Author: mul379

All of the green initiatives and products I’ve explored this past semester are great ways to help save the planet and make our Earth a cleaner, better place. But unfortunately, there are a lot of reasons why these solutions aren’t as effective as they could be. There are many, many roadblocks in the way of everyday citizens that keep them from being green.

A lot of the problems facing the environment today are humongous. Some of these large-scale problems include climate change, massive extinctions, and ocean acidification. Others include the Pacific Garbage Patch, greenhouse gas emissions, and landfills. Because of how large these problems are, everyday people don’t know where to start. Each person plays such a small role as well that unless there’s a massive movement of people working to save the environment, it’s likely that, for example, the recycling habits of one person won’t have much of an effect on the amount of plastic that ends up in the ocean or the amount of plastic bags that sit in landfills. Because of this, larger companies, which impact the environment way more than the average citizen, should be the ones taking initiative to improve the environmental condition. A report by The Guardian has shown that over 70% of global greenhouse gas emissions have come from only 100 companies. Shouldn’t it be primarily their responsibility then?

Image by BBC News

As consumers, it’s incredibly difficult to see the impact that our purchasing choices can have on the environment. First of all, the majority of the things we buy are made out of plastic that required a lot of energy to produce and transport. Eventually, the plastic object we’re purchasing will probably end up in a landfill. The first thing that came to my mind when I though of this was plastic deck furniture. The furniture serves its purpose for a while until it gets accidentally left outside during a tropical storm and loses a leg. There’s no initiative about recycling patio furniture, so that massive piece of plastic just goes into the trash.

The world we live in also encourages busyness. Many adults work all day long and then come home to take care of their families. College students spend their days running from one class and one meeting to the next. They spend their nights pounding out homework and finally taking a moment for themselves to relax a bit before the next day. All of this busyness and stress leaves very little head space and time to care about something like the environment. There are so many other things occupying our time that we forget about the environment.

Convenience plays a large factor too. Because of our busy nature, we don’t have the time to consider the environment and will therefore opt for the easiest way of life. A very practical example of this is single-use products. Many will opt for disposable coffee cups as opposed to bringing a travel mug because they won’t have to carry it around all day long and won’t have to wash it when they get home. This is also a common excuse for not recycling. I’m guilty of this too. Sometimes I just don’t feel like putting in the extra effort to carry my disposable water bottle or food container to the recycling station. This is evident in a lot of college students too who chose not to take advantage of the benefits, both environmental and personal, of the Green2Go program on campus. As a result, there’s a lot of Styrofoam takeout containers that end up in the trash.

Income has a major role in how involved people can be in saving the planet as well. Low income areas have a harder time going green as explored in a Grist article. This article focuses on the struggle that citizens in low-income communities of Detroit have in regards to going green with light energy. 130 stores in Wayne County, Michigan were surveyed to compare the prices of LED and incandescent lightbulbs. It was found that in wealthier areas, an incandescent bulb cost $2.10 while an LED cost $5.20. In the poorer areas of the county, an incandescent bulb cost $1.63 each while LEDs cost $7.87. Even though having these more energy efficient light bulbs would benefit the poorer community immensely and enable them to participate in the green movement, people in poor communities will probably opt for the cheaper incandescent bulb without any thought. Survival is of the utmost importance, not saving the environment.

Image by Swalco

Taking part in the green movement to save the environment is definitely a challenge that will require us to inconvenience ourselves a little bit. But ultimately, it’ll be worth it if it means we can save this planet for future generations. I know that you might not feel like recycling that bottle or going out of your way to drink coffee out of a reusable mug. But trust me. You won’t regret it.

 

The automobile has its origins in Germany and France in the late 1800s thanks to the inventors Gottlieb Daimler, Emile Levassor, Karl Benz, and Nicolaus Otto. During the beginning of the 1900s, Europe’s automobile market was much more advanced than that of America. The first modern motorcar is thought to be the European 1901 Mercedes. In America, the automobile industry began growing with the first American gasoline automobile being invented in 1893 and the first sale being made in 1896. 1899 brought the production of 2500 cars. In 1908, Henry Ford entered the scene with the introduction of the Model T, which sold for $825. As the years passed, the industry really grew and by the 1920s, three major car companies emerged: Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler. Specifically in regards to Ford, the Model T was withdrawn from production in 1927, and at that point, 15 million units had been sold, each at a price of $290. The automobile was made very accessible to the average American very quickly, and for this reason, America quickly passed Europe in terms of advancement and growth in the industry. Over the course of the following years, the industry changed, adapted, and progressed into the modern industry we know today.

Photo by Wikipedia

It’s incredible how cars have enabled us to get from place to place in such a short period of time. However, cars fueled by gasoline take a tremendous toll on the environment. A lot of energy is required to make the materials used to build cars: steel, rubber, glass, plastics, paints, etc. This alone has a large impact on the environment. But, the majority of the car’s environmental impact, estimated at about 80-90% is a result of fuel consumption and emissions of pollutants into the atmosphere. In regards to air quality, about one-third of all U.S. air pollution is a result of gasoline-powered vehicles. The main fuel source is petroleum, and the removal of this fuel from the earth requires a lot of energy and can harm neighboring ecosystems. The petroleum then needs to be shipped, which requires a lot of energy, and occasionally, oil spills occur. These spills have a tremendous effect on marine life. Many animals mistake the mixture of oil and water for food and consume it, which produces fatal toxins in their bodies. The oil can also cause many deaths as a result of the breaking down of fur and feathers.

It’s hard to determine exactly when the first electric car came out because of how many developments were occurring in the 1800s. In the United States, the first electric car was made in 1890 by William Morisson. It could hold six passengers but could only go a maximum speed of 14 miles per hour. By 1900, electric cars were quite developed and about one third of all vehicles on the road at that time were electric cars. This trend continued for the next ten years. The reason that electric cars were so popular during this time was because they were much easier to drive than cars powered by gasoline. It was also easy to charge them because of how electricity was becoming more accessible. When the Model T came out, it presented some serious competition to the electric car because of its affordable price of $650 compared to $1750 for the electric car. Over the next few decades, electric cars lost popularity because of how affordable gasoline was. As environmental awareness has increased and our oil reserves have shrunk, the electric car has gained popularity in recent years. Electric cars comprise about three percent of current car sales and are expected to grow to close to seven percent by 2020.

Photo by Wharton University of Pennsylvania

Because electric cars run on electricity, they don’t have a tailpipe and therefore don’t emit any gas emissions, making them much more environmentally friendly. However, energy is required to produce the electricity that the cars utilize. It’s estimated that “all-electric vehicles emit an average of around 4450 pounds of CO₂ equivalent each year”. Gasoline-powered cars emit over twice as much annually. The majority of electricity produced is done so by the burning of natural gas and fossil fuels. Natural gas is primarily used because it’s considered the “cleanest” fossil fuel, producing 50 to 60 percent fewer CO₂ emissions than coal. So, it’s likely that electric cars have fewer emissions than gasoline cars.

It’s definitely clear that electric cars are better for the environment. But, because of the small percentage of all vehicles that they make up, they aren’t as effective as they could be in reducing gas emissions.

 

Photo by 500eco

Here on campus, it’s extremely easy to find something to eat. There are endless food options at the dining commons, in the convenience stores, and in the HUB. To make eating even more convenient, the majority of these places offer meals to go; students can go into the buffet and take their food out to eat anywhere and anytime they want. This is especially advantageous for multiple reasons. If students don’t finish their meal, they can save it and eat it for breakfast for example. They can also eat with friends who don’t have campus meal plans. As great as this program is, it has one major downfall: the to-go boxes are made entirely out of Styrofoam.

Styrofoam was invented during the second World War by Dow Chemical Company. Ray McIntire was the head of this project, and he actually said that he invented it by accident. His intention was to find a flexible electrical insulator. Polystyrene worked, but it was too brittle. In one of his attempts, he ended up with a foam polystyrene with bubble, and it was 30 times lighter than the regular polystyrene. Polystyrene itself is a petroleum-based plastic. Styrofoam also goes by the name expanded polystyrene (EPS) or extruded polystyrene (XPS). It’s composed of about 95% air, which enables its widespread use in the foodservice, food packaging, roadway, and automobile industries.

Styrofoam is especially good in the foodservice industry because this packaging insulates better, keeps food fresher for longer periods of time, and costs less than other alternatives. Styrofoam packaging costs up to five times less than paper or reusable counterparts. This is because it requires extra equipment, labor, water, and energy resources. All of these reasons combined is why Styrofoam is used so much in the food industry.

As great and effective as Styrofoam is, it’s extremely bad for the environment. It’s estimated that Styrofoam is the fifth largest source of harmful waste in the United States. Because of how light Styrofoam is, it’d cost a lot to transport to a recycling plant, so it’s not usually recycled. Many recycling companies won’t even accept Styrofoam products. It takes polystyrene at least five hundred years to decompose. Additionally, it’s the main pollutant of water sources and can pose a serious threat to marine and wildlife. This is primarily because Styrofoam floats and can therefore accumulate quickly in the waterways.

In the production of Styrofoam, a lot of air pollution occurs as a result of the release of harmful chemicals. It’s been found that 57 chemical byproducts are released during the production of Styrofoam. Additionally, a lot of liquid and solid toxic waste is produced, waste that needs to be disposed of in a specific manner. Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) are used in Styrofoam production as well, and these chemicals negatively affect the ozone layer and climate change.

Penn State, a school striving to constantly innovate and progress, still uses this harmful Styrofoam. But, in recent years, the school has made efforts to reduce the amount of Styrofoam it consumes. Enter the Green2Go program. In this program, Styrofoam containers are replaced with a dishwasher and microwave-safe reusable takeout container. Here’s how it works.

Students start by paying a $5 deposit to a cashier at any of the dining commons. The cashier will give the student a Green2Go box, which the student fills with food and takes wherever they want. The student can keep the container until he or she wants to purchase carryout again. Or, if the student doesn’t want to hang onto the container, the container can be exchanged for a carabineer clip. The next time the student wants to get food to go, all they have to do is present the cashier with the clip and they’ll get a box in return. If students decide that the program isn’t working for them, they simply return the clip and ask for a refund.

Photo by Penn State News

Annually, Penn State University Park alone uses 495,000 Styrofoam containers which all end up in landfills very soon after use. With Green2Go, the landfill isn’t even a possible answer because of how many times the container can be reused. The program therefore results in less Styrofoam polluting the environment. There are resources that are required for the production of the Green2Go containers. However, because of their durability and ability to be used for hundreds of meals, any potential environmental effect is far outweighed. The Green2Go program truly is extremely beneficial to the environment. What many might not know is that it’s beneficial to the student too.

When I first came to campus, I’d never heard of Green2Go, but I decided to give it a shot anyway. I was a little confused about how it worked at first, but I got the hang of it very quickly. One thing the university doesn’t advertise is the Green2Go punch card. Every time I use a Green2Go container, I get a punch on my punch card. After I get nine punches on the card, I can then use that card to get a free meal at any dining commons! So, I try to utilize this program as much as I can. At Redifer Commons, there’s always the option of getting one of the a la carte food choices, and if you’re eating in the commons, you’ll get your food on a plate. But, you can also just get your food in a to go box, Green2Go of course, and still eat in the commons. The difference here is that you get more punches on your card. We’re only about six or seven weeks into the semester, and I’ve already got about three punch cards filled up! That’s three free meals right there!

If you’ve been hesitant to try Green2Go or just haven’t felt like it, I highly encourage you to! You can save the environment and save money at the same time!

Photo by costellosace.com

Many think that the incandescent light bulb originated with Thomas Edison, which it did legally with a patent in 1879. But, the quest for electrical light began back in 1835 when British scientists first demonstrated constant electric light. These inventors tinkered with and modified these early light bulbs, trying to make them last longer and use less energy. Even though the idea for a light bulb didn’t originate with him, Thomas Edison was the one who successfully created the first electric light bulb that met these qualifications and therefore made its way into the homes of everyday citizens. Over the years, other inventors continued modifying the light bulb: They improved the manufacturing of its filaments and its efficiency. In 1904, European inventors found that a tungsten filament in the bulb caused it to last longer and resulted in a brighter light than the traditional carbon filament bulbs provided. 1913 brought the discovery that filling the bulb with an inert gas doubled its efficiency. While these were all groundbreaking inventions, the problem still remained that about 10% of the energy coursing through the light bulb was actually turned into light.

One solution that had potential and that is quite prevalent today is fluorescent lighting. Fluorescent lighting research really took off in the 1920s and 30s with experiments with phosphor-coated neon tubes. It was found that these lights, after development, lasted longer and were roughly three times more efficient than the conventional incandescent bulbs. By the 1950s, fluorescent light had become quite popular in war plants, and it wasn’t until the late 1970s that the CFL, compact fluorescent light, was developed. Currently, these lights use about 75% less energy than incandescent light bulbs and last about 10 times longer.

Today, the focus has shifted off of CFLs and onto LED (light-emitting diode) bulbs. These lights utilize semiconductors that convert electricity into light. They’re currently the most efficient lights on the market despite their being less efficient than incandescent bulbs at the start.

Currently, CFLs and LEDs are for sale, but incandescent light bulbs were phased out about five to seven years ago in accordance with a Congressional law passed in 2007. They can no longer be manufactured in the United States because they don’t meet energy efficiency standards.

In comparing all three types of light bulbs (some consumers still choose to use incandescent light bulbs if they can find them), the LEDs are the best option all around with a life span of 50,000 hours. The life span of an incandescent bulb is 1000 hours and that of a CFL is 6000 hours. Lumens are a measure of how much light is emitted while wattage is a measure of how much energy is required to do so. Incandescent bulbs emit 400 lumens and require 40 watts, CFLs emit 320 lumens and require 9 watts, and LEDs emit 300 lumens and require 6 watts. The reason that incandescent bulbs are so energy inefficient in comparison to the other two types is because much of the energy put into the bulb is released as heat instead of light. A lower energy requirement is better for the environment because it enables us to conserve our resources. It also saves consumers an incredible amount of money. Typically, an incandescent bulb would cost $0.84 while a CFL and LED bulb would cost about $2.49 and $24.99 respectively. It’s estimated that consumers can recoup the initial amount they spent on the energy efficient bulbs in less than a year and accumulate savings rather rapidly. These energy efficient bulbs seem to be a win-win situation.

Photo by MYPE News

In terms of the environment, the amount of emitted carbon dioxide that corresponds to the use of a CFL and LED light bulb is much lower than that for incandescent bulbs. Incandescent bulb use results in emissions of about 3000 pounds per year, CFLs result in about 701 pounds per year, and LEDs result in about 301 pounds per year. The light bulbs themselves don’t emit carbon dioxide, but, the electrical energy necessary to power them is most often generated from the burning of fossil fuels. A lower energy requirement therefore means fewer CO₂ emissions. Additionally, there are energetic and material resources necessary for producing and transporting the light bulbs that could have an impact on the environment in the form of emissions. CFLs and LEDs have longer life spans, which corresponds to fewer products being produced and therefore fewer emissions.

These bulbs have proven to be quite effective environmentally as noted in a study released by HIS Markit, a London-based company. The main fact that this study reported was that the use of LEDs reduced the total carbon dioxide emissions related to lighting by about 570 million tons in 2017. This is equivalent to closing down 162 coal-fired power plants.

So, even though CFLs and LEDs cost more with LEDs being more expensive than CFLs, the investment is definitely worth it. This is such an easy way to positively impact the environment without making a lifestyle change! It only requires a couple extra dollars.

Photo by marketwatch.com

Since coming to college, I’ve realized how much of a luxury paper towels are. In an effort to reduce its impact on the environment, Penn State has resorted to removing paper towels from the majority of their bathrooms, including those in the dorms. I’ve found this to be extremely inconvenient; I often return to my room with dripping hands when I can’t use the hand dryers during quiet hours. As annoying as hand dryers are, have they really had an impact on the reduction of paper waste?

Paper towels were created in 1907 by the Scott Paper Company. The story as to how exactly they came about isn’t clear, but it seems that these first paper towels were simply a shipment of paper that didn’t meet certain specifications. They were mass produced regularly in 1922 and were introduced on rolls in 1931.

Today, paper towels have become commonplace in everyday life. Each year, the USA uses about 13 billion pounds of paper towels, which means that each person uses about 80 rolls per year. As outrageous as this number sounds, it’s not unreasonable, given that we use paper towels at work, school, stores, libraries, etc. We each use about one roll every four and a half days. In my opinion, that sounds about right.

Producing paper towels requires a lot of resources: about 110 million trees and 130 billion gallons of water each year. Additionally, a lot of energy is needed to manufacture and transport the final product from the factory to the store, resulting in large emissions of carbon dioxide. Paper towels also require a certain degree of packaging as well as trash bin liners for disposal, which only contribute to its environmental impact. After just one use, each towel ends up in a landfill where it decomposes and produces methane, a chemical that’s thought to contribute to climate change. About 2% of landfills in the United States alone consists of paper towels.

Photo by dailybruin.com

To help combat this issue but still maintain the convenience of paper towels, some companies have released recycled paper towels. However, according to a report from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the environmental impact of such recycled paper towels is equal to that of regular paper towels in areas such as carbon dioxide emissions and water consumption. This issue provides room for the electric hand dryer to enter the scene.

The electric hand dryer originated in 1949, when it was invented by George Clemens. His work led to the creation of the company World Dryer, which dominated the market for several decades before being beaten out by more technologically advanced companies such as Mitsubishi and Dyson. One of the most popular manufacturers, Excel Dryer, released the Xlerator hand dryer in 2002 which can dry hands in just 10 to 15 seconds.

There are multiple types of hand dryers such as Jet Hand Dryers, Warm Air Hand Dryers, and Eco Hand Dryers. The Jet dryers are known for being “hands-in”, meaning that to dry hands, the user literally puts his or her hands into the dryer. The Dyson Air Blade is a perfect example of this type of dryer. Warm air dryers are the standard “hands under” dryers found in most bathrooms. Eco Hand dryers are self explanatory.

There is energy involved in the production and transportation of hand dryers, but about 98% of the global warming potential of hand dryers comes from the energy it uses once it’s installed. Warm air dryers have a significantly higher impact on the environment than other dryers because it requires more energy to produce that warm air. In the study conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology that I mentioned earlier in this post, scientists concluded that warm air hand dryers had more of a global warming potential than regular paper towels. However, the Dyson Airblade and the Xlerator dryers examined in the study had the lowest global warming potentials of the hand drying methods tested.

So, hand dryers are significantly better for the environment than paper towels. But, there are a few drawbacks. Hand dryers make an excessive amount of noise and are quite expensive, however, it’s been found that the hand dryers pay for themselves in a few months because electricity doesn’t cost as much as paper. Additionally, there are fewer maintenance costs as a result of no waste that needs to be disposed of. Some hand dryers aren’t very hygienic either. Dryers that require the user to put their hands in, for example, are a breeding ground for microbes. The Journal of Hospital Infection released a paper detailing the microbes found on paper towels and jet hand dryers of which the Dyson Airblade is one. On paper towels, they detected MRSA and Staphylococcus aureus. On the jet hand dryers, MRSA appeared three times more often and bacterial levels were up to 30 times higher than on paper towels. So, maybe jet hand dryers aren’t the best choice.

However, overall, hand dryers are better for the environment and have been an effective green solution given that they can be found in almost every public restroom.

Photo by weheartit.com

The drinking straw legally originated in 1888 when a man named Marvin Stone patented his design for a paper straw, and by 1890, they were being mass produced. The straw got its ability to bend in the 1930s when Joseph Friedman made a slight modification to help his daughter be able to successfully finish her milkshake. Plastic hit the scene in full force during the second world war, and after the war’s end, plastic manufacturers needed something else to make. So, they turned to making cheap, affordable goods, such as straws. During the 1960s, factories began producing plastic straws, and the industry took off from there. However, at the time of its inception, nobody knew the immense impact that straws, and their other plastic relatives, would have on the planet today.

The biggest issue with plastic is that it doesn’t decompose quickly, if at all. On average, it takes more than 400 years for plastic to degrade. Sure, plastic can be recycled, but of all the plastics ever made, only nine percent has been recycled according to a recent study. So, the majority ends up in landfills and the ocean. In the ocean, the plastics break up into small pieces, called microplastics. Because it’s in smaller pieces, it’s much easier for marine animals to consume, posing a threat to marine wildlife as a whole. It’s estimated that about eight million tons of plastic enter the oceans each year, and straws comprise only .025 percent of that. However, even though these everyday items make up a small part of the problem of single use plastics, they’re definitely making a noticeable impact.

In recent years, politicians and environmental advocates have been trying to ban straws. The straw ban campaign is thought to have begun with the release of a video from August 2015 detailing the removal of a straw from the nostril of an innocent sea turtle. The straw’s presence inhibited the turtle’s breathing, and its removal took about five minutes, resulting in physical distress for the turtle. Utilizing pathos, this video evoked a strong response from the audience: target straws and try to eliminate them.

This movement led many companies and cities to take action on this issue. California banned or limited plastic straw use. As of July 2018, Seattle is the largest city in the United States to ban plastic straws. Large companies such as Starbucks and Disney set an example for other companies by banning straws as well. Additionally, several celebrities such as Tom Brady, Mick Jagger, and Chelsea Clinton have gotten on board to abandon straws. With the increased awareness of the environmental effects of single-use plastics and of the campaigns addressing the issue, everyday people are becoming more conscious about the products they’re using. So, what alternatives are there to plastic straws?

There are many types of straws in addition to plastic straws: naturally degradable straws, glass straws, and metal straws. Naturally degradable straws are mainly made of paper and bamboo. A concern with paper straws is that they’ll break down in the drink. However, Aardvark Straws ensures that their straws are rigid enough that this won’t happen. There are also edible straws made of seaweed-based material. The downside with these paper and edible straws is that they can’t be reused. However, bamboo straws are washable, durable, and reusable, offering a possibly viable alternative to the regular plastic straw. Glass straws are advertised as being sustainable, durable, fun, safe, and dishwasher safe. My concern however is that these straws might easily break. Metal straws are advertised as being tasteless and odorless. The most durable, in my opinion, of all the options listed, metal straws are probably the best type of reusable straw. But, are reusable straws or even straws made of paper even practical?

Photo by ecoglassstraws.com

I’ve found that the majority of the times I use a straw are when I’m out in public, typically drinking a smoothie or eating at a restaurant. In order for reusable straws to make an impact on the planet and cut down on straw use, I’d need to actually carry my hypothetical reusable straw with me and use it. But, as a college student, this just isn’t realistic because whenever I leave my dorm, I try to take as little as possible with me, expecting to be out all day. A reusable straw is just another thing to keep track of that’ll probably end up lost. Reusable straws would also have to be washed in between uses to prevent the growth of bacteria and other harmful microbes. When out for the day, this just isn’t practical.

Paper straws seem to be another reasonable alternative, especially if they’re completely biodegradable. But, the problem here lies in what it’d cost for the companies and institutions providing the straws. It’s estimated that a paper straw will cost about a penny more than a plastic straw, and for large corporations, this could mean hundreds of millions of dollars.

So, even though efforts have been made to replace plastic straws with straws made of other materials, it seems that the best green solution to plastic straws is simply to not use straws at all.

 

 

Photo by thewirecutter.com

Bottling and selling water first began in 1622 in the United Kingdom and became quite popular because the water was believed to have healing properties. The bottles used were made of glass. Throughout the course of the next few centuries, water was continually sold in bottles in places like pharmacies. Over the years, there have been several developments in the market such as the introduction of carbonated water in 1783 and the method of using chlorination to ensure drinking water safety in 1905. In 1973, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles were officially patented, and these bottles were a much cheaper alternative than its glass counterpart. In the 2000s, the popularity of bottled water really grew as people became more concerned with the safety of their tap water. In 2012 alone, the total U.S. bottled water consumption was 9.67 billion gallons, which is more than half a billion more than what was consumed the previous year. Bottled water sales also increased by a staggering 6.7% in the same year. So, people were and still are using a lot of plastic bottles. How has this impacted the environment?

Plastic water bottles are 100% recyclable. However, the majority of the plastic bottles produced and sold are thrown in with regular trash. In 2015, the Association of Plastic Recyclers (APR) and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) released a report detailing bottle-recycling throughout the country. It found that the recycling rate for standard PET water bottles was a mere 30.1%, which is down 0.9% from the previous year. So, the rest of the bottles are clogging up landfills, blanketing the ocean’s surface, and littering city streets. It can take about 1000 years for a bottle to decompose, and while this process occurs, harmful chemicals are released, which can disrupt the ecosystem and have negative implications for us humans. Additionally, it requires a lot of resources to even make the bottles.

Photo by azocleantech.com

Plastic water bottle production requires the use of oil, about 17 million barrels each year. Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is the chemical actually used to make the water bottles, and it’s derived from the oil. But, do to so requires a lot of energy. The chemical product then must be transported to where the bottles will actually be manufactured. During the manufacturing process, about three water bottles worth of water is used to produce each bottle. The water then must be thrown away because of chemical contamination. So, a lot of valuable resources are being wasted on a product that will be used only once and then tossed aside. What about reusable water bottles?

Reusable water bottles are made out of a variety of materials including glass, stainless steel, and plastic, all of which vary in sustainability Stainless steel water bottles have been gaining popularity as companies such as Hydro Flask, S’well, and Klean Kanteen have entered the water bottle market. These bottles are also quite durable and last for a long time given that they’re mainly made of iron. Additionally, they’re corrosion resistant because of added chromium and can resist high temperatures because of added nickel. So, they’re quite safe to use. They’re also safe for any area of usage because of their durability. If they’re dropped, they won’t break. They’ll just get a little dinged up. Once they’re damaged beyond repair, these bottles can be recycled and all components in the metal can be reused, making the environmental impact very small. However, they do leave some marks on the environment because of the large amount of energy required to make them. The ore used to make the bottles must first be mined before it’s manufactured into the actual bottles and transported to us. But when we look at the overall impact, it’s very minimal because of how many times these bottles can be used.

Glass bottles are another great alternative to disposable plastic bottles, again, because of how many times they can be used. However, the production of glass releases carbon emissions that are similar to those produced from PET plastic bottle production. The recycling rate for glass is also quite low, probably because of the extra lengths that people have to go to recycle certain types of glass. Glass bottles can break more easily too and for that reason aren’t allowed in some places like schools, pools, or sporting events. For these reasons, glass isn’t as sustainable of an option.

Reusable plastic water bottles are also a great option, despite the recent controversy regarding bisphenol A (BPA). Recent studies have concluded that BPA is harmful to humans, so many companies have opted to use BPA-free plastics in their products. Companies such as Nalgene and Camelbak currently use a material called Eastman Tritan, which is BPA-free. Requiring fewer steps in manufacturing, this material is easy to process. It also requires a low amount of energy to produce and releases a low amount of greenhouse gases. The material’s durability allows products to last a long time, so less overall waste is produced.

Overall, I’d say that the effort to implement reusable water bottles in everyday life is quite successful. Just take a look around at a college campus, work place, school, or gym. I bet that disposable water bottles are scarce in favor of trendy reusable bottles. Sure, this might be a fad, but Americans have gotten so used to the convenience of having fresh water on the go. I think that this successful green solution will be around for many years to come.

 

Photo by Politico.com

In recent years, there’s been an increased emphasis on going green. Reusable grocery bags have become a regular occurrence in grocery stores, reusable water bottles are seen in the hands of nearly every student and working adult, and hybrid and electric cars are at the forefront of many car companies. But, have these efforts to get everyday people involved in the green movement been successful? My focus for this blog will be to determine if our efforts to go green have been successful and to inform you about more effective ways to help save the planet.

Plastic shopping bags date back to the early 1960s and became common in grocery stores in the 1980s because of how convenient they are for stores to use and how cheap they are for stores to buy. After the bags travel from the store to home, they’re often recycled around the home as garbage can liners, lunch bags, book bags, and pet waste bags. But more often than not, these bags end up as litter in landfills and oceans. As a matter of fact, it’s estimated that between 500 billion and a trillion plastic bags are consumed globally each year, and millions of these bags end up as litter. Enter the reusable shopping bag to combat this issue of plastic waste.

There are two main types of reusable shopping bags as detailed by a 2008 UK Environment Agency Study: non-woven polypropylene bags and cotton bags. Stores all over the world have implemented these bags in a variety of colors and styles to appeal to consumers. Some have even developed incentive programs to encourage consumers to use their reusable bags. Additionally, plastic bags have been restricted in municipalities around the world with some businesses not offering plastic bags at all. Many establishments also offer bag-recycling programs where shoppers can drop off their used plastic bags for recycling. So, when given the choice between plastic and reusable bags, what’s the best choice?

Photo by Treehugger.com

It’s necessary to consider the energy and resources required to make each type of bag to determine if reusable bags really are better for the environment. Authors of the 2008 UK Environment Agency study found that the most effective way to minimize pollution and carbon emissions was by reusing plastic grocery bags at least once. Their reusable cotton counterparts were found to be more damaging to the environment because of the resources required for their production and distribution. Typically, bags that are intended for more uses require more resources in production to make them more durable. Even though plastic bags take hundreds of years to degrade and exist as litter in landfills and oceans, they overall require a small amount of resources to manufacture and transport, produce fewer harmful byproducts, and are recyclable. As a result, they are also less durable and won’t be able to undergo as many uses.

The amount of times a bag is used also plays a role in determining the impact the particular bag will have on global warming. The study found that non-woven polypropylene bags need to be used 11 times and that cotton bags need to be used 131 times to have the same global warming impact as a standard high-density polyethylene plastic bag used only once. Recycling plastic bags can decrease the impact that they have on the environment, however, the reduction in global warming potential is quite small. In other words, recycling plastic bags really doesn’t make that much of a difference. Recycling plastic bags can also prove to be very difficult because the bags very easily stick to the sides of bins and machinery and can easily be swept away by wind. Also, there’s a limit to how many times plastic can be recycled; the more times it’s been previously been recycled, the more expensive it will be to do so again.  So, maybe plastic bags really are the best option.

What it really comes down to is how many times the bag itself is used. If you know that you’ll use a tote bag a lot, then opt for the tote bag instead of plastic. But, if you think that the reusable bags will collect dust on a closet shelf or in the trunk of your car, maybe plastic is the better way to go. But, be sure that you get as many uses out of each plastic bag as possible.

In my family, we try to recycle as much as possible, including plastic bags. In our closet, we have a big bag that we fill with old plastic bags from stores. When the bag is full, we just drop it off at the grocery store. But, I wouldn’t say that we really reuse plastic bags except as trash can liners. We also have tons of tote bags, but whenever we go to the store, the bags remain forgotten in the car and in our coat closet. I feel like this is the case for a lot of families, making the reusable bag effort ineffective. Hopefully with this knowledge, that’ll all change.

Welcome to Sites At Penn State. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!