation for some time to come.

”The notion is that the sooner we wean ourselves off fossil fuels, the sooner we’ll be able to tackle the climate problem,” said Sally Benson, executive director of the Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) and professor of energy resources engineering. ”But the idea that we can take fossil fuels out of the mix very quickly is unrealistic. We’re reliant on fossil fuels, and a good pathway is to find ways to use them that don’t create a problem for the climate.”

For coal, it seems one of the best possible paths is Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS),  also referred to as sequestration,   CCS involves

capturing the CO₂ from coal-fired power plants, compressing it into a liquid and injecting it deep beneath the earth into old oil fields or saline aquifers. There, according to geologists, the CO₂ would be trapped by sealing cap rock to prevent it from seeping back to the surface and into the air.

But there are numerous problems with CCS.  Even the strongest supporters acknowledge that the technology is still young, and that there are many unanswered questions.  For example, from the Union of Concerned Scientists

For CCS to play a major role in reducing CO2  emissions, an enormous new infrastructure must be constructed to capture, process, and transport large quantities of CO2. And although CCS has been the subject of considerable research and analysis, it has yet to be demonstrated in the form of commercial-scale, fully integrated projects at coal-fired power plants.

Such demonstration projects are needed to determine the relative cost-effectiveness of CCS compared with other carbon-reducing strategies, and to assess its environmental safety—particularly at the very large scale of deployment needed for CCS to contribute significantly to the fight against global warming.

Among the questions needed to be resolved before CCS can be implemented on a wide scale:

1.  What are the best techniques for capturing the carbon?  There are several promising technologies for carbon storage, but none have been used on a commercial scale.  Will they work on that scale? What will the cost be?

2. Can the Carbon be transported large distances to storage sites safely, and economically?  Again, what is the cost?

3.  Will long term underground storage of carbon work, or will there be leaks?

One of the most promising new technologies is integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC).  In this technology, coal is transformed into gas.  The solid waste is seperated and stored.  The gas powers a turbine, and the excess gas fires a steam generator.

It is very promising, but these technologies are  not proven on a commercial scale.

What we need is to do the following

1. Stop the construction of dirty coal plants

2. Expedite research on the new clean coal technologies.  Build commercial sized pilot plants

3. Once we have settled on technologies that work, we can expedite the building of new plants.

This was one of the scenarios laid out by McKinsey in their report  Carbon Capture and Storage, Assessing the Economics.

Time is running shorter.  We need to act soon, if we are going to have a chance to prevent the potential catastrophies we face.  Sign the petition, please.

Since we started this blog, and well before, we have been urging readers to reduce the use of plastics.   There are multiple problems with plastic.  From health problems from BPA and Pthalates  leeching in to our water and drinks,  to the great plastic patch in our oceans, the impact of plastics on our environment is profound.

Now, Scientific American has reported on a compilation of articles detailing the effects of plastic on our environment.

The problem as they point out, is huge

“One of the most ubiquitous and long-lasting recent changes to the surface of our planet is the accumulation and fragmentation of plastics,” wrote David Barnes, a lead author and researcher for the British Antarctic Survey. The report was published this month in a theme issue of Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B, a scientific journal.

Next year, more than 300 million tons will be produced worldwide. The amount of plastic manufactured in the first ten years of this century will approach the total produced in the entire last century, according to the report.

The article lists a series of health and environment problems coming from our reliance on plastics.  Here are just a few of the highlights:

Chemicals added to plastics are absorbed by human bodies. Some of these compounds have been found to alter hormones or have other potential human health effects.

Phthalates are used as plasticizers in the manufacture of vinyl flooring and wall coverings, food packaging and medical devices. Eight out of every ten babies, and nearly all adults, have measurable levels of phthalates in their bodies.

In addition, bisphenol A (BPA), found in polycarbonate bottles and the linings of food and beverage cans, can leach into food and drinks. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that 93 percent of people had detectable levels of BPA in their urine.

One of the key problems with plastic is the disconnect between the properties of plastic, and how we use it.   Most plastics are exceptionally long lasting, there are estimates that plastic materials last between 400 and 1000 years,  yet between 1/3 and a 1/2 of all plastic produced is used in disposable, single use applications.   Ah, but what about recycling?  Less than 5% of the world’s plastic is recycled. So what about the other 96%?  It ends up in landfills, or even worse, as litter or in  the oceans.

In the short term, there is no way we can completely eliminate plastic from our economy or our lives. Plastic is simply too ubiquitous.

But we can, and we have to, reduce its use, and reduce the impact it has on the enviroment.  There are several aspects to this effort.  We can make a good start by following the basic environmental editcts:  Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

1.  Reduce.  Let’s taken every opportunity we can to reduce the amount of plastic in our lives. Rather than buying plastic water bottles, buy reusable stainless steel water bottles, and use them.   Bring a canvas bag to the super market. Look for ways, every day to lower your use of plastic.

2. Reuse.  Let’s face it.  Even with the best of intentions, sometimes you end up with plastic bags.  If you have to use a plastic bag, look for ways to reuse them.  We  love the Ridley, and put used plastic bags into ours, and keep it in the car.  Look for creative ways to reuse.  For example, almost all bread comes in plastic bags.  After the bread is done, the bag is almost clean and ready to use.  We bring them to the supermarket or farmers market for vegetables, rather than using new bags.

3. Recycle – Do everything you can to keep plastic out of the landfills, and out of the ocean.  Recycle everything you can.  Part or recycling successfully is to be vigilant about the type of plastic you get, and look for the most recyclable plastic in all your purchases.  Part is to insist to manufacturers that they need to consider the entire life cycle of their products, from manufacture to disposal

There is hard work here.  We have to be constantly looking, constantly vigilant, and always improving.  But future generations demand that we do nothing less

OK  – I gotta admit that this is one post I NEVER expected to write – I certainly never thought I would write that headline

I am from NY, now living in California. If I ever thought about Cleveland at all,  which wasn’t often,  it was simply to dismiss Cleveland as a dirty, old style industrial city.  The worst of the rust belt.

But today, I got an email from Positively Cleveland, and it sounds like things are starting to change.

Consider the starting date, 40 years ago.  In 1969, the Cayuga River was so polluted, that it actually caught fire.  This dramatic event led to the Clean Water Act.  Although there is still work to be done,  our nation’s rivers and lakes are cleaner than they were 40 years ago.  Of that there is no doubt

At the same time,  individual cities, counties, and states have been working to improve the quality of the environment and to reduce their impact.  Chicago has a Climate Change Plan

And now, the Cleveland Visitors and Convention Center has published this list of 75 green things to love about Cleveland.

Here are a couple

6. For business or pleasure. The new RTA HealthLine, opened in October of 2008, connects downtown Cleveland’s Public Square to the arts, culture, education and hospitals of University Circle. The bus line utilizes 21 hybrid-electric vehicles powered by clean diesel engines and electric transmissions with 100 kW motors and 600-volt nickel hydride battery packs. This unique power train reduces particulate emissions while dramatically improving fuel efficiency. (http://www.rtahealthline.com/)

7. Ticket to ride. In conjunction with the new bus line, Euclid Avenue was completely re-done including the planting of 1,500 trees and the addition of dedicated bike lanes providing commuters another green alternative to driving.

8. The power of wind and sun. The Great Lakes Science Center installed solar panels to go along with the first Cleveland lakefront wind turbine, becoming the fourth largest producer of alternative energy in the state. The solar panels and wind turbine bring about greater public awareness of renewable energy and educate visitors to the Science Center of the benefits of alternative energy to this region (http://www.greatscience.com/)

We say Bravo Cleveland

When you are running a green business, you never know what the next challenge you will be facing next.  Some are expected:  Finding green suppliers, customer service issues, choosing packaging and shipping,  managing cash flow, etc.

Most of these are pretty much expected.  Some are just part of running any business, green or not.  Others are specific to green businessesm but still pretty much what we would expect.

Then, every so often one hits us from out of nowhere.  This is one of those.  Our business, Kate’s Caring Gifts is a certified Alameda County Green Business.    Last fall, our certification was up for renewal, and that’s when the fun began.

The first step is that they audit our practices.  In our case, it was fairly simple.  We recycle almost everything.  We use recycled packaging every time we can, we have almost no waste, one toilet and one sink.  We don’t have an air conditioner or a furnance in the warehouse.

But, there was one area where we did not pass the audit.  The new requirement for green businesses is that all T-12  style florescent lamps be replaced with more efficient T-8 lamps.  Some estimates are that t8s are up to 40% more efficient

The numbers in T-12 and T-8 refer to the diameter of the tubular lamp, measured in 1/8ths of an inch.  So  a T12 lamp is 1.5 Inches in diameter (12/8) and a T8 is 1 Inch (8/8).  T8 lamps are more efficient,  produce more light for the same or less electricity, and contain less mercury.

Part of the efficiency of T8 lamps is that they use an electronic ballast (transoformer) rather than the magnetic ballast  used by T12 lamps.  That means that you can’t just put a T8 lamp into a T12 fixture.  The lights will flicker very badly.

That means that either the old ballast needs to be removed from the fixture and replaced, or the entire fixture has to be replaced.   We have 10 light fixtures.  8 of them are 17 feet up in the air. The other two are accessible using small ladders.

We called some electricians, and couldn’t find anyone who was even interested enough to come out and give us an estimate.   So, we decided to do it ourselves.

Our first thought was that it would be cheaper and more efficient to change out the ballasts. I figured I would give it a shot on our two accessible fixtures.  So, I went down to the local electrical supply store, and asked for a T8 ballast and lamps that would fit into my T12 fixture.  The Ballast alone was $150.  YIIKES!    Still, I got one,  took apart an old fixture and tried to install it.  The only word I can use for the result was FAIL.  The electronic ballast has a completely different wiring from the magnetic ballast, and when all was said and done, the light didn’t come on.

So, we were back to square one.   I decided to pay a visit to the local Home Depot, and there were complete T8 fixtures for $47.  These fixtures used two 4 foot T8 lamps end to end in place of one 8 foot t12 lamps, but otherwise were the same footprint as our old fixture.

We got a couple,  and installed them successfully in the accessible area.  HUZAH!  So now, it was how to get them installed in our 17 foot ceiling.  One thing was clear, I was NOT going up on a ladder.  I checked into scaffolding, then my neighbor suggested we get a scissor lift from Sunstate Equipment rental (located right down the street from us)

OK  – Now we had to move all our inventory and shelving so that we could put the scissor lift into the right places, and we were off!

Sunstate delivered at 7:00 AM and we were off – We took down an old fixture, put up a new one, tested, and moved on.   Here are a few pictures of us at work.    (sorry about the quality – it was dark, and I had to push the exposure)

So now we just need to put the shelves back where they were, and we are done – The whole project took about 6 months

In January, we wrote about the risks to our water supply from Hydraulic Fracture, the process in which

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.

The key problem is that the fracture fluids contain a mix of toxic chemicals that seep into underground water supplies.  Hydraulic fracture has been completely unregulated due to a 2o05 law.  But that might change

Democratic Reps. Diana DeGette of Colorado and Maurice Hinchey of New York plan to reintroduce a bill that would repeal a ban on regulating the process, called hydraulic fracturing, under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

The industry is (as you would expect) squealing like stuck  pigs and ramping up the lobbying effort.

Here’s hoping that they get the law through

Reported in Scientific American,  a London startup called  Solar Botanic, wants to create artificial trees that harvest light, heat, and wind to create electricity.

The goal is to mimic nature, to create power generating trees that can be placed near homes and businesses,   reducing the need for long power lines and transmission grids.  At the same time, these “trees” can blend into existing landscapes

Copying Nature's design

In this biomimicry concept our trees are fitted with Nanoleaves, a combination of Nano photovoltaic- Nanothermovoltaic and Nanopiezo generators converting light, heat and wind energy into green electricity.

Our Nanoleaves convert the complete solar spectrum converting visible light, infrared and UV in combination with piezo electric generators that convert wind energy into electricity providing you with efficient, cost effective and aesthetic solutions, providing maximum electric power. The area of combined photothermovoltaic with piezovoltaic is concerned primarily with converting sunlight and wind energy into electricity. This task is accomplished through the use of natures design, artificial trees shrubs, plants and flowers all equipped with nanoleaf technology PV cells.

The plan has critics – First of all, it is unclear if the leaves can be created efficiently enough, there are technological hurdles to overcome.

For one, could solar and thermoelectrics really work together on a single leaf blade? Joseph Heremans, a professor of mechanical engineering and physics at The Ohio State University in Columbus, says that’s “spatially problematic, to say the least.” Van der Beek recognizes this as probably the chief remaining engineering hurdle, saying “We do have to find a symbiosis between these materials [photovoltaics and thermoelectrics]…. They can’t get in each other’s way.”

Then there’s the efficiency of green solar panels: “If Mother Nature wanted photosynthesis to be efficient, she would have made leaves black,” Woodhouse says. Black materials absorb all of the sun’s visible light, explaining why solar panel makers opt for pitch rather than designer colors. Van der Beek concedes Solar Botanic may have to settle for a dark shade of green, but he believes that ever-improving photovoltaics will make energy generation that sacrifices some reflected green wavelengths economical.

And it is unclear how much the thermoelectric component of the trees will contribute, Heremans says. The temperatures required for real thermoelectric power generation in those environments vastly exceeds the heat that green leaves in the sun normally experience. “I don’t see [nanoleaves] working with small temperature gradients,” he says. “The second law of thermodynamics tells you that small gradients equal poor efficiency.” Van der Beek acknowledges that this third component would contribute the least to the overall energy equation.

Enter our drawing and win this amazing set of Earth Friendly Cleaning Products from Better Life.

These products are GREAT – They are effective, and even better they really are Earth Friendly.   A lot of people are calling themselves “Green” these days, and we are always on the lookout for greenwashing, but we’re convinced that Better Life is the real deal.

Better Life is giving away four bottles of cleaner – Even the Kitchen Sink, What- EVER,   I Can See Clearly WOW, and Simply FLOORED.  More details on these great products after the details on the drawing!

How to Enter the Drawing

Visit Better Life’s Website then come back here and leave a comment telling us which product you are most interested in, and why.  To gain entry in the contest you MUST answer this question.

Each of the following will earn you an extra entry in the giveaway

• Linking to this blog from your blog or website. Be sure to leave a comment telling me you have done this
• Posting a Message about this giveaway with a link back on Twitter. Make sure you leave a link to the Twitter message in your comment.  You can do this ONCE EACH DAY.
• Blogging about the giveaway on your blog.
• Following me on Twitter (LeeAmon) Please make sure to leave your Twitter name in the comment.

The giveaway runs through April 30, 2009 11:59PM Pacific Time.  Open to residents of the United States and Canada only.  The winner will be chosen randomly, using Random.org.

I will contact the winner by Email only, so you must provide a valid Email address to win. (see privacy statement at the bottom of this post)  The winner will have 48 hours to respond with their complete mailing address.  If the winner does not respond in 48 hours, a new winner will be chosen.

Products included in this giveaway are:

Even the Kitchen Sink - This naturally powerful gentle cleaning scrubber works wonders on tubs, tile and grout, toilet bowls, shower doors, stovetops, glass cooktops , stainless steel sinks, porcelain, ceramic, enamel, stone, cultured marble, non-polished solid countertops, and laminate. If concerned, test in an inconspicuous area first.

what-EVER (Scent free only) Use this safe cleaner on any washable non-porous surface, including: countertops, appliances, sinks, toilets, baseboards, walls, floors, tables, chairs, showers and tubs

I can see clearly WOW! I Can See Clearly, WOW!™ glass cleaner is solvent-free (no ammonia, alcohol, or ethers) and pH neutral, so it’s safe to use on acrylic and tinted/treated windows and glass.

Simply Floored. Spill some wine. Go “oops” with your soup. What’ll drop most is your jaw, because Simply Floored!™ will do a shiny number on tile, wood, stone, laminate, linoleum and even cement. It’s a cleaner, not a wax, so no worries about waxy build-up on your floor (or feet, for that matter).

Privacy Policy – We absolutely respect your privacy!  We will not sell, share, rent, exchange, or loan your address to anyone.  Our parent company (Kate’s Caring Gifts) will add you to their mailing list.  Kate’s Caring Gifts sends about 1 email each month.  You may unsubscribe at any time.

Conventional cotton agriculture is among the most pesticide intensive farming done in the world.  According to the World Wildlife Fund,  cotton agriculture accounts for 11% of all pesticides used, and 25% of all insecticides, even though cotton accounts for 2.4% of the worlds arable land.

These toxic chemicals are hazardous to workers,  foul drinking water through runoff, and poison migratory animals. Residue form these chemicals on cotton can cause alergic reactions.

This is why we strongly recommend organic cotton products, particularly for babies.   The Wynken organic cotton baby sleeper from    Castleware is available at Kate’s Caring Gifts for $29.95.   It is soft, luxurious, and made from 100% certificed organic cotton and low impact dyes.  Available in Pink,  Blue and chocolate, and made in the US

Kate’s Caring Gifts has a wide range of organic and natural baby care products, accessories and clothes.