I noticed at a gas station outside Chicago--a Marathon, I believe--that E 10 was being used. The pumps said that the gas may be mixed with 10% ethanol. From what I have read, even E 15 does not require modifications to regular vehicles. So, with gas prices being as high as they are, why aren't more stations mixing small amounts of ethanol into the pumps? We didn't save any money as far as I could tell, but it at least sounds like one way to gradually whittle away at our gas consumption and reliance on foreign oil. Ethanol has its problems, but at the rate at which ethanol plants are being built, there has to be some market for it. I guess we will see if E 10 or E 15 pumps become the norm. Maybe they already are and I just haven't noticed this trend.

I was reading in the Parade Magazine insert to the newspaper about "Plane Junk." It was very disturbing. The article noted that airlines throw away enough aluminum cans annually "to build 58 brand-new 747s." In addition, airlines throw away 9,000 tons of plastic per year, plus enough paper to build a 230 foot building. Airlines and airports only recycle about 20% of their waste. If the airline industry did the same amount of recycling as most of the U.S. (which in the grand scheme of things could be much improved), it would still be enough to save the amount of emissions equal to 80,000 cars. Why is the waste of energy and resources allowed to continue? If it's too challenging for airports and airlines to recycle, then they need to re-think their use of so many cans, plastic cups, etc. Perhaps they could have filtered water--e.g. Culligan dispensers--on flight to negate the need for so many plastic bottles. At the very least, airports should have recycling bins for paper, glass and plastic accessible for passengers who might recycle if given the opportunity. In addition, since airplane personnel can't discard their trash until the flight lands, why is it so difficult to separate the recyclables and transfer them to a recycling bin while on land? It doesn't seem like it would hold up the cleaning crews that much. Given the amount of fossil fuels burned by the airline industry, it seems that the least they could do is to try to help save energy in other ways.

I read an article in the Evansville Courier & Press today entitled, "Energy bill runs out of steam." The article noted that a vote on a new energy bill has been postponed. The bill would require utilities to utilize more wind power, solar power and other renewables. Proponents of the bill indicated that this requirement is just what our nation needs to combat global warming and to become less dependent on fossil fuels, while opponents claim that the bill's mandate would be not be feasible for states in the South. This made me wonder, doesn't the South generally have an abundance of sun that could be used for solar power? Another question I had was whether the mandate would count methane use for the 15% use of renewables by 2020. if so, everyone has landfills and tons of trash, right? Where there is trash, there is a source of power via methane. In any event, the bill is at a standstill for now and may continue to be up until the Fourth of July recess for Congress. I guess measures to help combat global warming and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels are not as crucial to many as barbecues and fireworks. The war in Iraq continues without a Fourth of July holiday and the Middle East is in many ways falling to pieces, putting our oil consumption that much more in jeopardy. Isn't it ironic that we are in a way acting against our country's best interests by allowing Congress to take a recess and avoid facing up to energy concerns, while Congressional members wave their American flags and otherwise celebrate our nation's independence?

I was watching a show on Discovery Channel the other night called, "Building for the Future." One of the segments focused on 1 Bryant Park, the building I have written about before in New York City, that utilizes a lot of sustainable elements. For one, the building harnesses rainwater to be used on site and will have very large windows to minimize the use of artificial light. It will also have a revolutionary air cleaning system, that will make the air the best in New York. Apparently, this system somehow also counteracts some of the bad outside air in New York, although I missed the explanation of exactly how it works. The architect of the building was really interesting, as he noted how we simply cannot keep building skyscrapers as we always have, since the use of resources is not sustainable. Another really important point, was when the show indicated how traditional skyscrapers release more greenhouse gases than factories and vehicles combined, in the U.S. It's hard to think of New York City as one big carbon dioxide producing hotspot and yet, that seems to be exactly what it is. The show made me reflect on how we not only need to change the way we live when we are home but also, the way we work and the buildings in which we work. It seems easy to compartmentalize energy saving and more conversationist efforts to our home life--e.g. recycling--and then ignore these values during the work week. It's nice to see that there are architects who believe in not only beautiful building design but also, making our skyline a symbol of what is sustainable.

It seems like I am on a plastic kick lately. Yesterday, I read a story in U.S. News and World Report (from April) about how San Francisco is banning some vendors from using petroleum-based plastic bags. The city hopes that more biodegradable forms of plastic, like corn plastic, will become the norm. Yet, the measure does raise some other issues. For one, vendors will have to pay a lot more to use paper or biodegradable plastic. Many are opposed to the shopkeepers having to foot this extra bill. My solution? Make the consumer bring their own reusable bag to the store. This may not work everywhere, but in a city that is imposing a widespread ban on the bags, it sounds like the answer. Other opponents to the new law say that other types of compounds used for plastic may simply complicate recycling efforts. Yet, after reading the article I wrote about in my last blog, I'm starting to wonder whether plastic recycling is mostly fiction rather than fact. The other concern (which was not discussed in the article, but I thought of) was whether biodegradable plastic is really the panacea people are looking for. After all, if a 30 year old newspaper does not biodegrade in a landfill (as revealed by the show, Modern Marvels), what makes us think a bag will biodegrade when buried underground and not exposed to oxygen? This brings us back to reusable bags made of cotton or hemp or something else. Maybe we need to reframe our thinking such that bags are not viewed as so disposable. Let's start looking at a grocery bag like a suitcase--something we store after a trip and break out again for another trip. San Francisco can likely do much to start the change in mindset.

I just read a very depressing article online about a sea of plastic that can be found in remote areas of the Pacific. The article contained disturbing photographs of a sea turtle's shell being constrained by a plastic band. There were other horrific photographs of tangled plastic containers clogging parts of the ocean. Even more disturbing, were references to the fact that tiny particles of plastic can be found on the water and on some beaches, mixed with sand--even in remote parts of the world--which indicates that plastic may be permeating the food chain and may be something that can be breathed, eaten and otherwise absorbed by humans.

This article seemed at first glance, a reminder for those who use plastic containers, to recycle them. Yet, the message was more grim than that. Recycling plastic is not an easy feat and (per this article) only 3%-5% is actually made into another product. Unlike glass, which can be easily made into another bottle, plastic milk containers, for example, cannot usually be made into another beverage container, without the use of more virgin plastic. Accordingly, most recycled plastic is used for garments, like fleece, or other non-consumable uses. As such, recycling plastic does not really save energy with respect to producing beverage or other food containers made of plastic. Despite some of our best efforts (and beliefs that all of our recycling efforts will be for the betterment of the world), most plastic lands in the dump. So what do we do? Do we not buy items at the store made of plastic? Perhaps if I see a chance to buy more glass bottles, rather than plastic, I will do that. My hope is that more and more research will go into producing plastic that can biodegrade or be recycled easily without leaching or the release of harmful chemicals. We are using a great deal of energy for the convenience of plastic, yet if plastic never disappears when we are done with it and can't easily be converted into something else, then are we going to grow to hate this material at some point?