Green Options

Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.

Last week I wrote about preparations for Earth Hour, and this week I’m focusing on another way people in the Chicago region are re-examining the use of energy at night. The village of Homer Glen, in the Chicago suburbs, has made news recently for an attempt to curb an insidious manmade contaminant that is emitted by every population center in the world, but which few of us ever take notice of: light pollution.

The largely rural village of Homer Glen, located about 11 miles southwest of Chicago, adopted a groundbreaking ordinance in December that limits how much light a business can generate based on lumens, a measurement of emitted light. In doing so, the village became one of the first municipalities in the country to pass a law that specifically recognizes the night sky as a natural resource and that lays out specific measures to preserve it.

The worldwide event known as Earth Hour is getting a big push in Chicago this year. As the flagship city for Earth Hour in the U.S., Chicago is joining Atlanta, Phoenix, San Francisco and other cities around the world promoting the March 29 event with a big P.R. campaign and high-profile corporate sponsorship to highlight the problem of (and possible solutions to) global climate change.

When the hour of 8 p.m. local time on Saturday arrives, the plan is that in dozens of cities across six continents, thousands of businesses and millions of individual citizens will be turning off their lights for 60 minutes. Earth Hour was a successful movement last year in Sydney, Australia, with 2.2 million people and over 2,000 businesses hitting the off switch. Even landmarks like the Harbour Bridge and the Opera House went dark for the occasion. The organizers claim that the Earth Hour 2007 event resulted in a 10.2 percent drop in energy usage, which is the equivalent of taking 48,000 cars off the road for that hour.

 A voluntary compact authored by the Illinois Lieutenant Governor’s office has elementary and secondary schools around Chicago putting their environmental priorities down on paper. Students, teachers, and administrators from the first six schools signed the compact at a ceremony hosted by Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn in January.

Modeled after the Illinois Sustainable University Compact, which began in 2006, the new Illinois Sustainable Schools Compact sets out 12 achievable sustainability objectives for elementary and secondary schools. These goals focus on conserving energy, encouraging recycling, and practicing natural landscape techniques (including minimizing the use of chemical fertilizers, following a conservative watering schedule, using rain barrels, and planting drought-resistant native species). For complete list of the goals in the compact, click here (PDF).

Dominick’s grocery stores, which operates 99 stores in the Midwest, announced in January that it will become the first Illinois retailer to convert its entire truck fleet to biodiesel. By converting 78 tractors and 350 refrigerated trailers to B20 biodiesel, the grocer projects a 1,457,256 pound reduction in its yearly carbon emissions.

For many Chicagoans, this announcement may alter the perception of a large grocery chain not known for being particularly green. In the Second City, Dominick’s is sort of the Pepsi to to Jewel-Osco’s Coke. These two large mainstream grocery stores are known for having stores in many of the city’s neighborhoods, and for serving very large portions of the populace with conventional packaged food and some organic produce. If you’re not a dedicated organic foodie doing your shopping at Whole Foods or Trader Joe’s (or at farmer’s markets or CSAs), chances are you’re a Dominick’s or Jewel regular.

Last week I wrote about how the Chicago nonprofit Safer Pest Control Project has been working to protect people from the harmful effects of toxic pesticides. In talking with the organization’s Executive Director, Rachel Rosenberg, I learned about how common it is for people to be exposed to chemical pesticides in public places without being aware, and how dangerous this can be for children.

But even more insidious than the harm posed by toxins used to rid our homes and workplaces of unwanted critters is the problem of chemical pesticides used to control outdoor pests. In fact, the use of chemicals to kill animals and plants in our yards is a lot more widespread than you may have guessed. Consider these statistics cited by the Safer Pest Control Project:

78 million households in the U.S. use home and garden pesticides.
$700 million are spent annually on pesticides for U.S. lawns.
67 million pounds of synthetic pesticides are used on U.S. lawns each year.
Three times as much pesticide is used on lawn per acre than on agricultural crops.

If you’ve ever faced a pest infestation in your home, you know how quickly you want the critters gone–whatever the cost. Whether it’s roaches, termites, or rodents invading your space, it’s natural to want to strike back. You want the toughest weapon you can find to beat back the onslaught of little beasties before they multiply and take over completely.

But before you go out and buy that can of Raid and take aim at the crawling menace, pause to ask yourself: Do you really want to coat your home in toxins that you can’t see and that may persist on surfaces for weeks? Are you willing to put your children and pets at even greater risk than what you yourself face from these poisonous chemicals? Are you sure the solution isn’t more dangerous than the problem?

Educating the public about the dangers of chemical pesticides and promoting safe, effective alternatives for dealing with pests is the mission of Chicago-based nonprofit Safer Pest Control Project. Since 1994 this organization — which began as a coalition of four environmental groups–has worked to reduce the risks to human health wherever pesticides are commonly used, including in schools, childcare centers, residential buildings, yards and parks and in agriculture.

One of the defining features of downtown Chicago is the river which bears its name. The Chicago River has been inextricably linked to the growth of the city–Chicago became a transportation hub in the 19th century because of shipping routes from the Great Lakes into the Midwest and points beyond. In fact, Chicago is home to more movable bridges, 38 currently, than any other city in the country, and they all span one of the three branches of this river.

But the river which made the rise of this metropolis possible endured an incredible amount of abuse as the city grew up around it. For most of the last 200 years, the river was treated essentially as an open sewer, where household and industrial waste was dumped with abandon. (One particularly rancid part of the river earned the nickname “Bubbly Creek” because of methane buildup due to decomposing animal remains dumped by the Chicago stockyards, famously depicted in Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle.) The contamination led to many outbreaks of cholera, typhoid, and other diseases in the 1800s because the sewage flowed out into Lake Michigan, the source of the city’s drinking water. In 1900, a massive engineering project succeeded in using locks to reverse the flow of the river so that the pollution was sent southwest through the newly completed Chicago Sanitary and Ship canal and into the Missippi River watershed, away from Lake Michigan. When Chicagoans weren’t trying to ignore the stench of the river or actively abusing it, they seriously messed with the natural hydrology. Not much respect.

This human disrespect for the Chicago River continued up through the 1980s, when the river was often still clogged with garbage. But beginning in the 1990s, things started turning around for this urban waterway. Pollution levels started to drop (due in no small part to enforcement of Clear Water Act legislation) and people began to notice that the river, no longer smelly and unsightly, could actually be an enhancement to city life, a corridor of somewhat natural green space in an urban setting. People began using the river for recreational activities that put them in closer contact with the water, such as canoeing and kayaking, in addition to the larger pleasure boats and sightseeing ferries. New buildings along the river are now built so that people can walk along the shore and appreciate this natural asset, rather than being sited facing away from the river, as much architecture did in the 20th century.

Still undecided about how you’ll vote on Super Duper Woozy Tuesday? If you live in one of the 20+ states holding presidential primaries or caucuses on Feb. 5, you’ve had a long primary season to settle on a candidate. Nonetheless, a lot of us find ourselves with our minds not yet made up about which of the remaining contenders should get our support. Whether it’s because our first choice has dropped out of the race, or the similarities in the remaining candidates’ platforms, voters can be forgiven for feeling like they won’t be able to enter the voting booth with rock-solid conviction this week.

But the 2008 presidential election is too momentous to simply throw up your hands and flip a coin — or to allow yourself to be swayed by a strictly emotional reaction to the candidates. The next president’s administration will have to deal with a slew of problems facing the country, and global climate change is just one of them. If you care about environmental issues and want your political leaders to take the lead on addressing the root causes of environmental degradation that have gone unmitigated during the last several years, you’re going to want to vote for a candidate who puts the environment at the top of his or her agenda — right up there with the Iraq war, the economy, health care, and immigration reform.

So how do you find out which candidates support the environmental issues that matter to you? It’s hasn’t been easy to tell from mainstream press coverage because the environment has gotten pushed to the back burner by more hot-button issues during the campaign. But a number of online sources have done the homework for us, and offer helpful side-by-side comparisons of the environmental platforms on offer.

Chicago has made some big strides in recent years toward becoming a greener city. As I’ve talked about in previous posts, Mayor Richard M. Daley has used his lock on power in the Second City to push an aggressive agenda of environmental initiatives that he hopes will someday soon earn Chicago the title of Greenest City in the Nation.

Realistically, we’ve got a long way to go before such a claim can be made with a straight face, but progress is being made. Some of the bolder initiatives that City Hall has launched in recent years have worked to expand the use of green roofs, support sustainable architecture, and reduce waste from plastic water bottles. There are other examples, but suffice to say that the mayor is backing up his green rhetoric with some real political muscle in a bid to leave a legacy as an early 21st century environmental leader.

But one criticism that can be made about Daley’s approach so far to creating a more sustainable city is that it is very top-down. Municipal government can put in place programs to encourage better resource management, but it can’t mandate a local green economy into existence. Achieving that goal takes the vision, dedication, and hard work of countless green business entrepreneurs and environmentally conscious consumers. And let’s face it, most of us don’t really enjoy when the government tells us what to do. Even when City Hall tackles an issue we’re passionate about, most of us wonder to ourselves, “Why are they doing it that way? Wouldn’t it be more effective to do X with the money?”

If you’ve ever had such idea, imagine for a moment that you could get help from your local government agencies to help make it a reality. Wouldn’t it be great to have such ideas nurtured instead of being left to die on the vine?

Enter the Chicago Conservation Corps.

So you’ve made the switch to reusable shopping bags, and you’re feeling pretty good about being able to answer the eternal grocery store question of “paper or plastic?” with a hearty “Neither!” But when you’re not doing the cooking at home, you probably don’t get a choice about avoiding much of the plastic packaging that keeps your food warm and safe on its journey from the restaurant to your home.

If you’ve ever felt a pang of guilt about how much garbage is created when ordering takeout, you’ve got good reason.  All those disposable containers and plastic bags made from petroleum create an environmental impact that goes on long after you’ve enjoyed the last of your Pad Thai leftovers. According to one report cited on Treehugger, over 1 million plastic bags are consumed in this country every minute. How many of those bags wind up in landfills after one use or, worse, end up wreaking havoc on marine life in the world’s oceans, is difficult to calculate. But it’s a trend that has been on a troubling upswing for a long time.  

To address this problem, an increasing number of restaurants and other food service providers have started to switch from petroleum-based plastic take-out items to compostable products made from renewable resources, such as corn (PLA) and sugar cane fiber (bagasse).  One of the major barriers that restaurants face when switching to such bio-based containers, however, is a painful difference in cost.

For example, restaurateur Dan Rosenthal who runs casual-Italian minichain Sopraffina Marketcaffe in Chicago found that he would pay a heavy price to replace the 400,000 non-biodegradable plastic bags he went through each year. The switch would entail 7 cents more per bag, for a total of $28,000 every year.