<![CDATA[Consumerist: Environment]]> http://cache.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/consumerist.com.png <![CDATA[Consumerist: Environment]]> http://consumerist.com/tag/environment http://consumerist.com/tag/environment <![CDATA[ Consumers: Adopting Greener Behaviors Or Just Cheap? ]]> This month, Consumer Reports is publishing the results of a survey of American adults asking about their adoption of "green" behaviors. Interesting, right? However, we can't help but wonder whether some of these behaviors are more about saving money than saving the planet.

Here are some of the actions they asked about:

  • Drinking tap water instead of bottled
  • Running full loads in the dishwasher
  • Using a programmable thermostat
  • Buying fresh food from a farmer's market
  • Line-drying clothes

Of course, household behaviors that save both money and resources are a classic win-win situation, so we're not complaining. But how do you save money in ways that also save energy or waste, and could also be perceived as green?

Shades of green [Consumer Reports]
By the Numbers: U.S. consumers adopting some greener behaviors [Consumer Reports Home blog]

(Photo: miemo)

]]>
Consumerist-5373654 Sat, 03 Oct 2009 17:00:29 EDT Laura Northrup http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5373654&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ 5 Food Tips For A Healthier Planet And Body ]]> Is it possible to have a healthy — and sustainable — diet? Maybe. The Daily Green has some tips on how to find locally grown food, limit your use of packaging, and pick for the right organic foods, among other things. According to the site, some good organic choices include "certified organic peaches, peppers and spinach," rather than "organic broccoli, since conventional broccoli is quite low in residue." Of course, paying for all of that personal and planetary health is another story.
Top 5 Food Choices to Keep the Planet (And You) Healthy [The Daily Green]
(Photo: strph)

]]>
Consumerist-5365142 Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:02:40 EDT Marc Perton http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5365142&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ U.S. Neglecting Clean Water Laws, To Scary Results ]]> Today's lesson in who Is trying to kill you takes us to municipal water supplies, where violations of the nation's Clean Water Act have now become rampant. According to a harrowing report by the New York Times, polluters have violated the act over a half million times in the last five years, dumping heavy metals (lead, nickel) and other dangerous chemicals into the water, usually without recourse.

What's a half million to you?

In the nation's largest dairy states, like Wisconsin and California, farmers have sprayed liquefied animal feces onto fields, where it has seeped into wells, causing severe infections. Tap water in parts of the Farm Belt, including cities in Illinois, Kansas, Missouri and Indiana, has contained pesticides at concentrations that some scientists have linked to birth defects and fertility problems.

In parts of New York, Rhode Island, Ohio, California and other states where sewer systems cannot accommodate heavy rains, untreated human waste has flowed into rivers and washed onto beaches. Drinking water in parts of New Jersey, New York, Arizona and Massachusetts shows some of the highest concentrations of tetrachloroethylene, a dry cleaning solvent that has been linked to kidney damage and cancer.

It's worth pointing out that the Times got the half million figure by counting reports submitted by polluters themselves; it includes only instances of polluting that companies admit to. So the actual number is bound to be higher.

What's more, according to the Times research, "fewer than 3 percent of Clean Water Act violations resulted in fines or other significant punishments by state officials."

Parts of West Virginia are so bad that bottled water for drinking and bathing has to be trucked in. Only in America can you find 20 different brands of "green" detergent in grocery stores while lacking safe tap water.

Related: How To Get Clean Tap Water

Clean Water Laws Are Neglected, at a Cost in Suffering [The New York Times]

(Photo: Barbara Doduk)

]]>
Consumerist-5359979 Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:58:47 EDT Carrie McLaren http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5359979&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Why Store Receipts Keep Getting Longer and Longer ]]> Ever run to the drug store for a tube of toothpaste and find that your meager purchase results in a receipt the length of War and Peace? Two-foot long receipts are increasingly common these days, as retailers embrace technologies allowing them to microtarget customers. The colossal waste of paper comes at a cost, not only in felled trees but on man hours spent on changing tape and fixing broken printers.

The Wall Street Journal details the various uses of receipt space and the reasons for the lengthy promos and their widespread popularity.

NCR said redemption rates for coupons printed on receipts can run as high as 3%, about triple the rate of coupons mailed to customers or included in advertising circulars. Retailers "find it's one of the most effective places to communicate with their customers," Mr. Bogan said.

There's that. And then there's the (totally unfounded) conspiracy theory that longer receipts can't fit easily into wallets and are are therefore more likely to be lost, preventing returns.

Disgruntled consumers should make sure stores know how they feel about wasted paper. One option, suggested by a commenter on the Wall Street Journal site, is to tear off the promo portion of the receipt, hand it back to the clerk, and politely ask them to give it to the store manager. If you've got any other ideas, be sure to leave them in the comments.

Tale of the Tape: Retailers Take Receipts to Great Lengths [Wall Street Journal]

(Photo: Rob Dewhirst)

]]>
Consumerist-5350748 Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:53:59 EDT Carrie McLaren http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5350748&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Study: Candles May Contribute To Indoor Air Pollution ]]> You may want to think twice about covering up that stench in the bathroom by lighting up 25 votives. A new study by researchers at South Carolina State University found that "paraffin-based candles — the most popular kind — emitted toxic chemicals like toluene and benzene."

Soybean candles, however, did not. Which isn't to say that soybean candles escaped the fear factor entirely. According to George Thurston, Ph.D., an associate professor of environmental medicine at the New York University School of Medicine:

"Just lighting a match to start a candle creates sulfur pollution in the air." He adds, "It's one of the big sources of sulfur in the indoor environment, so using a lighter would probably be cleaner."

Study: Some types of candles may pollute indoor air [CNN] (Thanks to Shaula Evans!)

(Photo: brunkfordbraun)

]]>
Consumerist-5345239 Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:56:45 EDT Carrie McLaren http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5345239&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Attack of the Antibacterial Soaps! ]]> Triclosan, a chemical widely used in antibacterial soaps, is turning up in dolphins. The agent gets into oceans after traveling from, for instance, your bathroom sink into wastewater streams. Though 90 to 98 percent of the chemical is broken down before it reaches fresh water, even the small percentage that remains becomes significant due to antibacterial soaps' wide use.

Why is this a problem? While the effects on dolphins are unknown, triclosan has been show to disrupt the endocrine system of other animals, inhibiting development and growth.

And sea creatures aren't the only concern:

Three-quarters of people tested in the United States have triclosan in their urine, according to a 2008 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It also has been found in breast milk of Swedish women. The concentrations reported in humans are similar to
those found in dolphins....

Of course, the degree to which the triclosan invasion is harmful is subject to debate. (No one's arguing that it's a good thing, however, unless they hate bullfrogs.)

What I don't get is the popularity of antibacterial soaps in the first place. All soaps are antibacterial, as long as they're used correctly—as long as you sing the "Happy Birthday" song.

Are Germ-Killing Soaps Affecting Dolphin Development? [New Scientist] (Thanks to Anna Holmes!)
Safety of Antibacterial Soap Debated [WebMD]
(Photo: philipbouchard

]]>
Consumerist-5335773 Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:54:03 EDT Carrie McLaren http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5335773&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Scientists Say Consumerism Killing the Planet ]]> The New Scientist has an editorial this week arguing that consumerism is "eating the future." Author Andy Coghlan sees the modern environmental crisis as the result of a Darwinian struggle: "Not only are [humans] simply doing what all creatures do: we're doing it better."

By "it," he means raping the earth by consuming everything in our path.

This is nothing we haven't heard before. But it always warms my heart to see advertising linked to planetary destruction — by science!

Consumerism is 'eating the future' [New Scientist] (Thanks to Rodrigo Flores!)
(Photo: calonda)

]]>
Consumerist-5334895 Tue, 11 Aug 2009 12:21:51 EDT Carrie McLaren http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5334895&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Walmart To Rate Product Sustainability ]]> Walmart is developing a universal rating system to help consumers determine which products are truly sustainable. The rating system would scrutinize a product's entire life-cycle by focusing on broad factors, rather than the usual marketing gibberish that extolls isolated virtues. So why is Walmart, of all companies, deciding which products are environmentally sound?

"Nobody else could pull this off," said Michelle Harvey at Environmental Defense Fund, one of the groups involved in the creation of the index.

The question, of course, is whether even Wal-Mart can make it happen.

[...]

Wal-Mart plans to begin by asking its more than 100,000 suppliers around the world to answer 15 simple questions about the sustainable practices of their companies. Questions include "Have you set publicly available greenhouse gas reduction targets? If yes, what are those targets?"

The first set of questions focus on four main areas, including "energy and climate, material efficiency, natural resources, and people and community."

The rating system is certainly ambitious, and if successful, would empower consumers to judge a product's green credentials at a glance. Expect the ratings to appear on products sometime within the next five years.

At Wal-Mart, Labeling to Reflect Green Intent [The New York Times]
Wal-Mart To Become Green Umpire [The Big Money]
Walmart's Sustainable Product Index aims to develop green rating [Consumer Reports]
(Photo: genebob)

]]>
Consumerist-5327736 Sat, 01 Aug 2009 10:00:48 EDT Carey Alexander http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5327736&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Got Solar Panels? Utility Wants To Charge You For Not Using Their Energy ]]> Midwest utility Xcel Energy wants to charge anyone using solar panels a monthly fee for sustainably generating their own energy. According to company spokesman Tom Henley, "We just don't think it's fair that customers that don't have solar panels on their homes should subsidize these solar panel customers any further." Huh?

[When] pressed, Henley admitted that currently, no Xcel electric customers pay extra to fund solar connectivity fees. In reality, Xcel absorbs those fees. The money from the proposed fee would not go into the pockets of electric customers, but would go back to Xcel.

Henley said the fee is a preventative measure to ensure that, down the road, solar customers do not get free rides.

"What we're looking to do is stop that, avoid that occurrence from happening," he said.

Mike Jacoby, who installed solar panels on the roof of his home two years ago, bristled at the notion that he is not doing his part.

Jacoby said the installation cuts his monthly electrical fee by anywhere from 33 to 50 percent a month. In return, his home acts as a power plant, generating energy for Xcel that can power some of the homes on his block.

"Mine are generating enough to feed five or six houses around me electricity, so there's no free ride," said Jacoby.

Um, yeah, great work, Xcel Energy! Way to finally take a stand against those tree-hugging environmentalists trying to help reduce our dependence on oil. Those people should definitely pay a $1.90 monthly fee for hating America.

Solar Customers Fuming Over Proposed Fee [7NEWS]
(Photo: Alex Snyder)

]]>
Consumerist-5323004 Sun, 26 Jul 2009 10:00:43 EDT Carey Alexander http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5323004&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Sam's Club Includes Free Giant Box With Each Pen Sold ]]> Reader Steven bought some cheap fountain pens from Sam's Club. Perhaps unaccustomed to such a small purchase, Sam's Club had trouble finding the appropriate packaging.

Steven writes:

I've been reading the blog for quite a while now, and I personally love the Stupid Shipping Gang posts. When I was shopping Amazon a couple days ago, I decided to buy some 69 cent pens that had free UPS shipping (at the time). What I got today was amazing: a huge box with one pen in it. Almost comically, the big pieces of air-filled plastic have "be green, please recycle" on them.

Although the Amazon link goes to some generic 3rd-party retailer, Steven got this pen from Sam's, and the packing slip indicates they really only sent one pen in the box. We appreciate the plea for Steven to recycle, and indeed, Sam's gave him plenty to put in his blue bin.

]]>
Consumerist-5313742 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:24:53 EDT Alex Chasick http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5313742&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Can Branding Sex Up Tap Water? ]]> City officials in Venice have come up with a novel plan for getting consumers to break the bottled water habit: they've branded their tap water Acqua Veritas and created a slick ad campaign around it.

Consumers in Italy drink more bottled water than any place in the world. To avoid drowning in a sea of its own trash, Venice came up with the campaign, not-so-quietly touting its tap as originating deep underground in the same region as the popular bottled water brand San Benedetto.

Is it working? Yes and no.

In terms of trash reduction, the Acqua Veritas campaign has already been a success, Venetian officials calculate, reducing the amount of plastic trash over all to 261 tons a month now from 288 tons a year ago...

Still, the campaign to promote the mayor's water has made little headway with restaurants and stores, which make money selling bottled water.

I don't know much about Venice's mayor but, here in New York, when restaurants started referring to tap water as "Guiliani Water" several years ago, it was almost enough to make me pay for the bottled stuff. Almost.

"City Known for Its Water Turns to Tap to Cut Trash" [New York Times]

Carrie McLaren & Jason Torchinsky are coeditors of Ad Nauseam: A Survivor's Guide to American Consumer Culture. In previous lives, they worked together on the hopelessly obscure and now defunct Stay Free! magazine .

]]>
Consumerist-5302922 Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:19:15 EDT McLaren and Torchinsky http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5302922&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Toothpaste Purchase Results In 3-foot Long Receipt ]]> CVS asks: How about some dead trees and a bunch of ads with that purchase? Not in so many words, of course: that would actually give shoppers a choice.

When reader Rob Dewhirst visited CVS yesterday to buy a tube of toothpaste, the clerk rolled up a 40 inch receipt and handed it to him. Says Rob: "Most of it is coupons for junk we would never buy at CVS, and on every coupon they print inches of the same legal disclaimer, so it's printed about 6 times on the same receipt."

If only CVS would cover its husky-sized receipts with ads for "green" products. That would be perfect.

Carrie McLaren & Jason Torchinsky are coeditors of Ad Nauseam: A Survivor's Guide to American Consumer Culture. In previous lives, they worked together on the hopelessly obscure and now defunct Stay Free! magazine.

]]>
Consumerist-5301230 Wed, 24 Jun 2009 07:56:34 EDT McLaren and Torchinsky http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5301230&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Plastics Industry: Reusable Bags Are Bacteria Traps That Will Kill You And Your Family ]]> Those green reusable bags that are all the rage? The plastics industry this week released a study concluding that they are nothing more than bacterial totes, which might be scary if it were true. BarfBlog looked at the study's methodology and then ate through its main points.

To reach their conclusion, the plastics industry studied 25 bags, which is like, five times more than we have sitting in our pantry. They found that 64% of the bags had some form of bacteria, and that 30% had bacteria counts higher than we'd accept in our drinking water.

Um, yeah except that coliform isn't an indicator of really anything in a shopping bag. It's a great indicator of water quality, but not great for food (coliforms are all over the place, including on produce). And mean relatively nothing.

The lack of real data is probably why it was reported in CFU/ml (a water measurement — pretty hard to tell what a ml of a shopping bag represents). The most telling data was that no generic E. coli or Salmonella was found.

Not the best methodology design. Or reporting of results.

Keep your reusable bags dry and give them a good wash every couple of weeks and you won't be devoured by bacteria as the plastics industry laughs in glee.

Are reusable bags really a food safety concern? [BarfBlog]
(Photo: tarale)

]]>
Consumerist-5267680 Sun, 24 May 2009 10:00:44 EDT Carey Alexander http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5267680&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Is Buy.com Friendlier To The Environment Than Brick And Mortar Stores? ]]> Green treeA study by the Green Design Institute at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh states that when comparing getting a flash drive from Buy.com versus a physical retailer, Buy.com ends up being about 30% less damaging to the environment. To reach their conclusion, the researchers compared transportation, packaging, warehousing, and energy usage both by the consumer and the retailer.

It's important to note that Buy.com is a member of the Green Design Institute, and while they didn't fund this particular research, they have contributed money to a general research fund—so take the report with a grain of salt. And since Buy.com doesn't use warehouses, it's hard to apply the results to an e-tailer like Amazon.com. Sandy Bauers on Phill.com writes,

So this isn't an ironclad dictum. I view it more as information to factor in, measuring my circumstances against their statistical average: someone who drives 7.5 miles to a store in a car that gets 22.5 miles per gallon and picks up one or two items.

So if I'm in my Prius and I'm only going to detour a mile out of my way to stop at King of Prussia Mall on my way home, I'm good to go.

But not long ago I considered driving to a York County nursery to get a special dwarf fig tree for my edible landscaping plan. Scratch that. I'll order online instead.

Meanwhile, there's one more variable. The researchers concluded the best way to make either system more efficient was simply to buy more.

"GreenSpace: E-tail or retail kinder to Earth? They did the math" [Philly.com]
(Photo: McPig)

]]>
Consumerist-5201174 Mon, 06 Apr 2009 20:29:55 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5201174&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Six D.I.Y. Tips For Cleaning Greenly And Cheaply ]]> Harsh chemicals aren't just bad for you and the environment, they're bad for your wallet too. Cleaning most things, from clothes to your kitchen, can be done greenly and cheaply with these six nifty do-it-yourself cleaning recipes from Consumer Reports...

1. Air Fresheners: Mix 1 tablespoon baking soda and 1 tablespoon vinegar with 2 cups of hot water. Pour into a spritzer and follow the dog.

2. Detergent Enhancers: Add 1/2 cup baking or washing soda to your detergent mix. It'll reduce the amount of detergent you need and add minerals that soften water. For liquid detergent, add the 1/2 cup at the start of the wash. For powdered detergent, add it at the start of the rinse cycle.

3. Super Cleaners: Add 3 tablespoons of vinegar to a quart of water and spray the mix onto your dirty windows. To reduce streaks, put down your paper towels and wipe the windows with newspaper.

4. Stain Removers: Try cream of tartar. Yes, cream of tartar. The bleach alternative removes spots from aluminum cookware and kills germs. You should be able to find it in supermarkets and drug stores, if it's not already on your shelf.

5. Grease Dissolvers: Scrub your countertops with a baking soda and liquid soap mix, but don't make more than you need because the mix will quickly solidify. For greasy ovens, mix 1 cup of baking soda with a 1/4 cup washing soda and add water until you get a paste. Apply it to the oven and let it seep in overnight.

6. Borax To The Bathroom! Make an excellent all-around borax bathroom sanitizer by adding 2 teaspoons of borax and 4 tablespoons of vinegar to 3 or 4 cups of water. For toilets, pour 1 cup of borax into the bowl before you go to sleep and scrub and flush in the morning.

What do-it-yourself mixes do you use around the house? Share your recipes in the comments.

7 ways to green clean-and cut costs
(Photo: ♥Sage... here and away)

]]>
Consumerist-5165912 Sat, 07 Mar 2009 10:26:00 EST Carey Alexander http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5165912&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Ponderables: Why Must Amazon Ship Air All Over The United States of America? ]]> Reader Marc would like Amazon to stop shipping bubbles of air all over the country. He ordered two items that would have been fine to ship in an envelope — but instead he got the usual large box with several air bubbles. This makes Marc mad.

Marc says:

They could have double padded-enveloped the items and they would have been better protected than shifting around in that huge box, under those plastic air pillows (What the heck is up with those air pillows anyways? They don't do jack). How about getting one of those huge brains over there on the task of figuring out how much more gasoline/diesel and packaging material is wasted because Amazon insists on shipping air around the country for no good reason at all. I am talking about how much is wasted because additional trucks and delivery drivers are needed to transport boxes of air all around the country.

Maybe if they are called out a little more on the environmental damage and waste they are causing, some numb-skull at Amazon should be able to grasp that they are not making any sense at all. No matter what, they need to be made aware that anything but sending things in appropriate packaging is a dumb excuse!

It is kind of sad to think of all the air that Amazon is shipping, and here at Consumerist we get tons of complaints about it — far too many to post them all.

What do you think? Is this a serious problem?

]]>
Consumerist-5153195 Fri, 13 Feb 2009 12:57:16 EST Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5153195&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Just what the hell is "organic" dry cleaning? ... ]]> Just what the hell is "organic" dry cleaning? Nobody really knows. [NYT]

]]>
Consumerist-5129535 Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:19:25 EST Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5129535&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ BoA To Stop Lending To Mountaintop Bloweruppers ]]> After activists took them on a field trip, Bank of America has pledged to phase out lending money to companies that mine coal by exploding off the tops of pretty mountains. Well, they explode ugly mountains too, but you get the point. [Switchboard, from NRDC] (Thanks to John!)

]]>
Consumerist-5103045 Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:30:01 EST Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5103045&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Coinstar Calls Cashing In Change 'Recycling' ]]> Douglas writes, "Coinstar wants you to 'recycle' your coins in their machines, and save the environment! Minus their 8.9% fee of course." They even have a little wizard on their website that estimates how many parts of the environment—water, energy consumption, and geological waste—you save by putting those coins back into circulation, instead of hoarding them like the polar bear murderer you are. They don't provide any source for these estimates, though, and we're not convinced you're doing anything "green" other than lining Coinstar's pockets.

From Coinstar's website:

Think of it as a new form of recycling—when you reuse your change instead of letting it sit idle in your coin jar, fewer coins are produced. And that translates into environmental savings by reducing hte need for limited natural resources used to create new coin.

We're deeply skeptical of any one-to-one benefit statement like this, not least because it ignores the total cost of running the Coinstar company, which is a key component of any coin recycling "movement."

If you're going to cash in your spare change, look for a Commerce Bank branch nearby first. Their change machines are free and you don't have to be a Commerce customer to use them.

]]>
Consumerist-5038295 Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:11:49 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5038295&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Sam's Club Pretends Its Polystyrene Cup Is Green ]]> Gregg saw this cheerful environmentally-friendly message on the side of his Sam's Club soda cup. Wait, what? We guess it saves Sam's Club fuel costs to ship the cups, but that sounds more like a profit-friendly quality. Gregg notes another benefit of the cup: "[it] may never biodegrade but at least it's easy on my drinkin' elbow."

]]>
Consumerist-5037553 Fri, 15 Aug 2008 13:04:28 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5037553&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Will New Square Milk Jugs At Wal-Mart, Costco Save The Planet? Or Spill Your Milk? ]]> Wal-Mart and Costco have something new they'd like you to try— a square milk jug. The NYT says the new square jugs "are cheaper to ship and better for the environment, the milk is fresher when it arrives in stores, and it costs less." So what's the catch? Apparently, while the new jugs are helping cut costs, they kind of suck at pouring milk.

“I hate it,” said Lisa DeHoff, a cafe owner shopping in a Sam’s Club here.

“It spills everywhere,” said Amy Wise, a homemaker.

“It’s very hard for kids to pour,” said Lee Morris, who was shopping for her grandchildren.

Sam's Club is offering milk pouring lessons complete with free cookies, in an effort to help acclimate consumers to the milk jug of the future:“

Just tilt it slowly and pour slowly,” Ms. Tilton said to passing customers as she talked about the jugs’ environmental benefits and cost savings. Instead of picking up the jug, as most people tend to do, she kept it on a table and gently tipped it toward a cup.

Mike Compston, who owns a dairy in Yerington, Nev., described the pouring technique in a telephone interview as a “rock-and-pour instead of a lift-and-tip.”

Demonstrations are but one of several ways Sam’s Club is advocating the containers. Signs in the aisle laud their cost savings and “better fridge fit.”

Has anyone tried these new square jugs? Were you able to pour it? Or were you crying over... um, your inability not to spill milk?

Solution, or Mess? A Milk Jug for a Green Earth
[NYT]
(Photo: David Maxwell/New York Times)

]]>
Consumerist-5020762 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:49:37 EDT Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5020762&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Home Depot has started a nationwide compact ... ]]> Home Depot has started a nationwide compact flourescent light bulb recycling program. "At each The Home Depot store, customers can simply bring in any expired, unbroken CFL bulbs, and give them to the store associate behind the returns desk." CFL bulbs contain mercury and can be damaging to the environment if thrown into regular landfills. [New York Times]

]]>
Consumerist-5019559 Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:22:55 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5019559&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ OfficeMax Calls You A Thief For Trying To Recycle ]]> OfficeMax called Chris a thief for recycling empty printer cartridges. OfficeMax's MaxPerks program gives customers $3 for each empty cartridge they recycle, with a limit of 5 cartridges per customer per day. Chris runs a computer repair business that leaves him flush with empty cartridges. According to one cashier, this makes Chris a thief.

The cashier first claimed that there was a limit of 5 cartridges per week, and then threatened to send Chris' picture to other stores. Finally, he confronted Chris, saying "I don't know where you're getting these, if you're stealing them... but it needs to cut down."

Chris writes:

I've finally had my first really angering customer service issue. But a little bit of background:

I run a computer repair business. Obviously, I'm constantly buying/selling computer supplies and equipment, and one of the things I get from customers and my vendors are empty ink cartridges. From my vendor they arrive assorted, so I take the ones I need for the models my customers have, and recycle the rest. I also get quite a few when customers upgrade printers. I recycle the empties at Staples, OfficeMax and Office Depot, since I don't do enough in volume to recycle directly with the ink companies. Each store gives you $3 per cartridge to spend at the store. It's a bit long to explain where I get them; and cashiers are puzzled when I tell them I run a computer repair business (since I'm only 20 and look young) so I usually say I get them from friends and it's done. Funny sidenote: once a cashier at Staples read my jacket that says my company name and said "So I guess you're going to give this money back to your employer, right?" Yep, I sure am.

At Staples, it's awesome. I'm actually on a friend basis with one of the cashiers, and when they gave out coupons for recycling cartridges, I would use them online all the time. For the reason of them having a robust online store with great prices and rebates, I spent close to $3700 after coupons with them in 2006. This year I'm almost at $1000, so I'm not a once-in-a-while customer. Staples recently changed to put the credit from recycling on your Staples Rewards card, but I don't plan on ramping down my spending given the great service I always receive.

At OfficeMax, it's a different story. They've never given out coupons, and their prices aren't that great in store or online. However, instead of recycling 3 ink cartridges for a total of $9 in credit, they allow you to recycle up to 5 cartridges for $15 in credit. This puts their prices back at being decent. Unfortunately, they don't have great prices in store/online, so I only buy in store with cartridges. I follow the rules, limit of 5/day/person. I have brought my girlfriend or a friend sometimes as well.

There's a single cashier/manager/something there that has a problem with me. To be honest, I don't even see him that much, but he feels like I'm taking the money out of his wallet when I use the cartridges for credit. It first started with him telling another cashier in a way to get me to overhear that there's a new limit of 5/week. BS. Then he outright lied to my father and I by saying that the coupon system was down, forcing me to drive to another store to get memory cards for my dad's camera.

Today was a new low. While checking out, he walked up to the checkstand and here's the conversation that ensued (he's Cashier, but not the one ringing me out, she's very nice):

Cashier: Excuse me if you don't mine[sic] me asking where did you get the cartridges?
Me: I get them from friends.
Cashier: That's impossible, you have too many of them. You come in with these and you come in with your girlfriend or a friend.
Me: (getting angry) OK, well, I'll go to the [redacted] store from now on.
Cashier: Well, I have you on camera, I'm gonna send your pictures to the other stores so they know to look out for you.
Me: At Staples, they have a box from HP - aren't you getting money for these?
Cashier: Yes well it needs to cut down.
Me: Let me ask you, am I taking the money from your wallet? Am I reaching in to your wallet and taking money out?
Cashier: No, but I'm in charge of it and it needs to cut down, I don't know where you're getting these, if you're stealing them or-
Me: No, I'm not stealing them.
Cashier: but it needs to cut down.
Me: OK.

Why would he be sending my picture around unless I've done something wrong?

I'm getting sick and tired of being treated like a common criminal because I use coupons. I play by their rules and still they don't like it. If they don't want to take coupons they should remove the program.

Thanks,
Chris

OfficeMax needs to realize that recycling is good, not bad. Try having a calm conversation with the cashier's manager, and explain your business and that you appreciate having an outlet to help you recycle. If that doesn't help, call corporate and ask the people running the MaxPerks program why their employees hate the environment.

(Photo: Getty)

]]>
Consumerist-5007796 Sun, 04 May 2008 16:48:36 EDT Carey Alexander http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5007796&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Canon Uses Comically Oversized Box To Send You Something They Could Have Taped To A Postcard ]]>

Earlier this week I ordered a part from Canon USA Service for one of my Canon cameras and it arrived today. I am impressed for the fast shipping but not so much by the efficiency of the packaging.
Additional photo inside.

Canon USA is headquartered in a place called "Lake Success" in New York. Out of curiosity, we checked what UPS would charge to ship a one-pound package, roughly 12"x8"x6" from Lake Success to Los Angeles. Our reader said he was pleased with the fast shipping, so let's say Canon used UPS 3 Day shipping: that would be nearly $20. We then checked how much it would cost to throw the part in an envelope and drop it in the mailbox: that would be 41¢. Well done, Canon.quarterscale.jpg
(Thanks to Dale!)

]]>
Consumerist-385245 Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:00:00 EDT Alex Chasick http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=385245&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Dell Still Ships Tiny Items In Massive Boxes ]]> From the looks of David's package, Dell isn't close to honoring its promise to switch to alternative packaging within the next two months. This obscenely large box contained nothing more than a 2GB flash drive. David's son snapped a few pictures, which appear as an eerie slideshow after the jump.

David writes:

Recently, my son Justin and I both ordered Kingston 2GB USB "thumb" drives from Dell after seeing it mentioned on slickdeals.net. My son's arrived a few days before mine, and he told me that when the delivery guy handed him the box, he asked if there was anything actually in the box because it was so light. I didn't see the packaging myself until my drive arrived the other day. I asked my other son Brett, a budding photographer, to document the "unboxing" this time.

I'll let the pictures speak for themselves.


IMG_9085%20edited.jpg

IMG_9086.JPG

IMG_9087.JPG

IMG_9088.JPG

IMG_9089.JPG

IMG_9093.JPG

IMG_9094.JPG

PREVIOUSLY: Dell: Let's Ship Tiny CDs In Massive Boxes!

]]>
Consumerist-381864 Sun, 20 Apr 2008 13:23:22 EDT Carey Alexander http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=381864&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Nestle Paying $230 To Suck Millions Of Gallons Of Water From Florida Until 2018 ]]> Despite fierce opposition from the local water management district staff, and concerns that it would deplete an already scarce natural resource from the people who live there, Nestle managed to secure a deal to pump nearly 1.5 million gallons of water a day into their Deer Park bottling plant for the next ten years. Nestle pays no other fees for the water beyond the $230 license—in fact, "Nestle has received two [tax] refunds totaling $196,000 and requested a third tax refund." To make the matter even more offensive, the plant hasn't delivered on its commitment to employ 300 workers, and it so far has failed to bring in the estimated $12 million-a-year to the local economy. The St. Petersburg Times has a rich, infuriating history of the Nestle fiasco and how they've conned Floridians out of their own water with the help of state politicians.

The state did much more than fight to get Nestle the right to pump as much water as possible from the spring.
 
As an added incentive for Nestle, the state approved a tax refund of up to $1.68-million for the Madison bottling operation. To date, Nestle has received two refunds totaling $196,000 and requested a third tax refund.
 
Nestle had promised to create 300 jobs over five years. The most people it has ever employed was about 250. The number dropped to 205 late last year, 46 of them from Georgia, which Nestle defends as common for a work force along a state line.
 
The state estimated that the plant, which has a payroll of $6.5-million, would bring some $12-million a year in direct economic benefit to the county and the region.
 
The state says its work on behalf of Nestle was well worth it because the county was dealing with the shuttering of its other major economic engine, the meat-processing plant.
 
"This project was very important to the economic health of this rural county as the community recently suffered the closure of a major private-sector employer with the resulting loss of several hundred jobs," Page Bass, spokeswoman for the state Office of Tourism, Trade and Economic Development, said this month.
 
The Nestle plant opened in 2004. The Smithfield meat plant closed in 2006.
A Nestle spokesman gave what's possibly the stupidest soundbite ever when it comes to corporate spin and depleting the local water supply:
McClellan, the Nestle spokesman, said bottled-water companies should not be singled out.
 
"Treat us like any other user," he said. "People do not take bottled water and wash their dog. They do not wash their car with it. They drink it. That's the highest and best use of water."
"The profits on water are huge, but the raw material is free " [St. Petersburg Times] (Thanks to Sandra!)
(Photo: "There Will Be Blood")
]]>
Consumerist-374098 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 12:46:52 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=374098&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Should American Airlines Have Flown Five Overbooked Passengers Across The Atlantic In An Empty Plane? ]]> American Airlines managed to rebook all but five passengers after canceling one of its four daily flights from Chicago to London. The five still needed to get to London, so American rustled up an empty plane and invited everyone up to business class. Seems nice, but Friends of the Earth is outraged that American burned 22,000 gallons of fuel for five passengers. Great customer service or eco-scandal? Vote in our poll, after the jump.

American claims they had no alternative:

"With such a small passenger load we did consider whether we could cancel the flight and re-accommodate the five remaining passengers on other flights.

"However, this would have left a plane load of west-bound passengers stranded in London Heathrow who were due to fly back to the US on the same aircraft.

"We sought alternative flights for the west-bound passengers but heavy loads out of London that day meant that this was not possible."

Plane flies five passengers from US to London [Telegrah]
(Photo: Cubbie_n_Vegas)

]]>
Consumerist-368158 Sat, 15 Mar 2008 16:42:32 EDT Carey Alexander http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=368158&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ "Do Not Mail" Junk Mail Registry Called For By Green Group ]]> con_donotmail-1.jpg ForestEthics has started a petition to enact a Do Not Mail registry, similar to the one that's sort of in effect (when marketers choose to abide by it) for telemarketing. Their reasoning: junk mail is enormously wasteful and damaging to the environment. We agree, but we're in favor of the registry for the simple reason that less junk mail means fewer uninvited distractions, ID theft risks, and trash we'd have to deal with every day.

From ForestEthics' press release:

ForestEthics is urging Americans to sign a petition at www.DoNotMail.org demanding a national registry that will finally offer citizens control over the unsolicited coupons, credit cards, catalogs and advertisements that fill their mailboxes on a daily basis.

The production of the 100 billion pieces of junk mail that Americans annually receive requires more than 100 million trees, while producing as much global warming emissions as 3.7 million cars.

Junk mail distributed in the United States currently accounts for 30% of all the mail delivered in the world, though 44% of it goes to landfills unopened.

Polls consistently show that between 80 and 90% of respondents dislike junk mail and are eager to find a mechanism that will address their frustration and concerns about the problem.

Vermont State Representative Christopher Pearson, who is sponsoring Do Not Mail legislation in Vermont, added, "If our experience in Vermont is any indication, Americans are eager to assert their right to protect their privacy, their right to stop needless waste, and their support for a Do Not Mail Registry."

The downside—we think a Do Not Mail registry would land a devastating blow against the USPS, which relies on all that crap to make any money. But seriously, we'd pay to support the USPS if it meant cutting junk mail in half.

DoNotMail.org

RELATED
"Stop getting junk mail" [DoNotMail.org]
"Phone numbers and websites to opt out of junk mail" [DoNotMail.org]

]]>
Consumerist-367445 Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:54:59 EDT Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=367445&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Save The Planet: Buy Big Bags Of Milk ]]> Other countries cut down on the amount of plastic used to package milk by buying it in big plastic bags and storing it in a reusable milk pitcher in the fridge.

This is a nice idea. Pouring milk from a special pitcher would make us feel like some sort of ultimate Martha Stewart-esque homemaking badass.

Bag o'milk is better for the environment [Slashfood]
(Photo:Demnos0813)

]]>
Consumerist-353950 Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:29:10 EST Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=353950&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Amazon: Let's Ship The Flat Wrist Rest In A Giant Box ]]> "I wonder if other readers have experienced the wasteful excessive packaging used by Amazon.com. I recently ordered a Gel Wrist Rest and a hardcover book (to qualify for free shipping). The two items were shipped to me separately, probably because they were coming from different warehouses. Though that itself is wasteful, I can understand why it may be necessary. But when the Wrist Rest arrived, it came in a GIANT box filled with paper stuffing (see photo). The box measured 24" x 12" x 18". The wrist rest is about 20" long, but flat. Is it possible that a company that sells all of its various products by mail doesn't have a long flat box that could have been used instead?"

In an earlier order, I purchased some coffee refills for the Senseo coffee machine. They came to me one box at a time, each in a huge box. When I opened the box up, I found that the coffee refills were already in a very small, efficient box that said on the side " Amazon.com ready to ship packaging. For some bizarre reason, they wastefully placed a small ready-to-ship box into a huge box with padding around it. Has anyone else experienced this kind of thing. It is wasteful in terms of materials and shipping costs, but also impacts the environment too. Not to mention the impracticality of receiving a huge box at your home when you are expecting something small.
All that wasteful packaging could instead be used to protect the speed-bump fodder Amazon sells as hard drives. How about this: instead of shipping wrist rests in giant boxes, use compact tubes. The post office gives them away for free. ]]>
Consumerist-349179 Sat, 26 Jan 2008 11:25:49 EST Carey Alexander http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=349179&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Whole Foods Will Eliminate Plastic Bags, Says "Bring Your Own" ]]> byob.jpgWhole Foods says that by Earth Day 2008 they will be eliminating plastic bags and instead offer only paper bags or reusable bags made from recycled plastic bottles for $0.99.

You are invited to bring your own bags and get "a refund of at least 5 cents per bag."

Do you like this idea?

We're going all out for reusable! [Whole Foods] (Thanks, Corey!)

]]>
Consumerist-347538 Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:37:47 EST Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=347538&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Dell: Let's Ship Tiny CDs In Massive Boxes! ]]> Dell has promised to stop shipping individual CDs in 10x19x10 boxes after Christian over at Technologist for Hire posted a rant about Dell's growing love for wasteful packaging.

The company I work for orders all of their computers from Dell. About 4 months ago we started receiving random Adobe Acrobat Standard CDs & licenses for free with every single computer that we purchase. We did not request these CDs. At first, they came inside of the box with the computer. Soon, they started arriving in a padded envelope. After that, they began arriving in their own box, complete with paper padding, and a padded envelope. We have received well over 100 of these.
Sean, one of Dell's blog-watching ninjas, initially responded with the usual PR prattle: Dell is a green company, killing trees is wrong, the planet is nice, big packages are bad, etc, etc. Surprisingly, he sent a followup email that contained a meaningful commitment:
Christian, just wanted to circle back and let you know that we're working this now. As much as we would like this to be a very simple fix it isn't. But you do have our commitment that we will have this fixed in the next six months. Two things we are looking at:

1. Option to exclude all manuals and CDs from packaging at time of order. And, an option to have one set delivered for multiple systems.

2. A move to packaging alternatives

We'll be sure to keep you posted.

Best,
Sean

We look forward to Dell renouncing its membership in the stupid shipping gang by June.

Dell and the environment: green is out, brown is in [Technologist For Hire]
Update on Dell's Environmental Impact [Technologist For Hire]

]]>
Consumerist-346830 Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:03:19 EST Carey Alexander http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=346830&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ If you live in Texas, have a car that's over ... ]]> If you live in Texas, have a car that's over 10 years old or has failed an emissions test, and you don't make much money, you could qualify for a $3,500 voucher to be used towards the purchase of a new car. [TCEQ]

]]>
Consumerist-346333 Fri, 18 Jan 2008 11:00:00 EST Ben Popken http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=346333&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ "Green" Walmart Has Decorative Moldings Made From "The Leg Holes In Disposable Diapers" ]]> The Chicago Tribune is reporting that the first of Walmart's new "high efficiency" stores is slated to open Jan 23, in Romeoville, IL. It's part of Walmart's super awesome PR-tastic, yet characteristically stingy plan to make its stores 25 to 30 percent more energy efficient by 2009.

To that end, the store features "decorative floor boards and moldings are made from the material leftover from making the leg holes in disposable diapers."

Yes, really. We weren't aware that producing "leg holes" resulted in a lot of waste, but we sure are happy to hear that it's being put to good use. Here are some other features of a "green" Walmart:


  • The exposed concrete floor made of waste left over from coal operations
  • A new system for keeping refrigerated food cold that lowers the use of refrigerant by 90 percent and in turn reduces greenhouse gas emissions
  • Motion-sensitive light-emitting diodes (LED) in refrigerator and freezer cases
  • Doors in the meat and dairy refrigerated sections instead of open refrigerator shelves
  • 200 skylights that allow electric lights to go down when the sun comes out

Wal-Mart aims for a green look in Romeoville [Chicago Tribune]
(Photo:handh07)

]]>
Consumerist-345357 Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:41:11 EST Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=345357&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Poison: The High Cost Of Cheap Batteries ]]> wang.jpgCadmium batteries are cheap and safe to use, but hazardous to manufacture. They'll save you money—about $1.50 for the average cadmium-powered toy, says the Wall Street Journal.

But cadmium batteries can be hazardous to make. In southern China, Wang Fengping worked for years in plants that produced cadmium batteries for the likes of Mattel Inc., Toys "R" Us Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Like hundreds of her colleagues, Ms. Wang regularly inhaled the toxic red cadmium dust that filled the air in the plant.

Now, at 45, Ms. Wang is often too weak to walk. Her kidneys have failed, and her doctors have identified cadmium poisoning as the likely culprit. About 400 other workers at her former employer, Hong Kong-based GP Batteries International Ltd., have been found to harbor unsafe levels of cadmium, a toxic metal like mercury and lead that can cause kidney failure, lung cancer and bone disease.

Ms. Wang didn't manufacture the batteries. She was a machine designer with an engineering degree. Most of her career was spent in an office, sketching designs, then between 2002-2004 she spent long hours in the production facilities, inhaling cadmium dust. Now she's sick. The WSJ article details her lawsuit against the manufacturer as well as the history of cadmium battery production in the U.S. and the resulting clean-up of contaminated sites.

Some toy-makers, like Hasbro, have eschewed the use of cadmium in their products because of their toil on the environment and the health of the workers who manufacture the batteries. Mattel, however, still uses cadmium batteries, claiming that they have "performance advantages." Walmart says it doesn't buy or use cadmium batteries produced by the manufacturer that employed Ms. Wang, but declined to comment further.

Toxic Factories Take Toll On China's Labor Force [Wall Street Journal] (Thanks, Aaron!)
Ms. Wang's Blog [Yahoo!]

]]>
Consumerist-345082 Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:19:27 EST Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=345082&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ How Much Packing Material Is Needed For A Headphone Adapter? ]]>

Hey Consumerist!

discounteggroll here, with another example of wasteful packaging. I ordered a headphone adapter for my iphone from PCConnection.com for $4 shipped, but the box and packaging it came in was ridiculous (see attached photo). Not only is the headphone adapter in its own packaging, but it was INSIDE a DHL bubble wrap bag, sitting ON TOP of a DHL bubble wrap bag and paper inserts, and padded with about 10 feet of paper packaging inside of its shipping box.

Shipping was free, but at what cost?

Oh, for pete's sake. ]]>
Consumerist-344564 Mon, 14 Jan 2008 12:55:11 EST Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=344564&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ China Bans Flimsy Plastic Shopping Bags ]]> The AP says that China has banned thin flimsy shopping bags:

The measure, effective June 1, eliminates the flimsiest bags and forces stores to charge for more durable bags, making China the latest nation to target plastic bags in a bid to cut waste and conserve resources.

Beijing residents appeared to take the ban in stride, reflecting rising environmental consciousness and concern over rocketing oil prices.

"If we can reduce waste and save resources, then it's good both for us and the whole world," said college student Xu Lixian, who was buying tangerines out of cardboard boxes at a sidewalk stall.

The new rules prohibit businesses from manufacturing, selling or using bags less than 0.025 millimeters. More durable reusable bags are allowed and can be sold to consumers.

Using reusable bags is a good idea. Banning them. Um. Not really our thing.

Your thoughts?


Shoppers: It's BYO as China bans plastic bags
[USAToday] (Thanks, Rob!)
(Photo:amyadoysie)


]]>
Consumerist-342983 Wed, 09 Jan 2008 17:14:33 EST Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=342983&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Macy's Doesn't Care If You Want To Save The Planet, Forces You To Take A Plastic Bag ]]> Some people would rather not take a plastic bag if they don't need one, ourselves included, because a) enough with the plastic bags already b) it's wasteful and bad for the planet to take plastic bags when you really blatantly don't need or want them.

With that in mind, here's a letter from reader Erin:

I thought you might be interested in my experience at the usually sweet-faced Macy's the other day.

While at the Galleria in Buffalo, I ran into Macy's to purchase a couple pairs of winter tights. After being rung up, I told the salesperson that I didn't need a bag. She told me that she had to give me a bag, that I wouldn't be allowed out of the store without one. I said I would just show the receipt as my proof of purchase, and that it was no problem. Rosa told me that I could throw it out as soon as I left the store, but that I had to take it. I told her I didn't want to take it because I didn't WANT to throw it away and waste it, that I don't use plastic bags on principle. She refused to give me my tights without the bag. I was so furious at this forced environmental waste. How ridiculous and unnecessary. Great customer service!

best,
Erin

We'd really like to see them try to prevent you from leaving the store just because you don't have a bag. Don't taze me, Macy's.

(Photo:smcgee)

]]>
Consumerist-340994 Sat, 05 Jan 2008 00:12:50 EST Meg Marco http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=340994&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Today California sued the EPA over its refusal ... ]]> Today California sued the EPA over its refusal to let states enact their own greenhouse-gas laws. "Fifteen states plan to intervene on California's behalf, including 13 of those that have either adopted or are in the process of adopting the rules. Delaware and Illinois, which have not passed the standards, also are part of the lawsuit." [New York Times]

]]>
Consumerist-339684 Wed, 02 Jan 2008 14:53:20 EST Chris Walters http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=339684&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[ Biodegradable Coffins, "Composting At Its Best" ]]> Fork%20Marks%20The%20Spot.jpgBiodegradable coffins allow you to rest in peace without putting a permanent dent in the planet or your wallet.

Cremation was long considered more environmentally friendly than burials in graveyards, but its use of fossil fuels has raised concerns.

Eco-friendly burials have been popular in Britain for years, but industry experts say it's starting to catch on in the U.S., where "green" cemeteries hosting natural burials have sprouted up in California, Florida, New York, South Carolina and Texas.

The majority of eco-friendly burial products come from overseas - including the Ecopod, which is made in the United Kingdom - although there are a few domestic makers. Options range from natural-fiber shrouds to fair-trade bamboo caskets lined with unbleached cotton. There are also more traditional-looking handcrafted coffins made of wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council.

Basic cardboard models sell for as little as $100, and probably fold neatly for storage in your basement. Snazzier hand-painted models fetch up to $3,000.

Protecting the earth after death: Biodegradable coffins [AP]
(Photo: Edward All ☆s)

]]>
Consumerist-338648 Fri, 28 Dec 2007 15:15:55 EST Carey Alexander http://consumerist.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=338648&view=rss&microfeed=true