Individual action. Photo by Lori Fisher.

With Copenhagen behind us and the results less than what the earth and her species need, local and individual actions take on even greater importance. In my last post, I suggested composting as an activity that anyone can do to address climate change; in this post I explain why.

As the Compostable Organics Out of Landfills by 2012 (COOL 2012) website points out, “as communities work to decrease greenhouse gas emissions, the first place to look is in the garbage can.” When food scraps and paper products are landfilled they break down in the absence of oxygen (anaerobically) producing methane, a potent greenhouse gas. When organic materials are composted, carbon is both stored within the compost as humus and released as carbon dioxide. While carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, methane is 72 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period.

At the community level, diverting paper for recycling and organics (food scraps and yard trimmings) to composting facilities not only reduces greenhouse gas emissions but also results in useful end products. The resulting compost promotes plant growth including food production, which sequesters carbon dioxide from the air. Compost also reduces reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, which on their own are energy intensive and a source of greenhouse gas emissions.

At the individual level, compost yields even more greenhouse gas savings. Backyard and apartment composting prevents the relatively heavy organics (food scraps are largely water) from having to travel from your home to the landfill. If everyone composted their food scraps and yard waste, we’d have about one quarter of the amount of waste to transport further reducing greenhouse gas emissions from trucks.

The Stop Trashing the Climate report states:

Significantly decreasing waste disposed in landfills and incinerators will reduce greenhouse gas emissions the equivalent to closing 21% of U.S. coal-fired power plants. This is comparable to leading climate protection proposals such as improving national vehicle fuel efficiency. Indeed, preventing waste and expanding reuse, recycling, and composting are essential to put us on the path to climate stability.

At the individual level, careful product selection and composting of our organics is something we can all do without world leaders and industry standing in our way. If you are already there, take it to the community level. Think global, act local. The greatest changes start there.

This week the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen is bringing light to some of the lesser known strategies needed to address climate change. Composting is getting some well deserved attention.

Snow melting on compost.

The Zero Waste International Alliance (ZWIA) brings to Copenhagen their opinion that the “way to solve the climate change problems caused by humanity is to recapture carbon in the soils of the earth. This can be accomplished by returning all organic waste to the soil as compost.” As they say, soil is the solution.

Many of the strategies to address climate change require complex agreements at the national level, which largely exclude direct involvement by citizens. Composting, on the other hand, can be done by anyone anywhere. Even apartment dwellers can use enclosed systems to make compost. This is one of the solutions we can truly take into our own hands.

The climate crisis will challenge all species for the foreseeable future, but it is the responsibility of our species alone to solve the problem (although we can enlist help from the composting microbes). The global size and scope of the issue requires all hands on the table and implementation of all strategies. This involvement at every level is the way Copenhagen truly becomes Hopenhagen.

I tend to eat low on the food chain, but when I do eat meat I try very hard not to waste. Thus, the Thanksgiving turkey carcass (which will ultimately be composted) is boiling away on my stove as I write. The resulting stock will be combined with butternut squash or potatoes for future nourishment in the form of soup.

Glass jars of stock cooling in November air.

I cook a lot of soup in the wintertime because it is simple to make out of vegetables I grew. I have to admit, though, that the stock is often store bought. Although I love the idea of making my own stock, it requires one to be home and awake for at least four hours with enough energy to pay attention to a stove.

When the Thanksgiving turkey stock is all used up, I typically head to the grocery store. Once upon a time, I bought stock in a box (think very large juice box) but then abandoned those because of their inability to be composted or recycled. I switched to stock in cans since they can be recycled, eliminating the landfill-bound soup-associated waste.

I was happy with this until I learned that the lining of cans tested by Consumer Reports Health  contain Bisphenol A (BPA) , an estrogen-mimicking chemical with suspected ill health effects, most notably in children. Canned organic products are no better off in this regard than their conventional counterparts either.

So now I’m wondering what to do with all of those cans of soup, fruits, and vegetables in my pantry. If I throw them out my husband will likely starve when I am away. If I use them I’ll wonder just how much BPA my 4-year olds are getting with each bite.

In light of my packaging woes, I think I’ll invest in some more glass canning jars and carve out a few more four-hour blocks of time. The resulting stock is a healthy investment.

This time of year leads me to consider everything that I am thankful for: my friends and family (human and animal members), living in Vermont, food on my table, shelter over my head – the typical stuff. This year, when we take turns at the table sharing what we are thankful for, I’m going to throw out a new one – llama manure.

Please, keep reading. Llama manure has some mighty fine attributes. First and foremost it is a great ingredient to have on hand when building a compost pile or for jumpstarting an existing bin, providing both nitrogen and microbes.  If you have hungry plants that can’t wait for the compost to finish up, llama manure can be used directly on plants without burning them.

That’s not all. Llama manure doesn’t harbor a lot of weed seeds. It doesn’t even really stink (too bad). I’ve had friends take it home in a Prius, which should say something about scent. The firm oval pellets are easy to shovel and spread. Best of all, llamas are quite tidy about their elimination habits by choosing one or two spots in the field where they all make their deposits, which we call the communal poop pile. This is most convenient for the gardener and composter.

So, there it is, I’m debating whether or not to mention this at the dinner table where we usually give thanks. I know it isn’t considered polite to talk about excrement while (or just before) eating. My four-year olds get in trouble for this all the time, so they will likely welcome the conversation. As far as the adults at the table, they have all already had these details inflicted upon them in other settings.

Still, this just seems to be the right time and place to bring it up. I really am thankful for it and couldn’t imagine gardening without it. The vegetables on the table are evidence of its value. Admittedly, I’m a little worried that my four-year olds will giggle about it throughout the entire Thanksgiving meal. Perhaps I’ll wait until dessert.

In recognition of America Recycles Day (November 15), I toured our local Materials Recovery Facility (recycling center). I came away with much deeper understanding of why reduce and reuse come before recycle. Although tons of materials are recovered each day, recycling is not perfect. I now have an even greater appreciation for composting (if that is possible). Here’s how I see it:

• Compared with recycling, composting does not require the same energy inputs. Sure, both composting and recycling facilities use large machinery, but unlike recovered recyclable materials compost doesn’t need to be baled, melted down or de-inked. In many settings, one can just throw a bunch of organics in a pile and over time (faster or slower depending on conditions) nature does all the work.

• There is no sorting required. Compostables can all go in the same big pile. As a consequence, contamination is less of an issue, assuming you are careful about what you put in.

• Compost doesn’t need to travel to China to be useful again, as is the case for number 3 – 7 plastics. Compost is useful anywhere.

• The value of the finished product isn’t at the mercy of the economy like recovered recycled materials. Compost is always valuable and arguably more valuable during recessions and depressions since more people tend vegetable gardens during hard economic times.

• You can compost almost anywhere. Even city dwellers can compost using an electric composter or vermicomposting (composting with worms). By contrast, one’s recycling options are dependent upon the recycling infrastructure in their city or county, with existing drastic geographical differences.

• There is no limit to the number of times biologics can be recycled (composted).

Composting is nature’s perfect recycling system. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an avid recycler and I complete the loop by purchasing products made with recycled materials. I extend sincere gratitude to the people who make it happen. Without them, we’d have many more holes in the ground filled with you-know-what.

We need both composters and recyclers. But we, as a society, can do better, from designing better (truly recyclable) products and packaging to expanding recycling infrastructure to creating local markets for recycled materials. It would make their job a whole lot easier and our planet a whole lot cleaner.

As fall progresses, my garden offers winter squash, cranberries, sweet potatoes, and Swiss chard, all colorful and nutritious food that will sustain my family into winter. There are some other less obvious fall nutrients out there in the form of tree trimmings, leaves, and annuals and perennials gone by. These are, or will be, nutrients for plants when spring arrives.

Yard trimmings are no small potatoes when it comes to municipal solid waste. In 2007 they accounted for 12.8% or 32.6 million tons of the municipal solid waste stream. Thankfully, municipalities composted 20.9 tons of yard trimmings, yielding an overall relatively high recovery rate of 64.1%. Only recovery (recycling) of car batteries and steel cans was higher. Still, this means 11.7 million tons of leaves went to landfills, removed from the biological cycle they’d been part of for millions of years.

Each fall, my husband trims trees and gathers leaves and considers bringing them to our municipal waste facility for composting. This is when my hoarding instinct kicks in. Please don’t take those nutrients away, I beg. So, the tree limbs go into the woods (many animals will make a home out of a pile of tree trimmings) and the leaves join the garden and barn waste in a big glorious fall compost pile.

Bringing our yard waste to the municipal facility for composting would relocate some of the nutrient content from our yard to some other place (the yard of whoever uses the compost made by our municipality). That is probably just fine for people who aren’t so passionate about plants, but when leaves are deposited in a landfill their nutrients are removed for good. This is the same for food scraps, which account for 12.5% of municipal solid waste. Sadly, food scraps experience a much lower nutrient recovery rate of 2.6%. As soils are depleted around the world, we continue to lose nutrients to landfills. In that environment they no longer have the opportunity to support plant growth.

When I was growing up and refusing my dinner, my mother would say “Don’t waste your food — other people in the world are starving. My kids hear that too, but they also hear “Don’t waste your organic nutrients — soils all over are becoming less fertile”.

It is time for a shift in our perspective. Instead of seeing food scraps and yard trimmings as waste, let’s see them for what they really are — nutrients for plants. If Halloween treats are the nutrients you think of this time of year, consider upcycling (making new stuff from would-be waste) any Mars brand candy wrappers you get in your trick-or-treat bag. Chocolate is a nutrient, I’m pretty sure, and it turns out the wrapper can be too.

Most people assume that the soap, shampoo, lotion, and cosmetics they buy are safe and that there is a watchdog out there, like the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to make sure that manufacturers adhere to some sort of guidelines. Manufacturers are following the law; that’s not the problem. The problem is the law, and this is how we end up with potentially toxic substances in our everyday personal care products. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (CSC) video sums it up.

The FDA does not have the authority to regulate what goes into cosmetics. This would take an act of Congress – literally. The only cosmetics law on the books are a scant couple of pages of the U.S. Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) passed by Congress in 1938. The result, according to FDA is that “cosmetic products and ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket approval authority, with the exception of color additives.” This means that almost anything can appear in your personal care products, ingredients don’t need to undergo safety assessment, and manufacturers do not need to disclose all ingredients.

For example, lipstick labels don’t mention lead, but lead was found in lipstick tested by CSC and FDA. The FDA study concludes “All of the Pb [lead] levels found by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were within the range the agency would expect to find in lipsticks formulated with permitted color additives and other ingredients prepared under good manufacturing practice (GMP) conditions.” To this I say – there is no known safe level of lead! I don’t want any lead in my lipstick, most of which I’ll end up ingesting as I “eat” it off. Consider that many apply their lead-containing lipstick several times a day and that body burden of lead is cumulative. Lead was banned from paint and gasoline decades ago because of its toxicity. We should apply the same standards to something that goes on and then mostly in our body.

In addition to lipstick, products known or suspected to have health implications have been found in bath products (including those marketed for babies), nail products, and in fragrances. Fragrance is considered a trade secret, so ingredients used to create fragrance do not need to be disclosed on the product label.

It is estimated that only about 11% of substances used in personal care products have been screened for safety. Even so, these safety screens do not consider the substance’s effect when mixed with other chemicals, as they are in real life. Not only do some of these substances pose a threat to humans, but to animals as well who must live in their presence downstream once we’ve washed them down the drain.

In the short term, we can influence with purchasing power by looking for cosmetics that are 100% certified organic to food-grade standards, where essential oils are used to add scent. Products from companies that have signed the Compact for Safe Cosmetics are another good choice. These products meet European Union cosmetic standards which are stricter than US standards. The companies inventory ingredients to determine toxicity to living things (people and the animals), and substitute existing substances with safer ones. Good Guide and the Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database can also point you in the right direction. If you are feeling creative, you can make your own personal care products with DIY recipes.

For the long term we need legislation to permanently exclude toxic substances (like lead) out of all cosmetics for everyone, humans and the wildlife downstream. Consider taking action to move the world in that direction.

Last night I took my family to our favorite local snack bar. It was the perfect place to end a late summer day, that is, until my dinner came out in a large Styrofoam (polystyrene) clamshell. I proclaimed it my last visit to this snack bar. I just can’t enjoy a meal when I’m thinking about how long my plate is going to be around.

Most of us have heard something like “It takes 900 years for Styrofoam to break down”. Admittedly, this is often at the top of my mind when I unwillingly encounter Styrofoam or other non-recyclable plastics. Do I really want to pollute the earth for 900 years so that I can have this cup of ice cream? If my own will power won’t keep me from eating the ice cream, the image of the cup in the landfill until the year 2909 usually will.

On the other hand, I recently learned that polystyrene breaking down isn’t such a good thing. Results from a study presented at the American Chemical Society this month revealed that plastics are not as stable as was once thought in the ocean environment where they are exposed to environmental elements like sun and rain. As the plastic disintegrates it releases substances such as bisphenol A and polystyrene oligomers. Both are not found naturally and both have potential health implications for humans and wildlife. As our appetite for plastics continues and the concentrations of these substances rise, our oceans and their inhabitants will carry much of the burden.

I’ve been carrying around re-usable food containers in my car for my restaurant leftovers and often outright reject food served in Styrofoam. But I’m in the minority, as I continue to see polystyrene at restaurants, fairs, markets, grocery stores and as packaging materials (although not from our vendors). I’m afraid this problem isn’t going away anytime soon.

I believe strongly in a bio-based world so I was interested to hear about 16-year old Tseng I-Ching in Taiwan who indentified a bacteria in the gut of the mealworm beetle that can break down polystyrene. She formed her hypothesis after she saw the beetles nibbling on Styrofoam. These findings are encouraging, but I can’t help but wonder, how toxic are those beetle droppings?

The term “Obesity Epidemic” is familiar to most of us. Public health officials have been talking about it for years and it just keeps getting worse. Rates vary considerably by geography but range from 18.5% to 32.8%. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) PowerPoint on obesity is an impressive display of the changing rates from 1985-2008 (go to slide 6, then click to the end fairly quickly and be wowed). Along with the physical weight we carry come health burdens such as cardiovascular disease, certain types of cancer, and type 2 diabetes.

This dramatic increase in obesity has mainly occurred over the last 20 years accompanying more sedentary lifestyles and changes in our food systems. The underlying problem with food is excess. Not only do most of us eat more than our body needs, but we also eat too much sugar, salt, and a few of the bad-for-us fats particularly present in the so-called convenience foods. In combination, these taste really good together, which makes us want to eat more. While our soils erode, our food contains less nutrients per pound and is filled with more sugar, fat, salt, and additives.

Solutions include shopping as much as possible at Farmers Markets which offer a variety of fresh local foods. For extra health benefit, walk there if you can. Find and support the local farms in your area. They might offer a farm share or have a farm stand. When shopping at the grocery store, opt for fresh produce, humanely raised meat, and non- or minimally-processed food. Vote with your dollars for the kind of food system you want.

Another epidemic of excess is that of too many material items. Like too much cheap and not-so-healthy food, we also have too much cheap and not-so-well-made stuff. Like our waistlines, the average home size has swelled to hold all of our things. Similar to seeking medical care for our obesity-associated ailments, we also seek help from professional organizers.

This is also a relatively new phenomenon for humans which has come along with cheap materials and labor. The video Story of Stuff brilliantly outlines the problems with our unsustainable linear process of manufacturing and disposal of goods. This has left most of us feeling burdened with clutter and unfixable goods with planned obsolescence. As a result, we create more trash than ever before.

Solutions include embracing less but better quality stuff. Buy a good $100 pair of shoes that will last four years instead of four $25 pair of shoes each year. Know who you are buying from and avoid companies that exploit people and our natural resources. Buy products that have a future life through composting or recycling or that are easily re-used for another purpose. Borrow, rent, and share.

We’d probably all feel a lot better if we could just lighten up.

The upswing in demand for natural products is generally good news for human and environmental health, but with this enthusiasm come some misunderstandings. When inquiring about ingredients or the appropriate use of a potential product I’m sometimes shocked by the answers I get from the product manufacturer representatives. For example, I once heard something like “All of our ingredients are completely natural, so it is safe for all species”.

Let’s pick apart this statement. First of all, just because something is natural doesn’t mean it is safe. Second, some natural substances are toxic to some species but not others. There are many other considerations as well, most notably dose. Let’s look at these three variables more closely:

Substance – There are countless natural substances that are quite toxic to people. Consider lead and its devastating effects, particularly on children. Lead is natural, but really really bad when ingested by people. Botulinum toxin, produced by the bacterium Clostridium difficile, is the cause of the deadly disease botulism. It is the most toxic protein known — yet it is completely natural.

Species - Plants can be toxic to some species but not to others, or affect species to various degrees. For example, most of us know that humans can eat large amounts of chocolate without (acute) health consequences, but dogs really should not do this. Lilies are toxic to cats but not to people. Black cherry leaves can be toxic to all animals, but ruminants (e.g., goats, cattle, sheep, deer) are at higher risk than monogastric [one stomach] animals (e.g., humans, dogs, cats, pigs, horses) and birds because of their gut anatomy.

Dose - For most substances, it is the dose that makes the poison. In fact, many of our common medications are quite useful when taken in an appropriate dose, but harmful if too much is given. Consider acetaminophen, the active ingredient in Tylenol. Given in the correct dose it is quite effective for the relief of fever and pain, but too much can result in liver damage. Most pharmaceuticals follow this pattern, including those derived from plants. The heart medication digoxin is a derivative of digitoxin, the active ingredient from the foxglove plant. A little bit helps the heart; a lot will stop it.

Other factors – Consider the age, size, sex, and health status of the person or animal using the substance. From a plant perspective consider the part of the plant used, condition and maturity of the plant, as well as its growing conditions. Finally, consider the exposure time and the way a product is used (e.g., ingested, inhaled, applied to the skin).

Natural is not always safe. What is good for one may not be good for another. More is not always better. Our natural world holds tremendous potential, but we need to invest in careful study to demonstrate the effects — both the ones we’re after and the ones we’re not.