http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-04-30/global-warming/31506507_1_national-action-plan-climate-change-green-india-mission
Just posting this to show that India is doing its part to help with the global warming problem~~~~
Friday, May 18, 2012
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Climate Change Is Real-An Easy Guide To Explain Climate Change To Your Disbeliving Friends
Hello darlings~~
My post for this week is about CLIMATE CHANGE. Being a very controversial topic, I am more than happy to get nitty and gritty with this post.
When I was in highschool, the majority of my classmates were very secular and were just mouthpieces for whatever their parents believed. As I personally believed in climate change being more of a result of human action, than a natural cycle that the earth goes through, I found much opposition. My peers opposed simply because their parents didn't believe in it, not because they had actually done any research to make up their own mind. This is why out of the multiple links that professor Huff let us choose from, I choose the "no necessay downloading" PDF from the EPA's website, which is titled "Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming And Climate Change: Back To The Basics". It is a short and sweet 8-page guide to all the basic questions that will help explain climate change and global warming to your non-believing friends;)
There are three main questions that I am required to answer based on the reading that I did.
1) Climate is most certainly changing! Climate change means the major changes that people are able to see that occur over decades and not the daily change in weather. For example in the last hundred years the average global temperature has risen 1.5F and the ocean has risen about 4-8 iches. This may seem like small changes, but they certainly are changes! Even the smallest change can affect many creatures and people. These climate changes are not just ice caps melting thousands of miles away from our homes, but even back at home, people that hunt animals sometimes to help feed their families are experiencing the negatives affects of this change. The time and season in which hunters could expect certain animals to be out, has changed because of their mating, migrating etc patterns.
2) Sad as it may be, humans have probably contributed the most to climate change. There are some smaller natural forces at work, but primarily it has been the large contribution of humans. Since the industrial revolution in the western world, the carbon emission output has more than doubled. We are responsible for deforestation in many countries like Brazil and Indonesia. Our greenhouse gases are destroying the atmosphere.
3) Climate change is already affecting our society and world. We can't reverse what we have done. Because of the constant heating of the earth, many animals will die out and while it might seem a far cry for the existence of polar bears to have any affect on the life of a California girl, they most certainly do. Every living creature plays some important part in the ecosystem, taking one of these parts out will change everything. Bringing the example closer to home, with the atmosphere change it affects the agriculture that my state is famous for. Longer summers, shorter winters has a direct impact on our agriculture. If humans do not try and stop the rapid climate change, there won't be a living Earth for anyone or thing to inhabit.
In my humble opinion, the skepticism exists because there are those who believe the change is normal and Earth does this every thousand years etc. I personally know some people that honestly think this is just a "cycle".
Many politicians and corporations benefit by brainwashing people into believing that climate change isn't a threat. Our oil consumption has a lot to do with climate change, and if you work in business you will know that many items are produced using tons of oil and oil is used in many other aspects of the stages of production to shipping. These companies need to be able to continue to use up the resources that they do, and rape the environment. If people suddenly wanted to protect it, this would damage if not ruin their companies. All their resources are pretty much not renewable sources from the earth, and their methods of production are not environmentally friendly.
If humans continue their destruction lifestyles, in 50 years I don't think think humans will be able to live on the Earth anymore. We can't sustain this lifestyle for very long. I am just honestly sad that the so many people don't realize that climate change is a huge concern.
My post for this week is about CLIMATE CHANGE. Being a very controversial topic, I am more than happy to get nitty and gritty with this post.
When I was in highschool, the majority of my classmates were very secular and were just mouthpieces for whatever their parents believed. As I personally believed in climate change being more of a result of human action, than a natural cycle that the earth goes through, I found much opposition. My peers opposed simply because their parents didn't believe in it, not because they had actually done any research to make up their own mind. This is why out of the multiple links that professor Huff let us choose from, I choose the "no necessay downloading" PDF from the EPA's website, which is titled "Frequently Asked Questions About Global Warming And Climate Change: Back To The Basics". It is a short and sweet 8-page guide to all the basic questions that will help explain climate change and global warming to your non-believing friends;)
There are three main questions that I am required to answer based on the reading that I did.
1) Climate is most certainly changing! Climate change means the major changes that people are able to see that occur over decades and not the daily change in weather. For example in the last hundred years the average global temperature has risen 1.5F and the ocean has risen about 4-8 iches. This may seem like small changes, but they certainly are changes! Even the smallest change can affect many creatures and people. These climate changes are not just ice caps melting thousands of miles away from our homes, but even back at home, people that hunt animals sometimes to help feed their families are experiencing the negatives affects of this change. The time and season in which hunters could expect certain animals to be out, has changed because of their mating, migrating etc patterns.
2) Sad as it may be, humans have probably contributed the most to climate change. There are some smaller natural forces at work, but primarily it has been the large contribution of humans. Since the industrial revolution in the western world, the carbon emission output has more than doubled. We are responsible for deforestation in many countries like Brazil and Indonesia. Our greenhouse gases are destroying the atmosphere.
3) Climate change is already affecting our society and world. We can't reverse what we have done. Because of the constant heating of the earth, many animals will die out and while it might seem a far cry for the existence of polar bears to have any affect on the life of a California girl, they most certainly do. Every living creature plays some important part in the ecosystem, taking one of these parts out will change everything. Bringing the example closer to home, with the atmosphere change it affects the agriculture that my state is famous for. Longer summers, shorter winters has a direct impact on our agriculture. If humans do not try and stop the rapid climate change, there won't be a living Earth for anyone or thing to inhabit.
In my humble opinion, the skepticism exists because there are those who believe the change is normal and Earth does this every thousand years etc. I personally know some people that honestly think this is just a "cycle".
Many politicians and corporations benefit by brainwashing people into believing that climate change isn't a threat. Our oil consumption has a lot to do with climate change, and if you work in business you will know that many items are produced using tons of oil and oil is used in many other aspects of the stages of production to shipping. These companies need to be able to continue to use up the resources that they do, and rape the environment. If people suddenly wanted to protect it, this would damage if not ruin their companies. All their resources are pretty much not renewable sources from the earth, and their methods of production are not environmentally friendly.
If humans continue their destruction lifestyles, in 50 years I don't think think humans will be able to live on the Earth anymore. We can't sustain this lifestyle for very long. I am just honestly sad that the so many people don't realize that climate change is a huge concern.
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
It's about time, space, and some BPA!
Hello! Okay, to be honest, it isn't really about space but definitely time and BPA! For this week's scrumptious post, I'm going to be sharing some information about BPA and regulating toxic chemicals.
I choose to focus on this aspect of the article "Regulating Toxic Chemicals" because I had heard of BPA, but really didn't know a thing about it. I hope to enlighten you too.
The 24 page article was a lot to digest and remember, but what stuck out the most was BPA.
BPA is Bisphenol A and is one ingredient used to make plastic. Plastic as we know, takes lots of oil to make and the creation of it puts more carbon dioxide in the air. Without even looking anything else BPA is harmful. BPA is small doses was used to create baby bottles which infants use and therefore are exposed to. Exposure to BPA is very sensitive for infants especially and could lead to neurological difficulties later. The FDA released a report in August of 2008 saying that "BPA in food packaging didn't pose a health risk"(Regulating Toxic Chemicals, 64). After being read over by a panel of advisers, the report was deemed as flaws due to not enough samples being taken which were assessed. The issue is the money that is involved in this. If companies are not allowed to use some quantities of BPA to produce their formulas or bottles, they will lose money. In turn they will pressure or bribe the FDA to approve that level of BPA as "safe" so that they can continue producing whatever they produce.
When it comes to BPA, the precautionary principle is being used, otherwise there wouldn't be such a fuss over it. But as wonderful as it is that there is such a concern for our infants, there are many other toxic chemicals which should probably be examined more closely. As this issue of BPA levels is quite recent, we are not able to see the affects which they have on children until they are probably older. It is impossible to completely get rid of chemicals we use to produce things, at least at this moment. But I am glad that the FDA doesn't have free reign to allow even small doses of BPA in products.
What really ruffled my feathers was that the FDA had to be in this whole mess. The FDA is like some random child's lemonade stand. You don't know if that is real lemonade or pee. The FDA isn't trustworthy in the least. They are a company and shouldn't be regulating anything. On top of that, other government agencies aren't that much better when it comes to regulation of these chemicals.
It makes me want to go out, grow my own veggies and make my own instruments on which to eat them. I don't trust anyone know!
I choose to focus on this aspect of the article "Regulating Toxic Chemicals" because I had heard of BPA, but really didn't know a thing about it. I hope to enlighten you too.
The 24 page article was a lot to digest and remember, but what stuck out the most was BPA.
BPA is Bisphenol A and is one ingredient used to make plastic. Plastic as we know, takes lots of oil to make and the creation of it puts more carbon dioxide in the air. Without even looking anything else BPA is harmful. BPA is small doses was used to create baby bottles which infants use and therefore are exposed to. Exposure to BPA is very sensitive for infants especially and could lead to neurological difficulties later. The FDA released a report in August of 2008 saying that "BPA in food packaging didn't pose a health risk"(Regulating Toxic Chemicals, 64). After being read over by a panel of advisers, the report was deemed as flaws due to not enough samples being taken which were assessed. The issue is the money that is involved in this. If companies are not allowed to use some quantities of BPA to produce their formulas or bottles, they will lose money. In turn they will pressure or bribe the FDA to approve that level of BPA as "safe" so that they can continue producing whatever they produce.
When it comes to BPA, the precautionary principle is being used, otherwise there wouldn't be such a fuss over it. But as wonderful as it is that there is such a concern for our infants, there are many other toxic chemicals which should probably be examined more closely. As this issue of BPA levels is quite recent, we are not able to see the affects which they have on children until they are probably older. It is impossible to completely get rid of chemicals we use to produce things, at least at this moment. But I am glad that the FDA doesn't have free reign to allow even small doses of BPA in products.
What really ruffled my feathers was that the FDA had to be in this whole mess. The FDA is like some random child's lemonade stand. You don't know if that is real lemonade or pee. The FDA isn't trustworthy in the least. They are a company and shouldn't be regulating anything. On top of that, other government agencies aren't that much better when it comes to regulation of these chemicals.
It makes me want to go out, grow my own veggies and make my own instruments on which to eat them. I don't trust anyone know!
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Water Bottles and Tap Water-The Low Down or Watch How Many Times I Can Mention Dasani In One Post
Hello my lovelies!!!
So, let me tell you a secret. Before I started my boyfriend about a year and a few months ago, I never drank enough water. I like the taste of water, but I'm bit of a juice addict. I'd not drink water for long periods of time and then I'd be so starved for it, I'd end up drinking large quantities at once. After we started dating, I noticed that he drank a lot of water. Being with him a lot of the time I ended picking up the habit. Now, I drink water all the time. I always have a water bottle with me. I absolutely LOVE and need water.
Problem is, I buy too many water bottlesT.T; Not good for the environment at all and on top of that, I love certain tastes of the bottled water.(I have never liked the taste of tap water)
Since water is so important to me, for this week's post I'm going to discuss the pros and cons of tap water versus bottled water.
According to Blueriverside.com, my tap water comes from groundwater well areas in Bunker Hill, San Bernardino, and Riverside basins. While I was not able to find information on the well areas themselves, I did take a closer look into the water that was coming to my tap.
Riverside provides easy to read information about their apparently wonderful and great water program. Supposedly, Riverside has some of the cleanest water in all of the 50 states! Tap water has been tested and cleaned chemically, but should be safe to use without an additional purifier. Interestingly enough, if I want to use tap water for my fish it has to be treated again since the chemicals that supposedly are fine for me, aren't fine for my fish. Luckily, I don't have fish, but four crazy cats.
Onto bottled water versus tap water. The EPA(Environmental Protection Agency) is responsible for overseeing tap water standards. In an article by Elena Cronis for the Las Angeles Times in 2008, entitled " Bottled versus tap: Which is safer?", "[...]which regulate the levels of roughly 90 different contaminants, including germs such as giardia, heavy metals such as lead and dozens of industrial chemicals." Basically, due to The Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to test their water by certified labs and they have to report any violations within a certain designated time frame. Any public water systems must provide reports to their consumers that contain the source of the water, any contaminants and compliance with regulations. (Information absorbed from The New York times article "Fewer Regulations for Bottled Water Than Tap, GAO Says")
On the over hand the notoriously bad FDA regulates bottled water(Oh! My love Dasani, why does the FDA have power over you like this?). Unlike the EPA, FDA can regulate bottled water as a food and therefore different rules apply to it. Bottled water doesn't have to get certified lab testing nor do they have to report violations. Water bottle companies don't need to give reports or tell their customers where the water source is or how it has been treated.
I have always heard horrible things about my love Dasani. If you are truly just unfiltered and cleaned sewer water, don't fret my love. The sewers of wherever you come from are delicious all the same.
Last but not least, do I have to give up my Dasani? Clearly, Dasani isn't given the love it deserves. The evil cousin of EPA, the FDA isn't strict enough on bottle water companies. I'm sure they receive fat checks or some sort of incentive for this from water bottle companies. Or in Dasani's case, Coke-Cola! Yes, a soda company sells water as well~~
For the environment's sake I really should give up bottled water. We all can guess right off the bat that bottle water wastes fossil fuels through transportation and production. Foodwater and watch.org released an article titled "Bottled Water Costs Consumers and the Environment" that states " Bottled water production in the United States used the energy equivalent of 32 and 54 million barrels of oil to produce and transport plastic water bottles in 2007—enough to fuel about 1.5 million cars for a year. Rather than being recycled, about 75 percent of the empty plastic bottles end up in our landfills, lakes, streams and oceans, where they may never fully decompose."
Horrible, isn't it? Honestly, I don't want to give up drinking my Dasani. As I am aware of how bad bottled water is, I don't over indulge in it. I feel sad thinking of drinking water as indulging, but when it hurts the environment I have no choice but to cut back.
If anyone out there loves bottled water, tell me which is your favorite kind! Team Dasani!
So, let me tell you a secret. Before I started my boyfriend about a year and a few months ago, I never drank enough water. I like the taste of water, but I'm bit of a juice addict. I'd not drink water for long periods of time and then I'd be so starved for it, I'd end up drinking large quantities at once. After we started dating, I noticed that he drank a lot of water. Being with him a lot of the time I ended picking up the habit. Now, I drink water all the time. I always have a water bottle with me. I absolutely LOVE and need water.
Problem is, I buy too many water bottlesT.T; Not good for the environment at all and on top of that, I love certain tastes of the bottled water.(I have never liked the taste of tap water)
Since water is so important to me, for this week's post I'm going to discuss the pros and cons of tap water versus bottled water.
According to Blueriverside.com, my tap water comes from groundwater well areas in Bunker Hill, San Bernardino, and Riverside basins. While I was not able to find information on the well areas themselves, I did take a closer look into the water that was coming to my tap.
Riverside provides easy to read information about their apparently wonderful and great water program. Supposedly, Riverside has some of the cleanest water in all of the 50 states! Tap water has been tested and cleaned chemically, but should be safe to use without an additional purifier. Interestingly enough, if I want to use tap water for my fish it has to be treated again since the chemicals that supposedly are fine for me, aren't fine for my fish. Luckily, I don't have fish, but four crazy cats.
Onto bottled water versus tap water. The EPA(Environmental Protection Agency) is responsible for overseeing tap water standards. In an article by Elena Cronis for the Las Angeles Times in 2008, entitled " Bottled versus tap: Which is safer?", "[...]which regulate the levels of roughly 90 different contaminants, including germs such as giardia, heavy metals such as lead and dozens of industrial chemicals." Basically, due to The Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to test their water by certified labs and they have to report any violations within a certain designated time frame. Any public water systems must provide reports to their consumers that contain the source of the water, any contaminants and compliance with regulations. (Information absorbed from The New York times article "Fewer Regulations for Bottled Water Than Tap, GAO Says")
On the over hand the notoriously bad FDA regulates bottled water(Oh! My love Dasani, why does the FDA have power over you like this?). Unlike the EPA, FDA can regulate bottled water as a food and therefore different rules apply to it. Bottled water doesn't have to get certified lab testing nor do they have to report violations. Water bottle companies don't need to give reports or tell their customers where the water source is or how it has been treated.
I have always heard horrible things about my love Dasani. If you are truly just unfiltered and cleaned sewer water, don't fret my love. The sewers of wherever you come from are delicious all the same.
Last but not least, do I have to give up my Dasani? Clearly, Dasani isn't given the love it deserves. The evil cousin of EPA, the FDA isn't strict enough on bottle water companies. I'm sure they receive fat checks or some sort of incentive for this from water bottle companies. Or in Dasani's case, Coke-Cola! Yes, a soda company sells water as well~~
For the environment's sake I really should give up bottled water. We all can guess right off the bat that bottle water wastes fossil fuels through transportation and production. Foodwater and watch.org released an article titled "Bottled Water Costs Consumers and the Environment" that states " Bottled water production in the United States used the energy equivalent of 32 and 54 million barrels of oil to produce and transport plastic water bottles in 2007—enough to fuel about 1.5 million cars for a year. Rather than being recycled, about 75 percent of the empty plastic bottles end up in our landfills, lakes, streams and oceans, where they may never fully decompose."
Horrible, isn't it? Honestly, I don't want to give up drinking my Dasani. As I am aware of how bad bottled water is, I don't over indulge in it. I feel sad thinking of drinking water as indulging, but when it hurts the environment I have no choice but to cut back.
If anyone out there loves bottled water, tell me which is your favorite kind! Team Dasani!
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Food! Smucker's Jam=HFCS(High Fructose Corn Syrup)
Hello fellow Bloggers and Blog Readers! For my blog this week I will be discussing food. It is undeniable that all of us are avid fans of some sort of food. There is something thing without a second thought makes our tummys grumble. I personally enjoy a lot of different food. Instead of talking about something that would be considered foreign to my readers, I thought I'd talk about a food that finds its way onto our toast and sandwiches. Ask almost any child in the United States if they have eaten a peanut butter and jelly sandwich-they will most likely answer yes. When I was a child, my mother didn't want me to like jelly, as most has tons of sugar. In my PB and J sandwiches she would use strawberry preserves. I in turn grew up thinking I had eaten much healthier because of this. Sadly to my great dismay, strawberry preserves aren't much healthier. The "preserves" part makes it certainly sound more elegant, but instead of tons of actual real sugar, it has high fructose corn syrup or HFCS.
Now that strawberry preserves seem less exciting as even some of the junkiest cereals are filled with HFCS, let us take a closer look at Smucker's Strawberry Preserves to figure out what it is made of and where those ingredients come from.
We already know that HFCS is a major component, but without the other ingredients it would look just like this=
With the help of sstrawberries, corn syrup(Yes! There are TWO kinds of corn syrup!), sugar, fruit pectin, citric acid we are able to enjoy this on our toast and sandwiches.
I found it very easy to find out the ingredients, but tracking where these ingredients come from was very difficult. The official Smucker's website was not at all useful in responding to my inquiries about where their ingredients come from. On their Q&As part they provided silly information like "Do We Sell Pickles?"(Yep, this is actually on there. Check it out yourself!).
After skimming the web for a while I was able to find out that Smucker's operates in Ohio, but that still didn't tell me where their ingredients come from. Corn syrup appears twice in their ingredients. Since the United States subsidizes corn, I can assume that the corn comes from more a few of our fifty states. In general the United States imports sugar from countries like Colombia, Mexico and Zimbabwe. According to the United States Department of Agriculture 90% of the strawberries imported to the United States come from Mexico. If they are not imported they are probably grown in California(probably by Mexicans. Wow, so original)
Realistically, the strawberries and corn for that matter which go into Smucker's Strawberry Preserves are probably not raised organic(unless the type of Strawberry Preserves doesn't state it is "organic" etc). Smucker's is making a profit and probably doesn't care about how healthy it might be for their consumers. Whether or not the sugar and strawberries are grown by a small farm or a large farm would most likely depend on the price that Smucker's would have to pay. I believe they would opt for the cheapest option.
The workers who raise the sugar and strawberries that are imported probably get paid little for their work. Their strawberries have to be carried across the sea, cleaned and put into little plastic boxes. The transportation isn't good if we want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and the little plastic boxes just result in more waste. We can safely assume that the workers in the United States are all illegal immigrants and get paid little to nothing for all their labor.
How healthy is Smucker's Strawberry Preserves?
As I mentioned earlier Strawberry Preserves is jam packed with sugar and two types of corn syrup. Corn syrup is extremely harmful to a person's health if they consume large quantities over a long period of time. HFCS contains mercury like some fish and according to EatingWell.com, "the heavy metal that even in small amounts poses a neurological risk for young children, babies and growing fetuses..". The same article written by Joyce Hendley entitled "What's So Bad About High Fructose Corn Syrup?" states that "[...]Then the Minneapolis-based nonprofit Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) reported that it had found “detectable levels of mercury” in 17 of the 55 HFCS-rich foods it tested last fall, including barbecue sauce and cereal bars".
Why would Smucker's use such a product to sweeten their jams/jellies/preserves if it was so bad? Corn syrup is cheaper than using sugar. The health of their consumers obviously takes the back burner.
This blog post may be depressing because most people do eat jam/jelly/preserves. Even if they don't buy or use Smucker's most companies(unless it is the no HFCS edition) use corn syrup and HFCS. It is very hard to avoid without giving up using up these products. Regardless of what is healthy for us, we do consume things that are bad for our health. If jam/jelly/preserves are really something a person loves, they don't have to give them up simply because they have a small amount of mercury. We should all chose what we eat that is unhealthy or bad. Instead of giving up it all, we pick our poison. To be effective people need to have control over what they eat and I think this the a bigger problem altogether rather than HFCS consumer.
Anyway, I hope everyone is having a great week! Cheers to food we love!~!
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Improving RCC Through Exercise
Hello Fellow Bloggers! For this week's post I will be discussing sustainability at RCC.
A while ago, one of my friend's Dale, told me that he heard that at UCSB(University of California, Santa Barbara) some of the buildings were powered by the energy created from the gym. When I heard this I was very thrilled and in awe. I thought that it was a wonderful idea and if it worked successfully, then maybe the idea might possibly be implemented on a larger scale. The campus of UCSB would be quite "green" if this were true. Unfortunately when I looked deeper into this issue I could not find any information online about this. The official UCSB website didn't have any mention of it, whilst the website did include lots of information about sustainability at UCSB. In comparison, let's take a look at RCC.
In my humble opinion, I think a campus gets a "green" stamp of approval from how the facilities are run. UCSB being the best example, if the buildings were powered and run in a very economically friendly way I think a campus would be very green. Other issues, like using only electronic devices for textbooks and to take notes would also be good options. I think that RCC has some very green options(we used to/or might still do have public bus transportation with a student ID, which would save money on gas and it is sort of like carpooling for example), but could be greatly improved in more ways than just have more vegetarian choices at the cafeteria.
In regard to this issue, one example would be Green Mountain College in Vermont. On campus there is a Student Campus Greening Fund which gets a certain amount of allotted money that comes from a fee students pay. While it is only $30, the students can choose which sustainable project this money will go to. Some of the projects that have been approved for funding include a compost collection program and a repairing a wind turbine on campus.
If another college can get just a mere $30 and save that money to make improvements to the campus, then why can't this be the same way for RCC? Money charged from the student service fees are used for the clubs on campus, but instead could be given to the Sustainability club in order to make the campus more "green". My idea is that like the UCSB idea of using energy created from the gym to power buildings. I think that RCC should find some way to hookup the gym equipment to the gym to power the electricity form the lights etc. This should start small and if it is possible to power the gyms electricity, then maybe the gym could be expanded and power the rest of the buildings on campus. In order to help make this a reality, I would first talk to my environmental science teacher because she is the advisor of the Sustainability club. Since I also know the club president, I hopefully wouldn't have any problems getting my ideas across. From there on, it would be a matter of convincing I believe the board of trustees(?) that money should be given to improve the newly renovated gym. The gym would have to upgraded to make it possible to be powered by equipment. The sum of money for this would probably be thousands of dollars, but Sustainability club could help to fund raise for money. Even if the club was not able to fund raise a lot, the effort that the club put in would show the board of trustees their devotion to the project. Fundraising could be as simple as bake sales(students always spend money on food. This works!~)
A time frame for this project depending on the technology needed might be a few years. But in that amount of time, so much energy could be saved from the gym it would really make a difference. Everything really does count! Plus it would also help to motivate students to gym more and exercise would improve their health and well being.
(Image is courtesy of Google)
A while ago, one of my friend's Dale, told me that he heard that at UCSB(University of California, Santa Barbara) some of the buildings were powered by the energy created from the gym. When I heard this I was very thrilled and in awe. I thought that it was a wonderful idea and if it worked successfully, then maybe the idea might possibly be implemented on a larger scale. The campus of UCSB would be quite "green" if this were true. Unfortunately when I looked deeper into this issue I could not find any information online about this. The official UCSB website didn't have any mention of it, whilst the website did include lots of information about sustainability at UCSB. In comparison, let's take a look at RCC.
In my humble opinion, I think a campus gets a "green" stamp of approval from how the facilities are run. UCSB being the best example, if the buildings were powered and run in a very economically friendly way I think a campus would be very green. Other issues, like using only electronic devices for textbooks and to take notes would also be good options. I think that RCC has some very green options(we used to/or might still do have public bus transportation with a student ID, which would save money on gas and it is sort of like carpooling for example), but could be greatly improved in more ways than just have more vegetarian choices at the cafeteria.
In regard to this issue, one example would be Green Mountain College in Vermont. On campus there is a Student Campus Greening Fund which gets a certain amount of allotted money that comes from a fee students pay. While it is only $30, the students can choose which sustainable project this money will go to. Some of the projects that have been approved for funding include a compost collection program and a repairing a wind turbine on campus.
If another college can get just a mere $30 and save that money to make improvements to the campus, then why can't this be the same way for RCC? Money charged from the student service fees are used for the clubs on campus, but instead could be given to the Sustainability club in order to make the campus more "green". My idea is that like the UCSB idea of using energy created from the gym to power buildings. I think that RCC should find some way to hookup the gym equipment to the gym to power the electricity form the lights etc. This should start small and if it is possible to power the gyms electricity, then maybe the gym could be expanded and power the rest of the buildings on campus. In order to help make this a reality, I would first talk to my environmental science teacher because she is the advisor of the Sustainability club. Since I also know the club president, I hopefully wouldn't have any problems getting my ideas across. From there on, it would be a matter of convincing I believe the board of trustees(?) that money should be given to improve the newly renovated gym. The gym would have to upgraded to make it possible to be powered by equipment. The sum of money for this would probably be thousands of dollars, but Sustainability club could help to fund raise for money. Even if the club was not able to fund raise a lot, the effort that the club put in would show the board of trustees their devotion to the project. Fundraising could be as simple as bake sales(students always spend money on food. This works!~)
A time frame for this project depending on the technology needed might be a few years. But in that amount of time, so much energy could be saved from the gym it would really make a difference. Everything really does count! Plus it would also help to motivate students to gym more and exercise would improve their health and well being.
(Image is courtesy of Google)
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
24Hrs-Keeping Watch Of What You Consume
For this blog post, my topic will consist of the many items I used during one 24 hour period. By keeping record of this I not only become more aware of how I negatively impact the Earth due to my waste, but also where I can start cutting corners! Let's take a look at what I used as sorted into these different categories.
A. Food
Starbucks coffee(milk, vanilla, coffee, ice)
Sandwich( bread, eggs, cheese, bell peppers, oil)
Water bottle
Energy bar(nuts, grains, raisins)
Japanese style curry (carrots, potatoes, onion, curry mix, bell peppers, chicken)
Bread
B. House And Buildings
Home
School
C.Transportation And Roads
Car
D. Clothing
Jacket
Shorts (Denim)
Shirt (Cotton)
Shoes
E. School Supplies
Binder
Paper
Pen
Pencil
Textbook
F. Personal Care Products
Toothpaste
Japanese Facial Wash
BB Cream
G. Leisure Activities
Laptop
Novel
Other
Cellphone
Purse
Hair band
The product I want to talk about is BB Cream or Blemish Balm! This product is fairly new to North America, but was originally created in Germany to help laser surgery patients. BB Cream is essentially liquid foundation that depending on the brand differs in price, color; and elements such as sunblock, anti-aging, and whitener(to whiten your skin.
It has been popular in Asia( Japan, China, Korea) for a long time and has found its way into the makeup aisles at stores like Target produced by American brands. The type of BB Cream I use is a overpriced Korean brand A3FOn. Realistically, I won't be able to find information on this brand that is in English, so I decided to do research on some of the American versions and some of the Asian brands.
As I was unable to find the ingredients for the brand I use, so I found ingredients for another brand that has similar features.
MAC Prep + Prime Beauty Balm SPF 35 [$30 USd, Active Ingredients: Octinoxate 7.40%, Octisalate 4.00%, Oxybenzone 2.50%, Titanium Dioxide 1.10%, Zinc Oxide 3.50% Other Ingredients: Water/Aqua/Eau, Dimethicone, Butylene Glycol, Phenyl Trimethicone, Pentylene Glycol, Glyceryl Sterate, Behenyl Alcohol, Trioctyldodecyl Citrate, Polymethylsilsesquioxane, Octyldodecyl Stearoyl Stearate, PEG-40 Stearate, Polyglyceryl-10 ....and the list goes on.
Interestingly enough, all these items which are unpronounceable for most of us and probably unidentified are what so many of us wear daily. Foundations are oil, alcohol, powder, mineral, water or even silicone based! That Mac Prep BB Cream is a mineral based foundation and to produce this minerals have to be mined. One ingredient I looked into was the Titanium Dioxide. It comes from titanium which is mined in Canada, Ukraine and only three states in the United States. After it is mined it is sent to a lab and combined with chemicals to produce titanium dioxide which is used in paint, food coloring and sunscreen amongst other things. All that work just for one of the long list of ingredients~ Just imagine how much is wasted and how much we hurt mother earth just to look beautiful. This is really sad to read about. I was not able to find out where MAC products are produced by the company has created programs for cruelty-free makeup products, child abuse, and protection for the environment through recycling. These are some small benefits to hopefully offset all the negative impacts their company has on the world.
Foundations is costly to purchase and mostly likely is expensive to import,export, and assemble as it is done mostly in a lab. Once people finish using the product they throw the empty container away which is then shipped to some landfill. Lipstick for example is usually consumed rather than worn for a long time, while we wash our faces or sweat away a lot of our makeup. We even spend money on wipes and goods to remove it! It would seem to some that BB cream or any makeup for that matter is a waste-and rightfully so it maybe a waste to some. But for the masses like myself, who buy it continually, we do so in hopes of being beautiful even if it does hurt the earth.
Overall, today was a much better day for me because I didn't consume as much as I normally do. The only two things that really bothered me was the water bottle and starbucks. Both ended up in the trash/recycle when I was done using them. Besides this, I ate at home and wore BB cream that had to be washed off, but was makeup free otherwise. I am constantly trying to be more Earth friendly, but find it hard sometimes as my selfish desires always get in the way.
A. Food
Starbucks coffee(milk, vanilla, coffee, ice)
Sandwich( bread, eggs, cheese, bell peppers, oil)
Water bottle
Energy bar(nuts, grains, raisins)
Japanese style curry (carrots, potatoes, onion, curry mix, bell peppers, chicken)
Bread
B. House And Buildings
Home
School
C.Transportation And Roads
Car
D. Clothing
Jacket
Shorts (Denim)
Shirt (Cotton)
Shoes
E. School Supplies
Binder
Paper
Pen
Pencil
Textbook
F. Personal Care Products
Toothpaste
Japanese Facial Wash
BB Cream
G. Leisure Activities
Laptop
Novel
Other
Cellphone
Purse
Hair band
The product I want to talk about is BB Cream or Blemish Balm! This product is fairly new to North America, but was originally created in Germany to help laser surgery patients. BB Cream is essentially liquid foundation that depending on the brand differs in price, color; and elements such as sunblock, anti-aging, and whitener(to whiten your skin.
It has been popular in Asia( Japan, China, Korea) for a long time and has found its way into the makeup aisles at stores like Target produced by American brands. The type of BB Cream I use is a overpriced Korean brand A3FOn. Realistically, I won't be able to find information on this brand that is in English, so I decided to do research on some of the American versions and some of the Asian brands.
As I was unable to find the ingredients for the brand I use, so I found ingredients for another brand that has similar features.
MAC Prep + Prime Beauty Balm SPF 35 [$30 USd, Active Ingredients: Octinoxate 7.40%, Octisalate 4.00%, Oxybenzone 2.50%, Titanium Dioxide 1.10%, Zinc Oxide 3.50% Other Ingredients: Water/Aqua/Eau, Dimethicone, Butylene Glycol, Phenyl Trimethicone, Pentylene Glycol, Glyceryl Sterate, Behenyl Alcohol, Trioctyldodecyl Citrate, Polymethylsilsesquioxane, Octyldodecyl Stearoyl Stearate, PEG-40 Stearate, Polyglyceryl-10 ....and the list goes on.
Interestingly enough, all these items which are unpronounceable for most of us and probably unidentified are what so many of us wear daily. Foundations are oil, alcohol, powder, mineral, water or even silicone based! That Mac Prep BB Cream is a mineral based foundation and to produce this minerals have to be mined. One ingredient I looked into was the Titanium Dioxide. It comes from titanium which is mined in Canada, Ukraine and only three states in the United States. After it is mined it is sent to a lab and combined with chemicals to produce titanium dioxide which is used in paint, food coloring and sunscreen amongst other things. All that work just for one of the long list of ingredients~ Just imagine how much is wasted and how much we hurt mother earth just to look beautiful. This is really sad to read about. I was not able to find out where MAC products are produced by the company has created programs for cruelty-free makeup products, child abuse, and protection for the environment through recycling. These are some small benefits to hopefully offset all the negative impacts their company has on the world.
Foundations is costly to purchase and mostly likely is expensive to import,export, and assemble as it is done mostly in a lab. Once people finish using the product they throw the empty container away which is then shipped to some landfill. Lipstick for example is usually consumed rather than worn for a long time, while we wash our faces or sweat away a lot of our makeup. We even spend money on wipes and goods to remove it! It would seem to some that BB cream or any makeup for that matter is a waste-and rightfully so it maybe a waste to some. But for the masses like myself, who buy it continually, we do so in hopes of being beautiful even if it does hurt the earth.
Overall, today was a much better day for me because I didn't consume as much as I normally do. The only two things that really bothered me was the water bottle and starbucks. Both ended up in the trash/recycle when I was done using them. Besides this, I ate at home and wore BB cream that had to be washed off, but was makeup free otherwise. I am constantly trying to be more Earth friendly, but find it hard sometimes as my selfish desires always get in the way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)