Taina, a Vancouver-based environmentalist and blogger, has taken on a challenge most of us would find daunting: living for a year without any plastics. She started in January, so May marks the fifth month into the project. Every few days, she updates her online followers with her challenges, successes, and angry (though justified) plastic-rants on her blog Plastic Manners.

Taina cites many reasons why she’s decided to tackle this particular issue. Basically, our society is in denial about both the pervasiveness and the dangers of plastic. First, many plastics leach toxic, carcinogenic chemicals that are dangerous to our health. Bisphenol-A, PVC, and phthalates are only three examples. Furthermore, plastic is polluting the oceans, and have been found in enormous amounts in the bodies of animals like whales, clams and albatrosses. Single-use plastics, such as straws, spoons, water bottles, bags and coffee cups are the worst offenders and the greatest source of plastic pollution.

Finally, recycling is not the answer. Not all plastics are recyclable, and those plastics that are not will be on this earth forever. If they are recyclable, they are usually “downcycled”. This means that they usually cannot be made into the same product. They have to be made into something smaller or of lesser quality. A little is always lost at every step. Recycled plastics can also break down into toxic byproducts. Not to mention, recyclable plastics do not guarantee that they will, in fact, be recycled.

I was lucky enough to ask Taina a few questions about her project and she was kind enough to let me share her story with you:

Q: What pieces of advice can you give to people who want to use less plastic?

A: I think it all has to start with a recognition of the problem- an awareness of how ridiculous our throw away habits have become. Take a granola bar. Great snack that you enjoy for maybe one minute, but the plastic packaging around it last FOREVER in our environment. An unpackaged treat (homemade), without the pollution and guilt, would be way more rewarding, guaranteed.   

Second, once you have really internalized the “dilemma”, then start refusing. On behalf of future generations/Earth/the Oceans, say NO THANKS! Refuse one item at a time – a straw, a bag, a coffee cup, a lid— until it becomes second nature and starts to apply to a wider range of things. And there are so many little convenience things that are easy as pie to give up right away without major changes to lifestyle. The bigger changes will come, when you are armed with awareness and quick refusal instincts. 

Q: What’s the most important thing you’ve learned so far in the project?

A: Hmm… I have two thoughts:

“Debbie Downer” would say: how catastrophic plastic pollution really is, and how important it is for us to act now. 

The optimistic part of me says: how easy it is to give up plastic, and how absolutely rewarding it is to go back to the roots, and make your own stuff. Convenience is not what makes life colourful.

Q: What are you most missing that you can’t find an alternative for? What alternatives do you wish existed that don’t?

A: Beer is one item that I wish existed readily without the plastic- caps on the bottles, lining inside cans. I will be making my own very soon.

Health products are hard to find without plastic- be it Advil or birth control pills. And other natural products (e.g. plastic-free toothbrushes) that are always wrapped in plastic. Same with plastic-free mascara (although someone recently gave me a tip on how to make my own).

On the alternatives front, I’ve come to realize how little you actually do need.  People always ask me about alternatives, and my list of essentials is actually not that big. You can simply live with less and be totally happy. Back to the store-bought granola bar, I totally don’t miss things like that; it is simply out of habit that we feel like we need all these convenient things.

Q: There seem to be two conflicting issues when it comes to this project. Some healthy, local, organic products come in plastic, whereas their non-plastic alternatives are either slightly less healthy, or come from far away. How do you balance these two issues?

A: I’m constantly battling with this one- so this answer will be rambly. It goes case-by-case:

When it comes to natural products wrapped in plastic, I simply say “no way!”. If it were really green, it wouldn’t have the offending substance around it. Those companies will not be getting my money. There are always better options out there- and if the stores and/or creativity fail you, then you just give it up all together. No biggie.

When it comes to things like the soap nuts [natural nuts that can be used instead of laundry and dish soap], I always land on the side of the nuts versus a plastic-wrapped detergent. This is because plastic has a huge footprint. First, the manufacturing of it from petroleum is ridiculous.  As is its shipping from wherever it was made. And then the waste; the biggest thing for me is that the plastic will never go away. If I do my own lifecycle analysis comparing the two products, intuitively the nuts would always win, even if they are shipped too.  Now, there may be a better, local, alternative to the nuts- like a baking soda that was made here.  I use that too. 

(I could go on forever about cleaning products. Most people feel that they need so many different types of products, because that is what industry has wanted to sell us. Literally, you could use baking soda and/or soap nuts to do your whole house, clothes, and dishes. And the benefit is that you, your kids, and your pets won’t be suffering from all those chemicals. And what about things like the stain repellents on clothing? Is the lack of a spot really worth our health?)

When it comes to health versus plastic, health wins in most cases (as long as “health” does not mean unnecessary “green” alternatives). For example, I will buy medicine when needed. And I buy organic vegetables and produced now, even with the stupid plastic sticker, if no other option is available. This is because the pesticides have a huge impact too, both on the Earth and me. And at least the sticker is small, and I am supporting a greater cause by putting my money to organics. But again, with a little planning, I don’t have to shop in those places that over-sticker their products.

I guess on the whole, it is a balancing act. Everything we do has an impact. The question is, what is an acceptable impact for you personally?

Q: Have you encountered any people who do not support your project? How do you deal with any criticism?

A: On the whole, people are super stoked.  I don’t think anyone wakes up and looks forward to consuming plastic and polluting, so they are happy to know that life without it is possible. It is interesting how little it takes for their own awareness to kick in. The only negativity I have received so far came from the Styrofoam-interest association. It figures.

Taina’s awesome blog contains frequent updates, as well as information about the dangers of plastics and links to other plastic-free activists. Check it out yourself at http://plasticmanners.wordpress.com/

You know there are certain ingredients that you don’t want in your cosmetic products.  But you may not know all of the name variations or even exactly why certain ingredients are harmful.

Well, leave it to Stephanie Greenwood at Bubble & Bee Organic to come up with an easy, convenient and (even) fun way to keep you in the know on toxic ingredient education.  With “Today’s Chemical” (Stephanie’s new chemical ingredient education service) you can ask a question about toxic ingredients in cosmetics, learn about chemicals and get recipes for homemade beauty products.

To get this free service you can either sign-up and have it delivered right to your inbox or subscribe to the RSS feed.  Check out Today’s Chemical now and get yourself informed.

Okay, so the economy is bad.  And, yes, we have all had to make changes and/or sacrifices in the name of saving a buck.  But can this whole mess be put to good use?  Yes it can!  While you are already watching your spending closely, try keeping an eye on what you buy and not just how much it costs.

We can blame the big corporations for getting us into this economic mess and much of it may be deserved, but we the people are out there buying stuff up, so let’s make it count.  We are still a capitalist country and true to this is supply and demand.  We buy it, they keep making it.  If we buy cheaply made, toxic-laden products, that is what the big companies will make.  If we purchase nontoxic, safe products made with pure ingredients, the makers of these products will keep making them.  Not only that, but the producers of organic, wild-crafted and natural ingredients will have to make more of them which is not only good for us but for the planet as a whole.

Our disposable way of living is a big part of what has gotten us into trouble, so not all of this can be blamed on the big corporations.  They are simply providing what we have asked for.  As Joshua Onysko of Pangea Organics put it:

The great thing about this mess we are in is that it started with us; therefore, it can end with us. “How?” you ask. Well now is the time to raise our consumeristic conscientiousness. I’m sure many of you reading this are already on the path, but there’s no time for walking it: start jogging.

Tell the corporations what you want and how you want it. Trust me; they will start doing it right.

Joshua has it right.  Now is the time to make every cent count.

With everyone going green these days it is often hard for consumers to distinguish a product that is truly safe from one that is just making that claim.  It is perfectly legal, and often practiced, to use terms like safe, natural and organic on a cosmetics product label.  So how can you tell if you are buying a safe product?

First, “natural” simply means that one or more of a product’s ingredients have been derived from a natural source.  This is really no big deal if it is also full of harmful chemical ingredients.  And as for using “organic” on a cosmetics label; Organic = 95% of the ingredients must be organically grown, the remaining 5% may be non-organically produced ingredients, and Made with Organic Ingredients = must be made with at least 70% organic ingredients, the remaining 30% may be non-organically produced ingredients.  That remaining 5%-30% is the dangerous gray area where cosmetics manufacturers can use nearly any ingredient of there choosing.  The U.S. government does restrict the use of certain ingredients, but they are not many.

The following are harmful cosmetics ingredients that should be avoided*:

1. DEA, TEA, Diethanolamine, Triethanolamine: Emulsifier and/or foaming agent.  Skin sensitizer, can form carcinogenic nitrosamine compounds in the skin or body after absorption if mixed with nitrosating agents.  A respiratory toxin, neurotoxicity hazard and immunotoxicity hazard.
2. Dibutyl Phthalate, DBP:  Possible reproductive or developmental toxin, potential endocrine disruptor, skin sensitizer, immune system toxin, gastrointestinal or liver toxicant, kidney toxicant, and neurotoxin. The European Union has found it to be dangerous for the environment, very toxic to aquatic organisms and has banned it from use in cosmetics. The EPA Water Quality Standards Database states it is a priority water pollutant under the Clean Water Act and a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
3. Formaldehyde, Formalin:  EWG lists it as a known human carcinogen, skin and lung sensitizer, gastrointestinal or liver toxicant and neurotoxin.
4. Parabens, alkyl parahydroxybenzoate, butylparaben, methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben, isobutylparabens:  Widely used as a preservative.  Have been assessed as hormonally active, possible endocrine disruptor, skin sensitizer and skin or sense organ toxicant.
5. Petrolatum, petroleum jelly:  Emollient or lubricant.  Potentially contaminated with impurities linked to cancer or other significant health problems. The European Union has banned petrolatum from use in cosmetics.
6. Propylene Glycol, Proptylene Glycol, 1,2-Propanediol. Related synthetics: PEG (polyethylene glycol) and PPG (polypropylene glycol):  Used as humectants (to retain moisture).  Penetration enhancer, which alters skin structure, allowing other chemicals to penetrate deeper into the skin, increasing the amounts of other chemicals that reach the bloodstream.  Suspected respiratory toxin, immunotoxicity and neurotoxicity hazard.
7. Sodium Lauryl/Laureth Sulfate, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Sodium Lauryl Ether Sulfate, Anhydrous Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Irium:  Used as a surfactant (makes it foamy).  Penetration enhancer.
8. Talc, Talcum:  potentially contaminated with harmful impurities linked to cancer or other significant health problems and a respiratory toxicant.

So, if a product label states that the product is 100% Organic you can trust that there are no toxic ingredients.  Otherwise, you should be sure to check the label or consult a reliable source.

*Information on ingredients gathered from The Environmental Working Group, Scorecard.org, and Cosmetics Ingredient Review.

Apple recently released their new line of MacBook and MacBook Pro laptops, which are mainly made from aluminium. They say that they are their greenest latops ever and claims that they are “highly recyclable and even more energy efficient”, and that they are “designed with the environment in mind”.

But really, how green are the new laptops?

Greenpeace, who is running a hard and successful campaign for greener electronics, says that the new laptops are “not quite the breakthrough” they “were hoping for”:

“A check of the full specs revealed the MacBook Pro, MacBook and MacBook Air – as well as the LED Cinema Display will now have internal cables free of PVC and will have internal components containing no BFRs. Not quite the breakthrough we were hoping for. These new MacBooks are currently on a similar level of toxics reduction to the Sony Viao laptop series on PVC, and the Lenovo Think Vision in monitors. The BFR free internal components represent an improvement from the bar set by the Vaio line.”

Hank Green, over at EcoGeek, is a bit more negative saying the new laptops are “wasteful”:

“I’m glad to see Apple focusing on the efficiency of their computers, not to mention decreasing the amount of toxic materials they contain. But this new carved-brick process isn’t green, it’s wasteful, and I’m happy to be sticking with my good-ol’ plastic clunker.”

Jaymi Heimbuch, from TreeHugger, on the other hand is a bit more positive:

“It seems that this process allows the MacBook Pro to use 50% fewer parts. In the manufacturing stage, they start with a 2.5 pound piece of aluminum. The end structure is only 0.5 pounds (for the MacBook Air). That means that 2 pounds of aluminum is cut away.

Nevertheless, it looks like this process, despite flaws, has some real improvements for the notebook in the big picture of its lifetime and total footprint.”

Apple explains how green their MacBook and MacBook Pro are on their website.

Humanity deposits many toxic substances under the ground. Most of those are radioactive materials, pesticides, heavy metals and other kind of poisonous wastes. Even if they are first deposited in lakes, rivers or the sea, waters transfer most of them in the soil, when the latter absorbs water. It happens the other way round as well, as chemicals within soil are transferred with the rain into marine ecosystems.

Soil contamination is as a serious problem as any other form of pollution, but it was discovered later than them. Although it is connected with water pollution, the procedure is slow, and at first not even plants show any difference to point out pollution. If not stopped in time, it leads to desertification and destruction of the whole ecosystem. Many species lose their habitat, face extinction, or accumulate toxic substances in their body and become infected and poisonous for their predators.

Since 1959 enormous quantities of radioactive waste have been thrown into the Arctic Ocean, including nuclear reactors, while another million of chemical weapons decay onto the sea floor in 400-4500 metres depth. Moreover, Spain has stored 100.000 barrels containing slight radiocative waste, from scientific laboratories. Plutonium from the nuclear trials is detected in the southern seas of the Atlantic ocean. Britain has recorded 57.435 shipwrecks, including nuclear submarines.

The highly dangerous poison DDT harms the marine organisms more than the others, and thanks to the marine currents it is transfered to all seas, affecting every organism. PBDE, a substance used for computer and television construction, has been detected in whales’ fat!

90% of all fish are polluted by mercury and another 25% by PCB.

Every oil drilling pollutes the sea bed in an area of 20 square kilometres and at the one third of this area all forms of life die.

Wordwide algies increase dramatically while fish population reduces. Since the day Israel didn’t sign the ban about chemical depositions in the seas, the Haifa Chemicals company only has thrown into the sea 60.000 tones of toxic waste. On daily basis 12.800 tones of acids reach Tinisia’s bay, results of the production of chemical fertilizers.

70 of the 200 most important fish species are endangered, according to FAO (world organisation of food and agriculture). However, fishermen’s number increases and the recent method of bottom trawling destroys whole marine ecosystems.

Ocean researchers discovered that the increasing air pollution prevents the coral reefs from growing.When CO2 reaches the water surface, it reacts,turning the water more acidic and harming corals. And as if this didn’t happen, scientists want to channel directly under the sea bed enormous quantities of CO2 to ease the atmosphere…

All this was only a part of the annual research of environmental organisations. And it doesn’t even mention domestic nor hospital waste. For those who haven’t understand how much we pollute our seas…

Image credit: Tres. Image licensed under a
Creative-Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works license.