Which recreational drug is the greenest?

"Let's say I were the type of person who would go to a party where an assortment of recreational drugs were being used. Would it matter, so far as the environment goes, which one I took?"

Don't look at me! I didn't ask the question (this decade). One of Slate's Green Lantern readers did. And the answer, not surprisingly, is marijuana. The lantern determined each recreational drug's earthly impact based on where the raw materials come from, the ways in which they're harvested or synthesized, and the yield per square meter of land use. About half of the United States marijuana supply is grown domestically and while there are of course environmental downsides, like the fact that "at least half of the world's yearly crop of 50,000 metric tons is cultivated in subtropical Mexico, including protected areas in the mountains of the Sierra Madre Occidental," marijuana is far greener than ecstasy, crystal meth and cocaine. The US DEA estimates that 2.4 million hectares of South American rainforests have been cleared by coca growers in the Andes over the last 20 years. And speaking of rain forest destruction, ecstasy is made from sassafras oil - which is derived mostly from endangered rainforest trees in Southeat Asia and Brazil. From the article:

In 2008, the U.K.-based Flora and Fauna International helped law enforcement confiscate 33 tons of [sassafras] oil distilled by criminal gangs from more than 8,000 chopped-down trees at the Phnom Samkos Wildlife Sanctuary in Cambodia. (That's enough to make 245 million Ecstasy tablets.) Meanwhile, crystal meth in the U.S. market comes from the chemicals... which are either extracted from an Asian grass or brewed in a frothy vat of molasses. China and India account for half the world's supply, according to the U.S. State Department's 2010 Narcotics Control Strategy Report, and most of the stuff that lands on our shores was likely shipped from halfway around the globe. Big-time meth chefs in the United States and Mexico purchase the raw material from domestic pill makers or middlemen, while smaller players may purchase cold medicines from pharmacy shelves. The facilities that actually cook up the street drug are also running a dirty business: In California's Central Valley, law enforcement estimates between 4 million and 7 million pounds of lab waste were poured into canals and on properties between 2000 and 2004. The people who have to clean it up wear Haz-Mat suits.

JustSaying does not support any illegal drug use be them green, white, liquid, pill or however else they reach people these days. If you are interested in reading more about this topic find the full text on Slate. Having said that, I'm heading over to carbonfund.org to clear the footprint my extracurricular college activites.

Get ready for Earth Day!

I know what you're all thinking: "What can I do this Earth Day to reduce my carbon footprint?" Well, you've come to the right place. JustSaying likes to use these days/weeks of Earth Awareness to highlight the simple daily decisions you can all make that will have the greatest impact on the planet. We've sorted through the Official 2010 Earth Day Action Campaign and would like to suggest that our readers adhere to a few of the following pledges submitted by greenies like us:

• I will abstain from meat at least one day a week to curb carbon emissions from the livestock industry.
• I will use a reusable water bottle and coffee mug.
• I will buy local produce whenever possible.
• If I see a piece of litter I will pick it up.
• I will pay my bills online and take the time to make a phone call and stop paper statements.
• I will call my utility provider and make sure I am using the greenest energy option available.
• I will take shorter showers.
• I will turn off the tap when brushing my teeth.
• I will turn off lights, computers and other electronics when not in use.
• I will unplug my cell phone charger, microwave, etc when not in use.
• I will opt for environmentally friendly cleaning products.
• I will use public transport more often.
• I will use fewer paper towels.
• I will recycle more.

Thinking of a pledge that we haven't listed? Be sure and add it to our comment section and post it on the Earth Day Action Center's website - where you can browse and sign tons of great pledges and green ideas.

If you're looking for an activity to celebrate, might we recommend helping out our friends over at the Chesapeake Bay Foundation this Sunday April 25th from 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. Volunteers are needed to help plant over 1,000 native trees and shrubs at the Foundation’s Holly Beach Farm located near the Bay Bridge in Annapolis. The vegetation planted will filter pollution and sediment coming from adjacent farm fields. This activity is suitable for adults, families, youth and community groups. Please bring shovels, work gloves, insect repellent, a water bottle/lunch and a smile. Registration is required though so sign up by sending your complete contact information to Marcy Damon at MDRestoration@cbf.org

New Studies

Making sustainable choices just got even more complicated. Slate's Green Lantern dedicated a column to three new studies: One suggesting meat and dairy consumption plays a smaller role in greenhouse emissions than... gulp... transportation; Another points out that our country's carbon footprint only seems smaller because we outsource our greenhouse emissions; And the last brings some good news about how impactual certain personal green choices can be. Read more here.

So continue to keep your vehicles well-maintained, choose local foods when possible, switch to florescent bulbs, and use electricity sparingly but perhaps JustSaying shouldn't hassle folks about their occasional steaks until she is driving a hybrid, huh? 

Uh oh... Jack's meaty pet food may have to go...

The inevitable has happened: Slate's Green Lantern has looked into the enviromental impact of puppy chow causing we pet owners concern about the enviromental impact of what they intake on top of what they output (click here to learn about the greenest doggie doodoo disposal methods).

It turns out that most of the food our pets eat (that includes meat) is made from the parts of livestock that we humans do not eat such as organs, scraps, and rendered bones and tissues. So on one hand, considering the fact that we raise livestock for human consumption and only the leftovers (about 15%) are purposed to pet food, little of the carbon footprint should really be assigned to the pet food. However, if you ask the pair of sustainable architecture experts from New Zealand, Robert and Brenda Vale (authors of Time To Eat the Dog?) "a medium-size dog has roughly twice the ecological footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser."

Thankfully, the Lantern is a lover of animals and suggests the following:

"...The way the Lantern sees it, there are two options worth exploring. The first is a variation on one of our cardinal rules for humans: Eat less meat. Some vegans and vegetarians put their cats and dogs on equally abstemious diets. The Lantern doesn't believe humans should be required to give up all meat, so she's not going to suggest that your pet should, either. But according to Marion Nestle—a public-health and nutrition expert who's recently been focusing her attention on pet food—the research clearly shows that dogs and cats can get all the nutrients they need from complete-and-balanced, all-veggie commercial foods. (No one has done any long-term clinical trials comparing various diet options, however.) Even if you don't want to take meat out of the equation entirely, you might be able to cut back, by replacing some of your pet's fleshy fare with grain-and-vegetable-based meals.... The other option is to enlist your pet in your own food recycling efforts. As we've noted before, one of the most straightforward ways to make your diet more eco-friendly is to consume everything you buy, whatever it is. We Americans waste a lot of food—around 30 percent to 40 percent, according to recent estimates—which means we also waste all the resources that went into producing that food. Now, the Lantern isn't advocating you treat your pet like a dumpster, filling its bowl with ossifying Oreos and rotting Chinese takeout. But if you have more meat or vegetables in your fridge than you know what to do with, consider turning that excess food into some pet chow. There are plenty of books on the market to show you how. Just make sure that any changes to your pet's diet are made gradually, and keep your vet apprised of your experimentation."

Read the full article here.

Carbon Footprint of Fruits and Veggies

Once upon a time I thought that simply purchasing anything and everything organic was the greenest option. I went about my merry way in the organic produce section and slept well at night. But last year I took a closer look after realizing that the organic apple in my hand had traveled to Maryland all the way from New Zealand. I remember looking around at the bananas, pineapples and watermelon and thinking to myself, "I have never even seen a banana on a tree. Do pineapples grow on trees or in the ground? Surely the ground, right? Oh man...there is no way eating watermelon in the middle of winter is sustainable!"

Yes, fertilizer is the enemy of the oceans but there is a lot more to keeping the carbon footprint of the crops you consume at a minimum. Brendan Borrell for Slate's Green Lantern, addressed this very dilemma in Tuesday's post Sustainable Salads:

"...Certain crops require loads of phosphate fertilizer, for example, which is mined from the ground and can eventually cause stream-choking algal growth. Other fruits and veggies are grown with heavy doses of pesticides, fungicides, and other chemicals that can pollute waterways and cause reproductive problems in animals. So how do you know which crops are best to eat? Here's the Lantern's rule of thumb: Try to keep your more extravagant fruit cravings in check, but don't sweat the low-impact calories that come with your carbs.

As it turns out, it's not hard to find digestible data on the use of fertilizers. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization offers a handy list of various crops and their associated fertilizer loads. Bananas consume the most by a very large margin, requiring a whopping 427 pounds of nitrogen, phosphate, and potash fertilizer per acre of cultivation. Sugar beets and citrus crops are next, followed by vegetables, tubers, and grains. Peas and beans require just 35 pounds per acre, in part because they have capacity to absorb nitrogen from the air. In short, eat more beans...

...What does all this fancy number-crunching mean? Considering that about one-third of greenhouse gases (PDF) emitted from agriculture in the United States come from fertilizers and pesticides, identifying low-impact crops can be at least as important as sourcing your foods locally. For instance, switching from strawberries to oranges in your fruit salad cuts pesticide use by half and fertilizer use by a factor of 10. For those who can't do without their berries, your best bet may be to buy from a truly sustainable source that avoids the worst pesticides, sticks to manure and other organic fertilizers, and prevents excess nutrients from flowing into waterways. Major organic growers like Cascadian Farms and others provide limited information about their agricultural practices on their Web sites.

What about organic versus conventional produce? When it comes to dietary staples like corn, wheat, and rice, the choice isn't so clear. David Pimentel of Cornell has estimated that it takes about 30 percent less energy to grow organic soy and corn than it does to grow the conventional kind. On the other hand, organic doubters, including the father of the Green Revolution, Norman Borlaug, have suggested that the spread of fertilizer and pesticide-free agriculture would result in more land being cleared for crops to match today's conventional yields, a view that has been supported by a British government report. The USDA has just started surveying some organic crops, and we'll have to wait until all the data is in to issue a final verdict on that front. As for fruits and vegetables, going organic is the eco-friendly choice. The switch will reduce your impact on the soil and water and won't require a vast expansion of the agricultural footprint.

For all this, one of the simplest ways to ballpark the impact of a conventionally grown fruit or vegetable is to glance at its price. The trick doesn't always work, but, in general, the cheaper one probably required less fertilizer, pesticide, land, and energy."

As always, I fall back to the same advice: Buy local, in season produce *when possible. This is going to be a long winter, huh?

*** I emphasize "when possible" because everything here on JustSaying is a suggestion - encouragement in an eco-conscious direction only. Nothing changes overnight and not even yours truly can live here in America without giving in to the convenient option now and then. Just remember: a little bit goes a long way and do the best you can for yourself, your family and your environment and know that any effort whatsoever makes a difference.

Drinkability

Just yesterday, I was reading about the evolution of American agriculture and how the booze biz went from an in-farm operation to the town taverns. (Believe it or not, I'm not retelling the story I always tell from MP's Botany of Desire about Johnny Appleseed's alcohol/apple loving ways.)

The real tipping point that took folks to the taverns was rum. An import. That which they couldn't produce at home. So I got to thinking: For those of us who don't grow barley or tend to a vineyard, what's the most eco-friendly alcoholic beverage? Biodynamic wine from Australia? California wines? What about those of us on the East Coast? Should we stick to Sam Adams? Yuengling? Some other locally brewed beer I don't know about?

The truth is, I don't drink so this isn't a topic I've investigated much further. I do, however, read Slate's Green Lantern and it just so happens that Nina Shen Rastogi has addressed this very topic in her recent post. It turns out that there are a lot more factors to picking your poison than I had expected. For instance, the decision between glass and aluminum depends on the quality of your local recycling program. And the synthetic cork you may think is better for the environment isn't exactly endorsed by the WWF.

If you are a libation lover, read the entire Lantern post here. And then consider setting snobbery aside and purchasing wine in a box.

Happy Earth Day, Folks!!

Now get out there and hug a tree! Or if you prefer to do something with a greater impact:

1.) Go vegetarian - even if only just for today.
2.) Become a member of the Arbor Day Foundation, receive ten trees, and plant 'em!
3.) Support emissions reduction initiatives with a donation to offset your carbon footprint.
4.) Help an endangered species. Two of my faves: AmphibianArk.org and WWF Adoption/Gift Center.
5.) And an oldie but goodie: If you see a piece of litter, pick it up.

Green Galas

Since inaugural excitement has taken over many of the news sources I draw from, not to mention a lot of my daily conversations, I haven't had a whole lot to post to the blog (hence the recent Biodynamic Beauty post snagged from my article-in-process file). Lucky for us, the NY Times' Leslie Kaufman published a great article about the two greenest inaugural galas being held this Monday night: One hosted by Al Gore and the other by the International Conservation Caucus Foundation.

Among those joining Gore for the organic fare at the National Portrait Gallery are the Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, Vote Solar Initiative, Youth for Environmental Sanity, and musicians Will.i.am and Maroon 5, whose performances are pro bono. Guests will clearly interpret the "conservation-as-lifestyle" message as they walk on a carpet made of recycled fibers and enjoy the strictly local menu.

Blocks away, the Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Federation, and celebrity guests Robert Duvall, Ed Norton, among others, will be treated to the Boys Choir of Kenya and organic beer at the ICCF gala. Certain sponsorship of this gala is troubling (for example: Exxon Mobil) but caucus president David H. Barron sticks to the philosophy that governments and businesses are the most effective at protecting wildlife and the environment and told the NY Times, "We are not into symbolism. We are focused on a much bigger impact."

No matter how you slice it, the carbon footprint of all these guests traveling to and from the district to attend these balls is certainly significant but such is the case for any of the galas, green or not, so kudos to these two for highlighting the issues.

And Al, Mr. Barron, if you are reading this and looking to fill any extra seat at your tables, please note that I could hop on the MARC train and get down to the events with little to no enviro-impact. Just saying.

Is the blogosphere energy-efficient?

Slate's Green Lantern took on an interesting question in today's post, Green My Blog. Jacob Leibenluft clearly has a better handle on gigabyte to energy to carbon footprint conversion than I do but I'll do my best to break it down for you.

Direct pollution from a blog is pretty small. WordPress reported transferring about 161,100 gigabytes of data in 2008 across 3,132,606 blogs - adding up to a small amount per blog per year: 51 megabytes of data to be exact. Bandwidth increases on blogs with lots of traffic, videos or large images but even the largest ones would only be responsible for a few hundred kilowatt-hours of electricity per year, which according to the Lantern, "would put even one of those larger blogs somewhere in the range of the average household's microwave." Doesn't sound too bad to me, especially if the posts on the blog inspire readers to reduce their footprint elsewhere (hint, hint).

There is a camp saying that suggests information technology accounts for a larger carbon footprint than the airline industry. Sure if you add up all of the equipment necessary: rooms full of servers and network equipment, energy to keep those rooms cool, desktops, laptops, wireless routers, and so forth it does sound like an awful lot of energy - but you have to think about the alternative. Compare downloading an album to burning gas on your drive to the air conditioned or heated mall, purchasing the manufactured CD from a store to which it was shipped, the plastic in which it is packaged...

I'm not going to beat myself up too much about Just Saying's energy consumption, but I do predict a post about how I'm offsetting its footprint in the near future.

eco-ego booster

Just heard some fun news via the Treehugger newsletter. German automotive company, Ruf Automobile GmbH, is making an electric version of the Porsche 911 called the eRUF Model A. I have to admit that I am pretty green (green as in novice or lacking expertise rather than how I typically use the term) when it comes to vehicles and their carbon tire tracks, so from the article:

"Under the hood, a 150kW (201hp) brushless three phase A/C electric motor that can generate an impressive 480 lb.-ft. of torque and a lithium-ion iron-phosphate battery pack made of 96 160Ah Axeon cells and a sophisticated monitoring system to make sure it doesn't overheat."

Read all about it and check out images here on treehugger.

CO2 Sponge

Klaus Lackner, scientist at Columbia University, seeks to create a "synthetic tree" that can do in about 30 minutes what would naturally take 100,000 years to accomplish: get carbon dioxide levels down and avert a climate crisis.

The idea for the air extraction or "air capture" technology in these synthetic trees came to Lackner while working on his daughter, Claire, on her middle school science project.

Here is an excerpt from a fairly recent interview Lackner gave to Breakthrough Institute:

How did you first become interested in air capture technology?

My daughter Claire's school science fair project in 1999 helped me quantify a few things I had been wondering about air capture. She wanted to see if she could scrub carbon dioxide out of the air. So we went to the pet store, bought at aquarium pump, and bubbled air through a solution of calcium hydroxide and sodium hydroxide, and let it bubble all through the night. In the morning she poured acid in and measured the amount carbon dioxide that would come off. It turned out she'd collected about half the carbon dioxide that had passed through the pump.

From there, you went on to develop the first successful air capture prototype. Is this something that's ready to be commercialized?

We developed a pre-prototype that shows that all the pieces of this system work. Within two to four years it should be ready to be commercialized. The first time around it's always too expensive, but every time you do it, it gets a little cheaper. I think in the long term, the cost of capturing carbon dioxide from air will not be terribly different from conventional flue gas scrubbing, about $30 per ton of carbon dioxide, which corresponds to about 25 cents on the gallon.

Word on the street is that critics find it to be too labor intensive and costly, but if you ask me, you can't put a price on offsetting almost all of our carbon footprints. I hope Lackner and Claire keep working on it.

For more from Lackner, check out another interview with npr here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10621219#share