Solar Power and Other Green Energy Saving Techniques
RSS icon Email icon Home icon
  • To Reveal a Product’s True Cost An Environmental Tax?

    Posted on May 31st, 2009 Solar Power No comments


    To Reveal a Product’s True Cost An Environmental Tax?

    Sometimes, simple acts such as going to the grocery store can turn into a moral dilemma. Is it better to choose the piece of organic fruit produced on the other side of the country or the non-organic version grown locally, 50 miles away? Are the benefits of chemical-free shampoo worth an extra 5 bucks a bottle? Will I really be able to enjoy a cheap chocolate bar knowing that the growers of the cocoa beans were likely not fairly compensated?

    As much as I’d like to say that I always buy the product that is environmentally safe and sustainably produced, in reality, that’s not always the case. First, the sheer amount of information required to be able to distinguish between products is staggering. You need facts regarding environmental impact, transportation costs, and fair trade practices, to name just a few. And there are plenty of misinformation and greenwashing campaigns out there to steer you in the wrong direction.

    Second, of course, there are times when the high cost of an ethically made product turns me off from buying it. Even consumers with the best of intentions have their breaking points.

    The thing is, companies who go out of their way to implement sustainable practices endure a greater cost of production. Sure, they can sometimes capitalize on this by marketing to conscientious consumers who are willing to pay a bit more, but the fact remains that in today’s system, environmentally minded production is punished.

    On the other hand, companies who move their factories (and jobs) to developing countries with lax environmental standards and cheap labor are able to make products at a fraction of the cost and undercut their competitors (while shipping materials and finished goods all around the world and adding to our greenhouse gas problems).

    The way it’s set up, high environmental standards in one country drive companies to relocate in places where it’s permissible to pollute in order to compete in the marketplace. Chaco, the Colorado-based athletic sandal company, is a prime example of even a well-intentioned company being forced to follow suit to maintain competitive pricing on their products. In fact, 95% of all footwear in the world is produced in China, whose poor environmental regulation and sometimes dangerous environmental problems are well known.

    With current talk about cap and trade emissions programs, this phenomenon may only get worse.

    So how do we even the playing field and reward companies for good business practices?

    When I think about this problem, I keep coming back to an idea I encountered in a casual conversation with a stranger while traveling. I can’t remember his face or his name, but his idea has stuck with me and festered in my mind for the better part of a year. His take was that putting the financial burden of environmental responsibility on the companies just doesn’t make sense for the reasons I’ve given above. In a global marketplace, it renders companies less competitive than those that operate free of environmental and labor regulations.

    Wouldn’t it make more sense to put an “environmental impact” or “ecological footprint” tax on the product itself?

    Ugh, a tax?

    Initially, I didn’t warm to the idea either. But think about it: adding a tax proportionate to a product’s ecological and social footprint eliminates the cost advantage of irresponsible production. All those environmental costs that are currently not included in our economic system would be factored in and would increase the price of unsustainably made products.

    This, in turn, would make moral dilemmas at the grocery store much easier. Is it more sustainable to buy distant, organic produce or local, non-organic produce? The tax-adjusted pricing should inform my decision. Can I afford the chemical-free shampoo? Yes, because the price of its chemical-laden competitors would be raised through the environmental impact tax and eliminate the cost advantage of choosing that product.

    The money raised from the tax could fund its implementation and other sustainable programs such as public transportation (high speed rail, anyone?) and alternative energy. Perhaps it could even make a dent in our gaping budget deficit.

    Won’t this cost me money?

    You may be thinking, “Sure, that’s a good idea in concept, but that will raise my bills – grocery, clothes, everything.” Well, yes, that’s true. But maybe if we see the true cost of the products we casually consume, we can make a more informed decision about what is really necessary to our lives.

    Additionally, programs such as this often have the greatest impact on the poor. But this could be compensated for by using some of the tax revenue for need-based assistance programs.

    Regardless, running an economic system on the assumption of infinite resources is fundamentally flawed. Currently, environmental impacts such as air pollution, water pollution, and deforestation are not factored into the cost of a product: they are considered “externalities.”

    These costs need to be included in the system in a way that does not punish those who engage in sustainable business practices. By taxing a product’s environmental impact, it levels the playing field for the consumer.

    Disclaimer

    Of course, I am not an economist or policy guru. I don’t know how to implement such a tax or if it would even be possible (though compared to creating a carbon trading market, perhaps it’s not that difficult). This is only the musing of a concerned, intelligent citizen trying to brainstorm ways to make our economic system fit within the bounds of our ecological constraints.

    What do you think? Would such a tax have a beneficial effect on our production system? Join the conversation over at our website!

    Jill Mueller is a conservation biologist, avid cyclist, and freelance writer. She has combined forces with a good friend and dietitian to start The Barefoot Badger, a blog promoting healthy, sustainable living. Check us out!

    Kelley Blue Book Interviews Todd Suckow

  • A Quiz For Families Who Want to Recycle Cans

    Posted on May 29th, 2009 Solar Power No comments


    A Quiz For Families Who Want to Recycle Cans

    Does you family recycle aluminum cans? Do they do it to get a little extra cash or because it is the responsible thing to do? How much do they, and you, know about what happens to the can after the soda is gone? Here is a quick true and false quiz on recycling. It will only take 2 or 3 minutes to find out what you know and what you need to know about the importance of families recycling.
    Circle the answer for each of the 6 questions. Now test the other members of the family.
    1. In the time it takes you to read this question, 50,000 12-ounce aluminum cans are made.
                      True or False
    2. When you recycle one aluminum can you save enough energy to equal a half gallon of gasoline?
                      True or False
    3. There is no limit to the amount of times aluminum can be recycled.
                      True or False
    4. We use over 80,000,000,000 (billion!) cans a year.
                      True or False
    5. At one time, aluminum was more valuable than gold.
                      True or False
    6. More aluminum goes into beverage cans than any other product.
                      True or False
    Surprise! All of the answers are true.
    Did you know that for every $10 spent buying things $1 or 10% goes for packaging that is thrown away. Packaging, and that includes aluminum cans, represents 65% of household trash. Wow. What a waste of money and resources. We can do better than that.
    Our family is making a special effort to Recycle, Reuse and Reduce. Will you join us in helping to protecting our earth and natural resources? Maybe your family could put up a special box to save aluminum cans for the recycling center.

    (c) Judy H. Wright http://www.ArtichokePress.com You have permission to reprint this article in your blog, ezine or offline magazine as long as you keep the content and contact information intact. Thank You.
    Artichoke Press is the home site of Judy H. Wright, family relationship coach and author. If your organization would like to schedule Auntie Artichoke, the storytelling trainer, for a workshop please call 406.549.9813.
    You are also invited to visit our blog at http://www.AskAuntieArtichoke.com for answers and suggestions which will enhance your relationships. You will also find a full listing of free tele-classes and radio shows held each Thursday just for you.
    Thanks for joining our community of caring parents, family members,coaches, teachers and mentors who want to help raise a generation of responsible adults.

    VUE Green Line Hybrid Video Review

  • Global Warming is Caused by Both Nature and Man

    Posted on May 28th, 2009 Solar Power No comments


    Global Warming is Caused by Both Nature and Man

    It will take all of us to make a significant impact in the world against global warming. The earth is in trouble because of the pollution that we may have caused. It would seem that we are apathetic to the earth’s plea for help. Every natural disaster that is happening to the world, to us, is caused by us. We may have caused it directly or indirectly.
    One of the more significant effects of the damage that we have caused this planet is global warming. We may have been feeling how it is a little warmer, how the seasons are all in disarray. It is cold when it should have been hot and it is hot when it should have been cold. Typhoons are also stronger than ever before, aside from the fact that it is more frequent. And haven’t you noticed how a little rain could cause floods? Don’t you find that weird? Well, these are all the effects of global warming and we should be alarmed by it.
    That is why natural and environmental causes such as the earth day should be supported because aside from minimizing the use of electricity which is by the way one of the causes of global warming. It brings about social awareness to inform those who are oblivious to what is happening to the world and it re-educates those who are aware. Information is the key and it may be the cure if we do it together. Great things are going to happen. Just the recent earth day brought about great changes that will be felt by the people for generations to come. Can you just imagine the positive effects that this will bring to mankind? Earth will benefit if it continues yearly. Who knows maybe one day global warming will no longer be a problem.

    Cheryl Forbes owns and operates the website http://www.global-warming-statistics.org

    Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Cheryl_Forbes

     

    News Of Peletex Story

  • Common Policies For Common Good

    Posted on May 28th, 2009 Solar Power No comments


    Common Policies For Common Good

    Concerns about dangerous climate change and large biodiversity loss are visible throughout the world: unprecedented rates of temperature increases and species extinctions are a reality. In 1999 Dr. Peter Raven, president of the International Botanical Congress, published a paper in which he states that “current extinction rate is now approaching 1,000 times the background rate and may climb to 10,000 times the background rate during the next century, if present trends continue. At this rate, one-third to two-thirds of all species of plants, animals, and other organisms would be lost during the second half of the 21st century, a loss that would easily equal those of past extinctions”. He then outlined seven “Points to Slow the Extinction of Plants”, including financial and capacity building instruments to help developing countries protect 80% of the world’s biodiversity they host. As far as climate change is concerned, the responsibility of developed countries is high in providing the most threatened regions in the world with good instruments to cope with this challenge (or at least examples of them to implement autonomously).
    Climate change plays a significant role in this human-induced mass extinction because it is increasing the already large biodiversity losses caused by habitat destruction and fragmentation, water and air pollution, introduction of invasive species. Marine ecosystems will be affected by an increase in sea temperature, but also by ocean acidification, because of the higher concentration of dissolved carbon dioxide (carbonic acid): in fact this reduces the shell formation ability in many organisms. Polar (and mountain) ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to climate change, with effects such as thawing permafrost, decreased snow cover, losses from ice sheets and changes in ocean temperatures. Large impacts on Arctic biodiversity are already evident, pictures of polar bears wandering lost on small icebergs being a scary and sad symbol of the era we live in (even former U.S. President Bush, at the end of his mandate, recalled this image to show his fellow citizens he cared about climate change …)
    In this rapidly changing environment it is therefore extremely important that conservation plans include adaption measures for ecosystems accordingly to the predicted regional climate patterns (but models need still to be improved a lot at this scale): dynamic approaches are needed to set good options for future ecosystems and landscapes. It will be necessary to facilitate the movement of species to new geographical locations, as they follow the shifting habitats.
    The public concern is growing: in Africa last 28 February young people organized a march from impoverished urban areas to the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro to raise awareness on climate change, together with the Kilimanjaro Initiative and the UN’s global UNite to Combat Climate Change campaign. It seems though that the global attention on climate change doesn’t fully consider implications for biodiversity yet: while the negotiations and speeches on climate issues are very popular (and the Nobel Prize was awarded to the entire IPCC together with Al Gore in 2007) the meetings and decisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity (http://www.cbd.int/) don’t raise comparable interest. Is it because the anthropocentrism is (still) the prevailing philosophy and animals and plants are mainly seen by people as beautiful “supporting actors” on the planet we live on? Right when we are losing control of the global situation it is probably time to reflect on our role of dominant species and acknowledge the fundamental contribution of other organisms to our livelihoods, despite many of us live in the so called Technosphere.
    Policies to protect the climate avoiding irreversible effects on the ecosystems need to be strongly interconnected with conservation strategies: preserving natural areas while helping them adapt to the changing climate means hopefully to leave better, or not as compromised, ecosystems to future generations. Climate and biodiversity, though ever changing and evolving, are common goods and they need common policies: if we reduce the human Ecological Footprint both the atmosphere and the biosphere will be better off (and our children and grandchildren living in them).
    Written by Luca Marazzi on behalf of Responding to Climate Change.

    For further information on Climate Change please visit the Responding to Climate Change website – http://www.rtcc.org
    The Ecological Footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth’s ecosystems. It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste. Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how much of the Earth (or how many planet Earths) it would take to support humanity if everybody lived a given lifestyle. For 2005, humanity’s total ecological footprint was estimated at 1.3 planet Earths – in other words, humanity uses ecological services 1.3 times faster than Earths can renew them. See also: http://www.footprintnetwork.org/

    NEW WORLD SAVIOUR

  • Start Recycling Today

    Posted on May 28th, 2009 Solar Power No comments


    Start Recycling Today

    Recycling is like exercising – everyone knows we should do it, but not all of us do it as frequently as we should and many of us don’t do it at all. However, there are tons of reasons why you must make an effort to recycle as much as feasible. If you have not been diligent about recycling, this article provides some great reasons why you should start.
    1. Recycling cuts back on global warming.
    2. Production of certain materials from the start can release serious amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.
    3. Recycling paper saves trees – for each ton of paper recycled, 17 trees are saved. Each of these trees can extract around 250 pounds of carbon-dioxide from the air in a year.
    4. Recycling makes us more energy-efficient. It frequently takes a great amount more energy to form something from nothing than to reuse it.
    5. It keeps our landfills from overflowing. We are fast running out of space for landfills especially near towns.
    Beach towns have been dumping trash into their seas for years to by-pass the difficulty, but with widespread sea ecological collapse, this isn’t longer a practicable option. Worse yet, it’s hard to find land in suburban and agricultural areas whose residents will permit landfills to come into their areas without a fight. The squeeze for rubbish heap land is only going to become worse in the future.
    Recycling gives us some hope. Studies show that 60% to 75% of rubbish in landfills can be recycled. That suggests that if everyone recycled, we would have 60% to 75% less rubbish in our landfills, and we’d need at least that far less land for rubbish disposal. The rubbish in landfills is mostly not treated in any way it’s simply thrown in a huge hole and buried over. A lot of this rubbish isn’t environmentally friendly or readily biodegradable and it is unsurprising that contaminants can get into our water. It is also a major reason why it isn’t safe to drink from streams and brooks when you are hiking and camping even when it’s like you are in a spotless environment. It reduces air pollution. A lot of factories that produce plastics, metals, and paper products release poisons into the air.
    For instance, plastics are usually burned in incinerators. Plastics are made with oil, and that oil is released into the atmosphere when the plastic burns, creating significant greenhouse-gas emissions. From manufacturing to processing, from collection to invention it’s common knowledge that recycling is an expansion industry, earning billions of bucks yearly. Our desire to recycle is only going to grow more insistent as populations grow and as technology changes. It adds to property worth. It is obvious a rubbish heap near your house can decrease your property values significantly. Recycling decreases the quantity of land required for landfills. This decreases the quantity of homes near landfills, keeping property values up and house owners cheerful. The more folks recycle, the less landfills we need and if enough folks pitch in, recycling should pay off for everyone. It is good business. Pitting business against the environment is a lose-lose situation – everyone suffers.
    Commercial factories and processing plants save masses of cash on energy and extraction systems when they use recycled materials rather than virgin resources. They also make sure that basic resources don’t become a scanty commodity, keeping demand and costs down and making sure that their business can continue for years to come. One person can contribute. Many of us think this is true with recycling, too but the reality is that small acts of recycling make a giant difference.

    David Sein is a freelance journalist reporting on socially conscious issues.

    LAUGH OR CRY TV

  • Can You Be Green,Legal , and Clean?

    Posted on May 27th, 2009 Solar Power No comments


    Can You Be Green,Legal , and Clean?

    You may have seen something on the news about Spokane, Washington where there is now a ban on dishwasher detergent made with phosphates. While this may seem to be an isolated case, there are actually several states (including the rest of the state of Washington) that will make dishwashing soap made with phosphates above a very small level illegal in 2010.
    What is phosphate anyway and why is it used in dish washing soap?  Phosphate is an inorganic chemical that is a combination of salt and phosphoric acid.  Because it can clean things like hard water stains, and grease, phosphates are used in all kinds of things including dish washing soap. 
    Why all the fuss?  Phosphate is a problem when it finds its way to freshwater rivers and lakes.  The phosphate encouraged the growth of algae which depletes the oxygen in these rivers and lakes, killing off fish and other wildlife. 
    While there are green alternatives out there, deleting the phosphates from the dish washing soap can leave one unsatisfied with the resulting product-and a lot of dirty dishes.  Plus some of these green alternatives are pricier than their cheaper phosphorous counterparts.  This has caused people to travel outside their state to obtain contraband detergent from other states-which, of course, defeats the purpose of the bank in the first place. 
    What should you look for in a green dish washing soap?  Are there green products that work as well?  While there is no direct substitute for phosphorous, but there are other substances that can be used.  How well they will work depends on a number of factors, perhaps the most important being the hardness of the water used for cleaning.
    One ingredient that be used is a surfactants.  Surfactants are usually biodegradable and are used to provide cleaning power and increase the ability of the water to separate the soil from the dish. Anionic surfactants work well as detergents, but can be less than effective in hard water. Amphoteric surfactants are used for their foaming power and can often be found with anionic surfactants. There are other substitutes for phosphates, but these can be even more dangerous than the phosphates. They include nitrilotriacatic acid (NTA) and caustic alkaline chemicals (which are particularly dangerous when ingested-as sometimes happens with children).
    It may take some trial and error to come up with the phosphate substitute that works best in your water.  It is unlikely that the ban on phosphates is going away, so it is better to start exploring the options now.  In the meantime, the soap manufacturers continue work on the perfect phosphate substitute, but there are some excellent alternatives out there.

    “Dr. Robin”, the well known MLM Radio personality is and has built his “honorary” doctorate in the Network Marketing world and has had experience in numerous other network marketing companies. He is a nationally recognized expert in the network marketing business.Dr. Robin is the current host of his radio show, “Networking with the Blindguy” with up to 4.7 million listeners daily. http://drblindguy.com
    Also time to help you with going GREEN. http://gobewisenow.com DR Robin will help you with going green with products that do work and are safe.

    Free Computers of Your Green Life Segment!

  • A Change in Krill Ecosystem

    Posted on May 27th, 2009 Solar Power No comments


    A Change in Krill Ecosystem

    Antarctic Peninsula has been experiencing warming trends for over 40 years with an increase of 2-3 C, thus correlating with lower sea ice conditions in the Amundsen Sea and Bellinghausen Sea. Warming temperatures around the Antarctic Peninsula is changing the dynamics of the ecosystem. The rise in atmospheric temperature is causing increasing in melting of freshwater glaciers and ice shelves. Fresh water emerging into the sea counteracts the salinity within a regional area. Changes identified are;
    • Decrease in sea water salinity up to 60 miles offshore
    • Lower sea ice
    • Decreased krill population
    • Increased salp (open ocean tunicate that is reminiscent of a jelly-fish) population
    • Increase in cryptophytes (single cell phytoplankton algae)
    • Decrease in diatom phytoplankton
    • Increase in carbon sequestering in deep ocean sinks
    • Decrease in carbon availability in the food chain
    The Antarctic Krill (Euphausia superba), a small shrimp like crustacean is the most important zooplankton species associated with the sea ice and plays a crucial role in the Antarctic food web. On a regional basis the amount of krill appear to be declining in the southern ocean. There are definitely lower trends in krill population during lower sea ice years around Antarctica. Part of the rational for the population decline is that ice algae rely on the sea ice for protection and growth. The krill need the sea ice in order to feed on the algae and phytoplankton.
    Krill occur in groups or large swarms. They are less than 3 inches in size and feed primarily on phytoplankton and sea ice algae. Krill filter diatom phytoplankton out of the water column and scrape algae from the sea ice. Apart from frequenting the sea ice to feed, krill in particular juveniles, seek protection from predators in the many nooks and crannies formed by the deformed sea ice floes. Krill is the staple food of many fish, birds and mammals in the Southern Ocean. The biomass of Antarctic krill is considered to be larger than that of the earth’s human population.
    Sea- ice algae utilizes atmospheric carbon dioxide for its energy source, the same as plants do on land. Krill diet of the sea-ice algae and phytoplankton is essential for converting the carbon for use in higher animals such as fish, birds, and whales. This carbon conversion is a very critical role in predatory nutrition. Additionally krill do eliminate some of the silica from the diatom shells and carbon in sticky balls that sinks nearly two miles into the deep ocean. These cold, deep waters are able to contain carbon dioxide and prevent the gas from rising to the surface, thus immobilizing carbon that is not passed into the food chain.
    In recent years there have been increases in algae phytoplankton called cryptophytes. Mark Moline, California Polytechnic State University, states that the cryptophyte population correlates with warmer temperatures and lower salinity waters that are produced by the melting of the freshwater glacier. Cryptophytes measure around 2 mm, while other plankton in the Antarctic waters are much larger and measure 15 to 270 mm. Along with the increase in cryptophyte population an increase in salp, a pelagic tunicate, population has also occurred. There are differences between salps and krill. Salps feeding efficiency is capable of grazing on smaller food sources less than 4mm, whereas, the Antarctic Krill efficiency declines on any food less than 20 mm. The salps compete with krill for the phytoplankton and thus decrease the krill population. Additionally the salps feed on krill larvae, which also cause a decline in krill numbers.
    The warming trend in the Antarctic Peninsula is showing a pattern of increasing cryptophytes over other phytoplankton and the increase in the salp. This influence is due to the low sea ice and the lowering of the salinity in the seawater. Salps and cryptophytes do better in the lower salinity, while the krill and other plankton are unable to tolerate the increased freshwater regime from the glacier ice melts. This selectivity gives preference to the salps as the dominant species while decreasing krill abundance. During lower sea ice seasons the density of krill declines while the salp population increases.
    Carbon sequestering into the deep ocean from the algae and phytoplankton occur by both the salp and krill. Both species eliminate the atmospheric carbon received from the primary producing algae by producing fecal pellets by the salps and sticky balls by the krill, thereby, reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The salps though sequester more carbon into the cold deep ocean than the krill. However, the krill provides the most efficient pathway for carbon transfer up into the food chain. The cryptophyte dominated waters are less efficient in the food chain due to increased feeding by salps and the difficulty of the krill to utilize the cryptophytes as a food source. Migration patterns by penguins are changing, in part due to the changing krill population. Krill is a mainstay diet for penguins, and if the krill population changes, many other ecological changes occur with it.

    Steve Bynum has worked at Palmer Station along the Antarctic Peninsula. He not only enjoyed the ecosystem along the Bellinghausen Sea but he has also witnessed the changing climate conditions.
    Join Steve at http://www.climatechangenewsletters.com as we take a journey to discover the warming and cooling effects of our planet.

    Going Green

  • Green Tip – Moms Use Clothe Diapers

    Posted on May 24th, 2009 Solar Power No comments


    Green Tip – Moms Use Clothe Diapers

    Sure, this is a little messier than the easier, disposable version. However, do you even realize the amount of disposable diapers that are filling landfills?? Cloth diapers are a choice that every mother should seriously consider. Let’s look at some facts that are quite alarming…

    Disposable Diapers Sobering Facts:

    * from birth to about 2-1/2 the average child will go through about 7,300 diapers

    * the cost for that is about $2600

    * 18 billion diapers enter landfills each year

    * disposable diapers make up about 3.4 million tons of trash

    * health risks such as fertility issues in males, eyes, nose and throat issues and even asthma-like symptoms have been connected to disposable diapers!

    * long term negative affects on animal and water life.

    * the chemicals that make disposable diapers white increase the risk of cancer

    * affect development

    * they use more water. yep. you may need to wash cloth diapers, however, way more water is used making disposable diapers!

    * a study, conducted by Anderson Laboratories in 1999 and published in the Archives of Environmental Health, found that disposable diapers release chemicals called volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and dipentene. They have been shown to have toxic health effects, such as cancer and brain damage, when used over time or high exposure.

    * they use 1.3 million tons of wood pulp. that’s about 1/4 million trees every year.

    * they take up to 500 years to break down.

    * more viruses than you want to know about…including polio, survive for two weeks or more after disposed of.

    There are many many many more reasons to avoid disposable diapers. However, I think our readers are intelligent and the above information is enough to get you thinking! Research for yourself. You will be shocked!

    Go for organic natural reusable cloth diapers. You will not only be helping the environment and saving money, you will also protect your sweet precious love bugs from harm!

    Copyright © Green Christian Network, All Rights Reserved

    About the Author: Cindy Taylor is a Christian stay at home Mom who love the Lord and cares about God’s planet. You can see her passion and writing at her website, Green Christian Network (http://greenchristiannetwork.com).

    sea power technology

  • Save the Environment: Help by Recycling Cans

    Posted on May 22nd, 2009 Solar Power No comments


    Save the Environment: Help by Recycling Cans

    I like walking. Whenever I can I leave the car at home and walk. I walk to the shops, to the library, and many other places as well. Every day I see used aluminum drinks cans dropped on pathways and in hedgerows. If people want to dispose of them this way at least drop them where they can easily be picked up by someone else, and not in a hedgerow or other difficult spot where it is easy to be scratched and prickled by thorns.

    Many people have a twinge of conscience about the environment and what we can do voluntarily to help save it. Recycling cans is what we can do easily. All you need do is separate them from the rest of the rubbish and either take them to a recycling centre or leave them in your “recyclables” bin, to be collected by, in our case, the local council.

    The one thing we must not do is put them in landfill, because they don’t biodegradable.

    Instead of throwing away empty aluminum cans away here are four ways to reuse them.

    1. Used ring pull cans could be used as a miniature vase for a flower or two.

    2. Rinse out used cans and use them in the garden shed for storing small items such as nails and washers.

    3. You could use an old can to practice your putting. Take it to the office and put it on the floor any time you want to practice your putting.

    4. Rather than leave your pens and biros scattered all around the house why not put them all together in a used can.

    This is just four ideas of what to do with used empty cans. You might well be able to think up many more ideas for recycling cans.

    Philip Woodrow is a part time author who writes on a variety of issues of personal interest including: Help save the environment and Recycling cans

    Free Energy Economics

  • Save the Environment: Help by Recycling Cans

    Posted on May 22nd, 2009 Solar Power No comments


    Save the Environment: Help by Recycling Cans

    I like walking. Whenever I can I leave the car at home and walk. I walk to the shops, to the library, and many other places as well. Every day I see used aluminum drinks cans dropped on pathways and in hedgerows. If people want to dispose of them this way at least drop them where they can easily be picked up by someone else, and not in a hedgerow or other difficult spot where it is easy to be scratched and prickled by thorns.

    Many people have a twinge of conscience about the environment and what we can do voluntarily to help save it. Recycling cans is what we can do easily. All you need do is separate them from the rest of the rubbish and either take them to a recycling centre or leave them in your “recyclables” bin, to be collected by, in our case, the local council.

    The one thing we must not do is put them in landfill, because they don’t biodegradable.

    Instead of throwing away empty aluminum cans away here are four ways to reuse them.

    1. Used ring pull cans could be used as a miniature vase for a flower or two.

    2. Rinse out used cans and use them in the garden shed for storing small items such as nails and washers.

    3. You could use an old can to practice your putting. Take it to the office and put it on the floor any time you want to practice your putting.

    4. Rather than leave your pens and biros scattered all around the house why not put them all together in a used can.

    This is just four ideas of what to do with used empty cans. You might well be able to think up many more ideas for recycling cans.

    Philip Woodrow is a part time author who writes on a variety of issues of personal interest including: Help save the environment and Recycling cans

    Clean Green Engine Fox News