Wednesday, 08 May 2002

Cell Outs

If you count yourself among the cell-phone-hating masses (and doesn't almost everyone at least claim to, even if owning one on the sly?), here's more fuel for your fire: Within three years, Americans alone will discard about 130 million cellular telephones annually, generating 65,000 tons of toxic trash, according to a recent report. On average, cell-phone-owning Americans (135 million of them and counting) hang on to their hi-tech toys for 18 months before tossing them in the garbage, according to Inform, the environmental organization that released the report. Into the garbage with them (and from there into the landfill) goes an entire alphabet soup of toxins, from arsenic to zinc, that have been associated with cancer and neurological problems, especially in children. The report urges the cell phone industry to expand "take-back" programs so phones and batteries can be recycled, as well as to standardize technical and design features so users don't have to throw their phones away when they switch services.

Bagladesh

Now consider a less sophisticated but equally troublesome form of trash -- plastic bags. Polyethylene-based bags are hazardous to produce and, once discarded, can take up to 1,000 years to decompose. The bags are all but omnipresent: Consumers in the U.K. go through 8 billion per year; four out of five shoppers in the U.S. use plastic bags over paper or cloth; and the bags are so commonly seen tangled in trees and fence posts in South Africa that they've been called the national flower. Some countries, however, have drawn the line. In March, Bangladesh banned polyethylene bags after they were shown to have blocked drainage systems and contributed to severe flooding in 1988 and 1998. Taiwan hopes to prohibit free distribution of plastic bags, Singapore is launching an awareness campaign, and the Irish have slapped a hefty tax on their use. The latter was so effective that plastic bag distribution at one of the nation's biggest chains has fallen by 97.5 percent.

The Lion Sleeps Better Tonight

A new economic model that uses cost-benefit analyses to predict the fate of endangered species has been unveiled by New Zealand economist Robert Alexander and researcher Chris Fleming. The model analyzes the socio-economic pressures that push animals to the brink of extinction and could be used to assess the probable success or failure of conservation programs. For example, the model can weigh the economic benefits (in tourism dollars, say) of preserving an elephant in Africa against the expensive havoc the animal can wreak on nearby villages, which often spurs poachers into action. The model is not the first of its kind, but it is one of the first to look at multiple species and their habitats, rather than just individual species. The distinction is critical, say the researchers, because otherwise, the costs associated with preserving an elephant appear to be extremely high. By contrast, the new model takes into account that land preserved for elephants is also used by lions, leopards, rhinos, and so forth. Happily, that change yields some good news: While a single-species economic model predicted the extinction of the elephants, the multi-species model, when looking at both rhinos and elephants, predicted the survival of both species.

The Big O

Consumers of organic produce, take a moment to feel good about yourselves: A study published today shows that organically grown foods contain a fraction of the pesticides found in conventionally grown foods. Organic foods were less likely than their conventional counterparts to have any pesticide residues; what residues they did have were from fewer sources and at lower levels. On average, the study found, organics contain only a third as many pesticide residues as conventional foods. The study was published in the Food Additives and Contaminants Journal, based on data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, California Department of Pesticide Regulation, and Consumers Union. The conventional food industry, which holds that low levels of pesticides do not harm human health, was unimpressed by the findings. Gilbert Ross, a scientist with the American Council on Science and Health, which is heavily funded by the industry, said, "So what?"

Maybe He Makes a Good Cup of Coffee

John Suarez, the Bush administration's pick for the job of enforcing the nation's environmental laws, used to work closely with U.S. EPA Administrator Christie Whitman, back when she was governor of New Jersey. Trouble is, that appears to be about his only qualification for enforcing EPA rules. That was the concern expressed by Democratic members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, who saw Suarez's nomination as another indication of President Bush's lack of commitment to upholding strict environmental laws. Suarez spent three years as commissioner for New Jersey's Division of Gambling Enforcement and seven as an assistant U.S. attorney, where he focused on white-collar crimes like mail fraud. Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and James Jeffords (I-Vt.) said they feared that his experience would not qualify him to enforce complex environmental protections. A coalition of environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth, sounded an even stronger note, saying Suarez was the least qualified person to be considered for the position in 15 years.