Plastic bag bans around the world

Plastic bag bans are being passed more frequently across the U.S., but they date back over 10 years ago when the French island of Corsica became the first to ban plastic bags in large stores in 1999. Bangladesh followed suit in 2002 and became the first large country to ban all polyethylene bags.  San Francisco became the first US city to place a ban in 2007.  Since then more and more countries and cities are banning plastic bags and/or implementing a plastic bag tax.  Hopefully one day single use plastic bags will be completely banned throughout the world, but that may take awhile.  So in the meantime, we have put together the definitive plastic bag ban guide to help you keep track of all of the plastic bag bans.

Europe

France

• All supermarkets in France now have a tax on plastic bags. In 2005, French lawmakers voted to ban non-biodegradable plastic bags by 2010. The French island of Corsica became the first to ban plastic bags in large stores in 1999.

Ireland

• There is a tax on plastic bags at supermarkets. Since the levy was introduced in 2002, the use of disposable plastic shopping bags has been reduced by about 90% and a decrease of 95% in plastic bag litter.
• In the first year after the introduction of the 15 cent levy, just under 90 million bags were bought by the public and fell to less than 85 million in 2003. But since then the number has risen to 100 million in 2004 and at least 113 million in 2005.  The plastic bag levy has increased to 22 cents today in a further bid to reduce littering.

United Kingdom

• In 2007 and 2008, the following municipalities banned plastic bags in the UK: Aylsham, Banchory, Girton, Hay-On-Wye, Hebden Bridge, Henfield, Kew, Llandysilio, Modbury, Overton, Selkirk, and Tisbury.
• Starting October 1st, Wales will become the first country in the United Kingdom to levy a charge on single-use carrier bags. The charge is part of Wales’ efforts to dramatically reduce the number of carrier bags provided to shoppers. According to Environment Minister Jane Davidson, each household used an average of 273 carrier bags just from grocery shopping.

Germany, Denmark, and Switzerland

• Currently, retailers charge for plastic check-out bags of their own accord without any government legislation in place.

Italy

• Italy has banned the distribution of non-biodegradable plastic bags at shops and retail points.  The plastic bag ban in Italy, adopted Dec. 22, went into effect Jan. 1 for the country. However, retail stores and supermarkets will be allowed to use up their stock of plastic bags, which they will have to hand out for free, rather than the traditional practice of charging a small fee.  A number of Italian cities, including Venice and Turin, had previously enacted plastic bag bans. Stores in Italy now will only be able to offer biodegradable, cloth or paper.

Belgium

• All supermarkets in Belgium now have a tax on plastic bags.

Bulgaria

• On July 1, 2011, Bulgaria implemented a tax on the use of plastic bags.  The tax will be increased gradually each year in order to make plastic bags increasingly costly, with the price of one bag to be raised to 55 stotinki in 2014 from the current 15 stotinki.

Asia

Bangladesh

• Taking action in March 2002, Bangladesh was the first large country to ban all polyethylene bags in the capital, Dhaka, after they were found to have been the main culprit during the 1988 and 1998 floods that submerged two-thirds of the country.

India

• In August 2003, the state government banned plastic bags in Himachal Pradesh, in Northern India. The government banned the manufacture, sale and use of all plastic bags.  Similar laws now also apply in Delhi, Mumbai, western Indian state of Maharashtra, Sikkim, Goa, Kerala and Karnatak states, where the plastic bag was banned in September 2005.  Manufacturers and stores selling plastic bags are fined or face imprisonment.

Taiwan

• A partial ban in 2003 phased out free bags in department stores and supermarkets and disposable plastic plates, cups and cutlery from fast food outlets. Most stores charge people who don’t bring their own ($0.03). A complete ban was introduced in 2007.

Israel

• Since 2008, customers in Israel have been charged a fee for every plastic bag that they use at supermarkets.

China

• In February 2008, China’s State Council put a nationwide ban on plastic bags. The cabinet demanded all stores (from major supermarkets to small shops) go plastic bag-free after June 1, 2008.  The ban prohibits shops, supermarkets, and sales outlets from handing out free plastic bags and bans the production, sale, and use of ultra-thin plastic bags under 0.025 millimeters thick.

Thailand

• The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) is holding its 45-day ‘No Bag, No Baht’ project, which offers consumers a one-baht (three U.S. cents) discount for every 100 baht (nearly three dollars) purchase if they use their own cloth bags when shopping in several local markets. Meanwhile, each plastic bag will cost them one baht.

Africa

South Africa

• In May 2003, the South African government banned the use of thin plastic bags.  Retailers handing out the bags faced a fine of 100,000 rand ($13,800) or a 10-year jail sentence. Retailers and shoppers must purchase alternatives or strong plastic bags that are more profitable to recycle.

Rwanda

• As of May 2003, thin plastic bags are banned in Rwanda. Polythene products have been completely phased out and polythene bags have been collected and recycled into plastic pipes for use in sewage disposal.

Papua, New Guinea

• Papua adopted a plastic bag ban in 2004. Supermarkets that do not comply with the ban are charged a fee and may face jail time.

Tanzania (including Zanzibar)

• Zanzibar banned plastic bags in 2006 due to the negative effects that the bags had on the marine environment and the tourism industry.  Raffia bags are suggested by the government as an alternative.

KenyaandUganda

• Kenya and Uganda have both banned thin plastic bags in an effort to curb environmental damage as of June 14, 2007.

Australia

South Australia

• On May 4, 2009, South Australia banned lightweight, check-out style plastic bags.  The ban prevents any and all retailers from giving away or selling any plastic bag that is less than 35 microns thick and made of polyethylene polymer.

Northern Territory, Australia

• NT Parliament Passes Landmark Legislation.  In November 2010, Karl Hampton promised that the Northern Territory (NT) would be plastic bag free by mid-2011. On February 24th, that promise came true when the NT Parliament passed into law the Environmental Protection Bill 2010.

Chillingham, New South Wales, Australia

• The town of Chillingham, located in Northern New South Wales, Australia, is now the first Plastic Bag Free Village of Northern NSW. The small village plans to make a big impact on the environment. Eliminating plastic bags in the village has helped stop about 10,000 plastic bags yearly from going into local landfills or into the environment.

North America

San Francisco, California

• San Francisco was the first U.S. city to ban plastic shopping bags. Effective December 2007, large supermarkets and chain pharmacies were prohibited from distributing plastic checkout bags. Instead, they may only distribute reusable or biodegradable plastic bags.

Manhattan Beach, California

• Manhattan Beach implemented a plastic bag ban and was sued in July 2008 by the Save the Bag Coalition, a group representing plastic manufacturers, after unanimously passing an ordinance to ban carry-out bags. The group argued the city violated the California Environmental Quality Act by not fully analyzing the ban’s effects.  In July, 2011, The California Supreme Court said Manhattan Beach can ban retailers from using plastic bags without going through a lengthy environmental study on the increased use of paper bags.  The ban will likely begin enforcing its plastic bag ban on January 1, according to the city’s website. Under its ordinance, all retail establishments and restaurants are prohibited from distributing plastic bags except produce bags and dry-cleaning bags. Stores must provide customers with 40-percent recycled-content paper bags.

Malibu, California

• Malibu City Council voted to banish single use plastic bags and plastic-like compostable bags at all retail stores in May 2008. Beginning in 2009, all grocery stores, restaurants, pharmacies and city facilities were forced to comply or face a fine of up to $1,000.

Los Angeles County, California

• Los Angeles enacted a ban on single use plastic bags on November 16, 2010 and officially went into effect July 1^st , 2011.  The ban will only affect unincorporated LA County areas and will reach over 1,000 stores by 2012.  Additionally, the ban changes a 10-cent surcharge for customers that wish to use paper bags.

Long Beach, California

• The first phase of a plastic-bag ban in Long Beach will go into effect Aug. 1, 2011. The Long Beach City Council voted to ban plastic bags and enact a 10-cent-a-bag charge for recyclable paper bags in May 2011.  The first phase applies to large retailers.  The second phase, which extends the ordinance to smaller stores — such as neighborhood markets, pharmacies, sandwich and coffee shops and liquor stores -– will go into effect Jan. 1, 2012

Calabasas, California

• On February 9, 2011, the Calabasas City Council passed Ordinance No. 2011-282 to ban the use single-use carryout plastic bags that pollute our environment and constitute a high percentage of litter across the country.  As of July 1, 2011, shoppers no longer receive disposable plastic bags while shopping at Calabasas supermarkets: Albertsons, Gelson’s, Maddy’s Market, and Ralphs and Rite Aid.  Effective January 1, 2012 drug stores, convenience food stores, smaller retail stores and grocers will stop offering disposable plastic bags.

Santa Monica, California

• Santa Monica’s plastic bag ban will go into effect on September 1, 2011. All 1,875 retail establishments are prohibited from providing light-weight, single-use plastic carryout bags to customers at the point of sale. This includes any plastic bag less than 2.25 mil thick, including bio-based plastic bags made from plant sources such as corn.

San Jose, California

• San Jose passed an ordinance that goes into effect on January 1, 2012. It bans most-retailers using single-use plastic bags and mandates charging for paper bags. Provided paper bags have at least 40% recycled content, customers will have to be charged 10¢ initially and 25¢ starting in 2013. Food stamp and other welfare recipients will get paper bags for free. The fine for violating the ban ranges from $500-1000.  Exceptions to the ban have been made for restaurants on the grounds that “food may become wet or messy;” secondhand stores would also be allowed to distribute single-use plastic bags as they promote the “reuse and recycling of donated goods and material.”

Santa Clara County, California

• In April, 2011 Santa Clara County approved a ban on plastic bags and most single use paper bags in the county’s unincorporated areas.  The ban which doesn’t go into effect until January, 2012 will affect about 56 retailers but will exclude restaurants and nonprofit and social organizations.  Retailers can sell customers single-use paper bags that are 100 percent recyclable and contain a minimum of 40 percent post-consumer waste at a cost of 15 cents each.

North Carolina

• On Sept. 1, 2009, North Carolina put into effect its Plastic Bag Management Law.  The law applies only in a county which includes a barrier island or barrier peninsula, in which the barrier island or peninsula meets both of the following conditions:
• It has permanent inhabitation of 200 or more residents and is separated from the North Carolina mainland by a sound
• It contains either a National Wildlife Refuge or a portion of a National Seashore
• (b) Within any county covered by subsection (a) of this section, this Part applies only to an island or peninsula that both:
• Is bounded on the east by the Atlantic Ocean
• Is bounded on the west by a coastal sound

Washington, DC

• In January 2010, Washington, DC began taxing a 5-cent fee per plastic bag for supermarket customers.

Portland, Oregon

• Starting October 15, 2011, plastic grocery bags will be banned from major grocers.  The ban targets supermarkets with $2 million or more in gross annual sales plus stores with pharmacies and at least 10,000 square feet of space, such as Target and Walmart.  Portland’s ban won’t impose a mandatory fee on paper checkout bags, though retailers have that option.

Edmonds, Washington

• On July 28, 2009, the City Council of Edmonds, Washington, passed a law banning single use plastic bags by retailers.  The operative date of the ordinance was August 27, 2010

Marshall County, Iowa

• As of April 9, 2009, plastic bags are banned in supermarkets in Marshall County, Iowa.

Telluride, Colorado

• Telluride, Colorado, eliminated disposable plastic bags on March 1^st 2011.  The Town Council approved the ordinance on October 5th, 2010. The town-wide prohibition declares that, “disposable plastic bags shall not be sold or distributed, retail or wholesale, within town limits by any business.”

Westport, Connecticut

• Plastic bags are banned in grocery stores in Westport, CT.  Shop owners may be fined if they do not comply with the plastic bag ban.

Brownsville, Texas

• Brownsville Texas’ plastic bag ban and $1 fee on non-reusable bags went into effect on January 5, 2011.  Under Brownville’s ordinance, only the following types of bags “specifically designed and manufactured for multiple uses” will be available at checkout for free:
• Bags made of cloth or other washable fabric
• Paper bags (with handles)
• Plastic bags as long as they are 4.0 mil thick
• All other plastic bags and less durable paper will incur a $1 environmental fee per transaction

Maui, Hawaii

• Under the new laws, which include the islands of Lāna’i and Moloka’i (and technically Ni’ihau), vendors are allowed to give away or sell paper bags with high recycled content as well as reusable bags. There are some minimal exceptions that allow plastic bags for selling meat and other limited uses.

Kaua’i Hawaii

• Late in 2009, the Council of the County of Kaua’i declared that to preserve the health, safety, welfare and scenic beauty of Kaua’i, the distribution of plastic bags should be regulated and prohibited. The Kaua’i County Council voted to enact a plastic bag ban ordinance. As of January 11, 2011, plastic bags have been banned in Maui and Kaua’i for customers of merchants. Biodegradable plastic bags are permitted.

Sioux Lookout, Ontario, Canada

• On September 15^th 2010, The City of Sioux Lookout, Ontario, Canada, became the first Municipality in Ontario to ban plastic bags.
• The By‐Law defines plastic bags as, “a bag made of plastic film, including biodegradable or compostable bags, provided by a Retail Business to a customer at the till or point of sale to carry customer purchases from the Retail Business.”
• Equally important in the definition of plastic bag is the description of what does not constitute a plastic bag, including, bags used for bulk purchases (e.g. for produce, small hardware supplies), meat, frozen foods, prepared foods, newspapers, laundry dry cleaning, minnows, and bags sold in packages containing multiple bags intended for such uses as garbage, recycling, pet and yard waste.

Wood Buffalo, Alberta, Canada

• The Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo has banned the distribution of single-use shopping bags effective Sept. 1, 2010.  Known as “The Single-Use Shopping Bag Bylaw,” the Council of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, in the Province of Alberta, passed and signed the Bylaw on Dec. 17, 2009.  The Single-Use Shopping Bag Bylaw eliminates the distribution of both plastic and paper single-use shopping bags.

Manitoba, Canada

• The new bylaw prevents retailers from selling or distributing the single-use bags. Ignoring the ban could result in a $1,000-a-day fine. In anticipation, officials have been handing out cloth shopping bags to residents.

Thompson, Canada

• The City of Thompson has passed By-Law Number 1839-2010 known as the Single-Use Plastic Bag Ban. The By-Law took effect on December 31, 2010.  The By-Law prohibits the sale or give-away of plastic bags. The By-Law states specifically: “No person shall sell or provide single-use plastic bags free of charge or allow single-use plastic bags to be sold or provided free of charge.” This includes biodegradable bags that are below 2.25 mil thick.

Mexico City

• As of August 2010, shops in the Mexican capital have to charge for the bags, which must also be biodegradable. Shop owners not complying can be given a 36-hour jail term and fines up to $90,000.

South America

Bolivia

• On December 2, 2009 the city of La Paz, Bolivia passed a municipal ordinance banning the use of plastic bags in all stores of all categories.  The ban orders the use of all plastic bags to be substituted by the use of cloth or recyclable bags.

Buenos Aires

• The government of Buenos Aires province (a territory separate from Buenos Aires city but accounting for about 37% of the country population) approved a ban in 2008 which prohibits shops and supermarkets to give polyethylene plastic bags in its territory.  In 2010, all bags were required to be  replaced by biodegradable materials, such as paper or special plastics that decompose.

Brazil

• The São Paulo state government in Brazil plans to ban the use of plastic bags in supermarkets by the end of this year. Under an agreement signed earlier this month by the state government and the Paulista Association of Supermarkets (APAS), supermarkets will stop distributing traditional plastic bags and instead sell bags that are biodegradable.

Share/Bookmark

Will there soon be "green helmets" to help victims of global warming? Flickr user: riacale

After years of ignoring global warming issues, world leaders finally seem to be willing to address the threat of climate change. Last month, the UN Security Council agreed to add climate change to its agenda, which was quite an accomplishment after the crushing defeat that happened in Copenhagen in 2009. According to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, global warming and greenhouse effects are a threat to international peace and security. They generate an explosive cocktail of natural disasters that threaten global security, as well as wars and terrorism. Ban Ki-Moon believes that with climate change accelerating, natural disasters will grow exponentially.  If the increase of the average temperature is over 3 degrees Celsius, war may become highly probable. From this perspective, Ban Ki-Moon wants to put the climate change issue at the top of the Security Council priorities. This Council, whose mission is to maintain peace and security worldwide can react when a threat arises by imposing embargoes, economic sanctions or military intervention. While it may seem strange for the UN Security Council to discuss climate change, the reality is that the danger is real and it needs to be addressed.

Share/Bookmark

How sustainable is your seafood? Flickr user: NKCPhoto

As seafood consumption rates continue to rise and marine populations continue to plummet, it is more important than ever to turn to sustainable seafood. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 80 percent of fisheries are fully exploited, over-fished, depleted, or recovering from depletion. It is critical that sustainable fishing practices continue to be developed and enforced otherwise we may be in danger of losing not only our seafood supply, but our entire marine ecosystem.

Sustainable seafood is a growing movement that helps replenish our oceans and manage their resources into the future. Sustainable seafood can come from either fished or farmed sources.  Organizations like the Marine Stewardship Council and Friend of the Sea, certify which seafood fisheries are deemed sustainable.  Several environmental groups, as well as the U.S. government, have issued sustainable guidelines for consumers, businesses and fishermen, which can be a bit confusing and contradictory, but there has definitely been some progress.

This week the leading tinned seafood manufacturer, John West, agreed to shift to sustainable tuna which is a major accomplishment.  They produce one-third of all tuna cans in the UK and were the last major player to finally make the move. Greenpeace launched a campaign months ago demanding more sustainable efforts and that they eliminate the use of fish aggregation devices (FAD’s).  FAD’s are basically man-made devices that destroy marine environments and capture larger fish, which leads to overfishing problems.  Most seafood merchants tend to focus on large, predatory fish such as cod, sharks, and tuna.  As a result, populations of these ecologically vital animals have dropped by as much as 90 percent.  Sustainable fisheries target plentiful species, including those smaller and lower on the food chain, because they can reproduce quickly to sustain their populations.

Sustainable fisheries target plentiful species, including those smaller and lower on the food chain, because they can reproduce quickly to sustain their populations. Flickr user: FreeCat

A worldwide ban on FAD’s would be highly beneficial to restoring these populations. Although there hasn’t been a bill established to eliminate them, there is a new sustainable fish farming bill in the works.  The bill would establish national standards to help ensure that the growth of an ocean fish farming industry does not jeopardize the health and productivity of federal waters.

Legistlation may help ease the process of moving towards sustainable seafood, but it’s also important for consumers and businesses to continue to demand sustainable seafood, which appears to be happening.  Big name corporations like Costco and Target have agreed to carry fish that is certified sustainable and will no longer continue selling the 12 red-listed wild fish which includes; Atlantic cod, Atlantic halibut, Chilean sea bass, Greenland halibut, grouper, monkfish, orange roughy, redfish, shark, skates and rays, swordfish, and bluefin tuna.  Wal-mart and Kroger Co. have both said that they are working to stock more environmentally friendly seafood and other major companies are also in the process of developing their own sustainable seafood strategy.

After recently changing their seafood policy, Safeway was crowned the number one spot in Greenpeace’s annual sustainable seafood report.  After taking the top spot in 2010, Target fell one spot and finished closely behind Safeway.  Whole Foods, which is notorious for carrying natural, healthy products finished fourth.  Last year Whole Foods color coded all of its wild-caught fish to show consumers which are most sustainable, based on guidelines set by Monterey Bay Aquarium in California and New York’s Blue Ocean Institute.  Whole Foods stated that they plan to work with the passion of their customers, the commitment of their skilled seafood buyers, and the dedication of their seafood suppliers to help reverse this trend and build a more sustainable seafood supply chain. Within a few years, they plan to have fully sustainable seafood departments.

The choice is now up to you.  Legislation, environmental activists, businesses, and suppliers are all striving for more sustainable goals and trying to make it easier for the consumer to identify sustainable seafood.  I love seafood and can’t imagine a world where it’s no longer readily available.  The majority of my grocery shopping is done at Albertson’s but after discovering that they didn’t even pass Greenpeace’s sustainable seafood report, I will no longer buy my fish from them.  Instead, I will look to Trader Joe’s, which I love, or other sustainable options.  Will you?

Share/Bookmark

A vegan diet does not include meat, fish, poultry, dairy, eggs, or honey. Flickr user: marcp_dmoz

In Britanny, France, toxic green algae proliferates due to intensive pig farming. Flickr user: capitphil

Share/Bookmark

Developing countries like Haiti look to biodigesters to help them with their waste and give them a new source of energy. Flickr user: le Korrigan

Biodigesters have been around for quite some time, but developing countries are now looking to a new source of energy rather than the traditional animal manure; human excrement. As nauseating as it may sound, biodigesters, also known as anaerobic digesters, are able to convert human waste to biogas and organic liquid fertilizer.  This alternative form of energy is growing in popularity and may give once hopeless countries, a chance for a sustainable future.

Farms began using biodigesters many years ago to recover methane from animal manure, in a process called anaerobic digestion.  The process consists of three basic steps.  The first step is the decomposition of the animal waste.  This step breaks down the organic waste to working sized molecules.  The second step is the conversion of decomposed matter to organic acids. The final step is converting the acids to biogas.  Once they are converted, farmers are able to use the biogas for electricity, heat or fuel.

Biodigesters can also produce raw material by-product streams that can be further refined into higher value products such as fertilizer. In addition, they can help alleviate many environmental issues, such as water and air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and the overall putrid smell of manure.  They also help reduce energy costs and provide farmers with a new source of revenue.

This biodigester at a Vermont dairy farm, will generate 1.6 million kilowatts annually of clean renewable energy. USDA has programs to help finance biodigesters across the nation. Flickr user: USDAgov

Developing countries like Haiti don’t have the same resources as other countries, nor do they have fields of manure that they can convert into biogas.  What they do have is people…lots of them!  And it turns out that researchers have found that humans provide the best raw material for biodigesters.   Yet, one of the concerns of using human waste in biodigesters is that there isn’t enough of it.  However, if the biodigester is placed in a heavily populated area, they do relatively well.  Toilets are simply connected to a sealed, brick-lined well connected to a basin. Deprived of air, the bacteria flourishing in human excrement eat 85 percent of the waste while producing methane gas. The remaining 15 percent of waste is dispersed with the excess water into another area, where it biodegrades.  Not a single chemical is used in the process and the water collected, believe it or not, is clear and sterile.

Biodigester toilets require little maintenance and over time the waste in them simply turns to compost. The toilets drastically improve sanitation in impoverished slums and also help reduce countries dependence on coal, which leads to deforestation.  The anaerobic process takes up to four months to get rolling, but once it’s going, biodigesters can yield up to five hours of gas per day. Unfortunately the cost is typically greater than most developing countries can afford, but non-governmental organizations like Viva Rio are assisting in the process.  Some smaller make-shift systems can cost as little as $115 but the cost of a large biodigester serving an entire neighborhood can be $250,000 or more depending on the size.

Viva Rio successfully installed 70 biodigesters in Haiti and expects to add another 70 in the near future, in addition to other projects planned.  And while this system may be relatively new in Haiti, it has been very popular in other parts of the world. India has been using biodigester toilets on their trains for years and Nicaragua is one of the biodigester leaders in the world.  In fact, over 70,000 biodigesters have been built in Central America. Granted, not all of those use human waste, yet it is a strong testament of growing popularity of biodigesters.

But don’t be fooled into thinking this is only a tool for developing countries to use.  Just last year a small town in New York (Minoa) built their own biodigester in hopes of reducing utility costs.  Minoa Village Mayor, Richard Donovan said, ““Our ultimate goal here in Minoa is to be an educational and research facility helping other municipalities control their costs by using ‘green’ systems like this.”

It will be interesting to see if other US cities will follow suit.

Share/Bookmark

How much CO2 emissions come from an e-mail, a web request and a USB key? The impact of new technologies on the environment is far from zero. Flickr user: alcomm

Google data center at Zernike Science Park in the city of Groningen, Netherlands. Flickr user: Erwin Boogert

How to browse the web by polluting less?

Share/Bookmark

Guerrilla gardening may not be as frightening as the term itself. Lovely urban gardens like this can be found throughout the world. Flickr user: michimaya

An environmental movement known as guerrilla gardening is sweeping the globe and changing the way that we view urban landscapes.  Commonly armed with gloves, shovels, fresh plants and seed bombs, guerrilla gardeners carefully pick their target and transform concrete jungles overnight.  While it may not technically be legal, these soil soldiers are resilient and attempt to raise awareness and make an environmental difference by resurrecting unused urban spaces and turning them into attractive city gardens.

Guerrilla gardening may seem like the latest green craze, but it’s actually been around since the 1970’s.  Liz Christy is credited as the modern day creator of guerrilla gardening and responsible for bringing New York community gardens to life. She founded Green Guerrillas, which was an organization that planted gardens, distributed seed balls and educated residents of the New York area. The city government initially clashed with Green Guerrillas, but the organizations perseverance eventually led to a sanctioned program known as Green Thumb which is now responsible for over 600 community gardens.

New York may have been the birthplace of guerrilla gardening, but this once underground movement is bordering on commercial success. With websites like GuerrillaGardening.org spouting up all over the place, it’s easier than ever to find eager eco-soldiers ready to invade futile urban areas. However this movement doesn’t require an army of soldiers and can often be initiated by one individual.

Guerrilla gardeners tend to attack while the rest of world sleeps. Flickr user: ecodallaluna

The first step is to identify the target.  It’s important to remember that the area will need to be maintained.  So planting in an area near your home or work may be the best place to start.  It also helps if the area is visible to others and perhaps encourages other community members to participate. Once you select your target, pick a date for the mission.  Guerrilla gardeners tend to attack in the wee hours of the morning, when nobody is around…but mid-day would work too!  It’s rare for green guerrillas to actually be punished if they’re caught.  They may get a warning, but generally they aren’t even harassed by local enforcement.  But for the sake of this article, we will presume that a strict punishment will be handed down if these masked eco-vandals are caught.

The next step is to equip yourself with the proper weaponry.  Sure it would amazing to plant gorgeous roses, delightful lilies, and majestic delphiniums, but it’s important to be realistic.  Those plants are fragile and require a lot of time and nourishing to maintain.  You need to select low-maintenance and drought resistant plants that are gritty and willing to take a beating, like cacti or other select herbs.  These types of plants will help give the garden a foundation and eventually flourish into something bigger.

Who says you need dirt to grow plants? Seed bombs allow guerrilla gardeners to utilize areas you may not think of…like street cracks. Flickr user: urbanwild

Most guerrilla gardeners seek out arms dealers that are willing to bargain with them.  Often times nurseries are willing to give significant discounts if they explain their cause.  Some stores may even have plants they were ready to dispose of and end up giving them away free of charge.  Guerrilla gardeners also seek out donations to help cover the cost or will require each person to bring at least one plant in order to participate in a group mission.

For those that want to get involved but are a little timid due to possible harsh repercussions, there is another alternative, seed bombs.  This is a passive-aggressive method of guerrilla gardening that allows soldier to attack from a distance rather than being down in the drudges of war.  Seed bombs or green grenades are compressed balls of soil and compost infused with flower seeds.  You can make them yourself, buy them online, or purchase them at your local candy machine.

I have put some serious thought into starting my own guerrilla gardening.  I live close to a mile long stretch of wasted land that rests under massive power wires.  There’s a bike path along this lifeless area that hundreds of people pass by every day.  I feel like everyone’s experience would be just a smidge more enjoyable if we could bring some color and beauty to the area. However, I would never condone any sort of illegal action, but if wildflowers start popping up in the area, don’t look at me.  It was probably a group of mischievous kids throwing around seed bombs.

So what are you waiting for?  Go grab some gloves, plants,  your favorite shovel and a group of enthusiastic eco-warriors that are ready to go to battle and transform your community!  And make sure you check back with us to share your experience.

Share/Bookmark

The Amur leopard is on the brink of extinction. Flickr user MacJewell

Protection for endangered species in the Russian Far East has yielded positive results for the Amur leopard population. The Amur leopard is on the brink of extinction due to a combination of poaching, deforestation, unsustainable logging, and the development of railways, highways, and oil pipelines in their natural habitat. They are considered to be critically endangered – less than 50 total Amur leopards exist in the wild – and they are at a high risk of extinction. Fortunately, groups such as the Amur Leopard and Tiger Alliance (ALTA), the Phoenix Fund (a Russian wildlife and forest conservation organization), and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have made significant progress through their conservation efforts. In addition to the environmental and conservation groups, the Russian government has also gotten involved in the cause, creating a national park called the “Land of Leopard.”

Sergei Aramilev, Species Program Coordinator at WWF Russia’s Amur Branch announced that they are seeing a 50% increase of Amur leopards in the region. Aramilev attributes the growth to long-term leopard conservation efforts and improvements in how the reserve is managed. Although the results are promising, it’s important to note that when you’re talking about a world-wide population of less than 50 total Amur leopards living in the wild, you are talking about small increases. For example, there used to be between seven and nine individual leopards in a specific area being monitored, and now there are twelve. WWF caught some of these big kitties on hidden tracking cameras. Watch the video.

Conservation efforts in Russia and Northeast China include anti-poaching and forest fire-fighting initiatives, compensation to farmers for livestock that are killed by leopards and tigers, a public awareness program and political lobbying, population monitoring, and ecological and biomedical research. Kudos to the conservation groups, governments and individuals for their commitment toward Amur leopard conservation. It must be exciting to find evidence that their efforts are working. When humans make choices that consider and respect the other animals we share our planet with, we can make a difference. Hopefully the Amur leopard population will continue to grow in the years to come.

Share/Bookmark

Can you imagine eating a double-double made from synthetic meat? It may be a reality in the near future. Flickr user: powerplantop

Imagine reading the following sentence on your meat tray: “Artificial meat – no animals were killed or mistreated.” Such a sign may one day become a selling point and not an absurd joke. In vitro meat is produced from animal cell tissue cultured in large tanks. This artificial food is produced using tissue engineering techniques that have been developed to regenerate organs or produce small volumes of proteins for medical use. It all started a few years ago with fish flesh that was cultivated in small amounts during a synthetic meat research project conducted by NASA. Basically, the goal was to find a sustainable solution to feed astronauts while they are on lengthy missions. Researchers have continued to develop this so-called “fake meat” which is healthier and a more efficient alternative to conventional meat.

The first issue raised by conventional meat is of course ethical, as it is still necessary to kill an animal to eat it… But there are also dramatic farming consequences on the environment, and these new synthetic meat production techniques appear to be more eco-friendly. According to the association People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), lab-grown meat production would be a godsend because it would save millions of farm animals slaughtered every year while meeting consumers’ taste for meat. Beyond improving animal conditions, many scientists and experts believe that producing muscles without animals will reduce damage to the environment caused by intensive livestock production.

According to a report published recently entitled Environmental Impacts of Cultures Meat Production, in vitro meat would reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused by farming by 96%. Its production would also require between 7% and 45% less energy than that of conventionally produced meat. Finally, canned meat would only need 1% of land and 4% of the water currently allocated to livestock. Consequently, artificial meat is an effective way to fight against deforestation, land grabbing and the rapid increase of grain prices.

Scientists decided to create artificial meat because meat consumption is increasing. In the past twenty-five years it rose from 30 kg to 41.2 kg per capita according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). And the organization still predicts an annual world production increase from 228 million to 463 million tons by 2050, driven by meat consumption in emerging countries like China, India and Brazil. So there will not be enough arable land to feed the whole planet. Moreover, CO2 balance of livestock farms is catastrophic. According to the FAO, meat production is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions. Intensive livestock is in question, as well as its food culture with the manufacture of fertilizers using petroleum products, and the fossil fuels used to transport the meat. Thus, environmental activists and other activists fighting against hunger in the world seized the work of scientists. They see it as a possible regular meat alternative, and believe production of artificial meat on a large scale would be feasible with this technique of engineering muscle.

Considering this industry is still in its infancy, the first artificial meat could be introduced to the market within five years, as a carpaccio. Muscle cells culture is already well advanced but it is lacking more consistent funding. Nevertheless, some scientists remain skeptical; according to them, reaching a mass production of artificial meat using this method would result in exorbitant costs and would require huge amounts of hormones to promote growth and antibiotics to prevent contamination. Moreover, even if producing artificial meat becomes technically and financially affordable, it must then be accepted by consumers, which will certainly be a challenge.

Personally, I find this idea very interesting, because it can be an efficient way to fight against hunger and polluting farming techniques. But my position is the same as it is concerning the use of GMOs in agricultural production: I believe that it is better to apply the precautionary principle and check that artificial meat does not cause risks to human health. In any case, in vitro meat is an invention that recalls the catastrophic scenario described by Richard Fleischer in Soylent Green, a 1973 science fiction movie depicting a dystopian future in which overpopulation leads to depleted resources and where very little land is arable. Real fruit, vegetables and meat are rare and expensive commodities. A large majority of people have no other choice but the one of eating synthetic food. Japanese scientist Mitsuyuki Ikeda has already developed a product using a meat alternative made from human excrement…

How far are we willing to go to find new meat consumption methods?

Share/Bookmark

MV Wisdom stranded on Juhu Beach. Flickr user: mayankpandey

Each year Juhu Beach and other surrounding beaches in India are faced with an environmental hazard known as tar balls.  These curious oil deposits pose an environmental threat to marine ecosystems and India’s local beaches. Tar balls typically form due to the discharge of oil or petroleum from ships in the area.  Officials are uncertain of the reason for the most recent tar balls discovery but claim that oil leakage from the MV Wisdom, which was headed to Alang ship yard, was not the culprit. That may be the case, however environmental groups have alleged for years that some of the ships headed to Alang may contain toxic matter and ultimately guilty of toxic dumping.

Due to very low environmental standards, India has become a major dumping ground for other countries to cast off hazardous and toxic waste material.  Most of that toxic material comes from e-waste which includes TV’s, computers, cell phones, etc.  However another major contributor to this pile of waste is from ship breaking. Over the years, Alang has become the largest ship scrapping yard in the world, where enormous vessels from all over the map are sent for their final resting place.

Established in the early 1980s, Alang has dismantled of over 5,000 ships in the past 30 years. The number of ships scrapped each year has consistently grown, and in 2010 over 300 ships were dismantled.  Ship scrapping is a major industry for India, with over 30,000 workers involved in the ship breaking process.  The majority of the ship’s material is recycled or reused and everyone involved in this process benefits.  The ship owner is happy to dispose of the deteriorating ship which is too costly to maintain, the buyer is thrilled to obtain the ship and sell its scraps, and the ship breaking workers are just happy to have a job.  So what’s the big deal?

Some of the ships contain hazardous materials, including asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyls, which is affecting the workers and the surrounding marine environment.  Because ship scrapping is such an important part of India’s economy, nobody appears to want to do anything to prevent it.  Environmental activists fear that a growing number of toxic ships will continue to be discarded, with many of the ships failing to disclose that they are carrying toxic material. Others argue that the Alang ship yard has serious globalization issues. By sending potentially hazardous waste to countries without the means to manage it, developed nations take financial advantage of desperate laborers.

Last year, a team from the UN visited Alang and found blatant violations of ship breaking regulations and an abysmal lack of healthcare facilities for the workers. Ship breaking regulations state that a foreign ship is allowed entry only if it has an Indian buyer. In the past, ships denied entry into Bangladesh such as SS Blue Lady was bought by Indian ship breakers and were dismantled in Alang in Gujarat.  The Indian Supreme Court has mandated that the government launch an investigation as to how nearly 200 ships, with fake documents relating to their country of origin, had entered Indian waters over the past two years, in clear violation of UN laws.

Tar balls recently washed up on Juhu Beach near the Alang ship yard. If they are no cleaned up in a timely manner, they will melt on the beach and spread. Flickr user: M.M.Meeks

Now back to the tar ball issue and the recent incident where the stranded MV Wisdom carrier turned into a tourist attraction. Officials ruled out oil leakage as the cause of the tar balls and claim that the recent monsoons are to blame.  But it seems like there may be more going on.  Many of the ships that enter the Alang area are on their last leg and tend to leak oil.  Combine that with all of the waste buildup and toxic matter from the Alang ship yard and you have a major issue at one of the popular beaches in Mumbai.  To make matters worse, the city’s contract with the beach cleanup company expired last month. So now waste continues to pile up along the coastline and the tar balls complicate things even further.  Experts say if the tar balls are not cleared off quickly, they will melt on the beach and spread across the area.

India has become a dumping ground for other countries due to their low environmental standards. Flickr user: thaths

It is clear that India has many issues to address to prevent them from being a dumping ground for the rest of the world’s trash.  The Alang ship yard is a depressing example of India’s inability to say no at the risk of losing economic gain.  They feel obligated to take on other’s trash because they realize it’s a major source of their economy and if they are going to continue to do that, they must raise their environmental standards. Workers should not be dying due to toxic materials and their coastline should not be tarnished with a never-ending waste stream.  The government needs to enforce ship breaking regulations and be more aware of the possibility of toxic waste coming to their area.  If changes aren’t made now to correct this issue, India may eventually be buried in a world of waste.

Share/Bookmark