Furman Greenbelt Sustainable Living Community

Ethan Kohrt

Among my generation there seems to be a strange sort of hopeless apathy about big issues. For many of us, we think our votes don’t make a difference, large corporations are too powerful to challenge, and the planet is racing swiftly and surely towards climate-induced Armageddon; surely there’s nothing that we can do as individuals to change things. Where did this sense of powerlessness come from? I’m not sure. But I think the best way to combat it is by spreading a message of hope. On the issue of climate change, this means reminding people that these problems have solutions, and that they are within the grasp of each one of us.

Some of this despair about climate change might come from the way the issue is most often framed: the typical persuasive piece I read recounts the myriad ways the global ecosystem is collapsing, then describes the cataclysmic future that awaits us if the trend continues, and closes with a plea for the reader to do… something. But despite being factually true and sensibly distraught, I see a big problem with this kind of argument. By focusing on the staggering scale of climate change and existential hopelessness of the current situation, it’s all too easy to frighten people into complacency. The problem just seems too big, and the solutions too far out of reach. I think that this theme has become so common in the media that instead of provoking action, ordinary people have started to become numb to it: thus the hopelessness. Something has got to change.

I believe that when we communicate about climate change, we have a responsibility to offer solutions that the audience could and would take part in themselves. A good way to do this is to use a method similar to “Graduated Exposure” in psychotherapy, whereby anxious people can overcome their fears and uncertainties. First break the issue into smaller parts; and then break the parts into a series of manageable steps, such that the first step has the lowest threshold, and the next is accessible from the first, and so on. For example, food production accounts for a decent portion of global emissions, and to lower emissions on this front everybody should ideally switch to a more sustainable vegetarian or vegan diet. Realistically, though, few people are willing or able to make such a drastic lifestyle change. So the problem needs to be simplified further; step one is to start by limiting the foods with the highest impact, beef and lamb. Perhaps limit consumption to once per week. Then, after some time eliminate them entirely, and set your sights on pork.

The point is, the idea of making a big and sudden lifestyle change can be pretty intimidating when viewed as a first step, but if you offer gradual steps leading up to it, people will find it much more appealing to begin the transition. This applies to every other aspect of the climate change issue; if you communicate in this way, people will think of it not as an unfathomable and insurmountable hurdle, but as a process in which they can directly make an impact. This little change in perspective might be the beginning of hope.

 

Carbon Footprint of Common Foods

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46459714

Graduated Exposure:

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/headroom/cbt/graded_exposure.pdf

Rachel Knight

The building of Trump’s 5.5 meter (18-foot) wall plan will affect not only humans, but could potentially harm and endanger the surrounding ecosystems. 654 miles of existing barriers and walls were built with materials such as barbed wire to steel, bollard to wire mesh, and have already greatly affected the delicate ecosystems and wildlife on the border. President Trump favors construction of a border wall due to his value of strong immigration policies. The president has gone as far as shutting down the government in efforts to force lawmakers to provide $5 billion in funding. Illegal immigration was a central theme of his 2016 presidential bid, and he appealed to this issue by deploying 5,800 U.S. troops in 2018 to the border as immigrants from Central America desperately crossed into the United States.

Biodiversity on the border is threatened by this barrier wall, but the full effect has not yet been determined by scientists. A biologist at Penn State, Jesse Lasky, has attempted to assess the threat of the border wall. They estimated that, “134 mammal, 178 reptile, and 57 amphibian species live within about 30 miles of the line. Of those, 50 species and three subspecies are globally or federally threatened in Mexico or the United States.” Various threatened species on this border survive only because people on both sides have worked hard to conserve them.

The construction of this wall is expected to uproot a protected habitat of butterflies along the Rio Grande after the U.S. Supreme Court brushed off various environmental groups that wished to fight against this decision. Supreme court justices maintained District Court ruling to allow the Trump administration to overlook 28 federal laws for southern border wall construction, a few of which being the Endangered Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act. It’s unsettling the lengths our president and the supreme court are willing to go to for this wall, purposely bypassing laws that are in place for significant reasons such as to protect our environment and species that risk extinction. It should appear obvious to the administration that by having to overlook this many laws, or any at all, should raise red flags and cause them to realize the potential detrimental effects constructing a border wall would have on the surrounding territory and its inhabitants. “I don’t think it’s understood [by lawmakers], and if it is, it’s discounted. ‘Oh, it’s just wildlife, big deal, they’ll figure out a way,’ or, ‘It’s the desert, there are no animals down there,’” said Kevin Bixby, executive director of the Southwest Environmental Center.”  This whole position of ignorance will have serious impacts on wildlife populations. It will prevent jaguars from coming back to the U.S., and some subspecies will disappear completely from the face of the Earth.

“Hundreds of thousands of butterflies housed at the nonprofit National Butterfly Center will be in jeopardy after about 70 percent of the center’s land winds up on the other side of the border wall,” according to the executive director of the center, Marianna Wright. Other concerns about this wall lie in the decline of the region’s ecotourism. Jeffrey Glassberg, the president of the center, predicts that visits will fall by half simply because it will cease to be a pleasant and peaceful place to visit. Lawsuits have been set in place against the government by three organizations, all led by the Animal Legal Defense Fund. Their claim is that construction of the wall would harm plants, wildlife and other species such as fairy shrimp and the Quino checkerspot butterfly.

With political and economic issues surrounding the border wall aside, continued construction of this wall will result in the bulldozing of land and sanctuaries that will negatively impact the volume and diversity of the species in this area by destroying their habitats or restricting access to areas containing essential resources for these species.

 

Citations:

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/ocelots-butterflies-border-wall

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/butterfly-sanctuary-in-texas-expected-to-be-plowed-over-for-trumps-border-wall/

https://www.vox.com/2018/3/28/17152644/trump-border-wall-texas-environment-refuge-butterflies

https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/trumps-border-wall-could-kill-texas-butterfly-sanctuary/

I decided to collect the trash that the Eco Cottage and the surrounding areas produced. When searching I attempted to pick out pieces that would both give the colors and textures of a tree trunk, but attempted to make sure I wasn’t too accurate because I wanted the final piece to be more of a representation of a tree. I tried to be extremely limited with the resources I used outside of our garbage; the only thing that wasn’t waste was adhesive. The sculpture went through many different changes when I started making it: first, my leaves were made out of metal and were scarce, however, this didn’t really help show that it was a tree. Eventually, the leaf design changed to plastic bags that were littering the area. I choose the shape of a tree because it is a universal symbol for the environment and it is recognizable enough that no matter what it is made of it is still recognizable. The point of the piece is to show that we can reuse and recycle trash to create new things as well as be eco-friendly.

Noah Barnes

What are Fossil Fuels?

Fossil fuels are naturally formed fuels that originate from organic materials, such as plants and animals, and pressure from the Earth’s crust along with the passage of hundreds of millions of years.  These organic materials break down into crude oil, coal, natural gas, or heavy oils (sciencedaily). In most first world countries, fossil fuels are the leading sources of energy, dominating everything from household machines like cars or heating systems to industrial facilities. Figure (A) shows fossil fuel consumption in the United States over roughly the past 250 years, and it is not difficult to deduce that our consumption of these limited resources has grown exponentially in the past 100 years alone. Since so many processes rely on fossil fuels to function properly, we are consistently pulling these resources out of every nook and cranny we can find. There are two major problems with this mass extraction of resources: (1) these extraction processes can be extremely harmful to the environment, and (2) we are running out of fossil fuels.

 

What Effects does the Extraction of Fossil Fuels have on the Environment?

Coal, one of the most abundant and useful fossil fuels which has been used to power countless empires throughout history, harbors one of the most harmful methods of extraction:  mining and drilling. Over the past several decades, there has been a gradual shift from underground coal mining to surface mining (ucsusa). Underground coal mining carries less harm than surface mining due to the fact that underground mining is… underground. Surface mining involves methods like strip mining (a process that consists of overlaying soil to access the coal below) and mountaintop removal.  Because coal mining has only become more streamlined in the past two hundred years, the fact that we can do this faster only means that more habitats and environments will be destroyed.

Another primary fossil fuel on Earth is oil. When oil and gas are extracted, water that had been trapped in the geologic formation is brought to the surface. This “produced water” can carry with it naturally occurring dissolved solids, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, and radioactive materials in concentrations unsuitable for human consumption and difficult to dispose of safely (ucsusa). Due to the mass drilling taking place offshore, harmful toxins found in deeper water are being brought to the surface at an exponential rate. Not only is this water harmful to humans, but also to the habitats of surrounding ocean life. Additionally, pumping oil to the surface not only requires millions of gallons of water, but also 15,000-60,000 gallons of chemicals, many of which are undisclosed to Federal regulators. Researchers could track only 353 chemicals from that larger list and found that 25 percent of those chemicals cause cancer or other mutations, and about half could severely damage neurological, cardiovascular, endocrine, and immune systems (ucsusa).

 

What do we have planned for the Future?

Sustainable and renewable energy sources are a hot market right now due to the fact that people are finally becoming aware that we are running out of fossil fuels. This means that researchers and investors are constantly looking for new solutions or methods of clean, renewable energy. It may seem like the metaphorical “golden goose” of the modern world due to its seemingly too good to be true nature, but new energy sources are not unobtainable.

Solar and water power are not exactly new, but they aren’t old hat either. More hydroelectric dams – dams which produce energy based on the movement of water, like from a river – are being built across the country every day. Solar power has a bit of a social taboo due to the fact that it is an expensive and not extremely effective solution.  However, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is in the process of reviewing possible federal tax exemptions for those who use solar power to create a financial incentive for more people to use solar.  Geothermal and Nuclear energy are a little more volatile and a lot more expensive to maintain, however, the research and testing of these types of energy sources is just beginning, so it would not be unlikely for nuclear and/or geothermal energy to see a spike in both popularity and effectiveness in the near future.

 

What should we Conclude from this?

To conclude, fossil fuels are quickly becoming a limited resource, and we should expect to see most of them depleted within 100 years (ecotricity). While the harmful environmental effects of fossil fuel extraction may cease because of this (and this is something we should definitely be excited about), humans will still need new sources of energy when we run out of what we have been using. This is the uplifting bit – clean, renewable energy is on the rise not only in the United States, but in a conglomerate of energy-concerned countries worldwide. We will continue to experiment with what we have, pioneer what we can, and hopefully make a breakthrough for renewable energy as soon as possible.

 

Sources

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/fossil_fuel.htm

https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-energy/coal-and-other-fossil-fuels/hidden-cost-of-fossils#.XFOWnM17lPY

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26912

https://www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy-independence/the-end-of-fossil-fuels

(A) U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review

 

I painted this landscape with the thought of global warming in mind. Science shows that there are roughly only twelve years for global warming to be kept under control until detrimental effects take place on the world. I look at this painting with hopes of a better future for our Earth and as a reminder of what the Earth used to look like before careless, unsustainable actions took place.

Nataley Williams

Last year, the food service provider at my college (Bon Appétit) banned all plastic straws on campus and replaced them with paper straws as a step towards campus sustainability. Their decision was a part of a larger national movement to phase out plastic straws. Companies such as Starbucks, Alaska Airlines, and McDonald’s are announcing plans to eliminate plastic straws by next year (A Brief). These companies are responding to the large outcry from activists who are demanding actions against the plastic straws that are harming the oceans. In America alone, 500 million straws are used daily, and a large portion of those are ending up in our oceans (Straw Wars). While I, as a Sustainability Science major, was happy about this transition, the campus reactions to the change were widespread. One question I heard over and over and often even asked myself as the paper of my straw withered away was, “Does my one straw really matter?”—in other words, is this one straw going to make a difference in the long run? Will any of my actions ever actually matter or have an impact at all?

That stream of questions occurs often in my head and in many others around me. With roughly 7.7 billion people in the world, it is easy to feel small and to think that your actions do not really matter on the grander scale. And really, your actions do not matter. As much as I hate to admit it, your one straw means little to nothing.

But your mindset does.

While one straw in itself may not matter, each person using just one straw equates to billions of straws. And while the transition to paper straws, even if it was global, will not solve any large sustainability issues, it is the mindset behind the movement that really means something. Large sustainability problems demand agency—the kind of agency that comes from knowing your straw doesn’t matter but acting sustainable anyway. If everyone believes their actions have no impact, then no actions will equate to the changes required. Conversely, if people see their actions as important, then that is how movements begin and persevere.

Many people also argue that globally banning all plastic straws will not result in a large change and that plastic straws are the least of our concerns regarding sustainability. While this is true, it is important to think how small changes can lead, and often do lead, to bigger and more important ones. The straw ban movement is a small step in an effort by many to eliminate single-use plastics, which are polluting our land and oceans. Even in the smallest way, consumers who are so used to the disposability of our current country might stop and think about why they are getting a paper or reusable straw instead of a plastic one. Those moments of questioning or consideration really matter to sustainability scientists because our major goal is to encourage conscious consumerism and push back against the planned obsolescence that our current society revolves around.

Often, sustainability activists must remind each other that our fight is a marathon and not a race. Important changes likely will never occur overnight, and it takes many years to see transitions to sustainability in society. But eventually, one straw turns into two straws and then into billions of straws.

“We know that just banning plastic straws will not be enough, but it’s a start. “Maybe you decide today to bring your reusable water bottle or mug with you, or you decide not to buy that cucumber that is wrapped in plastic. Every little bit helps.”

• Dune Ives, executive director of the environmental nonprofit Lonely Whale. (Plastic Straws Retreat)

Katie Crockford

Over the past several months, I have continuously heard more and more about humans’ high (and rapidly increasing) amounts of damage to planet Earth. We cut down too many trees, waste too much water, drive too often and emit hazardous gases, forget to turn off light switches, eat too much meat and fish, leave the water running while we brush our teeth, etc. While some of these are more detrimental than others and some seem more reasonable for a college student to fix, I have challenged myself to live as sustainably as possible. I’ve found myself doing little tasks such as turning the lights off when I leave a room or making sure I take as quick a shower as possible to conserve water. However, most of all, I have trained myself to constantly be thinking about sustainability and to make a conscious effort to consider it in all aspects of my life. In doing so, I recently started thinking about sustainability in the clothing and fashion industry. I began to do a little research and found myself appalled at not only the lack of sustainability in the clothing industry, but how many steps there are in the process of producing clothes. As a result, there is plenty of room for sustainable errors in clothing production. In society today, there is a lot of emphasis on producing as many goods as possible in as little time as possible, which can sacrifice environmental and human health. When breaking down the steps of clothing production, there are a lot of steps and questions to consider. Are the designers using sustainable materials or online resources when possible in place of paper? Are the manufacturers using sustainable, energy efficient equipment and tools to make clothing, shoes, jewelry, etc.? What materials are the finished products being shipped in? Are they held in storage anywhere in the process? If so, where and why?

Though a lot of these things feel a little bit out of my control and difficult to change on a large level, I have challenged myself to think about ways in which I can help with this particular issue in sustainability. I have tried to take better care of my clothes in order to make them last longer, and when I am done with them, I have started considering donation/recycling options instead of throwing them away. I have passed down old clothes and shoes to family members and friends. Whatever I have left after that, I try to donate somewhere not only so they don’t go to waste but also to hopefully help someone else in need. I have been able to take an issue that I felt I couldn’t impact and apply it to my everyday life. I have changed my shopping habits, started investigating how different brands of clothing are made, and encouraged my friends and family members to do the same. Many small steps towards being more sustainable make a big difference!

 

Sources

“Fashion’s 7 Priorities To Achieve Sustainability.” The Business of Fashion, The Business of Fashion, 27 Mar. 2018, www.businessoffashion.com/articles/news-analysis/fashions-7-priorities-to-achieve-sustainability.

 

“SEVEN FORMS OF SUSTAINABLE FASHION.” Green Strategy Sustainable and Circular Fashion Consulting, www.greenstrategy.se/sustainable-fashion/seven-forms-of-sustainable-fashion/.

 

“The Story Behind the Label.” The Story Behind the Label, www.thestorybehindthelabel.com/labels/2016/1/18/how-does-mass-production-in-clothes-works.

“WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE FASHION?” Green Strategy Sustainable and Circular Fashion Consulting, www.greenstrategy.se/sustainable-fashion/what-is-sustainable-fashion/.

Food systems are responsible for a large portion of global carbon emissions. From production and processing, to shipping, storing and cooking, this aspect of human activity accounts for some 19-29% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but there are some very small lifestyle changes one can make to heavily reduce this carbon footprint.

The obvious first step might be to go vegetarian or vegan. Since the livestock sector is a major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions – with some sources saying it accounts for up to 14.5% globally – diets that limit the consumption of animal products have the lowest impact. But I think that for many people, food is a big part of their culture and identity, which can make the idea of switching to a vegetarian or vegan diet all at once a bit intimidating. Is there a smaller first step? What are the smallest diet changes one could make that would have the largest impact?

1. Eat less beef

An assessment by the Environmental Working Group found that of the most common foods, beef and lamb products cause the most CO2 emissions over their lifecycle, by a huge margin. One kilogram of lamb produces 39.2kg of CO2, and a kilogram of beef produces 27.0kg. To put this in perspective, since a gallon of gasoline creates around 9.2kg of CO2, each quarter-pound beef burger you eat is equivalent to burning a third of a gallon of fuel. And a 4oz serving of lamb is equivalent to a half-gallon. Clearly, this is not good. As far as meats go, chicken is the best alternative, with nearly four times less of an impact than beef. Pork and turkey are also significant improvements. But if you are worried that you’ll begin to miss the unique taste of beef, fear not: plant-based substitutes are making rapid progress as we speak (look up “The Impossible Burger”).

2. Don’t waste food

It seems obvious to most people why they shouldn’t waste food: wasted food is wasted money. But few people know that food waste is a serious contributor to climate change. According to the Washington Post, “30 percent of food is wasted globally across the supply chain, contributing 8 percent of total global greenhouse gas emissions.” If global food waste were a country, it would be the third largest contributor behind China and the US. While much of this waste comes from the supply chain, consumers can still make a difference with their choices: wasting less food causes one to purchase less food, and thereby this drop in demand ripples down the chain.

I think that these small lifestyle changes are more accessible to people who are concerned about their impact, but who are hesitant to make radical changes. It is far easier to convince somebody just to eat less beef, or to explain the importance of limiting food waste, than it is to have them reshape their entire diet. Often it’s the first step that is the hardest to overcome, and by emphasizing the most simple and impactful diet changes, we can begin to move toward more sustainable food systems one baby step at a time.

– Ethan Kohrt

Sources:

http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/methodology_ewg_meat_eaters_guide_to_health_and_climate_2011.pdf

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-environ-020411-130608

http://static.ewg.org/reports/2011/meateaters/pdf/methodology_ewg_meat_eaters_guide_to_health_and_climate_2011.pdf

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#agriculture

https://www.chathamhouse.org/publication/livestock-climate-change-forgotten-sector-global-public-opinion-meat-and-dairy

In today’s consumer culture, we have witnessed a shift where consumers no longer only consider their goods and services when choosing a brand; they are beginning to prioritize the ideologies of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). This means that consumers have begun holding companies accountable for their ability to adapt to social (and environmental) change by reforming their business beliefs, practices and profits to fit societal ethics (3).

Statistically speaking, a study by Cone Communications in 2017, “Found that more than 60% of Americans hope businesses will drive social and environmental change in the absence of Government Regulation,”, 87%  would purchase a product because a company supported something they cared about and 76% said they would refuse to buy products from companies that support issues contrary to their beliefs (1,3). CSR has even bled into the Labor Markets, influencing where today’s top talents choose to work because realistically the only constant is change. Some businesses heavily committed to CSR use it as a creative opportunity to fundamentally strengthen their businesses while contributing to society at the same time, though sometimes the execution (balance) or the ethics behind it are skewed. Starbucks along with many other companies have made a serious effort towards bettering their CSR; for an additional list of companies check out; https://www.smartrecruiters.com/blog/top-20-corporate-social-responsibility-initiatives-for-2017/

The other side of CSR is the sad reality of money making because some companies see the push of CSR as a fad or source of outside pressure and change their company simply to make money in the changing world of consumerism. Some companies claim to be environmentally and ethically responsible, but actually, contain disinformation disseminated by an organization so as to present an environmentally responsible public image; this is considered to be the idea of Greenwashing (2). Here is an article talking a little bit about some of the larger corporations accused of Greenwashing: https://www.truthinadvertising.org/six-companies-accused-greenwashing/

However, Businesses have increasingly begun to perceive sustainability as an opportunity because as s sustainability moves up on the boardroom agenda, we can expect the increased integration of sustainability functions into all facets of the business and away from ‘CSR’. Multinationals rewired for sustainability Companies such as GE, Unilever, Nike, IKEA, Toyota and Natura are already reaping the benefits of offering ‘green’ products and services – a market which has grown to over $100 billion.

The idea of CSR ties in closely with Ecocritical Literature such as Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic and Rob Nixon’s Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. For example, Nixon argues that the imperialism of developed countries leads to an awareness gap where “it is a pervasive condition of empires that they affect great swathes of the planet without the empire’s populace being aware of that impact”. This addresses the extent to which empires use and abuse Nature and “disposable peoples” of non-first world countries. Yet to be duly noted, developing countries are in a position where they do not have the ability or pleasure to view nature simply as an awe to be looked at. They must use the land to live off of, but not in the same sense as developed empires ‘use’ land (such as Big Oil and Big Tobacco).

This brings me to Aldo Leopold’s work in regards to the value we place on land and Nature. Being apart of a developed society, we are inclined to only see value in “a system of conservation based solely on economic self-interest [which] is hopelessly lopsided,” rather than culturally, ethic based or communally. Rachel Carson in her academic crossover touches more abstractly on the idea of land value and ethics. Where we are only capable of understanding the long-term effects of our disinterest in the environment if the consequences are laid out in front of us. These artists work to show us, through literature, what needs to happen in order to alter humanities perspective of their relationship and value of the land they use and too often abuse.

-Makenna M. Christensen

1. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/corp-social-responsibility.asp
2. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/greenwashing.asp
3. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/leadership/making-the-most-of-corporate-social-responsibility

The Dangers of Polystyrene

What is it?

Often we hear about and discuss the dangers of plastic both in our communities and on a global level within our society, but less talked about is the equally dangerous and widespread usage of polystyrene foam or “styrofoam.” Polystyrene foam is easily accessible to the public and comes in many different forms made for quick and convenient use such as lunch trays, to-go cups, food containers, and other forms of packaging. This type of foam is made by processing chemicals like benzene and ethylene into polymer chains that are combined with a hydrocarbon gas added in the binding process to form the type of foam packaging we are used to seeing on a daily basis.

Why is it dangerous?: The Human Body and The Environment

The Body

    The chemicals listed above, benzene and ethylene, are both listed on the 14th Report on Carcinogens as scientifically understood to be a cancer-causing substance. Although the risk of developing cancer involves many factors, exposure to these carcinogens can prove to be dangerous especially when considering the exposure amounts. Many of these commonly used containers containing these harmful chemicals are responsible for carrying items that we directly ingest into our bodies. They prove especially harmful when these containers are heated, possibly releasing more amounts of harmful chemicals directly into our food for our consumption.

 

The Environment

    Like exposure to carcinogenic chemicals from styrofoam isn’t worrisome enough, it also has detrimental effects on our environment. Because of its chemical composition, polystyrene is not biodegradable- meaning it will not naturally break down once it enters the environment. Because it is so lightweight, it is virtually worthless in terms of recycling which is why many recycling centers do not accept styrofoam. This combined with the fact that collecting these containers proves difficult as they are easily windblown means that most of the styrofoam produced ends up in our environment either in landfills, oceans or as litter along the roadside. Styrofoam can take up large amounts of space in landfills and can be found in “dead zones” in the ocean which are places where nothing other than plankton is able to survive. Even if all recycling centers did accept styrofoam, the method and consequences of this process of disposal is challenging. Because of it’s lightweight yet bulky properties, it requires a large expense of energy to transfer large quantities to recycling centers that have virtually no weight or value. Because it contains many chemicals, it often cannot be directly recycled upon arrival and requires methods of sterilization to remove contaminants. Also, when disposed of improperly, toxic chemicals that are devastating to humans, wildlife, and the ozone layer can be released into the environment.

Alternatives

To avoid the consequences associated with using polystyrene foam, it is important to find alternative products to assume it’s place. Many companies are turning to eco-friendly resources that are either compostable or multi-use products instead. Advancements such as reusable plastic to-go containers and coffee cups are being implemented in schools and homes. Others are turning to the use of paper products that are fiber or plant based so they are eco-friendly, recyclable, and quick to naturally degrade. Some are even taking the leap to make their packaging edible to eliminate the need for it to be recycled or thrown away as waste. Innovative ways of repurposing already existing polystyrene are sprouting to try and solve these issues such as using it for insulation or building.

 

Kam JaCoby

 

Sources:

https://www.triplepundit.com/2015/04/polystyrene-containers-stamped-sustainable-alter

natives/

https://greenpassivesolar.com/2012/10/what-is-styrofoam/

http://www.yourgreen2go.com/why-go-green.html

http://epsa.org.au/about-eps/what-is-eps/how-is-eps-made/

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/carcinogens

https://wmich.edu/mfe/mrc/greenmanufacturing/pdf/Polystyrene%20Recycling.pdf