National Geographic Society

by Mary Logan Barmeyer

We've heard again and again that it's time to kick the plastic water bottle habit and head back to the tap. Despite evidence that our tap water is highly regulated and just as safe as bottled, news about pharmaceuticals and chemicals in drinking water or pipes that may contain lead, or even just bad tasting tap, can make us wary of getting our water straight from the faucet. Although most water filters can't eliminate every contaminant, they can help reduce them. But are unrecyclable water filters any better for the environment than recyclable plastic bottles? Not if you can recycle them.

Zero Technologies recently launched a recycling program for filters, the only program of its kind in the country. Ninety percent of the materials in its ZeroWater filters are recyclable--even the filter media are recycled for use in wastewater-treatment plants--and they can be shipped back to the company in their original packaging in exchange for a discount on replacements. (Zero is also one of the only companies to offer filter bottles made of glass, although the ABS plastic used in their other products has been tested to ensure no chemicals leach out).

ZeroWater's carbon and ion-exchange filter reduces dissolved solids in water down to zero parts per million, which you can test with a total dissolved solids (TDS) meter that comes with the filter. The filters are also NSF certified to remove lead, chlorine taste and odor, mercury, hydrogen sulfide, chromium, aluminum, zinc and iron.

But remember, you may not need a water filter at all. Your annual Consumer Confidence Report, which you can get through your water supplier, will tell you about local water quality, and if you're worried about lead in your pipes, check with your health department or contact a specialist to test your household water.

ZeroWater filters are available online at www.zerowater.com. Half-gallon pitchers are $39.99, and larger 2.5 gallon bottles are $119.99 for glass or $99.99 for plastic.

By Wendy Gordon

I was curious to see how Wikipedia defined "sprawl" and sure enough, it was appropriately harsh:

"Urban sprawl, also known as suburban sprawl, is the spreading of a city and its suburbs over rural land at the fringe of an urban area...The term urban sprawl generally has negative connotations due to the health and environmental issues that sprawl creates. Residents of sprawling neighborhoods tend to emit more pollution per person and suffer more traffic fatalities. Sprawl is controversial, with supporters claiming that consumers prefer lower density neighborhoods and that sprawl does not necessarily increase traffic. Sprawl is also linked with increased obesity since walking and bicycling are not viable commuting options. Sprawl negatively impacts land and water quantity and quality and may be linked to a decline in social capital."
Earlier this month, in its battle to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, California passed a new law, the nation's first, which takes direct aim at urban sprawl and the amount of time people spend in their cars. The number of miles driven in California has increased 50 percent faster than the rate of population growth, largely because people have to drive
greater distances in their daily lives. With passenger vehicles being the biggest single source of carbon dioxide in California, producing nearly one-third of the state's total, citizens there felt something had to be done.

The new law requires emissions-reduction goals for 2020 and 2035 be assigned to each of California's 17 metropolitan planning areas. Local governments will then devise strategies to meet the new targets. Zoning laws may likely be modified so developers can build new housing closer to where people work. And improving mass transit will be a priority so commuters don't have to rely so much on cars. The bill contains significant incentives, including the promise of substantial federal and state money to regions whose plans pass muster.

This anti-sprawl measure is the latest in a string of initiatives from the California Legislature, including a 2002 law to greatly reduce carbon emissions from automobiles, and a 2006 law requiring that one-fifth of California's energy come from wind and other renewable sources. In the absence of federal action on climate change, we are deeply indebted to states like California, and cities across the country, which are taking leadership action on this vital national security issue.

By Wendy Gordon
A couple of Fridays ago, George Soros, the author of The New Paradigm for Financial Markets: The Credit Crisis of 2008 and What It Mean, suggested that efforts to build a green economy could be the "motor of the world economy in the years to come."

I certainly hope so, and hope that it can start here and now. Our economy is in such clear distress, and hundreds of thousands have lost their jobs in the last nine months. Perhaps it is already beginning. In cities and towns around the country, Van Jones, founder and president of Green For All, believes that corporate and civic entrepreneurs are seizing opportunities to revitalize the economy by creating jobs and improving the environment at the same time. Here are a few examples from his book The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems:

* The Center on Wisconsin Strategy (COWS), hoping to move workers in the Rust Belt into the clean-energy economy, has developed a program to retrofit all of Milwaukee's buildings and create thousands of green-collar jobs in the process. A new building-efficiency service, Milwaukee Energy Efficiency (Me2), is being created in the process, and there is no upfront payment. You sign up for a retrofit, and when it's completed you pay it off a little bit at a time as part of your reduced electricity or utility bill.
* Andy Lipkis, founder of TreePeople in Los Angeles, saw an opportunity to solve a major water-runoff problem by building cisterns to capture the rainwater. L.A. officials were so impressed by TreePeople's demonstration cisterns, which collect, on average, 1.25 million gallons of water for every inch of rainfall, that the city gave the green light to a $200-million cistern project in Sun Valley, a flood-ravaged community mostly populated by low-wage workers. TreePeople predicts about 300 jobs will be created, including manufacturing and installing water-capture systems, adapting landscaping to function as watershed, and maintaining the landscape, trees, berms, cisterns and other elements of the system. Better still, some city sanitation workers will be transformed into watershed managers, a job that takes more time and has more dignity.
* A nonprofit in Baltimore called Second Chance launched its architectural salvage and deconstruction services in 2003. Over the next 4 years, the company grew quickly, filling a 120,000-square-foot warehouse space and engaging more than 50 employees-three deconstruction crews and a retail store crew-all drawn from local low-income neighborhoods. The nonprofit's founder, Mark Foster, has established contracts with Baltimore that provide for worker-development funds for training. After satisfying the training requirements, workers are guaranteed permanent jobs with company benefits.

Jones provides numerous other examples involving major resource systems--water, energy, food, materials--where rethinking and retooling society can help communities save money and generate new jobs.

With our national deficit in the trillions, and our economy in recession, how can we manage a New Deal-type investment in a green economy? Jones replies, "How can we not?"

It's an inspiring, empowering book, by a course-changing social entrepreneur. I urge you to read it.