Goal For The Green

It was 1984, when we had this dome home built. We were very happy and proud of our first home.  We thought we would always be there, but in ’84 interest rates were 13.5%. We struggled for 4 1/2 years and due to things out of our control we became upside down in the loan. We did get it sold, but like many people are going through now, we took a loss.

I can’t think of any drawbacks to living in a dome home.  It was easy to heat, and fit well into the northwest lifestyle.  We especially liked the acoustics on Saturday mornings when the kids got up to watch cartoons. From our master suite in the loft, they always wondered how we knew what they were into without actually seeing them.  It was great.  There are still plans available for this type of dome home, and many varying designs to choose from, including ones with riser walls.

The first Biohome was created by NASA, with the idea of supporting one person in a fully functional habitat.  You might recall the 1973 Skylab project, in which NASA did studies on indoor air quality, and did research involving closed ecological life support systems.

The folks at biohome.net feel the future is now.  They have adapted Buckminster Fuller’s original design of the geodesic dome (which ours was modeled after) and came up with the foam version.  They boast having the best “Bio home Foam” on the planet.  The polyurethane foam is the same stuff used by NASA.  It will not sag or shrink, and is mold and bacteria resistant.

The goal at biohome, is to allow you to live totally “off the grid.”  They provide a unique design, that allows you to be the owner and builder.  This frees you from contractor fees ( a big money saver), and power and water bills.  You can obtain a kit that shows you how to build your own solar toilet.  It requires no plumbing, water, or moving parts.  You can also learn how to make drinking water, no matter where you are on the planet.

While the closed system housing idea will not appeal to everyone, it can free up many resources.  Most importantly, it can free up personal time, of which there never seems to be enough of.  With the recent focus being on our energy dependence, this could be the answer for those willing to pursue it.  Just imagine if humans and our dwellings could be the solution to sustainable living.

For several years the EPA ( Environmental Protection Agency), most large businesses, and power companies have been feverishly promoting the sales and usage of compact  fluorescent bulbs (CFLs). They are a great way to save money and energy, while fighting global warming.

The drawback is, these bulbs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing.  The small amount being about 5 milligrams ( equal to the tip of a ball point pin). Mercury is the essential component that allows CFLs to be an efficient light source.  It should be noted that it would take 100 CFLs to equal the mercury found in an old fashioned thermometer.  The bulbs themselves pose few risks, unless of course, they break.  Normally,there is very little risk of airborne mercury exposure.  It is when we find mercury deposits in lakes and oceans, that then find their way to the fish we eat, that the problem arises.  The most common pathway for human exposure to mercury is from eating fish.

Companies and the federal government have not yet come up with easy or effective ways for Americans to recycle these bulbs.  While most people want to recycle, if it is not easy or convenient, it doesn’t happen at all.  Currently, even though CFL bulbs contain mercury, using them emits less mercury into the environment than its predecessor the incandescent bulbs.  They use 70% less heat, which makes them safer to use, and they save you $30 or more in energy costs per bulbs lifetime.

The EPA is working hard to find a solution that works for the retailers and the consumer to recycle the product.  IKEA is the only retailer accepting the bulbs for recycle at this time.  Others such as Wal-Mart and General Electric are considering what they can do to help.

Here are a few tips on how to dispose of a broken bulb.  Vent the room for at least 15 minutes. If you have an HVAC system, turn it off.  On hards surfaces, scoop up glass fragments and powder and place in a glass jar with a metal lid, or a sealed plastic bag.  Use duct tape to pick up any remaining fragments and powder.  Wipe the area with damp paper towels and place them in the jar or plastic bag.  Do not use a broom or vacuum on hard surfaces.  Follow the same steps on carpet.  Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and clean the canister).  Place the debris in a sealed plastic bag.  Check with local or state governments about disposal requirements in your area.  Laws may vary in different states.  Consumers can contact their local or municipal solid waste agency directly for proper disposal options.  Or go to www.epa.gov/bulbrecycling or www.earth911.org for your local recycling options.

As of today, San Francisco is banning plastic bags, and the Whole Food Markets are requesting their customers to bring their own bags.  The choice will be paper in both places.

When it comes to cost, it is much cheaper to produce a plastic bag over a paper one. The drawback is, plastic is a petroleum product.  However, it only takes approximately .003%of oil per barrell to produce alot of plastic bags.  At least 100,000 birds and marine life die each year because of the plastic that liters our beaches and other public places. This could be one of the reasons for the choice of paper over plastic in the San Francisco area.

Paper bag producton takes one 20 year old tree and four times the energy to produce 700 bags.  In 1999, America cut down 14 million trees to produce 10 billion paper bags, and that was just for that year.  The impact on our forests is mind boggling.  The forests are a major absorber of green house gases.  When we cut them down, and then use clean water and chemicals to produce the pulp to manufacture paper bags, we create more greenhouse gases.  The sad thing is there is not enough forest areas left to absorb the pollutants. It doesn’t stop there, hence, not enough trees to help with run-off from heavy rain.  So, we’ve seen more severe flooding in recent years.

The problem is, while it takes 91% less energy to recycle a pound of plastic, only 1-3% of plastic bags are recycled. Paper on the other hand, is recycled at a rate of 10-15 %  more often, and it is compostable. Plastic is not.

Nothing completely degrades anymore in our modern landfills.  This is because of the lack of water, light, oxygen and other elments that are necessary to complete the degradation process.  The end result is, paper really doesn’t brake down any faster than plastic in a landfill. It also takes up more space than plastic.  The goal should be to keep both of these products from ever reaching a land fill.  The bottom line is, we may all need to get used to BYOB – bring you own bag.

Written in association with plastic disposal experts