Sustainability

Schools churn out educated citizens (we hope) but they also churn out a lot of waste, including polystyrene food containers from the cafeteria that clutter up landfills.

But now a coalition of urban school districts is taking steps to dump the polystyrene -- or Styrofoam, which is the best-known brand of polystyrene -- replacing it with disposable plates made of compostable material. 

“This news is a game changer,” said Eric Goldstein, chief executive officer of School Support Services for the New York City Department of Education. “As leaders in school meals, we’re proud to create a product that students will not only find easy to use, but one that also protects the environment for many years to come.”

The six large school districts that make up the Urban School Food Alliance say they will remove 225 million polystyrene trays a year from landfills by creating the new compostable round plate for cafeterias.

The alliance is made up of school disrticts including New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Miami-Dade, Dallas and Orlando.

Why can't it be recycled?

Technically, polystyrene can be recycled but as the American Chemical Society explains in this video, processing it is just too expensive.

Smarter choice

Food and nutrition directors in the aliance specified the round shape to allow students to eat their food off plates like they do at home, replacing the institutional rectangular lunch tray.

The districts in the alliance collectively procure more than $550 million in food and supplies annually to serve more than 2.9 million students enrolled in their schools.

“These cities are teaching kids that sustainability and smarter choices can be integrated into every part of your daily life – even your lunch,” said Mark Izeman, senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a non-profit partner of the alliance. “Shifting from polystyrene trays to compostable plates will allow these cities to dramatically slash waste sent to landfills, reduce plastics pollution in our communities and oceans, and create valuable compost that can be re-used on our farms. We are proud to work with a group of school systems dedicated to driving landmark changes in the health and sustainability of school food.”

Schools across America use polystyrene trays because they cost less than compostable ones. Polystyrene trays average about $0.04 apiece, compared to its compostable counterpart, which averages about $0.12 cents each. Given the extremely tight budgets in school meal programs, affording compostable plates seemed impossible until the Urban School Food Alliance districts used their collective purchasing power to innovate a compostable round plate for schools at an affordable cost of $0.049 each.

The American-made molded fiber compostable round plate is produced from pre-consumer recycled newsprint. It is FDA-approved and manufactured in Maine by Huhtamaki North America.

Rhino poaching has become more widespread in recent years, and it is pushing many species to the brink of extinction. Poachers target these animals because of the demand for rhino horn in Asian countries; the horns have practical medical uses, but many people collect them as a status symbol to showcase their success and wealth. Luckily, a new technology that plants a camera and other technologies inside of the rhino horn may act as a strong deterrent to poachers so that rhino lives can be saved.

At the beginning of the 20th century, rhino populations were at a healthy number; there were an estimated 500,000 rhinos living throughout Africa and Asia. However, as demand for rhino horn has gone up, the worldwide population of the animals has gone down. There are currently only five species of rhino left on Earth, and all of them are classified as a “threatened species” according to the IUCN Redlist. Three out of those five species are further classified as “critically endangered”.

For a while there was an effort made by activists to create a synthetic rhino horn for those who wanted to collect them. Unfortunately, they found that it was only a matter of time before those who bought the synthetic horn would want to trade up for the real thing. After this failure, activists have decided to focus their energies on catching poachers in the act.

The Protect project

The goal of the Protect project is to provide a strong deterrent for poachers who would kill rhinos for their horns. They plan on accomplishing this by putting video cameras, GPS trackers, and heart-rate sensors inside the horns of living rhinos. The system is known as Protect RAPID (Real-time Anti-Poaching Intelligence Device).

The whle system was developed at the University of Chester by biologist Dr. Paul O’Donoghue. He created a tracker and heart rate monitor that could be implanted inside the horns of living rhinos. Along with the camera, these pieces of technology are able to transmit health and wellness information to a central control center.

If the rhino is attacked by poachers and its heart rate stops, which it would if the poachers were intent on getting the horn, then a signal would be sent to a security team that could respond to the rhino’s location. It is estimated that the team could be on-site within minutes of getting a distress signal in order to catch the poachers before they could get away. If there are difficulties with catching the offenders, then the camera footage can reveal what they looked like.  

As of right now, there aren’t many anti-poaching agencies doing this type of work. The patrol area for rhino habitats is too large, so conviction rates for poachers have been relatively low. The Protect system can go a long way toward rectifying this and keeping rhinos safe. Researchers have already completed a proof of concept study, but they are still working on refining prototypes for the new technologies. The first of these prototypes should be available within months. If they are successful, then researchers hope to create other versions of the technologies for endangered species such as tigers and elephants. A fully staffed control center is scheduled to be completed sometime in the early part of next year. 

Some people think high-voltage power lines cause cancer while others are convinced that wi-fi is a threat to human health. Others worry about cell phones. And don't even think mention non-stick skillets.

But wind farms? Oh sure, the giant blades may slice through a buzzard now and then but how would a wind farm be harmful to humans?

Well, a new German study suggests that the very-low-frequency sounds generated by the windmill's rotor blades and windflow may be detected by the human brain, contradicting the assumption that the sounds are below the threshold of human hearing.

Researchers at the European Meteorology Research Program (EMRP) found that humans can hear sounds lower than previously thought. Also, the mechanisms of sound perception are much more complex than expected, the researchers said.

People living in the vicinity of wind farms have reported experiencing sleep disturbances, a decline in performance, and other negative effects, apparently from the "infrasound" generated by the turbines. Infrasound refers to very low sounds, around 16 hertz, generally thought to be below the limit of hearing.

Earlier studies have come to similar conclusions. In 2014, researchers at Washington University in St. Louis found that the low-frequency sounds could cause panic, sleep disturbances, stress and elevated blood pressure.

Complaints dismissed

The wind power industry dismisses such complaints, saying that the sounds generated by the wind farms are too low and too faint to be detected by humans. But Christian Koch, the lead researcher in a study conducted by the Max Planck Institute for Human Development in Berlin, says it's not that clear-cut.

"Neither scaremongering nor refuting everything is of any help in this situation. Instead, we must try to find out more about how sounds in the limit range of hearing are perceived," Koch said.

Koch and his team used brain imaging to tell when test subjects were aware of very low sounds and found that humans hear sounds as low as 8 hertz -- a full octave lower than previously thought. The test subjects confirmed that they heard something and MRI-type devices showed a reaction in parts of the brain that play a role in emotion.

"This means that a human being has a rather diffuse perception, saying that something is there and that this might involve danger," Koch said. "But we're actually at the very beginning of our investigations. Further research is urgently needed."

A new breakthrough in solar energy has the potential to make it cheaper and more viable as a source of renewable energy, according to researchers at Lund University and Uppsala University in Sweden.

Historically, developing solar energy cells was a fairly expensive process because they needed to use an expensive metal called ruthenium in order to adequately capture sunlight and convert it into usable energy. Unfortunately, attempting to replace this expensive material with a more usable one proved to be a challenge.

"Many researchers have tried to replace ruthenium with iron, but without success. All previous attempts have resulted in molecules that convert light energy into heat instead of electrons, which is required for solar cells to generate electricity," said Villy Sundström, Professor of Chemical Physics at Lund University.

Luckily, researchers have found a way around using ruthenium. The technique behind the breakthrough involves using nanostructured titanium dioxide and a dye that can be applied to solar energy cells to capture and convert energy without losing it through heat.

These new materials will finally allow scientists to use iron and lower the cost of making the power cells. This will undoubtedly lower the cost of production, which is a huge step towards making solar energy more marketable.

“The advantage of using iron is that it is a common element in nature. It can provide inexpensive and environmentally friendly applications of solar energy in the future,” said Kenneth Wärnmark, Professor of Organic Chemistry at Lund University.

In addition to furthering research on solar energy, the breakthrough also holds promise for solar fuels – an area of development wherein the sun is used to turn water and carbon dioxide into energy-rich molecules. The full study has been published in Nature Chemistry. 

It might have been enough that this year marked the the 40th anniversary of the movie “Jaws”, but then there was a rash of shark attacks along North Carolina's Outer Banks.

All of a sudden long-dormant fear of an ocean predator was top of mind among the public. It wasn't just “Shark Week” on a popular cable TV channel – it was shark summer.

All of this makes conservationists uncomfortable and worried that the U.S. is about to declare war on sharks. That would be a mistake, they say.

Coexisting with predators

"We don't necessarily have to see conservation and public safety as at odds with each other,” said Fiorenza Micheli, a Stanford researcher and co-author of a new study tracing the history of shark attacks in California. “This is also true of coastal economies. People can coexist with predators."

Micheli and fellow researcher Francesco Ferretti say they found that the risk of a great white shark attack for individual ocean users in California has fallen by over 91% since 1950. To arrive at that figure they looked at the number of reported great white shark attacks that caused injuries on the California coast from 1950 to 2013, as recorded by the Global Shark Attack File.

During that time there were 86 attacks, with 13 of them being fatal. They weighted the numbers with information on coastal population growth and seasonal and weekly beach-going, surfing, scuba diving, abalone diving, and swimming.

The number of attacks has actually increased over the years, but the scientists attribute that to the fact that there are a lot more people in the ocean – not necessarily more sharks.

For example, they argue that three times as many people live in coastal California now than in 1950. The 7,000 surfers in 1950 became 872,000 by 2013. Certified scuba divers grew from about 2,000 at the beginning of the 1960s to about 408,000 in 2013.

Avoiding sharks

The study also looks at when and where shark attacks take place, offering guidance for swimmers who want to avoid them.

"Doing this kind of analyses can inform us on hot spots and cold spots for shark activity in time and space that we can use to make informed decisions and give people a way to stay safe while they are enjoying the ocean,"

For example, in the fall there is a higher chance of finding big white sharks on the California coast than in the spring, when they migrate to Hawaii, said Ferretti. He points out that the chance of a shark attack increases at night. 

The authors say that in Mendocino County, Calif., it is 24 times safer to surf in March than in October and November. If surfers choose the coast between Los Angeles and San Diego in March, they can be 1,566 times safer than they would be during the fall months in Mendocino.

Meanwhile, the reason for eight shark attacks along North Carolina's beaches this summer remains a mystery. According to National Geographic, warmer water and ocean currents may have attracted smaller fish, which in turn attracted sharks. But the magazine states that it's probably due to more humans being in the water.

In North Carolina, evidence is piling up that suggests there are also a lot more sharks in the water. Charter boat captains interviewed by the Richmond Times-Dispatch say there is now an over-population of sharks off the Carolina coast that has been building for years.

Some tuna fishermen say they are only able to boat half their catches before they are at least partially eaten by sharks.

Depending on where you live in the United States, your water bill can vary greatly. Cities and larger communities, for example, have water infrastructure in place that can deliver water to their citizens in an effective manner; this makes their water prices more manageable. This contrasts greatly with people in rural areas; because people are more spread out, building and maintaining a water system is much more expensive. This increased cost affects millions of people across the country.

Luckily, a solution to this problem has been introduced to the House of Representatives by Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY) and Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN). Their bill is called the “Water Systems Cost Savings Act”, a proposal that aims to provide rural areas with cost-effective alternatives to accessing clean, high quality water. By adding options like water-well systems to areas that don’t have them, Hanna and Cooper believe that their bill will reduce federal, state, and local costs for providing water services.

"Traditional municipal water systems don't work in every community, or are prohibitively expensive," said Hanna. "Fortunately, there are other options. Communities seeking federal assistance to upgrade their water infrastructure should be given the most comprehensive information possible so that they can build the most appropriate and cost-effective system that best meets their unique needs.”

Cost-effective

One of the great things about the bill is that it will not only help citizens who benefit from the upgraded infrastructure. With its passing, all citizens will see their tax dollars going towards other projects that will help their communities. “This bill will encourage cost-effective alternatives that will save taxpayer dollars and free up resources to reduce the growing backlog of clean water infrastructure needs,” said Hanna.

A recent survey given by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that funding for water infrastructure in smaller communities was down $64 billion across the country. The new proposal intends to give programs to agencies like the EPA and USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) that will inform smaller communities about more cost-efficient water options.

Many proponents applaud the bill for its focus on water well systems, which are a much more realistic and optimal choice for small communities. “The effectiveness of water wells as a reliable, low-cost way to provide access to safe drinking water has been proven in projects across the nation that have realized costs savings of as much as 94% over conventional drinking water systems,” said Margaret Martens, Executive Director of the Water Systems Council. “This legislation is a win for rural America and for the American taxpayer.”

Real estate professionals will tell you that some home improvements will add value to your home. Others, not so much.

For years it was an article of faith that adding a deck or updating a kitchen would pay off when it came time to sell. Putting in a swimming pool, on the other hand, didn't add a premium.

Lately, something else has helped sell a house. The National Association of Realtors (NAR) noted in 2013 that going green seemed to make a house more desirable. It said a survey found that buyers placed a high importance on energy efficiency when searching for a home.

Things that affect monthly energy costs were frequently cited as the most important. Some 39% of home buyers said heating and cooling costs were the most important green feature of a home, followed by energy efficient appliances and lighting, at 24% each.

Boost from solar power

New research by the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a home appraisal expert found supporting evidence, suggesting that installing photvoltaic (PV) solar arrays, capable of generating electricity, adds a premium when a home is sold. In other words, a buyer is willing to pay extra for a home that produces some of its electricity from the sun.

The importance of green features also varies regionally, with northeastern and southern buyers placing more importance on a home’s heating and cooling costs in their decision making process.

The researchers engaged a team of seven appraisers from across six states to determine the value that PV systems added to single-family homes, using the industry-standard paired-sales valuation technique, which compares recent sales of comparable homes to estimate the premium buyers would pay for PV.

Around $15,000

The new findings pretty much were in line with a 2013 Berkeley Lab study that found buyers were willing to pay $15,000 more for a home with the average-size solar PV system, around 3.6 kilowatts.

"These results will benefit appraisers, real estate agents, and mortgage lenders who increasingly encounter PV homes and need to understand the factors that contribute to, and detract from, market value," said study co-author Ben Hoen, a researcher in the Energy Technologies Area of Berkeley Lab.

The study found a lot of variables, since what buyers were willing to pay often hinged on the underlying system and market characteristics. Factors influencing the premium include the size of the system, the available incentives and installed prices at the time of sale, and the underlying retail electricity rates. The appraisers said any formula to determine added value needs to take all these factors into consideration.

PV systems are becoming more of a factor in the existing home market. Berkeley Labs says there were more than a half million U.S. PV home systems in 2014, underscoring the need for new, reliable, and consistent valuation options.

The Flint, Michigan water crisis – in which the city's water supply has been found to contain unsafe amounts of lead – has consumers across the country on edge.

Now, the water coming out of the tap everywhere is greeted with a more skeptical eye.

The New York Times has a report on other jurisdictions that have experienced water issues that haven't generated the news coverage Flint has. For example, lead levels rose in Sebring, Ohio's water supply last August after the town stopped adding a chemical to keep lead pipes from corroding.

Even the nation's capital experienced a jump in lead levels in 2001 after the city changed some of its water purification procedures.

Water purity falsification

Meanwhile, states and localities are on high alert to find problems before they make headlines. Acting New Jersey Attorney General John Hoffman has announced the sentencing of a former licensed operator of the New Brunswick and Milltown public water supplies.

Hoffman said Edward O'Rourke was sentenced to three years in prison after he was convicted of falsifying water purity records.

In pleading guilty to the charges, O’Rourke admitted that he intentionally submitted false water purity testing data between April 2010 and December 2012 to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection in order to cover up the fact that he had failed to properly oversee the testing of drinking water samples.

While there were discrepancies that did not meet water purity standards, the investigation did not reveal any evidence that water distributed to the public ever contained coliform bacteria.

“Tens of thousands of residents relied on O’Rourke as the man responsible for ensuring that their drinking water was safe, and he not only failed to properly test the water, he lied again and again to cover up his failures,” Hoffman said in a release. “O’Rourke exhibited a remarkable lack of concern for the health of the people of these two communities.”

Scam alert

In Michigan, meanwhile, state Attorney General Bill Schuette is concerned that Flint residents have something else to worry about – scammers. He says a high profile crisis like this brings con artists out of the woodwork.

Among the scams he's worried about is one in which scammers pretend to be official workers, gain entry to residents' homes, and then steal things of value – including sensitive personal information.

He also warns people in Michigan – and around the country – to be dubious of charity solicitations on behalf of Flint residents. He says it's generally better to contact a charity directly to ensure its true identity.

You probably have a few items in your home that you’re not using. In fact, you probably have over $7,000 worth of unused items in your home, says John Atcheson, CEO of an app called Stuffstr.

What if, instead of taking those items to the dump or gathering them up to take to a thrift store, you could get them into the hands of someone who could use them?

That’s the idea behind Stuffstr, an app intended to “increase the use and recirculation of the things we buy and help people reduce clutter and keep things out of landfills."

In addition to helping you declutter your home, Stuffstr can help ensure your items end up in the best possible place.

Recirculating unused stuff

"The average person throws away 70 pounds of clothing annually. It’s often easier to just throw things away,” Atcheson said, adding that we use 80% of our stuff less than once a month.

Atcheson and co-founder Steve Gutmann, who both have backgrounds in the sharing economy, want to “bridge this gap by changing people’s relationship with their stuff.”

While thrift stores such as Goodwill may be an easy way for consumers to get rid of items en masse, these stores aren't always the proper second home for certain items. The app aims to make sure your items end up somewhere where they are needed.

Movement toward circular economy

After inputting your items (either manually or by inputting emailed receipts), the app will show you where your donation should go based on what it is.

For instance, Stuffstr might tell you that your item is best suited for a manufacturer recycling program or a used electronics collection service. Or perhaps it should go to a friend or an organization such as Habitat for Humanity.

Additionally, Stuffstr will give you directions to its recommended donation spots and let you know if there are pickup options available. In the future, the Stuffstr team hopes to get retailers involved in the sustainability movement.

“Longer-term, our goal is to help retailers move toward longer-lasting products and new business models that can improve both their bottom lines and our environment,” Atcheson told SustainableBrands.

Currently, the app is only available for iOS.