Lesson Walk

As a parent I am always trying to find interesting ways in which I can incorporate learning, exercise, and the natural world. In a society were media and technology rein, teaching your kids simple things like numbers and letters are not excluded. There are so many movies, computer games, and T.V. shows that do this seemingly well. Here is my issue with things like this, it takes the personality out of parenting. You are so tempted to just sit them in front of a television and walk away to do chores, work, or just have personal time. I know it is quite tempting, and on occasion it is perfectly fine when balanced with other activities. I have made a new years resolution to engage my little ones in learning experiences outside.
I want to share the first of many Lesson Walks as I am calling them. As a family we love taking walks whenever we get a chance. It gives us time to spend together and talk without distraction. I have found that I look forward to these walks and makes our family seem closer. As we walk we talk to our children, and always make a discovery whether it is a cool rock, stick, or acorn. Our children ask many questions and we try to answer them as best as we can. My focus is to make these walks a bit more structured. Trying to sit my kids down and teach them letters and numbers has been a hassle in the past, especially with my middle daughter.  She however loves being outside and discovering things. I thought if maybe I can incorporate her love of the outdoors and learning, it would be a win-win.
My oldest daughter has the ability to walk to school, so today I incorporated some learning objectives for my four year old. I gave her the task of finding letters and numbers along our walk. I was sure she would point out some obvious letters and numbers on signs and houses, but was surprised when she found them made from natural materials. Surprisingly she was all for it, and found many hidden letters and numbers that I really didn't see.
I encouraged her to look for letters and numbers. She was intrigued by the scavenger hunt aspect of it. She also was discovering other things as well. She noticed ice, acorns split open, squirrels, and animal prints. Of course we had to discuss all of these discoveries and it turned into quite the lesson as the questions she had about all we where seeing kept coming. She was able to tell me why the water turns to ice, what kind of animals she thought made the footprints, how the acorns got split, and what the squirrels where doing. What was important is that I was simply asking her questions and allowing her to answer. I listened carefully, and allowed her imagination to take hold. Some of her answers took me by surprise and even impressed me, as they where stated with adult like composition.
What I learned is that these walks where fun, interesting, and most of all successful. We walked and skipped together singing songs, and talking. It reminds me of how much I enjoy being a mother and how much I learn from my children. I remembered fond days of doing the same with my mother and how much I learned from her. I can only hope that these Lesson Walks can continue and I can continue to teach my children to respect and learn from nature.

Pay-As-You-Throw

This is another piece of information that goes with the composting post. I had to research this in school and this was the conclusion that I found to controlling the amount of trash. This also was the reason I wanted to overhaul our families amount of trash. Enjoy!

Many communities are concerned with the issue of proper municipal solid waste disposal and recycling and often suffer the disadvantages from these actions. Municipal solid waste (MSW)- consists of trash or garbage from homes, businesses, and institutions. Many government leaders and economists have struggled with the most advantageous way to dispose of municipal solid waste and reduce it to the benefit of the economy and the communities. The traditional way of disposing of waste is through fixed rate fees, or individual house fees, apartment fees or taxes. This benefits the economic side of waste disposal to a degree but does nothing for the decrease in total waste that is created. Household and Industrial waste seem to make up the majority of the municipal solid waste that is being created. From an economic standpoint the price of the waste itself is not offset by the fees being charged to dispose of it. Not only is this a problem but space is limited for large cities making the price higher as waste will need to be shipped to another area. There have been several types of policies that intended to fix this problem such as municipal recycling, discontinuing of certain products such as plastics, and other harmful resources. There has been a switch from using virgin material to using recycled materials in an effort to cut down on the total waste. It is truly the recycling of materials that seem to be the key to reducing municipal solid waste and increasing the benefit for the public and government. With the natural flow of idea’s the creation of the pay-as-you-throw programs where put into action, which have shown the ability to accomplish several different tasks to help reduce the waste in an economic way.

            The traditional way to deal with trash disposal is through a fixed rate disposal fee either through household taxes in the case of governmental municipal waste organization or through a private sector municipal waste company. Although this was a great way to deal with the disposal of waste it caused added expenses, and was a never ending cycle that would eventually take over. It is estimated that each person produces 4.6 lbs. of waste a day (Feild, 2009). This will eventually create the problem of space management as the amount of waste for large cities will outgrow its capacity and then waste will then need to be shipped to other less populated places furthering the price tag on the disposal of waste. The rate of increase in MSW has grown substantially in the past years from 6.3% in the 60’s to 33% in the current year (Feild, 2009). This is a country wide problem but not specific to all cities, and the immediate problem tends to be focused towards large cities that have large quantities of people in a small area.  The answer to this problem is through the reduction of waste.

            Through pay-as-you-throw programs people will be directly responsible for the amount of MSW that they use and dispose of. The success of this type of program in terms of economics and social factors can be seen from a 1994 demonstration project in Marietta, Georgia. The community was split into two groups those who would continue to pay a fixed rate for service, and then those who would pay for the amount of MSW they disposed of (Morris, 1999). Of the half that had to pay for the amount of MSW there were two separate groups one who would use a reusable trash receptacle and pay for each trash receptacle used and the those who would use non-reusable trash bags (Morris, 1999). Of the 9,194 households who participated in the pay-as-you-throw program all of the households showed signs of decrease in the waste that was disposed of and took actions to arrange other options for the waste. These options included composting of food waste material, repurposing of materials and recycling available materials. This type of success is found throughout the communities who adopt this type of program. The economics of this type of program are hard to ignore.

            Solid waste disposal from an economic standpoint is hard to enforce due to the pricing challenges that face even local municipalities. The other issue that MSW poses is the environmental factor and the cost of this should be reflected in the price of disposal.  “Discarded solid waste involves environmental costs that ought to be reflected in prices paid by consumers facing different disposal options. Solid waste disposal services are paid for in most communities through flat fees levied to cover the cost of collection and disposal. These fees can go up or down to reflect overall disposal costs (fees are going up in many cases because of increased scarcities of landfill space), but in many places the per family fees do not vary according to the quantities of material discarded per family. Thus, there is no incentive for consumers to be concerned about the amounts of solid waste they discard, nor any incentive to reduce the amounts of “excess” packaging materials that accompany their purchases. However, pay-as-you-throw systems are increasingly common and give incentives for recycling as a waste disposal method for households. Meanwhile total waste continues to increase (Feild, 2009).”The Environmental Protection Agency gives the same information stating that pay-as-you-throw encourages environmental sustainability, economic sustainability, and equity among communities (Environmental Protection Agency , 2013).

In conclusion with the natural flow of idea’s the creation of the pay-as-you-throw programs where put into action, which have shown the ability to accomplish several different tasks to help reduce the waste in an economic way. Traditionally the rise in the cost of municipal waste disposal was hidden in taxes, as well as a fee charged to the residents, this caused the residents who recycled to cover the cost of other peoples wastefulness and didn’t encourage reductions in any way. Economically pay-as-you-throw encourages each individual to pay a flat rate fee for the waste they dispose of. This covers rising costs, residential control over how much they spend, fewer taxes, and cover costs for municipal disposal by the government and the communities.  It is believed that the pay-as-you-throw programs will be the new wave of municipal solid waste disposal that will be adopted by communities. It can be said that these programs can solve the problem of increasing amounts of solid waste being disposed of, cover the rising costs of disposal procedures, cut back on the disadvantages of disposal practices, and help curve the economic strain traditionally put on municipal waste disposal methods.

References:

Environmental Protection Agency . (2013, July 15). Pay-As-You-Throw . Retrieved from Environmental Protection Agency : http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/tools/payt/index.htm

Feild, B. F. (2009). Environmental Economics, An Introduction. McGraw Hill.

Morris, G. H. (1999, November ). Household Behavior under alternative pay-as-you-throw systems for solid waste disposal. Land Ecoomics, 75(4), 515.

 

           

Economic and Environmental Consideration of Hydraulic Fracturing in Pennsylvania

This is a topic that I had to research in school and would like to share it with you.

Hydraulic Fracturing is the process of drilling into shale rock which is very fragile and easily broken, the drilled holes are then injected with a fracturing fluid which breaks up the fragile shale rock and releases natural gas.  Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” has become the newest craze in gas drilling, being one of the most prevalent domestic methods of extracting the large deposits of natural gas in the United States. The natural gas boom however is not specific to all of the United States but in a select few shale formations such as the Marcellus Shale Formation, and the Utica Shale Formation.  These formations span many states which make the widespread regulation of this process very difficult. The environmental considerations are serious and often debated due to the lack of sufficient evidence from agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Departments of Environmental Quality. There are many government agencies, large oil/gas companies and citizens that have been fighting to regulate or deregulate this process.  Currently there are only a few federal regulations that include hydraulic fracturing in the regulation spectrum. There are however local  and state ordnances that can regulate the drilling process until federal laws are put into place to control the gross use of chemicals and ignoring if geological restrictions on drinking wells and aquifers. Proposing a comprehensive regulation of geological water restrictions and chemical use in the fracturing process will be the best available way to control pollution and to encourage economic growth through the use of hydraulic fracturing to produce domestic gas at a cheaper cost to the consumers.

                Of the many locations where natural gas is found in shale rock formations none are more prevalent for current drilling practices than in the State of Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the epi-center for the drilling rush and has felt the brunt of the many environmental consequences seen by this process (Steven, 2013). By looking at the method more closely a better understanding can be gained in determining what the environmental risks might be such as ground water contamination, forest degradation, aquifer contamination and residential disturbances.  In Pennsylvania alone there are 467 sites available for drilling at this time and this includes residential area’s that may be affected (Marcellus Coalition, 2013). The reason this method is so controversial is not so much the act of drilling into the ground but the high pressure fluids that are injected into the ground. The drilling process consists of first drilling holes into the shale rock which requires a “slick” that comprises of oils, and chemicals to allow the drill components to operate correctly (Marcellus Coalition, 2013). There are several holes that are drilled within a drill site to allow maximum containment of the natural gas. Then there is a fluid injected into the drilled hole at very high pressure which breaks up the shale rock from the naturally occurring fissures within the shale rock itself. The fluid contains water, sand, and other chemicals which are for the most part not disclosed to the public. The sand and chemicals act as the propping agents to hold the rock open and allow the release of the natural gas that can then be siphoned up the drill hole. Some of the reported chemicals used in the fluids are hydrochloric acid, sodium chloride, ethylene glycol and polyacrylamide (Environmental Protection Agency, 2013).

                There are a number of environmental concerns due to the drilling process, wastewater and ground water contamination being the two largest. In the process large amounts of water are being used combined with sand and chemicals and then typically delivered to local municipal sewage plants (Schmidt, 2013). The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality secretary Michael Krancer called on the Marcellus Shale Coalition to stop this gross neglect and asked that the water be recycled or repurposed in another way (Department of Environmental Quality , 2013) . The industry heads did comply and shifted a minimum of 70% in flow back water to be re-used and as much as 100% is being used as recycled water for the drilling process. This does however increase the risk of wastewater contamination of the drinking water in area’s near residential communities (Schmidt, 2013).  The ground water contamination is a serious and unavoidable problem for the people of Pennsylvania who happen to live in an area where drilling is occurring. The Responsible Drilling Alliance (RDA) is a grassroots group that has dedicated itself to the pursuance of regulation that will control the pollution of ground water and help to make “fracking” a viable commerce for the state (Responsible Drilling Alliance , 2013). The RDA uses the views, and personal experiences and stories of the people directly effected as a means of combating the process. There have been countless reports on the contamination of drinking water and some of the major companies have been forced by the Pennsylvania DEP to provide safe drinking water in such places as Dimock, Pennsylvania (Responsible Drilling Alliance , 2013).

                There are several major constituents that are involved in hydraulic fracturing in Pennsylvania, Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Delaware River Basin Commission, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, and community coalitions like Responsible Drilling Alliance. There are two sides to the issue, those who are proponents for the process and those who oppose the process. The oil and gas companies are obviously for the process and count on the billions of dollars to be made from the gas industry in Pennsylvania. With the natural gas economy ever rising, the economic benefits are also hard to ignore. Natural Gas prices have increasingly gone up and have averaged from 2011 to 2013 7 cents to the dollar and rising as high as 8.3 cents to the dollar. The Natural Gas industry is heavily taxed which provides needed income for the states. In Pennsylvania the drilling companies can be taxed up to 40.6 percent which is much higher than other industries operating in the state. Cabot Oil & Gas has several programs that deal with the “fracking” process such as the Appalachian Shale Recommended Practices Groups (ASRPG) (Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. , 2013). This group is a way of encouraging drilling operators to use recommended practices for responsible and environmental quality that will be sufficient (Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. , 2013). On the opposite side of the spectrum the Delaware River Basin Committee created in 1961 is a committee of delegates and agencies that has the power to create law and enforce it when dealing with the river and waterways in its jurisdiction and this includes the upper northeast part of Pennsylvania (Delaware River Basin Commmittee , 2013). The committee has issued a moratorium in 2010 on drilling permits and has not lifted it. The reason for this moratorium is there are no federal regulations that contain permitting and chemical use information for hydraulic fracturing (Delaware River Basin Commmittee , 2013). This is a controversial way of controlling the drilling process and is implemented across several states in the basin area.  The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Environmental Quality are both involved in the process and have issued reports stating the investigation of the process but have come up with conflicting results. The EPA has been completing a comprehensive study of the process and has not released any information from the study as of yet (Environmental Protection Agency , 2013). The DEP is also conducting an independent study of the process and has released some information pertaining to the issues and concerns of the process (Department of Environmental Quality , 2013). There is of course citizen coalitions that have been formed such as the Responsible Drilling Alliance that have combated these reports stating the real and personal effects from the drilling process within a community and near to residential areas (Responsible Drilling Alliance , 2013).

                Each of these stakeholders is involved in some way in the process of hydraulic fracturing, which is either to help push for regulation or to report voluntary company restrictions to keep the appearance of responsible proprietorship. The companies involved all want to appear as if the company specific processes are revolutionary in the environmental considerations. The usage of vague wording and even less facts to back up the methods assumes the practices are not as concerned with environmental quality as they appear to be. The facts that should be taken into consideration are the reports that are tested for environmental quality such as the EPA’s report on the process. In 2010 the EPA released a statement about the 1.9 million dollar study to be conducted, case studies to be completed, and water, soil, and air quality to be considered in reference to the Hydraulic Fracturing process. This process is not safe from stakeholder manipulation. The statement did disclose that significant input and cooperation from the stakeholders would take place, meaning the companies would have a say in the sites that where being considered (Maykuth, 2010).  There are several case studies being done by the EPA in Pennsylvania in Susquehanna and Bradford County. There is also significant research into the town of Dimock which has been the largest reported site of water contamination. There have not been any significant findings from the EPA or the DEP despite the continuous reports on the effort to conduct meaningful and acceptable testing on drill sites and community wells. There has been no official statement from either on the process or the regulations that may be needed to control pollution efforts. There are however some other state agencies that have attempted to control the situation such as the Delaware River Basin Committee, and the states courts system. This has come in lue of the overwhelming concern and outcry from citizens and several court cases that have fought the outright abuse of the local commodities and land rights.

                In several important court battles and with the creation and amendments to several federal laws the battle over land rights and usage pertaining to hydraulic fracturing is in full swing. For the most part the environmental impacts should have had jurisdiction restrictions under the current environmental acts such as the Clean Water Act, Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act. These acts would normally have regulated the fracturing fluids and the methane release into the air. There have been several amendments to these acts that have exempted these fluids from the regulation process and have caused the debate between opponents and advocates as to the environmental consequences with increased air and water pollution and the economic benefits to be reached.  The Safe Drinking Water Act applies regulation to the injection of fluids into the ground that may or may not enter groundwater. In the case of fracturing fluids the act only imposes standards upon drilling operations that use diesel fuel, and nothing is mentioned about other fluids concerned with the “fracking” process (Steven, 2013). In a 2003 negotiation between the EPA and Halliburton Energy Services, BJ Services and Schlumberger Technology the companies voluntarily ceased use of diesel fuel in the fracturing process but stated that some of the acceptable chemicals used posed some environmental concerns (Steven, 2013). This was then followed by a study by the EPA into the effects and then the passing of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which contained an amendment to the SDWA’s definition of injection fluids to exclude specifically injection fluids and propping agents used in Hydraulic Fracturing operations (Steven, 2013). This meant that states no longer had to require permits before drilling could commence. The clean Water Act which is the primary source of regulation pertaining to the containment and treatment of flow back water mentioned earlier. This does regulate the methods and treatment of the flow back water to certain specifications and does require special permitting and charges for the disposal and treatment of such waste water. There have been several attempts to pass amendments to the Clean Air Act to include hydraulically fractured gas wells. In 2012 the EPA passed national air quality standards for hydraulically fractured emissions and required compliance by all operating companies by January 1, 2015 (Steven, 2013). This is to reduce the amount of emissions by 95% by that time and save the oil and gas companies needless fines due to non-compliance (Steven, 2013). These are the only federal standards to regulate the emissions and pollution dealing with “fracking” and the rest is left up to the specific states to do the rest.

                In Pennsylvania there has been hard fought debate over the control of hydrofracking. Under state oil and gas laws local governments in Pennsylvania can regulate but not stop “fracking” from occurring. After the long debates Pennsylvania passed Act 13 which preempted local control (Steven, 2013). This required local government to include hydrofracking as an accepted permitted use in all zoning districts, which is a direct violation of the moratorium enacted by the Delaware River Basin Committee which is another government agency allowed to create and implement policy in Pennsylvania. In the court case Robinson Township v. Commonwealth found that the Commonwealth used the states oil and gas legislation to make irrational land use classifications and failed to protect the citizens and owners of land used in the process from harm (Steven, 2013). This preempted the states legislation of allowable permits. There are local zoning localities that specifically restrict the imposed municipalities from allowing certain activities within certain zoning codes under the chapter 32 zoning rights of the state. In Pennsylvania there is also the Municipal Planning Code (MPC) which requires that adoption of plans to create proper zoning districts due to federal and other state enforcements, this means environmental ordinances as well (Steven, 2013)l.  Act 13 has conflicted with these codes and many are contending the sheer ignorance and lack of regulation under the pretense of economic benefit and special interest group manipulation. The Pennsylvania courts have ruled that there is substantive evidence that Act 13 does indeed violate the comprehensive plans that would regulate hydrofracking and has given power to the local ordinances to create municipal zoning codes that would allow the regulation of hydraulic fracturing (Steven, 2013). The courts have ruled that local governments should be allowed to regulate zoning laws, and that state preemption of these rules violated the standardized regulations of local governments.

                In Pennsylvania due to the preemption of local ordinances by the state government has caused a delay in the regulation process as the land use zoning districts cannot be properly organized and determined who, what, when and how the permits will be given and where the drilling will be allowed. It is clear that there are benefits economically to the local markets that come directly from hydraulic fracturing as jobs and commerce will be large in number. There are however environmental considerations that need to be concluded as well. The companies involved have shown compliance with voluntary actions to reduce or at least acknowledge the environmental impacts of this process. If there were comprehensive policies relating to the process itself and specifically a balance can be reached. In the terms of the actual steps in the process that should be regulated, the flow back waste water should be help to proper standards and enforced under the acts that are already in place by the local authorities. The air quality standards can also be further enforced by local authorities based on the federal standards in place. The amendments to the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act should be dissolved and new standards should be set to include regulations on known hazardous chemicals especially including those that are already being found in contaminated water such as naphthalene, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, sodium chloride, ethylene glycol and polyacrylamide (Environmental Protection Agency, 2013). These substances are entering ground water and contaminating drinking water aquifers. This is a major point source pollution that should be regulated on a federal level and then can be enforced more stringently by local authorities in Pennsylvania. The companies have already begun to reach negotiations and include voluntary actions in this manner so the implementation of federal regulation is not far from the future. In Pennsylvania there have already been small steps taken to regulate the process and further federal regulations will help the local authorities to have a solid legal standing for the regulation of such processes. The citizens and opponents of the process have been dutifully working to gain support for such regulations and will most likely accept any federal regulation standards dealing with this process as well.

                In conclusion by proposing a comprehensive regulation of geological water restrictions and chemical use in the fracturing process will be the best available way to control pollution and to encourage economic growth through the use of this method to produce domestic gas at a cheaper cost to the consumers. In Pennsylvania the use of injecting high pressure fluids into drill holes to release the natural gas and in doing so contaminating the ground water, polluting the air, and creating waste water that must be disposed of is a major concern that cannot be ignored. There are large economic considerations that are being considered mostly by the companies in which are using this source of natural gas as a means of solid income. These companies such as Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Marcellus Shale Coalition, and Chesapeake Energy Corporation all see the benefit in the large store of natural gas that is trapped within the Marcellus Shale Formation sitting directly under Pennsylvania. Not only will this process bring added domestic gas, but can create needed jobs, and increase the economy for the local markets. The citizen coalitions such as the Responsible Drilling Alliance understand the need for the economic growth the drilling can bring but are deeply concerned with the environmental and more importantly social effects. Proper regulation is called for and needed to be able to accurately and legally restrict certain practices. The major issue currently facing this process is the preemption of state power over local power. This is a concern being seen from the numerous court cases that have found that state regulation that has allowed any and all drilling directly violated the zoning restrictions of local governments. This lack of cooperation between the local governments and the state and federal ones is a problem that must be fixed in order to properly and comprehensively create policy that will regulate the process. What policy will be created in the future will be directly related to the cooperation between the government agencies, the citizens, and the companies involved in the process. The cooperation between stakeholders and the creation of comprehensive policy will be the only way to regulate this method of drilling and allow for the economic benefits to be shown in a strong and environmentally cons

References:

Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. . (2013, 7 15). Policy on Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids . Retrieved from Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. : http://www.cabotog.com/pdfs/Frackingfluidpolicy.pdf

Delaware River Basin Commmittee . (2013, 7 15). About DRBC. Retrieved from Delaware River Basin Committee: http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/about/

Department of Environmental Quality . (2013, 7 17). Hydraulic Fracturing . Retrieved from Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Proctection : http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=14295&mode=2&PageID=590867&q=Fracking &cp=Site,Documents,News

Environmental Protection Agency . (2013,a). Key Issues to be Investigated at Case Study Locations. Retrieved from Environmental Protection Agency: http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/key-issues-be-investigated-case-study-locations

Environmental Protection Agency. (2013,b). Hydraulic Fracturing. Retrieved from Environmental Protection Agency : http://www2.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing

Marcellus Coalition. (2013, 5 21). Natural Gas Deposits . Retrieved from Marcellus Coalition : http://marcelluscoalition.org/

Maykuth, A. (2010). Federal EPA to study hydraulic Fracturing. The Philidelphia Inquirer.

Responsible Drilling Alliance . (2013, 6 4). About RDA. Retrieved from Responsible Drilling Alliance: http://www.responsibledrillingalliance.org/index.php/education/water-quality

Schmidt, C. (2013). Estimating Wastewater Impacts from Fracking. Environmental Health Perspectives, 121(4), 117-117.

Steven, J. N. (2013). Hydrofracking: State Preemption, Local Power, and Cooperative Governence. Case Western Law Review, 63(4), 995-1039.

 

Environmental Challange: Reduce, Re-Use, Recycle

In a world were consumerism reins free, keeping up with the output of garbage is not only a problem but it has turned into an epidemic as the rise in consumers grows rapidly each year. The idea of throwing things "away" is a false statement. It seems to suggest that the trash is going somewhere, like it is dissolving into the distance with the use of a magic word or some magic spell from Harry Potter. Incindeo! I wish it where that easy.

The reality is that it is taken to a location which is usually out of site and out of mind. You bag your trash up into clean sterile plastic bags, put it into a larger trash barrel and then the magic trash fairies come and get it on a scheduled day of the week. The trash is collected and dumped in a landfill. The trash is left to decompose in the ground, for many, many years. Just to give you some perspective. Plastic, unless it is specifically made with plant based materials will essentially never decompose. That is right, the bacteria responsible for decomposing food and natural materials like cotton, or wood pulp in paper do not work on plastics. The only way found to degrade plastic is sunlight, and buried in a landfill there is very little of that. So when people knowingly throw away plastics including bottles, trash bags, and containers there is a huge problem.
We could fill our earth with the amount of trash we throw away. Fortunately there are some that reduce, re-use, and recycle. This can be done easily and with the right system you can transform your families waste production. This weekend my family is taking on this challenge. We would like to reduce our trash by half in one weekend. This is how we are doing it.


Reduce

• We have already kicked the soda death trap. This was mostly my husband who was addicted to soda, but we helped him along.
• Our children got re-usable water bottles for school and outings. This is great because no matter what we can get them drinks without having to pay for one. All you need is a faucet.
• We are re-using any bags that we do have, such as zip lock bags for food storage. We simply wash them and hang them to dry.
• No more plastic bags for lunches and instead challenge ourselves to creating binto box like lunches, which are more fun that I thought. Creating unique lunches within these little boxes.
• Buying a large container of yogurt instead of individual cups
• We make our own coffee and take it in a re-usable container
• We don't use disposable wipes for the baby, instead we use cut up strips of soft material that we wash and re-use ( I am trying to convince the family we could do the same and cut out toilet paper, but that may take some time!)
• The big challenge is getting rid of trash bags, yes I said trash bags. What is the real use of these anyway? You have two options, either buy a re-usable trash bag, or just go bag less....go on try it, it feels good. We are going bag less!

Re-Use

• For the most part we buy as much as we can second hand, or look for freebies and fix them up if damaged
• We are collecting cans to create a colorful spring mobile for our garden
• I am collection wine bottles and turning them into unique lights for family (I will post another DIY project on this later)

Recycle

• We recycle as much as possible!
• This is a list of things you thought you couldn't recycle but you can
• canned biscuit containers
• any paper including paper towels, tissues, and napkins if they aren't too soiled
• pizza boxes
• wrapping paper
• coffee cups (most are made from post recycled paper products and resemble styrofoam, but can actually be recycled)
• Batteries, electronics, and more (make sure to check with your municipal waste company to find out where to take these items)

The next step in recycling is to re-purpose your food scraps in the form of composting. This is our families personal system.



Step One
Determine an appropriate place to make your compost pile, it should be relatively shaded if possible. It should not be close to your house just in case of fire (which can happen if it gets to hot). The best way is to make a box out of cinder blocks, and that way if there is a fire it will be contained. The next step is to decide on a container for your scraps. The bin should be completely water tight. We choose a old fire place ash bin. It is metal, and water tight and has a good lid on it. It is big but not too big. It is the winter time so the composting won't really take off.  The bin is big enough to store the waste, and start the decomposing before we take it outside to dump it.

Step Two
Organize your family. If you have kids, it is important to include them into the fun. Sit everyone down and decide what things will be thrown into your trash can for disposal, your recycling, and your compost. You would be surprised what you can compost! Go over the list, explain to them how to dispose of things, and what to put in each container. It is a good idea to label when container is which, for an easy reminder.

Step Three
Start reducing, re-using, and recycling!! Yea. I choose to do a little dance as I put the first few things into our compost bin. I thought the other members of the family would be more excited, but they didn't share my jubilation for throwing thing in.


Compost List
tissue
toilet paper
coffee/filters
vegetables
yogurt
pasta
stale chips
crackers
stale bread
seeds
nuts
dryer lint
hair
contents of your vacuum cleaner
and much, much more


Our challenge is to reduce our trash by half. Currently we go through about four trash bags a week. We would like to only have two trash cans full a week. We would also like to stop using plastic bags allthogether. Going bagless is an effort to at least reduce the amount of plastics that are being disposed of. Living more simply is not as hard to do when you remove social stigma's about how one should live. What we are doing is not dirty, or gross, we are reducing our families foot print. We need to reduce the damages made by over consuming, over indulding, and over stimulating our children with needless material things. Our house is like our habitat, lets keep it clean.

Lice Report

The holidays have been interesting this year. My oldest daughter came home with lice from school, lack of sleep made functioning in any manner impossible (thanks to having a newborn), and we were going to be traveling. The process of getting rid of lice in our house was really the kicker. This is what I learned.

Lice or Louse are parasitic insects that live on the human body. There are three types head, body, and pubic. Lice are spread from close human to human contact. They don’t jump, crawl, or fly. The most common cause of infection, in children is playing on the playground, sharing of hats, coats, and from backpacks. Lice like warm places to hide and do seem to pick certain hair types over others. Having lice is NOT a sign that you are dirty. Absolutely all of the lice and nits need to be removed in order for the treatment to work. Although it is very contagious it is not going to immediately spread through your entire family.  If you work quickly enough then the issue can be controlled.

When I discovered that my child had lice, I was devastated, because I immediately had horrible visions of my own childhood having to get my hair cut, being made fun of, and hours of hair pulling. Needless to say, it is not that way today. My daughter did however have some concerns, and it did make for some restless sleep for a few nights. She was afraid of getting made fun of, and having to cut her hair. This was the biggest issue. She has beautiful flowing locks and takes pride in her curls. I assured her it would not come to that. I immediately got the creeps, especially when I started to look through her hair and found the lice.  I had two options, our town had a lice specialist who would treat and remove the lice for a hefty price, or I could treat her with chemicals to kill them. I decided that I should treat her myself to save time and money. I used Rid which is the most common product to kill the lice. This is the issue I have with this solution. The main ingredients are pyrethrin, and piperonyl butoxide.

Pyrthrin is a naturally occurring chemical which can be found in perennial plant pyrethrum. It is synthesized to be used as pesticides, and pest repellants. It is the safest chemical to use around pets and humans. Having said that it does pose some health concerns, in small doses it does not affect humans or larger animals, but can affect birds, other insects, fish, and smaller mammals and reptiles. It does break down rather quickly so immediate exposure would have to happen in order for it to be a concern. In large doses it can cause issues in humans especially children. It can cause sneezing, headaches, dizziness, and much more. The amount used in treating lice can cause these symptoms.

Piperonyl Butoxide is a regulated substance under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). It has some acute and dangerous side effects most concerning is the carcinogen factor.  Being a controlled substance it is highly regulated, but that isn’t saying much. It is not an actual pesticide but rather enhances the effect of pesticide chemicals. Either way it is not a very nice substance and should be avoided.

In our house trying to remove as much chemicals as possible is a hard task in today’s society. This is especially true when your child gets lice and you are forced so it seems to use chemicals to remove them. Here is the issue. Rid the most common and most cost efficient way to get rid of lice and uses pesticides to kill the lice, to then be removed from the head. I learned several important things from this adventure. Number one is to do good and solid research before making a rash decision. I wish I had followed my own rule in this case. I did use a small amount of Rid to kill the lice, this did not work, and it just gave my child a headache. I then called in the big guns; I took her to the professionals. This set us back a good amount of money, but I learned a lot for the future and I can share it with others.

First, Rid may or may not actually kill the live lice, but it does not kill the nits (eggs). Second there is a chemical free way to remove the lice. If you don’t have to use chemicals I am all for it. The professionals used a method of “shocking” the lice, then physically removing them which is the ONLY way to get rid of them for good. Spraying the head with cold water will shock the lice, then using a good conditioner to completely coat the head while you use a good lice comb to comb the nits and live lice out of the head. It is important to rinse the comb in alcohol to kill the lice in the comb so there is no re-infection. You can also wipe the excess conditioner on a paper towel to see if you have removed nits or lice. The best way to do this is in sections meticulously going over and over the spot until you see no nits and no lice. To remove the lice from the scalp, a piece of tape is the best way to go. Keep doing this until you cannot visibly see any lice, or nits. This however may not do the trick on the first try. Every day for 10 days you should meticulously go over the hair in the same way to make sure all the lice are removed.  Lice have a 10 day maturity cycle. If you have missed some of the nits then you will get new baby lice. This is why you go over the head for 10 days just to make sure.

This is what the professionals did, and it worked. I did the 10 day comb through cycle and it seemed to have worked. None of the other family members got infected. The next important thing to do is to quarantine all of the things the child came into contact with. This includes pillows, toys, coats, clothes etc. Anything that can be put into the dryer should be for 20 minutes to kill the lice. Anything else should be put into bags and quarantined for a least a few weeks if not more. If it happens to be the winter, you can just put the bags outside to kill the lice. Any hair products or hair bands etc. can but put into bags and then put into the freezer. This will also kill the lice. This is just the way we did it, but it seemed to work. Quick action and treatment can mean the difference between a bad family wide infection and just a contained one person infection. Random checks of you kids head is essential to early detection for any school age child. I will do this from now on and not use any harmful chemicals. After all your home is your habitat, let’s keep it clean.