The Green(er) Workplace

Environmentally conscientious behavior can begin in the home, but what about your other home, the office? There are plenty of easy ways in which you can become more environmentally-conscious in the work place. First, you can pack a waste free lunch. This sounds daunting, but really just involves a few simple changes. Start with a reusable carrier, reusable containers, a thermos for drinks, a cloth napkin, and silverware that you can reuse. The key is that none of these items need to be thrown away. It may cost a bit more up front, but since you use these items regularly, you would be surprised how much you can save, and how much less waste you are producing over time. You can also post a sign in the break room to request people to bring in unwanted silverware, plates, mugs, etc. This way other people can use re-usable items at work, and you get to clean out your cabinets.

Another way you can help create a greener workplace is to encourage recycling. If your workplace doesn’t currently recycle, then talk to management and see if it is feasible to put one into place. It will help to remind management that recycling reduces waste disposal costs. If your office already has a recycling program in place, use it. Get an extra trashcan at your desk, and throw away paper separately, so that it will be easier to put it in the bin later. If you separate paper from your other trash you won’t have to root through the trash to separate it later.

You can also encourage management to utilize recycled materials, such as printing paper. Recycled paper can save money, and it’s especially good for inter-office memos and other in-office items that won’t be sent to clients. If you have input on the office supplies that your office purchases, consider green choices such as the Responsible Purchasing Network, the Green Seal of Approval, the Environmental Yellow Pages, the Green Pages Online, and purchasing environmentally-friendly building products. Your office can also utilize environmentally friendly packing material such as Lock n’ Pop. Another suggestion is to buy refurbished computers which are cheaper than new computers, or suggest donating your office’s used computer equipment. Even if every product your office uses isn’t environmentally friendly, small changes can make a big difference.

Reducing energy usage is another great way to help the environment. Energy Star for Small Business will assist you with an energy audit, and tell you ways that you can reduce your consumption. There are also some common sense techniques such as: unplugging things when they aren’t in use, turning off lights when you leave a room, making sure faucets and toilets aren’t leaking.

These are some quick and easy ways to save energy and help the environment at work. For all the resources used in this article go to: http://www.globalstewards.org/work-ecotips.htm, to assist in your efforts for a green workplace.

-Sloane Tait, Legal Intern

Eco-Business

An old proverb says that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure. A New Jersey man has made that true for himself in his capitalist venture. Tom Szaky, founder and CEO of TerraCycle, created a company which turns non-recyclable waste into recycled eco-friendly products. They do everything from making juice pouches into school folders and backpacks, and transforming chip bags into couches. He has even incorporated other businesses, such as Old Navy who collects old flip-flops, which TerraCycle then turns into playgrounds.

There are many ways to recycle household items to make them useful. Architecture for Humanity and Rubicon National Social Innovations created a contest encouraging entrants to find alternate uses for mattresses. The winning design was called the Helix, which reused these mattresses as sound absorption devices.

This idea is not new as we have all heard the mantra: reduce, reuse, and recycle, it is just more streamlined and modernized. Today you might find on YouTube a clip from the President of Weisenbach Recycled Products demonstrating how to make jewelry out of bottle caps. Other YouTube videos boast creative recycling options for everything from purses made of gum wrappers to table decorations made from glass bottles or two liter bottles. Recycling decreases the amounts of waste that fill up our land-fills, and these products are creative ways to re-use products for which we have already paid. By re-using what we already have and refurbishing it into something new, there is a satisfaction in gaining a new product, and also an appreciation in saving the environment and your wallet. While we may not all be budding entrepreneurs, these products can change the way that we see trash, and its potential uses in our lives.

See the clips here:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/10/world/americas/terracycle-recycling-waste-szaky/index.html
http://openarchitecturenetwork.org/mattress
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hggu5jV5LFc

-Sloane Tait, Legal Intern

Utilizing Brownfields to Revitalize Economies

The Brownfields Center at the Environmental Law Institute defines a Brownfield as “[a]n industrial or commercial property that remains abandoned or underutilized in part because of environmental contamination or the fear of such contamination.” The Brownfields National Partnership was created in May of 1997, and it brought together approximately fifteen governmental organizations to begin brownfields projects to revitalize communities. One exemplary example is the Brownfield project in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This project focused on mothballed properties and allowed for previously un-utilized properties to be restored and assisted the local economy of Milwaukee. Six properties were the primary target of the program, and were able to garner or retain 1,604 jobs and leverage more than $199 million in private investment.

Florida has its own brownfield program called the Florida Brownfields Redevelopment Program. This program utilizes economic and regulatory incentives to encourage the use of private revenue to clean up and redevelop sites, which creates new jobs and improves local economies. The Florida Brownfields Redevelopment Program has estimated they have created 2,372 new direct jobs, 3,057 new indirect jobs in 2010, and 1,556 new direct jobs, and 1,312 new indirect jobs for 2011. They also boast new capital investments of $76 million dollars from the program. A total of forty-seven sites have been rid of contamination and improved for public use since the program began.

A particular recent brownfield project in Florida has also had great success. In Ft. Myers, a former brownfield cite has been transformed from a coal gasification plant into the “Imaginarium,” which is a campus which includes a children’s museum, theater, outdoor pavilion, lagoon system, and emergency operations center. This center is allowing a previously contaminated site to become a local center for the City and providing an area that is both child-friendly and a great generator of jobs and revenue.

The Florida Brownfields Redevelopment Program is an excellent example of how environmentally friendly programs can also revive the economy. These sites, previously subject to excess waste, were unusable land. Being able to rid these lands of contamination and expand jobs improves local economies, allows for efficient use of the land, and improves the communities in which they are located.

-Sloan Tate, Legal Intern

Jacksonville is Unwalkable!

Jacksonville was just recently named the least walkable city in the United States by Walk Score which is a company that evaluates walkability and transportation in major cities. This is the second year that the City has received this dishonor. Jacksonville earned a score of 32.6 on a scale from zero to 100. Our score was low because many neighborhoods in Jacksonville are completely dependent on cars as their only means of transportation. The silver lining is that downtown, San Marco, and Riverside are the most walkable parts of the City. These areas were moderately walkable for those in the residential areas. However, Walk Score found Eagle Bend near Main Street and Yellow Bluff Road, near Interstate 10 and West Beaver Street and Black Hammock Island near State Road A1A, and the Little Talbot Island State Park, as the least walkable. These neighborhoods were basically un-walkable, and it was almost impossible to get around without a car.

Even though the top five walkable cities in the U.S. were larger cities with more resources than Jacksonville, we can certainly learn from cities like New York, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia. Walking is an inexpensive and eco-friendly alternative to driving a car, and Jacksonville should make more strides to become friendlier to walkers. There are a number of benefits overall for those who live in walking-friendly neighborhoods. For example they tend to have residents who are up to eight pounds lighter, residents save on energy, and their neighborhoods tend to be worth more. It makes sense that these neighborhoods have these benefits, it’s easier to stay in shape when it is possible to work out in your own neighborhood. With growing concerns about obesity in families, being able to walk could be a fun, cost-effective way to get from point A to point B.

Jacksonville could increase their score by decreasing the distance between neighborhoods and grocery stores, restaurants, schools, parks, and public transit. The easiest way to do this would be to improve public transit. Public transit can be a cost effective alternative to commuting via car. However, many in Jacksonville feel that it’s hard to travel by bus because it doesn’t reach the areas in which they live. Increasing buses could be overly expensive, in a time when our city lacks funding. Perhaps a more cost effective alternative would be to improve sidewalks and create more walkways to make areas more pedestrian friendly. These changes would require minimal costs but could greatly improve the quality of life for Jacksonville residents. It would decrease the number of cars on our highways, which in turn would decrease traffic. Decreasing traffic decreases pollution, and could lead to an improvement in our air quality. Considering that Jacksonville’s air pollution is among the worst in the Florida, and Duval County was named the most polluted county in Florida, it is important that we begin the discussion about cost effective ways to improve.

-Sloane Tait, Legal Intern

Is What's Good for Panthers Bad for People?

Adult panthers have increased in numbers to now as many as 160 in South Florida. When the restoration project began in the 1970’s there were only 20 adult panthers in Florida. This is great progress for a species that was struggling to survive only a few years ago. The panthers have been seen as far not as the Caloosahatchee River and some have even been seen in Georgia.

However, this promising growth has led to the concern that the population has been encouraged too much. The most significant concerns come from the raisers of livestock that are complaining about increases in losses of the amounts of valuable livestock every year to these predators. The recovery plan by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission calls for 240 adult panthers in Florida. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission wants to work with homeowners as the population of panthers increases to prevent danger to both the human and panther populations, for they believe that it is possible for both to coexist. Many landowners are concerned though that this increase will decrease their profitability as they continue to lose more cattle, goats, and pigs, to panthers.

The solution proposed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission is to reimburse these owners of lost livestock from a $25,000 recovery fund. While this seems inadequate to the amount of livestock lost, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission suggests that there has to be a trade off. They also suggest that steps such as building enclosures, installing lighting or electric fencing around enclosures, keeping pets indoors at night or in covered kennels, securing garbage, and fencing in vegetable gardens, can all assist in aiding people and panthers to coexist. Panthers generally do not pose a direct threat to humans because they are creatures that avoid large populations and prefer not to be disturbed. Panthers were however responsible for 12 livestock deaths in 2010, and this year they have been responsible for approximately 14 more. The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission also suggests that one reason why panthers may be targeting livestock is that wild hogs and white-tailed deer, which are the preferred foods for panthers, are not as available due to human hunters artificially maintaining their populations.

There is always a tough balance when animal populations that had been depleted begin to grow significantly after being protected. It is important to protect the interests of livestock owners in Florida, but also to protect the panthers who roamed the land first. As populations of endangered animals increase it is important to re-evaluate the feasibility of them being able to thrive in limited space and with limited food supplies.

-Sloane Tait, Legal Intern

Competing Interests of Wind Turbines and Wildlife

Wind turbines are an important method of providing power and generating electricity. It is often thought that this is a one of the more eco-friendly ways to provide power. However, some studies show that wind turbines can greatly affect wildlife such as birds. When balancing these competing interests, are wind turbines really eco-friendly?

According to John Laumer’s article, “Common Eco-Myth: Wind Turbines Kill Birds,” vehicles in the U.S. kill millions of birds each year, and between 100 million to 1 billion birds collide with windows. Compare that number to the 2001 National Wind Coordinating Committee study, which revealed that turbines kill 2.19 bird deaths per turbine per year. These figures would appear to show that wind turbines are far less harmful than both cars and windows to the avian population. But other research argues otherwise.

The article “Energy in America: Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power Development” by William La Jeunesses suggests that eagles, hawks, and owls often fall prey to wind turbines. He explains that California’s largest wind farms kill more than 80 eagles per year, and this number will increase steadily as the state increases its reliance on wild power. The Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, another California wind farm, is a state-approved wind farm, and it kills 4,700 birds annually, including 1,300 raptors, among them 70 golden eagles. These animals are not only majestic, but important to the natural environment of the United States, and balancing these competing interests, even in one of the most eco-forward states, is incredibly difficult. Many complain that as wind farms become larger and more prevalent, it is becoming more and more difficult for these birds to avoid them. On the other hand, the more prevalent these wind farms are the less reliant California is on other sources of power.

The article “Renewable Energy’s Environmental Paradox,” by Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson, explains that a new development, the SunZia transmission line that would link sun and wind power from central New Mexico with cities in Arizona, would be a great environmental accomplishment from the perspective of generating solar and wind power for a large area. However, the site that was chosen crosses grasslands, skirts two national wildlife refuges and crosses the Rio Grande, both of these areas have precarious eco-systems and are areas rich in wildlife. The building of this line would specifically affect the Sandhill crane’s winter home. This was poor planning on the part of the builders and planners of this project, and because of its location, it will likely have a greater negative environmental impact then it would have had it been located elsewhere.

Wind energy is one of the strongest alternatives currently available to counteract our reliance on oil. However, the more it is used, the more likely it is to have a larger impact. Wind turbines can be an effective way to decrease our dependence on oil, but if it comes at the cost of wild life, then it may not be worth the expense. More research will have to be done to evaluate whether there are more effective ways of preserving the avian population, and protecting them from their interactions with wind turbines. It is also essential that when these sites are chosen, there is careful evaluation of the location of the site in relation to animal habitats, specifically avian habitats.

-Sloane Tait, Legal Intern

EPA to Issue New Rules Regarding Mercury Pollution

The EPA Has Proposed New Rules for Mercury and Toxics Emissions

In March of 2011, the EPA proposed a new set of mercury and air toxic
standards. The proposed standards by the EPA would reduce the
emissions of toxic air pollutants from new and existing coal- and
oil-fired electric utility steam generating units (EGUs), an important
development for Jacksonville, FL. A special section of the proposed
standards called the "Toxics Rule" aims to reduce emissions of various
heavy metals, including mercury, arsenic, chromium, and nickel. The
proposed standards will set numerical emission limits for these toxics
at both existing and new coal-fired EGUs. These toxic pollutants are
believed to be linked to cancer, heart disease, lung disease and
premature death.

Additionally, the new rules will limit emissions of organic air
toxics, including dioxin, by establishing work practices for existing
and new coal and oil-fired power plants. One example is by requiring
an annual performance test program for each EGU. The annual
performance test program will “include inspection, adjustment, and/or
maintenance and repairs to ensure optimal combustion.”

The Benefits of the Proposed Standards

The EPA anticipates that the new standards will prevent 91% of mercury
from entering the air, which will hopefully help reduce the risk of
air pollutants damaging the brains of children, pollutants which are
thought to result in loss of IQ and a diminished ability to learn.
The EPA anticipates that the standards will also protect Americans
from cancer and other health risks that they may have acquired from
exposure to these metals. And of course, the proposed standards are
also expected to protect thousands of lakes, streams, rivers, and
wetlands from mercury and acid rain pollution.

Perhaps unexpectedly, employment rates are also anticipated to benefit
from these new pro-environmental standards. The EPA has predicted
that the new standards will provide employment for tens of thousands
of Americans to build, install, and operate the equipment that will be
used to reduce emissions of mercury, acid gases, and other toxic air
pollutants, a win-win situation for sure.

The Opposition to the Proposed Standards

Some utilities have already implemented the technology that would be
required to meet these proposed standards, but other utilities like
American Electric Power (AEP) have not and they are lobbying Congress
to delay finalizing the proposed rules. Utility companies’ lobbyists
argue that cutting emissions as the proposed standards require will
cause them an economic hardship. And Congressman Ed Whitfield, a
representative from Kentucky, a coal-producing state, said that House
Republicans will introduce legislation in August to postpone the
proposed standards. Whitfield has been on record as saying, "We don't
really have expectations that we can repeal all of this, but if we can
delay the final rule, delay the compliance period and address whether
or not technology is really available, then I think we've accomplished
a lot.” The Public Trust will keep an eye on this proposed
legislation.

When Will we See these New Standards?

Back in June, 2011, due to requests by Congress and in order to
encourage more public comments, the EPA extended the time for the
public to give input by 30 days from its prior deadline of July 5,
2011. Thus the EPA will be accepting comments on the proposed standard
until August 4, 2011. The final standards are scheduled to be
issued in November 2011. This November deadline may be subject to
change if there are continued lobbying efforts and the House
Republicans are able to get legislation passed that will delay the
standards. However, as of now the proposed standards should be
finalized and issued in November 2011. Stay tuned to see who dares to
stand in the way of healthier children, adults, and environment.

-Andrew Miller, Executive Director