Question: Sounds great. But that’ll cost. Where should the money come from?
Answer: Part of the funding could be generated in conventional ways. The remainder will have to be financed through money creation.
source: http://home.wanadoo.nl
Thursday, September 29, 2011
THE ENVIRONMENT: PRESENT AND PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
Question: So what to do?
Answer: A global "bottom line" will have to be established, which will oblige business as well as governments and other parties to comply with minimum environmental standards. As was described for the social "bottom line", non-compliance should give complying countries the right to impose trade sanctions. Rather then its current hammering on totally unrestrained trade the World Trade Organization, WTO, should take the lead in establishing and implementing these environmental and social "bottom lines". At the same time, a massive effort should be initiated to provide poor countries with the technology required for effective pollution control. Financing of this effort should take place within the framework of an overall sustainable development program, which should also address the already mentioned issues of adequate land and water management, conservation of natural areas and bio-diversity, and the conversion to clean, renewable fuel.
source: http://home.wanadoo.nl
THE ENVIRONMENT: PRESENT AND PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
Question: Why not indeed? Why is all that knowledge and technology not used?
Answer: Because of its cost, and – related to that - because the competition between countries to attract and keep business makes governments slack on imposing and maintaining environmental regulations.
Explanation: costs of pollution control, globalization and environmental regulations
Pollution control technology is often expensive. It does not as a rule add to production quantity and, with the partial exception of agricultural products, product quality. Therefore, pollution control raises production costs. That reduces profits and makes products less competitive in international markets. Recognizing this, governments, especially of poor countries, tend to avoid bothering their business sector with environmental regulations - until environmental problems become such that action can no longer be delayed. Likewise, in their drive to attract foreign investment governments outdo themselves in trying to outdo governments in offering a favorable investment climate. Environmental regulations that increase production costs are not part of that climate. Thanks to globalization, international business can threaten to set up shop elsewhere if environmental regulations are perceived as too tight. Thus both national and international business push, directly or indirectly, to loosen environmental laws, if not in writing then in enforcement.
Moreover, especially in poor, badly governed countries (the two usually go together), those responsible for causing most of the environmental damage are part of the local economic and political elite, and are thus easily capable to block any measures they see as contrary to their interests.
source: http://home.wanadoo.nl
Answer: Because of its cost, and – related to that - because the competition between countries to attract and keep business makes governments slack on imposing and maintaining environmental regulations.
Explanation: costs of pollution control, globalization and environmental regulations
Pollution control technology is often expensive. It does not as a rule add to production quantity and, with the partial exception of agricultural products, product quality. Therefore, pollution control raises production costs. That reduces profits and makes products less competitive in international markets. Recognizing this, governments, especially of poor countries, tend to avoid bothering their business sector with environmental regulations - until environmental problems become such that action can no longer be delayed. Likewise, in their drive to attract foreign investment governments outdo themselves in trying to outdo governments in offering a favorable investment climate. Environmental regulations that increase production costs are not part of that climate. Thanks to globalization, international business can threaten to set up shop elsewhere if environmental regulations are perceived as too tight. Thus both national and international business push, directly or indirectly, to loosen environmental laws, if not in writing then in enforcement.
Moreover, especially in poor, badly governed countries (the two usually go together), those responsible for causing most of the environmental damage are part of the local economic and political elite, and are thus easily capable to block any measures they see as contrary to their interests.
source: http://home.wanadoo.nl
THE ENVIRONMENT: PRESENT AND PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
Question: What’s wrong with those arguments?
Answer: Bad economics, and poor morals.
Bad economics: Much of the damage being done to the environment will be difficult or impossible to restore. And for what can be restored, the longer we wait, the higher the cost. Mainstream economics, markets, and voters have, unfortunately, a very short time horizon, and do not take account of future costs and damages. In present cost-benefit calculations environmental costs, that is, the cost of damage to the environment, are not counted. Therefore neither the private sector nor markets can be counted upon to remedy the situation: by the time markets will react it will be too late, or the cost of remedying the situation will be astronomical.
Morals: The environment is a public good, and investment in its maintenance and where possible, recuperation is, because of its importance for current as well as future generations, a moral duty. The millions of deaths that occur each year, almost all of them among the (very) poor and mostly, among children under five, are simply unacceptable.
Even less acceptable is that, if current trends continue, more suffering and death lie ahead.
The key problem is that there is simply no time to follow the path the rich countries have followed, that is, to first sacrifice the environment on the altar of economic growth, and only then start paying attention to our surroundings. Moreover, what’s the point of making the same mistakes the rich countries made? Contrary to, say, the 19th century and the first 60 to 70 years of the 20th, the knowledge and the technology to produce in an environmentally friendly manner are there. So why not use it?
source: http://home.wanadoo.nl
Answer: Bad economics, and poor morals.
Bad economics: Much of the damage being done to the environment will be difficult or impossible to restore. And for what can be restored, the longer we wait, the higher the cost. Mainstream economics, markets, and voters have, unfortunately, a very short time horizon, and do not take account of future costs and damages. In present cost-benefit calculations environmental costs, that is, the cost of damage to the environment, are not counted. Therefore neither the private sector nor markets can be counted upon to remedy the situation: by the time markets will react it will be too late, or the cost of remedying the situation will be astronomical.
Morals: The environment is a public good, and investment in its maintenance and where possible, recuperation is, because of its importance for current as well as future generations, a moral duty. The millions of deaths that occur each year, almost all of them among the (very) poor and mostly, among children under five, are simply unacceptable.
Even less acceptable is that, if current trends continue, more suffering and death lie ahead.
The key problem is that there is simply no time to follow the path the rich countries have followed, that is, to first sacrifice the environment on the altar of economic growth, and only then start paying attention to our surroundings. Moreover, what’s the point of making the same mistakes the rich countries made? Contrary to, say, the 19th century and the first 60 to 70 years of the 20th, the knowledge and the technology to produce in an environmentally friendly manner are there. So why not use it?
source: http://home.wanadoo.nl
THE ENVIRONMENT: PRESENT AND PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
Question: Why the lack of action, and results?
Answer: Governments are unwilling to spend the large sums of money that are needed to effectively address the problems. Powerful interest groups – oil producing nations and companies, loggers – block initiatives to change things around. And most important: short term economic interests are put above the longer term common good.
Explanation: Priorities, rationalization, and ideology.
Politicians give priority to the economy. They are largely pushed to do so by voters, who consider the present contents of their wallet much more important then the problems we will face in thirty years.
Rationalization is used to play down the consequences: nature is more resilient, so it is said, that all those environmental doomsday prophets pretend it to be, and nature, and people, will adapt to the changes.
Ideology is also used to justify inaction: the invisible hand of the market will ensure that everything will turn out all right. When the time comes people, companies and governments, prodded by the right balance between costs and benefits, will take the required action. For example, if oil becomes scarce and therefore, expensive, companies will be stimulated to look for alternatives – and will actively identify, develop and market them. No need to interfere in that process – it is better not to.
Another ideological argument is that presently we, and especially the poor countries, can’t afford to spend much money on the environment. The same argument is used to argue against large scale spending on fighting poverty. It states that first, countries have to create wealth, and only then can they invest in improving the environment – or fighting poverty. That’s what the rich countries did, the poor countries should follow the same path.
source: http://home.wanadoo.nl
Answer: Governments are unwilling to spend the large sums of money that are needed to effectively address the problems. Powerful interest groups – oil producing nations and companies, loggers – block initiatives to change things around. And most important: short term economic interests are put above the longer term common good.
Explanation: Priorities, rationalization, and ideology.
Politicians give priority to the economy. They are largely pushed to do so by voters, who consider the present contents of their wallet much more important then the problems we will face in thirty years.
Rationalization is used to play down the consequences: nature is more resilient, so it is said, that all those environmental doomsday prophets pretend it to be, and nature, and people, will adapt to the changes.
Ideology is also used to justify inaction: the invisible hand of the market will ensure that everything will turn out all right. When the time comes people, companies and governments, prodded by the right balance between costs and benefits, will take the required action. For example, if oil becomes scarce and therefore, expensive, companies will be stimulated to look for alternatives – and will actively identify, develop and market them. No need to interfere in that process – it is better not to.
Another ideological argument is that presently we, and especially the poor countries, can’t afford to spend much money on the environment. The same argument is used to argue against large scale spending on fighting poverty. It states that first, countries have to create wealth, and only then can they invest in improving the environment – or fighting poverty. That’s what the rich countries did, the poor countries should follow the same path.
source: http://home.wanadoo.nl
THE ENVIRONMENT: PRESENT AND PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
Question: That’s a frightening list. What’s being done about it?
image from http://www.forestbusinessnetwork.com
Answer: Relatively speaking, very little - in spite of the efforts of many environmental organizations. Natural ecosystems continue to disappear, though in some countries the pace has slowed somewhat. On the other hand, in the former Soviet Union the destruction of natural habitats, especially forests, is rapidly increasing. Loss of agricultural land continues and in some cases, accelerates, in spite of minor, mostly local successes. As regards the Greenhouse effect: the world’s nations are hotly debating an agreement, drafted in Kyoto, Japan, that doesn’t even begin to address the problem. Instead of calling for the large- scale replacement of fossil fuel with renewable energy, an essential strategy for reducing greenhouse emissions, it calls for no more than a stabilization of emission levels.
source: http://home.wanadoo.nl
THE ENVIRONMENT: PRESENT AND PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE
Question: What are the major environmental dangers facing us today?
Answer: Though some progress has been made in the rich nations in controlling pollution and protecting ecosystems, the situation in the rest of the world is dire. Since the rich countries account for only some 20% of the worlds’ landmass, it can safely be said that the global environment is at risk. A list:
Answer: Though some progress has been made in the rich nations in controlling pollution and protecting ecosystems, the situation in the rest of the world is dire. Since the rich countries account for only some 20% of the worlds’ landmass, it can safely be said that the global environment is at risk. A list:
- Natural ecosystems are disappearing rapidly. If things continue as today, in twenty to thirty years most of the remaining tropical forests, a large part of mountain forests and most of the world’s wetlands will be gone or severely marred by pollution.
THE DYING EARTH
image from www.google.com
- Air and water pollution are costing millions of lives each year – through acute infections or chronic health problems that lead to premature death. Soil pollution threatens ground water supplies and as such, can develop into a major cause of water pollution and health hazard.
NO CLEAN AIR TO BREATHE
image from www.google.com
- Global warming will raise sea levels by several feet in this century, threatening the half of the global population that lives in coastal areas: at sea level, and sometimes below it. Moreover, it leads to increasingly strong and therefore destructive storms and flooding, and upsets ecosystems through the expansion of non-indigenous plant and animal species. In drier areas it also leads to desertification.
image from http://savetheusa.webs.com
- Desertification and soil erosion, caused by wind and water, and salinization of irrigated areas due to poor water management lead to a steady decrease in the quantity and quality of agricultural land. This is true especially in the most densely populated areas of the world.
LAND FALL
image from www.google.com
- By 2050 over half the global population, in rich as well as poor countries, is expected to face serious fresh water shortages.
NO WATER TO DRINK
Monday, September 26, 2011
JUST SOME OF THE PHILIPPINE ENDANGERED SPECIES
Philippine Eagle
Crocodiles
Philippine Tarsier
Philippine Iguanashttp://newshopper.sulekha.com/philippines-endangered-animals_photo_1378947.htm
Mouse Deer
Philippine Spotted Deer
PHILIPPINES FOREST INFORMATION AND DATA
According to the U.N. FAO, 25.7% or about 7,665,000 ha of Philippines is forested, according to FAO. Of this 11.2% ( 861,000 ) is classified as primary forest, the most biodiverse and carbon-dense form of forest. Philippines had 352,000 ha of planted forest.
Change in Forest Cover: Between 1990 and 2010, Philippines lost an average of 54,750 ha or 0.83% per year. In total, between 1990 and 2010, Philippines gained 16.7% of its forest cover, or around 1,095,000 ha.
Philippines's forests contain 663 million metric tons of carbon in living forest biomass. Biodiversity and Protected Areas: Philippines has some 1196 known species of amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles according to figures from the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Of these, 45.8% are endemic, meaning they exist in no other country, and 14.7% are threatened. Philippines is home to at least 8931 species of vascular plants, of which 39.2% are endemic. 5.1% of Philippines is protected under IUCN categories I-V.
Change in Forest Cover: Between 1990 and 2010, Philippines lost an average of 54,750 ha or 0.83% per year. In total, between 1990 and 2010, Philippines gained 16.7% of its forest cover, or around 1,095,000 ha.
Philippines's forests contain 663 million metric tons of carbon in living forest biomass. Biodiversity and Protected Areas: Philippines has some 1196 known species of amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles according to figures from the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. Of these, 45.8% are endemic, meaning they exist in no other country, and 14.7% are threatened. Philippines is home to at least 8931 species of vascular plants, of which 39.2% are endemic. 5.1% of Philippines is protected under IUCN categories I-V.
2011 Update
In May 2011, Sassan Saatchi of Caltech's Jet Propulsion Lab and colleagues published a paper in PNAS with new carbon stock estimates for global tropical forests.
In May 2011, Sassan Saatchi of Caltech's Jet Propulsion Lab and colleagues published a paper in PNAS with new carbon stock estimates for global tropical forests.
| Forest definition (canopy cover %) | 10% tree cover | 25% tree cover | 30% tree cover |
| Forest Area (M ha) | 21 | 13 | 11 |
| Aboveground forest carbon (Mt C) | 1,810 | 1,176 | 1,068 |
| Belowground forest carbon (Mt C) | 502 | 324 | 293 |
| Total forest carbon (Mt C) | 2,312 | 1,500 | 1,361 |
| Average Carbon Density (t C/ha) | 111 | 118 | 120 |
M=million, t=metric tons; all figures are mean carbon stock values
FIVE BASIC STEPS TO SAVING RAINFORESTS
image from www.google.com/philippine rainforest
"TREES" is a concept originally devised for an elementary school audience but serves well as set of principles for saving rainforests and, on a broader scale, ecosystems around the world.
- Teach others about the importance of the environment and how they can help save rainforests.
- Restore damaged ecosystems by planting trees on land where forests have been cut down.
- Encourage people to live in a way that doesn't hurt the environment.
- Establish parks to protect rainforests and wildlife.
- Support companies that operate in ways that minimize damage to the environment.
MONGABAY.COM SAYS;
The once spectacular primary forests of the Philippines are now a relic of a bygone era. What little primary forest does remain exists on the island of Palawan, the last sanctuary for the Palawan eagle.
Between 1990 and 2005 the Philippines lost a third of its forest cover. While the current deforestation rate is around 2 percent per year, this represents a 20 percent drop from the rate of the 1990s. Widespread logging was responsible for much of the historical forest loss in the Philippines. Despite government bans on timber harvesting following severe flooding in the late 1980s and early 1990s, illegal logging continues today. Illicit wood cut from secondary and primary forests is routinely smuggled to other Asian countries.
After temporarily lifting the log export ban in the late 1990s, the government has increasingly tried to crack down on timber smuggling and forest degradation, but with limited success. Additional threats to Philippine forests come from legal and illegal mining operations—which also cause pollution— agricultural fires, collection of fuelwood, and rural population expansion. In recent years, deforestation has been increasingly blamed for soil erosion, river siltation, flooding, and drought; environmental awareness is now rising in the country. Activists are quick to criticize government decisions that adversely affect the country's environment.
image from www.google.com/philippine rainforest
With less and less forest in the Philippines, locals are increasingly reliant on plantations to meet their timber needs. As a result, plantation cover has fallen 65 percent between 1990 and 2005.
The continuing disappearance of Filipino wild lands is of great to concern to ecologists due to the high levels of endemic species. Of the 1,196 known species of amphibians, birds, mammals and reptiles in the country, nearly 46 percent are endemic. Among plants, the number is around 40 percent. Only about 5 percent of the Philippines land area is under some form of protection.
SOURCE: http://rainforests.mongabay.com/20philippines.htm
Saturday, September 24, 2011
ORGANIC FARMING BATTLES CLIMATE CHANGE
An environment expert is encouraging farmers to switch to organic agriculture as a hedge against climate change.
Dr. Victoria Espaldon, professor and dean of the School of Environmental Management of the University of the Philippines at Los Baños (UPLB-SEM), made the pitch in a seminar held in conjunction with the 7th National Agriculture and Fisheries Technology Forum and Product Exhibition organized by the Bureau of Agricultural Research (BAR).
Organic agriculture and diversified farming are the antidote to global warming, she said. “It is imperative that the agriculture sector adapt to climate change.”
She also asked farmers not to be overly concerned with eliminating weeds that are actually, structurally and genetically akin to organic fertilizer apart from possessing compounds with anti-cancer properties and characteristics with high pharmaceutical potential.
Espaldon emphasized the significant impact that organic farming and crop diversification could bring to the farming communities.
The best climate change strategies, she said, includes sustainable agriculture and good agricultural practices.
Use climate-ready crops, integrate livestock and non-farm income generating activities, adjust the seasonal calendar, employ climate-resilient postharvest storage and postharvest processing and include climate risks in agricultural planning were some of the suggestions she made.
Source: Marvyn N. Benaning- Manila Bulletin
EARTHQUAKE STIKES NEAR MANILA
An earthquake struck the Philippines last September 22, 2011 just west of Manila shortly before noon today.
The earthquake was one of the largest temblors to strike near Manila this summer. Local news reports the quake struck at a magnitude 5.0.
United States Geological Survey(USGS) indicates to news that the quake had a nominal depth, only thirty-two miles below the earth’s surface.
According to the USGS reports to news, located out in the water, the quake struck at 11:49 AM local time. The quake was only eighty-six miles west of Manila; centered thirty-nine miles west of Olongapo, Luzon, and fifty miles west of Angeles, Luzon. It was just west of Botolan, San Felipe, and Angeles City and was also close to the City of San Fernando.
In July, a 6.0 earthquake struck the region. USGS at the time reported that the July earthquake had a depth of thirty-eight miles and was centered sixteen miles north west of Olongapo, Luzon; thirty-two miles west of Angeles, Luzon; and sixty-two miles west of Manila.
In related news, a stroke 5.5 quake struck eastern Turkey on the same day. Its nominal depth causes the quake to be felt across a wide area. USGS reports to news that the quake was only three miles below the earth’s surface and was centered west of Erzincan and roughly eighty miles north-west of Elazig.
The earthquake was one of the largest temblors to strike near Manila this summer. Local news reports the quake struck at a magnitude 5.0.
United States Geological Survey(USGS) indicates to news that the quake had a nominal depth, only thirty-two miles below the earth’s surface.
According to the USGS reports to news, located out in the water, the quake struck at 11:49 AM local time. The quake was only eighty-six miles west of Manila; centered thirty-nine miles west of Olongapo, Luzon, and fifty miles west of Angeles, Luzon. It was just west of Botolan, San Felipe, and Angeles City and was also close to the City of San Fernando.
In July, a 6.0 earthquake struck the region. USGS at the time reported that the July earthquake had a depth of thirty-eight miles and was centered sixteen miles north west of Olongapo, Luzon; thirty-two miles west of Angeles, Luzon; and sixty-two miles west of Manila.
In related news, a stroke 5.5 quake struck eastern Turkey on the same day. Its nominal depth causes the quake to be felt across a wide area. USGS reports to news that the quake was only three miles below the earth’s surface and was centered west of Erzincan and roughly eighty miles north-west of Elazig.
Source: http://news.lalate.com
Saturday, September 10, 2011
WORLD'S POLLUTED WATER ECOSYSYTEM
image from http://wn.com/5_manila_bay_pollution
image from http://www.pollution.in/water-pollution.html
WATER POLLUTION: CAUSE, EFFECT, SOLUTIONS
Careless human pollutions affect many areas in the world. The wastes that humans disposed and dumped everywhere come back to them in very undesirable manner.
The oil spill of the Exxon Valdez showed the world how horrible the effects of water pollution could be. Even though the spill barely affects the surface of the problem of water pollution, the spill became the turning point for the government to act upon the reactions of the people, an article discussed.
Oil is just one of many pollutants that people dump into the water. Every year, 14 billions of sewage, sludge and garbage are also dumped into the world’s oceans. Annually, 19 trillion of wastes enter water.
Water pollution affects every nation around the globe. The problem had been intensified as the world continued to industrialized and the population increases.
It is not actually illegal to dump pollutants into bodies of water though restricted. It is the major reason why industries, buildings and factories dumped their wastes into oceans and seas. This results to severe and alarming water pollution.
Across the globe, about half of all sewage is dumped into the sea and other bodies of water in its original form. But no one cared to disinfect and remove the harmful pollutants. Even the wastes are treated, sewage form sludge and often sent out to the sea. People should know that the effects are really dangerous. The effects of the chemicals dumped into the water may also vary and depend on the chemicals.
The toxic waste and sewage kill lives that inhabits on water- based ecosystems. This results to often winding up of dead fish, birds, dolphins, etc. on the beaches.
Pollutants like lead and cadmium are eaten by small animals, and then consumed by the fishes and shellfish. The food chain continued to be disrupted at all levels. Eventually, humans are affected. The people get diseases like hepatitis because of eating poisoned seafood.
These events come to the point of restricting the industries from dumping materials into bodies of water. Non- governmental projects and organizations as well as environmental groups help each other in their clean up efforts to maintain the healthy bodies of water.
Industries also cooperate through reducing the amount of chemicals they dumped into seas and oceans. The plastic industry also helped through making their product degradable.
The public has been very influential to the government in implementing environmental laws. Their reactions upon the harmful effects of water pollution became the turning point for the governments to intervene. Somehow, it should not be just the government who should take actions. The public as well should do their part as citizens of the country and as stewards of God.
Source: http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Environmental_Problems/environmental_problems.html
Friday, September 9, 2011
EARTHLY TRUE
“The phrase "conquest of nature" is certainly one of the most
objectionable and misleading expressions of Western languages.
It reflects the illusion that all natural forces can be entirely
controlled, and it expresses the criminal conceit that nature
is to be considered primarily as a source of raw materials
and energy for human purposes." From A God within by René Dubos
objectionable and misleading expressions of Western languages.
It reflects the illusion that all natural forces can be entirely
controlled, and it expresses the criminal conceit that nature
is to be considered primarily as a source of raw materials
and energy for human purposes." From A God within by René Dubos
The Earth
- The Earth has been around for 4.6 billion years. Scaling this time down to 46 years we have been around for 4 hours and our Industrial Revolution began just 1 minute ago. During this short time period we have ransacked the planet for ways to get fuels and raw materials, have been the cause of extinction of an unthinkable amount of plants and animals, and have multiplied our population to that of a plague.
- Despite all of the damage we have caused the environment most of it is reversible. We can restore habitats and return species to them; clean rivers; renovate buildings; replenish the topsoil, replant forests. However, these activities do not relieve the worst symptoms of the damage. We still have to fix the source of these problems, us and our vision that we must progress.
Source: http://library.thinkquest.org/11353/facts.html
REDUCE, REUSE, AND RECYCLE: SUGGESTIONS FOR CHILDREN
REDUCE
* When you go shopping, take along a bag and tell the cashier that you won't need a new one.
* Avoid buying fast food unless it is served in recyclable packages.
* Boycott products that are over packaged. Choose items packaged in containers that are recyclable or made of recycled materials. Write to companies and tell them why you are making these choices.
* Don't buy or use disposable products. Switch to cloth napkins, carry drinks in refillable thermos bottles, and carry your lunch in washable, reusable containers. Instead of paper towels, use a cloth or sponge to clean up.
* Don't buy aerosol cans. They can't be recycled, and they contain ingredients which cause air pollution. Instead look for spray bottles or other alternatives.
* Try to avoid creating hazardous wastes. Many household cleaning products can be replaced with simpler, less hazardous materials.
* Reduce your use of batteries. They contain heavy metals that are toxic. Try to use mechanical objects, ones that plug in, or rechargeable batteries.
REUSE
* Donate outgrown toys and clothing to a worthy cause, rather than throwing them away. Even worn-out clothing can be used as rags for cleaning, car polishing, etc., rather than using disposable paper towels.
* Create a compost pile. With very little effort, yard wastes and food scraps can be made into compost, which will help your garden or yard to grow.
* Learn to fix things rather than throwing them away. When buying new objects, look for sturdy ones that will last for a long time.
* If you or your family has old magazines or books you want to get rid of, donate them to a hospital, nursing home, or waiting room rather than throwing them away. Share a subscription with a friend.
RECYCLE
* Find out what is recyclable in your community, and help your family to make whatever changes are necessary to recycle everything possible.
* Ask your parents to buy drinks in glass or aluminum containers instead of plastic, since glass and aluminum are easier to recycle. Avoid buying drinks in unrecyclable containers.
* Whenever possible, choose products made from recycled materials. Unless people want to buy recycled products, companies will not produce them.
source: http://www.wastetocharity.org/SolidWasteManagementForSchoolsTeachersandEducation.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
