Anyone who lived through grade school in the 1990s can relate to Jordan’s reminiscing about the heyday of recycled paper and its lasting effects on everyday products:

Consider this: during the early 90s, a green wave hit the marketplace and products such as recycled paper were being pushed as the environmentally friendly alternative. I remember proudly buying some gray notebook paper that was 100% recycled. It was terrible paper — very hard to write on, and easy to tear. But darn it, I was doing my part, as a kid in school, to help reduce waste.

The demand for 100% recycled paper died down. But paper companies continued to use some recycled content in their paper and improve the process. Much of the notebook paper kids use for school today has some amount of recycled content in it, as does a lot of the cardboard used for packaging fast food. The green wave of the 1990s might have died down, but it did bring recycled materials to the forefront as a viable way to create products.

Jordan goes on to apply the same logic to today’s hottest green trend: reusable bags. Though they’ve always been en vogue for those on the front lines of environmentalism, they never really caught on in the mainstream until this most recent wave of green living. Over the past few years, the average consumer has embraced tote bags for everything from groceries to library books with such a fervor that it makes one wonder why they never caught on before. Jordan’s theory: until now, no one ever attempted to make reusable bags appealing to consumers.

The truth of the matter is that reusable bags have been out there for years, but they haven’t been produced at a low enough price that they’ve been attractive to consumers. When grocery stores embraced them during the last “green” wave and began offering them for a dollar a bag, consumers could see the value of having a few. When being socially conscious is cheap and easy, many people are willing to give it a try.

Unfortunately, he notes, the cyclical nature of green marketing dictates that, by and large, the frenzy for environmentally conscious products will eventually die back down. On the whole, however, each new wave seems to raise consumer standards by exponential degrees. This time around, reusable bags seem to have finally taken hold and — like recycled products before it — are poised to take a permanent place in mainstream consumer culture.

Last Friday we posted about Earth Hour — a global event, taking place this past Saturday night, in which everyone was encouraged to turn off their lights for one hour in a bid to make an impact on the environment. It was the subject of much controversy as some rallied behind it while others ranted against it. To the latter: sure, one hour of reduced electricity usage may or may not make a wild life-changing difference, but the true point of this was to get people thinking on a larger scale about what can be done — as an ongoing measure — to help improve our environment.

Despite the naysayers, Earth Hour went as planned, and the result was a heightened awareness of needless electricity waste — and some stunning photographs. Boston.com has images from seventeen landmarks around the globe, both before and after the lights went out. The visual impact of seeing places like Big Ben or the Eiffel Tower powered down is effective, thought-provoking, and a testament to the project’s success. Check it out! You will not be disappointed.

Hat tip to Ecorazzi!

World Wildlife Fund is asking individuals, businesses, governments and organizations around the world to turn off their lights for one hour – Earth Hour – to make a global statement of concern about climate change and to demonstrate commitment to finding solutions.

It’s a great idea, but for some reason a lot of people seem to be railing against it — some complain that it overhypes the “lie” that is global warming, while others simply don’t want the “guilt” of having to think about the earth for one hour of the day.

I don’t want to seem insensitive, but with Earth Day and Arbor Day, aren’t enough hours covered? Can’t I have a few hours to myself to crank up the heat and watch a hockey game? I recycle, I drive a car that gets 30 miles per gallon. Haven’t we treated the Earth better over the last 20 years? Don’t we deserve at least a few shame-free watts of electricity for our efforts?

Seriously? You have plenty of those — they’re called the other twenty-three hours of the day, plus every other day of the year that isn’t Earth Day or Arbor Day. (That brings us to a whopping 49 hours to think about conservation, is that really too much?)

Check out the Earth Hour website for more information on things you can do to make a difference, from reading about the issues to writing to the president and sharing some ideas of your own. Take a few minutes out of your busy day to get informed and make some impacting choices. Contrary to some opinions, those minutes are truly the least one can do.

1 » I will store one reusable tote bag in my vehicle and bring it into the store the next time I go shopping. Those plastic bags that stores dole out by the zillions are made from petroleum, and only about 1 percent of them are recycled throughout the world each year. Most end up in landfills or in the oceans, where they wreak havoc on sea life. One good deed leads to another, and soon you may be toting all of your groceries home in reusable bags.

Yeah! Number one! If last year wasn’t “the year” for reusable bags, then it’s coming for sure now. The knowledge doesn’t stop there, though. She has four more resolutions, and all of them are not only excellent, but simple and practical, because Ms. Butters knows that New Year’s resolutions are easier said than done.

The whole concept of going green or making environmentally responsible lifestyle changes can be mind-boggling. There are so many suggestions out there and so many products proclaiming planet-friendliness that it’s sometimes easier just to stick with the status quo than to try and figure out where to start. That’s why I’ve come up with five New Year’s resolutions that provide simple ways to green your home, from the food pantry to the cleaning closet. Clip this column and post it on your fridge or bulletin board — someplace where you’ll have it as a handy reminder of how a few little changes can end up making a big difference. You can even check ‘em off as you go. Remember, no matter how resolved we are, lifestyle changes don’t happen overnight. Go easy on yourself and stay positive. This is an ongoing process that gains momentum by simply putting one foot in front of the other.

Interested in seeing what else she has to say? Check out the article, and if you own the newspaper already, get clipping. If you don’t, print it on out — or better yet where the environment is concerned, simply bookmark it.

Let’s take a timeout from our normal topics to address a rather unusual, but completely valid, environmental concern — garbage disposals. I came across an article in Slate yesterday, where a troubled reader wrote in with this question:

I’m sorry to say I live in an apartment without a composter for organic waste. Given the circumstances, am I better off feeding my leftover mashed potatoes into the garbage disposal, so they don’t end up in a landfill? Or should I throw them in the trash can, so they don’t end up the water supply?

A very good question, and certainly one that warrants some time and discussion! Though it doesn’t seem to weigh heavily on many peoples’ minds here in the United States, apparently other countries are already starting to tackle it, on the basis that the benefits versus costs of garbage disposals are ambiguous, to say the least. On the one side, water treatment plants are made to handle what your dirty dishes dish out:

It is true that with the major exception of grease and fats—which can block pipes and cause overflows—water-treatment systems are designed pretty well to handle most of the scraps you might have left over from dinner. The leftovers you shovel into the sink will eventually make their way to a wastewater plant, where the sewage goes through “grit treatment,” which strains out the largest solid matter. (Sewage treatment is one of the few disciplines in which you can use words like grit, sludge, and scum as technical terms.) Whatever stuff gets separated from the water is either landfilled, condensed into fertilizer, or digested by microorganisms.

On the other hand, every instance of waste inevitably has consequences:

Still, dumping waste into the water system has environmental costs. There is evidence that the effluent that is pumped back into local water streams does affect their chemical composition and aquatic life. In extreme cases, the result can be something called eutrophication, which occurs when a higher concentration of nutrients results in algae blooms. According to one Australian study, the eutrophic impact of sending your food waste down the disposal is more than three times larger than sending it to the landfill. You’ll also be using a lot more water if you decide to go with the disposal—and you’ll be indirectly responsible for the extraction of the metal needed to make the appliance.

The article does note that studies on both sides of the debate tend to be rather biased toward whatever program or company funded the study. Then, there’s the question of landfill transport versus water consumption, and every other variable. Basically, it all comes down to your individual circumstances. How is the drought situation in your area? If water is running low, you may want to avoid, well, running it whenever possible (and trashing your food scraps rather than sending then down the drain). Check into your town’s water treatment program and effectiveness, and make sure you can be trusted not to accidentally stuff bacon grease and chicken bones down your kitchen pipes.

And remember: if you have the means to compost, it’s better than any of the above.

Photo via Flickr!

If approved, the ordinance would ban the use of plastic shopping bags, starting in July. The four Democrats on the council voted for the introduction of the ordinance and the two Republicans voted for the ordinance to be tabled.

“I find this bill to be very restraining to our business in particular, not only from a business perspective but from an environmental perspective,” said Philip Scaduto, vice president of administration and marketing of Food Circus Supermarkets, which operates Super Foodtown of Red Bank and nine other supermarkets.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: grocery store names on the East Coast are infinitely more exciting than on the West Coast. Let’s all go to Super Foodtown! But I digress — are we surprised that a grocery franchise operator is against a ban? Of course not.

Scaduto said recyclable bags have a second life after their initial use. “Compostable bags, which really only end up in the ground, they have no second life, no second benefit or anything that can be redeemed back into society, unlike recyclable bags, which have alternative uses,” he said.

Scaduto said plastic bags serve other purposes and can be used as garbage bags or to pick up pet waste.

“[Also], you can recycle the bag, and when you recycle the bag, we make other recyclable bags out of that or byproducts of that plastic,” he said. Scaduto said the borough might want to wait and get more information before passing the ordinance.

More than anything, I just want to say that if I have to hear the phrase “pet waste” as a major talking point in favor of disposable plastic bags one more time, I am going to scream until my voice gives out. But anyway, the debate rages on as usual, but if you happen to be in this area of New Jersey then you can make a difference: the 22nd at 7:30PM, at the municipal building at 90 Monmouth St. Be there or be square.

More than enough valid signatures have been collected by a group that opposes a new fee on paper and plastic bags in Seattle to keep the ordinance from going into effect in January as planned.

Instead, city voters will decide the fate of the disposable bag fee during an election next year.

The City Council passed an ordinance July 28 requiring a 20-cent green fee on plastic or paper bags at grocery and drug stores, setting off a range of reactions from cheers to outcry. The council also banned plastic foam food and drink containers. That rule isn’t affected by the referendum and will go into effect Jan. 1.

Sponsored in large part by the American Chemistry Council — surprise, I know! — the smoothly-titled Coalition to Stop the Seattle Bag Tax managed to raise 15,099 signatures from disgruntled grocers and customers alike in protest of the tariff. All they needed to stall the policy in its tracks were 14,374.

George Griffin, a spokesman for the Coalition to Stop the Seattle Bag Tax, said the fee is “opposed by a broad spectrum of citizens and stakeholders as unnecessary, placing an unfair financial burden on Seattle’s working families.”

That many signatures “provides concrete evidence that the City Council was not representing the views of many of its constituents in imposing the bag tax,” Griffin said. “You can’t cast them as nonsupportive of the environment; they just think this is the wrong way to address the issue.”

The American Chemistry Council, which hired Griffin for the Seattle effort, is fighting similar proposals in California and Hawaii.

Sadly, a side effect of this very signature initiative may be the city council opting instead to ban plastic bags outright — an option that will likely anger even more people in the long run. Nobody wants to place taxes, but we’re trying to reach a compromise here. The fact of the matter is, for all the “we’ll do better, we swear!” rhetoric, people simply aren’t reusing and recycling of their own accord. So, I hope everyone knows what they’re doing here. This could become quite the battle.

With the assault on disposable plastic bags in full effect, a common criticism is that we are unfairly picking on the plastic bag industry while other (arguably) bigger and badder bits of refuse get a free pass to landfill heaven. All in good time, my friends — we’re getting to them. The city of Toronto, for example, has now widened their sights to include not just plastic bags and take-out containers, but even the nefariously ubiquitous disposable coffee cup.

As part of Toronto’s plan to be diverting 70 per cent of its garbage from landfill by 2010, the city is examining ways to limit items that have a bad reputation for filling up landfills.

“They may not be very heavy, but they take up a lot of space,” said Geoff Rathbone, general manager of Toronto’s solid waste department.

The aim of all this is to increase the garbage diversion rate from the current 42 per cent – a move that would extend the life of the city’s Green Lane landfill, near London, Ont. Some regions, like Durham and York, are moving toward incineration as a solution to waste that can’t be recycled, but Toronto remains committed to landfills.

The proposals, being pushed by Toronto Councilor Howard Moscoe, include options for an outright ban, a tax or levy on the products in question, or even a deposit-return incentive program. Which will prevail? No one is sure yet, if any, but city waste managers are currently in meetings with successful policy setters from across North America to work on developing some new potential strategies. Whatever the outcome, don’t worry about plastic bag fighters “missing the big picture” by not going after other sources of trash overflow. We’re coming for them, too. All in good time.

Photo via Flickr!

Energy efficient lightbulbs? Water conservation? Reusable bags? Be still, my heart! Are you under 25 years old and as moved by Patrick Stump’s sweet voice as I was? Why not get involved! PSA sponsors DoSomething.org are giving away ten $500 grants to kids with fresh ideas for saving the Earth. Follow the words of the Wentz, and maybe we can keep our planet from ending up Dead On Arrival.

• Trash bags? WAY CUTE!!! (Now let’s make them biodegradable!) [PSFK]
• Who knew going green could be so fashionable? Oh, sweetie: we did! [La Dolce Vita]
• Apparently Sheryl Crow knows this fact as well. [Ecorazzi]
• Not everyone in Los Angeles is equally jazzed about the impending bag tariff. [Metropolitan News-Enterprise]
• Nor is everyone on the Jersey Shore too enthused about a ban. [Asbury Park Press]
• Every day it amazes me, how worked up some people get over their “plastic bag birthright.” [Gaea Organics]
• Because seriously, there is really no excuse. [Regina Leader-Post]
• Reusable bags are all about selling for profit? Hardly. Some fight cancer. [The Jewish Star]
• Don’t take any wooden nickels, unless it’s for a good cause. [Foo Zoo]

Image via PSFK!