WE ALL NEED TO REDUCE OUR PLASTICS USAGE A.S.A.P.

From an Article by Kevin Loria, Consumer Reports, June 2020 Issue, Volume 85, No. 6, pp. 26 – 35

Six (6) Ways to Use Less Plastic

While it’s practically impossible to eliminate plastic from modern life, there are a number of steps you can take right now to cut back.

1. Do: Drink tap water.
Don’t: Rely on bottled water.

Water from plastic bottles has about double the microplastic level of tap water on average, according to a 2018 study published in the journal Frontiers in Chemistry. So unless your tap water is contaminated with unsafe elements, such as lead, it’s probably best to drink tap. Fill up a metal reusable bottle for when you go out. You can always filter your tap water. Depending on the filter, that may further reduce microplastic levels. (Check CR’s ratings of water filters.)

2. Do: Heat food in or on the stove, or by microwaving in glass.
Don’t: Microwave in plastic.

Some heated plastics have long been known to leach chemicals into food. So if you’re warming up food, use a pan in the oven or on the stove, or if you’re microwaving, use a glass container. Also, avoid putting plastics in the dishwasher because of the high heat involved in cleaning.

3. Do: Buy and store food in glass, silicone, or foil containers.
Don’t: Store food in plastic, especially plastic that may contain harmful chemicals.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has said that plastic food containers with the recycling codes 3, 6, and 7 may contain potentially harmful chemicals, unless they’re labeled “biobased” or “greenware.” Don’t store food in these types of containers. Instead, use containers made of glass or silicone, or wrap your food in aluminum foil. If you’re storing food in or eating food out of plastic containers, know that plastics with recycling codes 1 and 2 are more likely to be recyclable—though they are usually recycled into lower-quality plastics. And there still may be harmful or unknown chemicals in any type of plastic.

4. Do: Eat fresh food as much as possible.
Don’t: Rely on processed food wrapped in plastic.

The more processed or packaged a food is, the higher the risk that it contains worrisome chemicals. Food cans are often lined with bisphenol A (or similar compounds). Buy fresh food from the supermarket, and—as much as possible—try to use refillable containers if your market allows. (Of course, with shopping made difficult by the coronavirus pandemic, prioritize your health and shop however is most feasible and safest.) Certain markets let you fill up cardboard or reusable containers with bulk items and weigh them, or you can use your own mesh bags for produce. Raw meat and fish need to be kept separate for safety reasons, but ask the store fishmonger or butcher to wrap these foods in wax paper instead of plastic. Take cloth—not plastic—reusable bags to the store to take your groceries home.

5. Do: Vacuum regularly.
Don’t: Allow household surfaces to get dusty.

The dust in your house could be loaded with microplastics and chemicals that are found in plastic, such as phthalates. Cleaning up dust may help reduce the amount of plastics you inhale, especially if you are stuck inside for long periods of time during a period of social distancing. CR recommends vacuuming regularly with a HEPA filter, which is best for trapping dust. (Check CR’s ratings of vacuums.)

6. Do: Work with your community.
Don’t: Assume your impact is limited to what you do in your personal life.

Legislation to limit the use of single-use plastics and plastic production may pull the biggest levers, but joining forces with community-level recycling groups can truly make a difference. Look for so-called zero-waste groups, which can offer guidelines for how to recycle or compost all your garbage—and which lobby for local rules that can restrict throwaway items. When possible, shop at markets that source goods locally, so they don’t require as much packaging and shipping. Seek out groups such as Upstream, a nonprofit working to create reusable takeout packaging for restaurants. And when possible, educate yourself about and support any city, county, and state legislation limiting single-use plastics.

###########################

See also: Many Simple Ways to Reduce Your Plastic Use Everyday | Two Wandering Soles, Katie Diederichs, June 17, 2018

Solar Panels already in WV, MD, etc.

Energy needs could actually fit quite nicely in just one desert

Guest Commentary by Mark B. Tauger, Morgantown Dominion Post, February 23, 2015

WVU President E. Gordon Gee’s remarks about solar power were recently quoted (DP-Tuesday) as: “Replacing fossil-fuel energy with alternative energy means ‘we would have to pave this country in windmills and solar farms … a windmill in every backyard … a solar panel on every green space.’ ”

Gee’s assertion is exaggerated and one-sided. A German scientist, Nadine May, in her diploma thesis, “Eco-balance of a Solar Electricity Transmission from North Africa to Europe” (Technical University of Braunschweig, 2005), examined solar irradiance and solar energy generating capacities of existing technologies.

She calculated that all of the world’s energy needs could be met by solar panels covering an area of 254×254 kilometers or about 25,600 square miles (roughly the size of West Virginia.)

May showed that this area would occupy a very small square of the Sahara Desert, but to use a more secure site, this is the area of the Mojave desert, and much smaller than the Chihuahuan Desert (140,000 square miles) or the Sonoran Desert (110,000 square miles).

All these deserts receive sufficient continuous sunlight to provide continuous energy flows, especially now that global warming will be causing decades-long droughts in our nation’s Southwest, according to new research by NASA. Again, that is the total world energy demand, the United States demand would require much less than half of that area of solar panels.

To meet West Virginia’s energy needs, which are considerably less than the energy demands of most U.S. states and developed countries, the area of solar panels necessary would be much less than one-half of one percent of the 25,000-square-mile area, perhaps 50 square miles of cells, or a region 7 miles by 7 miles, which could be broken up and scattered in a few isolated regions in the state, certainly without “a solar panel on every greenspace.”

Similar corrections could be made to Gee’s exaggerated assertions about “a windmill in every backyard.”

Even if May’s estimate is too low, and the world would need two or three times that area, that would still be a tiny fraction of the regions in the world that get reliable sun and could produce energy for all the world’s needs.

Such a system would also be very cost-effective. The existing U.S. energy industries — oil, coal, gas and nuclear — have received during their lifetime an estimated $630 billion in subsidies from the U.S. government, i.e., from taxpayers.

They have also received much larger indirect and hidden subsidies because they have avoided paying for many of the damages their products have caused or contributed to, such as mine workers’ lung diseases, many illnesses among the general population related to coal smoke, environmental destruction caused by mine pollution and burning of fossil fuels, and the long-term effects of climate change.

By comparison, solar and other renewables have received only about $50 billion in subsidies, yet they are already being used widely in many countries. Renewables have been a bargain, and the more they are used, the bigger a bargain they will be.

Most importantly, in my view, no one will get black lung from setting up or monitoring a solar panel or a windmill.

Anyone who complains about the “cost” of solar must explicitly and openly address the costs of thousands of coal miners’ lives shortened by lung and other diseases, the medical expenses they must bear while the companies try to avoid paying, the costs to miners’ families devoting their lives to caring for fathers and husbands and then losing them early, and endless illnesses and contamination of waters and lands that everyone has to deal with in our coal-powered country.

A few areas of “green space” covered by solar panels would seem a negligible price for keeping unpolluted more lands, streams and lakes, and enabling more people to live their full lives.

>>> Mark B. Tauger is an associate professor of history at WVU, specializing in the history of famine, agriculture and agricultural sciences. <<<

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net