Blog Entries
Conditions of Use
|
| Title:
|
Resource position statement (01/07/08)
|
| Description:
|
Environmental problems: research one of the following:
* paper vs. plastic bags
* cloth vs. disposable diapers
* rechargeable batteries vs. throwing away batteries
* glass bottles vs. plastic bottles for soda
* hybrid vs. regular cars
* composting vs. using a landfill
* bottled water vs. tap water (in terms of resources, not taste)
* fluorescent vs. incandescent light bulbs
* using synthetic vs. natural fertilizers
* recycling vs. reusing plastics, cans, etc.
1. Take a position on one of the environmental problems above. (If a large number of people do the same problem,
obviously your statement would have to stand out from the others and be unique).
2. Research both sides (you may want to do this before you decide your position). Note that you can take any position
on the problem, you just must be able to defend it. Don't write what you think someone else wants to hear. Write what
you believe.
3. Write a well-written 8 sentence or more paragraph(s) that states your position on the problem and defends that statement.
4. Defend (backup) your statement by using statistics or examples that you found in your research.
Make sure these really make your point and are not weak statistics. You must have at least two examples or statistics.
Your sources must be cited at the bottom of your statement.
5. You will be graded for grammar and spelling. It may be best to type this on a computer and use a spell/grammar check.
We will be putting it on one of our sites, so an electronic version is needed.
|
|
Corban C -- Speed and Agility or Power and Pollution
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:02 PM GMT0 •
comment (18) • Reads 4847
|
|
Many car buyers of today are faced with the question: “Should I purchase a hybrid or gasoline car”? Many people stay with a gasoline-powered car because of availability and cost. While these are good reasons to purchase a gasoline car, consumers are normally not aware of the benefits of a hybrid car.
Personally, even though I cannot drive yet, I would seriously consider buying a hybrid car. I feel that hybrid cars are more efficient and environmentally friendly than regular gasoline-powered vehicles. However, my opinion is backed up with research.
Most people do not know the simple things that make hybrid cars more efficient. First of all, things like lightweight materials and advanced aerodynamics decrease wind resistance on the car and help it run more smoothly. Along with these things, the regenerative braking system of hybrid cars acts as a generator, charging the batteries of the car as the electric motor slows the car to a stop. Also, the periodic engine shut off conserves the car’s energy. When a hybrid car is stopped in traffic, the engine temporarily shuts off and then restarts when the car is put back into gear. This system greatly decreases the wasting of gas while the car is idling. Of course, hybrid cars are environmentally friendly because the do not produce exhaust while idling, therefore helping to reduce smog levels. It has been tested and proven that hybrid cars cut overall emissions by 25-35% over even fuel-efficient gas cars.
However, as always, good things have some downfalls to them. Hybrid cars are built with two motors, a small gasoline motor and an electric motor. While these two motors increase efficiency, there is also a higher risk of one of them braking down as well. Hybrid cars are also more complex than regular gasoline cars, so their prices are naturally higher and repairs are more costly. It has also been shown that hybrid cars only obtain 20-35% better miles per gallon than a fuel-efficient gasoline car.
In my perspective, these statistics and facts still do not overpower the advantages to a hybrid car. I feel that hybrid cars are more environmentally friendly and are a better choice when it comes to protecting the environment, despite having to spend a few more dollars.
Works Cited:
www.eartheasy.com/live_hyrid_cars
www.physorg.com/news10031
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:02 PM GMT0 •
comment (18) • Reads 4847
|
|
Samuel C -- 1 vs 100
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:06 PM GMT0 •
comment (20) • Reads 1365
|
|
One-use or multi-use batteries, that is the question. It is clear to see that the rechargeable, multi-use batteries are the way to go. The rechargeable batteries are much more efficient in not only lasting longer, but can be used over and over more than a hundred times. For example, in digital cameras, using the rechargeable batteries is much better. They give out the power longer and even when they do die you can use them again. Also, using the rechargeable greatly cut the amount of batteries thrown away and dumped into landfills. This also cuts back on the chances of the batteries polluting the area. One other fact about one-use and multi-use batteries, the multi-use will not leak after being used out or over used. The one-use batteries will leak out their fluids if they are over used or done being used, and are in the right atmosphere.
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:06 PM GMT0 •
comment (20) • Reads 1365
|
|
Zak D -- Go Green Or Go Broke
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:03 PM GMT0 •
comment (18) • Reads 1314
|
|
I am researching hybrid cars versus regular cars for my position statement. I believe that it is better to use hybrid cars than regular ones because hybrid cars feature a small fuel-efficient gas engine combined with an electric motor that works with the gas engine to go. The electric motor is powered by batteries that recharge automatically while you drive.
With the ever rising prices of gas in this country, hybrid cars can help a lot with the prices of gas. Hybrid cars are much more fuel efficient than regular cars are. Therefore, it can save the owner of the hybrid car a lot of money in the long run.
I personally don’t own a hybrid car but because I’m not old enough to drive that’s not really my choice. I do believe that hybrid cars are more fuel efficient and less harmful to the earth than regular cars. People are going to realize soon that gas prices are never going to go down a great amount, they’ll just keep rising. With this knowledge, hybrid cars could be the only thing keeping people out of debt. Soon it may come to go green or go broke.
By Zak Dickey
Work sited at http://www.eartheasy.com/live_hybrid_cars.htm
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:03 PM GMT0 •
comment (18) • Reads 1314
|
|
Danica F -- How to Keep Your Plants Smiling
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:07 PM GMT0 •
comment (19) • Reads 1142
|
|
For my resource position statement I chose using synthetic vs. natural fertilizers. I believe that we should use natural fertilizers instead of synthetic fertilizers for numerous reasons.
First of all, I will state the obvious, natural fertilizers are natural and synthetic means man-made (unnatural). Synthetic fertilizers have a lot of excess nutrients; these excess nutrients seep into the water and contaminate the fish and amphibians, which then endanger them. However, synthetic fertilizers have one or more necessary nutrients for plant growth: nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium; also, they have the benefit of working faster on the plants compared to the natural fertilizers. Although, I still believe the negative affects of synthetic fertilizers exceed its benefits. In addition, chemical fertilizers such as synthetic fertilizers are not as affective as natural and organic fertilizers. Synthetic fertilizers are man-made and have chemicals such as ammonia in them, so they may work, but the plants are left unhealthier from the chemicals.
Natural fertilizers give a natural source of nutrients, which causes a natural growth; in addition, the plants’ grown with organic and natural fertilizers also benefit the microbes and earthworms, “the caretakers of plants”. Also, with the use of natural fertilizer there are no worries or concerns about toxic runoffs or integration with other organisms that may harm them and their environments. Natural fertilizers are a lot healthier, so how could plants not benefit from that?
In conclusion, I think we should use natural fertilizers simply because they’re natural and when I researched problems that are caused by using natural fertilizers, I found none. Also, synthetic fertilizers are very unhealthy for fish and amphibians, so anything that is harmful to the environment has negative affects.
by Danica
Sources
www.google.com
www.dirtdoctor.com/view_question.php.com
www.naturalenviro.com/Article.php?ArticleSKU=Organic-Fertilizer
www.allaboutlawns.com/lawn-maintenance -care/fertilizing/what-kind-of-fertilizer-should-i-use.php
www.organic-gro.com/faq.shtml
www.ezinearticles.com/?The-Benefits-of-Organic-Lawn-Fertilizer&id=599922
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:07 PM GMT0 •
comment (19) • Reads 1142
|
|
Maddison K -- A fast and easy way to get rid of gas
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:09 PM GMT0 •
comment (18) • Reads 1446
|
|
By: Maddison
Let’s see here, quiet, cheaper, and better for the environment or loud, annoying, and bad idea? Let me guess, you picked the quiet, cheaper, and better for the environment choice. It’s shameful to say that most people out of the whole world are driving the loud ones right now. The hybrid cars are more expensive in the beginning but they turn out to be a lot cheaper and successful in the end. It has been estimated that in the U.S. only three out of ten people drive hybrid cars. Auto retailers are not estimating that the price of hybrid cars will go down as they become more plentiful. People need to realize how much of an affect this has on our environment. Regular cars not only pollute the environment but are a threat to global warming as well. So after researching this specific topic I have come to the conclusion that hybrid cars are an all around better idea.
To research more on this topic go to:
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=435228
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:09 PM GMT0 •
comment (18) • Reads 1446
|
|
Danielle K -- To Fill Up Landfills or To Wash A Piece of Cloth? It's Your Decision!
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:05 PM GMT0 •
comment (16) • Reads 1205
|
|
Cloth Diapers vs. Disposable Diapers
Do I want to fill up the landfills and pollute the earth or take some time to wash a piece of cloth? This question doesn’t really come into people’s minds when they decide to pick a disposable diaper or a cloth diaper. It should be the question that they base their decision on, though. I believe that choosing cloth diapers is the better decision for many reasons. Disposable diapers are not biodegradable, cloth are. Cloth diapers are cost effective; they keep the baby drier, they don’t leak, they are size adjustable, and are highly environmentally friendly.
Disposable diapers are not biodegradable. This means that they cannot break down like other matter can, once sitting in a landfill. The plastic just breaks into little pieces due to the cornstarch that is placed on the diapers. Washing a cloth diaper is much easier than filling up the land fills with disposable diapers that will just sit there for the rest of eternity. Disposable diapers prevent water from being soaked into the ground when sitting in the landfills due to the absorbent materials they are made of. Cloth diapers are environmentally friendly. They reduce the amount of disposable diapers that end up in the landfills. After all, landfills weren’t created to contain human waste that is deposited in a disposable diaper. This can threaten the health of sanitary workers, the water supply and animals.
Cloth diapers are cost effective. During the first two years of a baby’s life, they will use will use between 5,000 and 7,000 diapers. That’s a lot of money to be spent on something that gets thrown away, if you are using disposable diapers. You would save a lot of money and it is well worth the added laundry.
Cloth diapers do many things for the baby that is wearing them. They reduce diaper rash. It keeps the baby drier. The design of the diaper with the fleece inner material keeps moisture away from the baby’s bottom. This also eliminates the need for creams and gels to treat diaper rash. There are adjustable sizes of the diaper. This makes it much easier because then you don’t have to worry about your baby out growing the size of disposable diaper that you just bought last week. Cloth diapers don’t leek, so you won’t have to worry about changing your baby’s outfit every time you change their diaper. This prevents stains on the baby’s clothes.
Disposable diapers are made from super absorbing hydrophilic polymers called polyacrylates. That means they can absorb hundreds of times their weight in water. The insides don’t dissolve into water either. It turns into a gel that can clog drains. This means they cannot be flushed down a toilet.
Hence, I believe that cloth diapers are the better way to go. They don’t pollute earth and fill up the landfills. Thus, they are very environmentally friendly. They are better for the baby because they don’t give them diaper rash, they keep the baby dry, and the diapers don’t leak. Cloth diapers are very cost effective. This is why I think that cloth diapers are the way to go when choosing diapers for your baby.
http://www.thenewparentsguide.com/diapers.htm
http://www.forbabywithlove.ca/en/information/cloth_fast_facts/
http://www.forbabywithlove.ca/en/information/why_cloth_diapers/index.html
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:05 PM GMT0 •
comment (16) • Reads 1205
|
|
Brodi L -- Fluorescent Light Bulbs Can Save You Money
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:41 PM GMT0 •
comment (20) • Reads 1500
|
|
Fluorescent Light Bulbs vs. Incandescent Light Bulbs
Using fluorescent light bulbs is not that popular in United States and some people say its due to them not knowing about, when actually they have been around for about thirty years. A real simple fact is that the one incandescent light bulb uses about 75% less electricity and produces the same amount of light than a normal incandescent light. In a 2001 report it was said that the average lighting bill is about 8.8% of the household electricity consumption. If we would change to the incandescent bulb which is 75% more efficient then it would save about 7% of that bill.
The way a conventional light bulb heats and lights only actually uses 2.5% of its energy as light. The other 97.5% is wasted as heat. While incandescent light bulbs are cheap and easy to buy, in the long run fluorescent bulbs could save you money not only on your electricity bill but because they last 5-8 hours longer you won’t have to buy as many. Also in the summer, since fluorescent bulbs do not give off the amount of heat that incandescent bulbs do it will ultimately save you on your air conditioning bill.
In the long run if a fluorescent light bulb is used properly then paying the extra up front will save you in the long run. Also if used correctly the money you save should be able to buy you a new fluorescent light bulb when one runs out.
After being show this information I believe that using fluorescent light bulbs is an easy way to reduce using energy and will eventually save you money. I also hope that everybody will eventually switch to using this energy efficient light bulb.
http://greennature.com/article256.html
http://www.energy4you.net/aboutcfl.htm
http://www.easydonations.net/energyefficientlighting.htm
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:41 PM GMT0 •
comment (20) • Reads 1500
|
|
Shayna L -- Cotton, the key to comfort
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:36 PM GMT0 •
comment (13) • Reads 1238
|
|
By Shayna L
Some families are confused on what kind of diaper they should use. Some families think cloth, and others think disposable. I think that cloth diapers are better to use. Cloth diapers are cheaper to buy. You only have to buy about 7 or 8 and then your done. All you really have to do is wash them. Cloth diapers also cause the babies less diaper rash, because the cotton of the diaper is more breathable.
Disposable diapers are different. They are more expensive than cloth diapers. Over the years parents will probably spend over $1500 buying disposable diapers. They are also bad for the environment. It is estimated that around 5 million tons of untreated waste is deposited into landfills by the use of disposables every year. Disposable diapers also cause more diaper rash. According to some studies, 78% of babies get diaper rash, compared to only 7% of babies that use cloth diapers.
http://www.thelaboroflove.com/articles/cloth-diapers-versus-disposable-diapers-pros-and-cons/
http://www.thenewparentsguide.com/diapers.htm
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:36 PM GMT0 •
comment (13) • Reads 1238
|
|
Megan M -- Environmental Friendly cars
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:05 PM GMT0 •
comment (5) • Reads 1328
|
|
I chose to research hybrid cars vs. regular cars. A hybrid car is powered by gas and is assisted with an electric motor. The electric motor allows you to use less gas. This helps you save money on gas and put out less pollution, so it is not as harmful to the environment. In city driving with a hybrid car you can get 10% to 15% improvement in gasoline consumption. If everyone drove hybrid cars U.S. gas consumption would drop 10%. Unfortunately the hybrid can cost a few more thousand dollars than a regular car. The Environmental Protection Agency says that driving a car is the most polluting thing that most of us do. In the urban areas motor vehicles are the largest contributor to ground-level ozone, which is a major contributor to smog (a type of air pollution). Cars produce several pollutants known as toxics. These toxics cause as many as 1,500 cases of cancer each year. Auto emissions take part in environmental problems such as acid rain and global warming. So I think that the hybrid car is better than the regular car because not only are you saving money on the rising prices of gas, you are also helping out the environment by not producing so many pollutants.
http://www.carbuyingtips.com/hybrid-cars.htm
http://1800getacar.com/Hybrid-Cars-Pros-Cons.html
http://www.nsc.org/ehc/mobile/mse-fs.htm
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:05 PM GMT0 •
comment (5) • Reads 1328
|
|
Kaylyn M -- Which One Should I Choose?
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:58 PM GMT0 •
comment (9) • Reads 1203
|
|
I can’t wait to purchase my car! I’m so excited, but which car should I choose: a regular car or a hybrid? Maybe I should do a little research, in order to decide which is the best one. Let’s see here, I strongly uphold the opinion that a hybrid vehicle uses fewer resources than a regular car. Like a famous quote that my brother always states: it’s research time!
Oh, look at the gorgeous flash as the emerald is scattered across the hybrid. Did you know that an electric car has a set of batteries that provides electricity to an electric motor. Then that motor turns a transmission, and the transmission turns the wheels. On the other hand, a regular car has a fuel tank, which supplies gasoline to the engine. Then that engine turns a transmission, which turns the wheels. Well, which is it? I think a little more research is needed.
One reason why the hybrid car is the ultimate alpha is because it uses less power than the regular car. This saves on a ton of fuel. The hybrid also produces no exhaust or smog due to driving at slower speeds. Some major problems with this type is that it’s more expensive ($20,000) and they have a limited range between charges. Charging the battery usually takes 10-12 hours and it only runs for 50 miles. A regular car’s gas mileage averages around 66 miles per gallon. What if we used more hybrid car? Would the cost change at all? I believe it would because of the call of greater supply means greater demand. The typical life expectancy of regular cars is 150,000 miles, but the hybrid lasts longer due to the engine using very little or no gasoline.
Did you know that the US is the world’s leader in producing CO2. Motor vehicles use over eight million barrels of oil per day, costing about $200,000 per minute to import. More than 50% of US oil is imported from all over. Petroleum products supply more than 95% of America’s transportation limitations. Compared to the regular car, the hybrid is way more friendly to the environment and its surroundings.
According to this research, I believe you should decide what you want. For me I choose the sparkling hybrid. The hybrid uses less power, therefore less smog is released into the atmosphere. It lasts longer than the regular car, and it far more friendly to the environment.
Sources:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-car1.htm
http://www.electricandhybridcars.net/The-Opinions-On-Electric-Hybrid-Vehicles.html
http://www.et.byu.edu/~hsn4/eng316/report/Report.htm
http://www.allabouthybridcars.com/suv-hybrid-autos.htm
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:58 PM GMT0 •
comment (9) • Reads 1203
|
|
Jenna M -- Cloth vs. Diapers
Article posted January 8, 2008 at 06:22 PM GMT0 •
comment (7) • Reads 1193
|
|
by Jenna M
I believe that cloth is better for the environment then disposable diapers. Facts say that a baby on average will spend 8,000 hours in a diaper and uses 2,500 diapers. These disposable diapers then get thrown away and start piling up. The fertility rate is increasing which means more diapers in our landfills. Cloth diapers can be washed and reused unlike disposable. Cloth diapers also do not have as many chemicals in them. At most cloth has detergent chemicals and with disposable there is many harmful chemicals.
I think that disposable diapers are harmful. One reason is the toxic chemicals like Dixon, used in diapers, is linked to cause cancer and other health problems. Another thing that is wrong with disposable diapers is the other chemicals in them. In 1995 it was reported that the sodium polyacrylate was removed from tampons for causing toxic shock syndrome. Chemical were also reported to cause irritations and allergic reactions. Aside from chemical problems another problem is that it takes 250,000 trees and 82,000 pounds of plastic to make disposable diapers for just American babies.
|
|
Article posted January 8, 2008 at 06:22 PM GMT0 •
comment (7) • Reads 1193
|
|
Kaitlyn N -- Composting vs. landfills
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:35 PM GMT0 •
comment (8) • Reads 1308
|
|
The Advantages to using a landfill is the biomass energy produced by landfills is renewable. It is also a quick and easy way to dispose of waste. Landfill gases are sometimes used for electricity ans are more reliable and cheaper than most other renewable energy sources. However, landfills have been known to leak over ten toxic gases such as methane, which presents a potential threat to human health as well as to the environment. In a recent study of 288 landfills, 83% of these landfills had traces of harmful gases.
Composting can not entirely stop us from using landfills, as you can only compost items that are organic. However, composting has its advantages too. Composting allows us to reduce dependency on manufactured fertilizers and adds nutrients needed for plant growth. Composting is cheaper than building and managing the up keep of a landfill. Composting organic materials such as yard and food wastes creates more room in landfills for materials that can not be recycled. The last time the national recycling figures were done in 2005 by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), they found that 245 million tons of trash was created in the U.S. Of the 245 million tons of trash, 32% was recovered by composting and recycling. From 1990 to 2005, the amount of municipal solid waste going to U.S. landfills has decreased by 9 million tons and continues to decrease each year. The U.S. continues to strive and educate the public on increasing the percentage of composting and recycling.
Based on my research I feel the advantages of composting will help our environment be a safer, healthier, and better place.
http://www.iun.edu/~environw/landfills.html
http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/United_States_Recycling_Statistics
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:35 PM GMT0 •
comment (8) • Reads 1308
|
|
Marilyn O -- Putting Away The Groceries
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:27 PM GMT0 •
comment (9) • Reads 1376
|
|
I believe when placed with a choice I would chose plastic. It is the better choice in my opinion. The first reason is because plastic doesn't take water. When you make paper you use thousands of gallons of water. When you make plastic it takes more energy. Plastic a byproduct of oil refining and it takes 4% of the total world oil production. The paper can be recycled but it takes energy to recycle. The paper can also go to the landfill. The plastic goes to the landfills since it doesn't get recycled. According to the EPA Americans recycle 0.6% of the plastic bags and 19.4% paper begs. So the topics and reasons why are close but in the end plastic wins. This is why I believe if you don't use your own bags then the better choice is plastic.
www.greenfeet.net/newsletter/debate.shtml
www.angelfire.com/wi/papervsplastic/
www.iliea.org/lcas/franklin1990.html
www.treehugger.com/files/2005/01/qa_retail_carry.php
Marilyn
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:27 PM GMT0 •
comment (9) • Reads 1376
|
|
Danielle P -- Would you want to live in a diseased atmosphere?
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:15 PM GMT0 •
comment (13) • Reads 1225
|
|
After researching information on Hybrids and Regular cars, I have come to the decision that I believe Hybrid cars are better for the environment rather than a regular car. I believe this because unlike regular cars, Hybrids use less gas because of the electric powered motor in addition to the engine. Some people might argue that it would be a hassle to charge the vehicle, but not all of the hybrids need charged, in fact every tie the car is in use the engine, brakes, and wheels are constantly charging it leaving little time needed for charging. If cars use less gas, then the demand for it won't be as high and it will become less scarce.
Another reason I believe a Hybrid is the better way to go is because it is a healthier car for the environment. These cars are proven to be 80% cleaner for the environment than regular gas cars are. These cars put very little smog forming emission into the air making it a fresher environment. Some people make argue that the air is clean as it is and that changing to Hybrids won't make that big of a difference, but every little bit helps and if less greenhouse gases are being put into the atmosphere then air that is currently clean will stay that way and hopefully infected air will grow cleaner.
Citations:
www.activehybrid.com
www.forbes.com
environment.about.com
nz.answers.yahoo.com
by Danielle
 |
 |
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:15 PM GMT0 •
comment (13) • Reads 1225
|
|
Tyler P -- Saving energy...with lights
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:54 PM GMT0 •
comment (12) • Reads 1203
|
|
Fluorescent Vs. Incondescent Light Bulbs
I think fluorescent light bulbs are a great idea compared to incandescent light bulbs because of how long they last and the amount of energy they use. Each bulb saves about 500 pounds of coal and lasts about 8 to 10 years. I personally have these bulbs throughout my house and have for many years. My dad installed them and we have had a few of them for almost ten years. If every American home replaced one bulb for a fluorescent bulb, we would save enough energy to light more than three million homes per year, more then $600 million in annual energy bills, and the green emissions would be reduced by the equivalent of 800,000 cars. Fluorescent bulbs use 75% less energy and last ten times longer. They also produce 75% less heat so they are safer and can cut down on cooling costs. Each bulb saves $30 in electricity costs over its lifetime.
www.energystar.gov
www.eartheasy.com
home.howstuffworks.com
By Tyler
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:54 PM GMT0 •
comment (12) • Reads 1203
|
|
Taylor P -- Plastic is not so fantastic
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:17 PM GMT0 •
comment (13) • Reads 1128
|
|
I believe that using glass bottles is better than using plastic bottles for soda because glass is a better product to recycle because it does not deteriorate when reprocessed. Also, it is energy efficient. It’s a fact that by recycling just two bottles saves enough energy to boil water for five cups of tea. Statistics show that in 2000, 26% of all glass food and beverage containers were recycled says the Environmental Protection Agency. Also in 2003 it showed that recycling glass reduces mining waste by 75% and air pollution by 20%. Sure I think it is good to use plastic bottles because using plastic bottles doesn’t cost as much but, by using glass we are helping the environment. It is proven that more people prefer to recycle glass better than plastic because in 2000 the overall recycling rate for plastics was 9%. Also glass bottles tend to keep a tighter seal on soda keeping it fresh longer than in a plastic bottle. That is why I believe that by using glass bottles is better than using plastic bottles.
Resources:
http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/resources/InformationSheets/Glass.htm
http://www.wsaemc.org/Recycling
http://www.container-recycling.org/plastic_facts.htm
http://www.recyclingfacts.com/
by Taylor
|
|
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:17 PM GMT0 •
comment (13) • Reads 1128
|
|
Milea S -- Deep Blue Seas and Lush Forests...or Holes of Froth and Doom
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:15 PM GMT0 •
comment (11) • Reads 940
|
|
I have chosen to discuss the matter of paper vs. plastic bags, but I have taken a different position than one that is offered in the statement. After researching the topic, I decided on the opinion that the best choice would be a reusable bag, made of cloth, but able to be used for years without going to a landfill. It would save both oceans and forests alike.
The reason I have taken this side to the problem is because of many flaws I saw in both paper and plastic bags. Although plastic can be recycled easily, it doesn’t break down when it is sent to landfills. (It takes about 500 years for it to break down). And though paper is harder to recycle, it will eventually break down if left in a landfill. With reusable bags, you don’t have to worry about either recycling or landfills, which both have their disadvantages, as well.
Paper bags produce 70% more air pollution and 50 times more water pollution than plastic bags; the factories that create paper cause much pollution in both these areas. Plastic bags can be hazardous in their own way, mostly hurting wildlife rather than humans. According to statistics, over 100,000 birds and marine animals die each year because of plastic litter.
The smarter choice would be clear to most people; to not use either of these, as they are both bad for the environment. To use something that would not need to be thrown in a landfill or taken to a recycling factory for years, something that doesn’t require the felling of trees or drilling for oil, a reusable bag is the best option.
Sources:
www.greenfeet.net/newsletter/debate.shtml
http://www.reusablebags.com/facts.php?id=7’
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/01/qa_retail_carry.php
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:15 PM GMT0 •
comment (11) • Reads 940
|
|
Kevin S -- Death or Life?
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:32 PM GMT0 •
comment (17) • Reads 1131
|
|
I chose to pick hybrid cars vs. regular cars because I thought it was a good topic. I think that hybrid cars should be used everywhere, they may cost more then normal conventional vehicles but they are healthy to the community. Hybrid cars also get worse fuel mileage because of the added weight of the battery and the lack of having any energy regeneration. Hybrid cars have an extremely high maintenance cost because of the battery replacement is very expensive. Also, hybrid cars have very small gasoline or diesel engines; therefore the air-conditioning system will place a lower mileage on the car. Some good facts about hybrid cars are that they cause less respiratory problems. They also cause less children to have birth defects or harm to blood vessels. Last, they decrease a person’s risk of a cancer related death due to regular non-hybrid cars.
http://www.biblelife.org/energy.htm
http://www.hybridcars.com/health-effects.html
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:32 PM GMT0 •
comment (17) • Reads 1131
|
|
Sue S -- Crystal Clear and Tastes Better Too
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:23 PM GMT0 •
comment (14) • Reads 1196
|
|
Where do I stand on the glass vs. plastic soda bottles issue? I say glass is better overall for our environment. Both plastic and glass can be recycled, but glass can be remade into almost anything and still remain close to as strong as it was before. Plastic can only be used to make a few things and it gets weaker each time it is recycled. Not only that, but 90% of recycled glass is used to make new containers. Plastic is harder to recycle and it uses more energy to recycle. While glass is naturally made, plastic uses up fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas to make the first time. Glass produced from recycled glass reduces related air pollution by 20% and related water pollution by 50%. Plus, things that come out of a glass bottle, such as soda, tastes better than out of a plastic bottle.
Sources:
1. http://www.epa.gov/msw/glass.htm
2. http://www.panda.org/news_facts/education/
middle_school/homework_help/project_ideas/
recycling_glass/index.cfm
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:23 PM GMT0 •
comment (14) • Reads 1196
|
|
Stephanie S -- Grocery Store Trauma: Which One To Pick?
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:28 PM GMT0 •
comment (7) • Reads 1177
|
|
When you go to the grocery store, you always get asked the popular question, “Paper or Plastic?” What do you choose? Did you ever think about what you chose or why you chose it? When I go the grocery store, originally I would choose paper. After thinking it through, though, would I think twice?
Let’s look at the advantages and disadvantages of plastic first. Plastic comes from oil, which is drilled from rigs that are the size of a house. From drilling, the oil is refined into what is plastic. Although plastic only uses 4% of the world’s oil, it can be used for anything; not just bags. It is waterproof, UV resistant, reusable, and anything can be printed on it. The downside is that 50% of the electricity used to make plastic comes from rubber, which, when traced back far enough, is oil. When the plastic is thrown away and not recycled, it is taken to a landfill. When in a landfill, plastic products, including bags, take up 7% of the weight and 15% of the volume. If it’s taken to a recycling plant, though, it is recycled and used again.
Secondly, we can look at the advantages/disadvantages of paper. We all know paper comes from trees, but when the term "supply and demand" comes to a logger's mind, they cut out entire forests. The entire process of creating paper can take more than three years. From drying th wood to creating pulp, making a simple paper bag can take the longest time. Like plastic, paper goes to landfill or recycling plants when they are thrown away. When paper is being made, it goes through a process in which it takes thousands of gallons of water. In the end, paper takes a long time to decompose in a landfill.
All in all, I'll think twice about it when I go to the grocery store. Next time, I'll go for plastic. Each one has their different upsides and downsides, but in the end, plastic wins it all.
SOURCES:
http://www.greenfeet.net/newsletter/debate.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18538484/
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:28 PM GMT0 •
comment (7) • Reads 1177
|
|
Mason S -- Making the Light Choice
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:13 PM GMT0 •
comment (10) • Reads 1091
|
|
Incandescent vs. Fluorescent Light Bulbs
by Mason
I believe that fluorescent light bulbs are more efficient and are better for the environment than incandescent light bulbs. I think this because incandescent light bulbs use filaments that turn electrical energy into heat energy. However, this heat energy is still not the light that we seek. The heat energy makes the filament glow white hot so that we finally get light. Even though we do get light this way, it may not be the correct route because this process produces so much that it could potentially help cause global warming and increase your electric bill.
On the other hand, fluorescent light bulbs use electrodes, a gas, and a phosphor coating on the inside of the bulb. This type of light bulb produces less heat. Lumens measure the perceived amount of power of light. Incandescent light bulbs produce approximately 15 lumens per watt. Fluorescent light bulbs produce approximately 50 to 100 lumens per watt. So as you can see, fluorescent light bulbs are much more efficient than incandescent light bulbs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumen_(unit)
http://www.howstuffworks.com/question236.htm
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:13 PM GMT0 •
comment (10) • Reads 1091
|
|
Tyler W -- Reversible Vs. Non-Reversible
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:30 PM GMT0 •
comment (11) • Reads 1157
|
|
My articles title is named reversible vs. non-reversible because I am going to tell you why I think rechargeable batteries are better. Rechargeable batteries are reversible and non-rechargeable batteries are non-reversible. When I say reversible and non-reversible, I mean the electrochemical reaction is reversible or non-reversible.
I think rechargeable batteries are better because, once they die you just plug them in and they recharge using electricity. They are cheaper over time because when they die or lose all electricity you don’t have to run to the store and buy more batteries you just plug them into the outlet.
Non-rechargeable batteries are worse because if they die out then you have to run to the store and buy more. Which over time will cost more than just recharging a battery. Also, to make more batteries it will take more chemicals to make that reaction to get the electricity. With a rechargeable battery it just takes more electricity.
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:30 PM GMT0 •
comment (11) • Reads 1157
|
|
Austin W -- Hybrid cars vs. Gasoline cars
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:17 PM GMT0 •
comment (12) • Reads 1091
|
|
I believe that the hybrid car is the key to the future. The internal combustion engine which is powered by gasoline is just to hazardous to our environment and expensive. Here's a shocker, did you know that yearly in the United States a passenger car emits 11,450 lbs. of carbon dioxide. This is one of the caused of ozone depletion and also the pollution of our air which we breath.
The hybrid car does not emit as much carbon dioxide as the gasoline powered car. Many companies such as Ford, Mercury, and Toyota now produce hybrid trucks, cars, and SUV's. Some of them are the Ford Escape Hybrid, and the Mercury Mariner Hybrid. Most hybrids run off battery power which needs to be recharged. But there are ways to solve this problem. Scientists are working on a car that will run off battery until it gets low, and then the gasoline powered engine will take over while the battery is recharging. The U.S. Military and Federal Express have even started experimenting with hybrid vehicles. Some hybrid trucks and buses are and have been developed and are being used.
SOURCES:
www.wikipedia.org/Hybrid_cars
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile
By: Austin
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:17 PM GMT0 •
comment (12) • Reads 1091
|
|
Ia W -- The (should be) Cars Of The Future: Hybrids V.S. Regular cars
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:08 PM GMT0 •
comment (17) • Reads 1039
|
|
Hybrids V.S. Regular cars
In my opinion I believe that hybrid cars are better than regular cars and we should start using only hybrids. Hybrids have more pros than cons and this is the main reason why I have these beliefs. With hybrids, gas mileage will go down, car exhaustion will have less pollutant material, and there will be less car maintenance.
With all of these advantages the results will be mining, less use of non-renewable resources, and fewer replaced parts (brake pads.) One bad thing is the difficulty of the maintenance. Since it involves electronics that means all mechanics will have to get a degree in computer science and the work will become even more difficult. One other problem would be charging it and how inconvenient it would be to plug it in all the time. Even though the work would become harder and charging it would be a hassle I still believe we should make this change.
By: Ian
Work sited at http://ezinearticles.com/?Hybrid-Cars-Vs-Gas-Cars---Pros-and-Cons&id=414266
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:08 PM GMT0 •
comment (17) • Reads 1039
|
|
Scott W -- What Your Hybrid Doesn't Want You To Know
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:31 PM GMT0 •
comment (9) • Reads 1109
|
|
Nowadays cars are trying to be new and have less environmentally unsafe Co2 emissions and the cars that everyone wants are hybrids. But are hybrids really any better than the original gas and diesel powered cars of old? I say no, this answer may shock you, but hybrids are only slightly more efficient than a regular gasoline powered car, but hybrids are more complex than regular cars, and cost a great deal more to repair and the batteries that hybrids use are expensive to replace or recharge. Hybrids have less power output than regular cars and while they have low gas usage low emissions in city driving, when hybrids have to drive on the highway, their emissions and fuel consumption are not much better than their gasoline and diesel powered competitors. Also, diesel powered cars can run on biodiesel a very environmentally friendly fuel that is dropping in price as availability for this new fuel increases. Even gasoline powered cars can decrease their emissions if ethanol is added to their tanks. So, with simple precautions, a car that runs on gasoline or diesel fuel can be as efficient and environmentally safe as the new hybrid cars, but for a lower price.
Sources:
http://www.volkswagon.com
http://www.wikipedia.org
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:31 PM GMT0 •
comment (9) • Reads 1109
|
|
TB -- excuse me..paper or plastic ma'am?
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:35 PM GMT0 •
comment (16) • Reads 906
|
|
Paper vs. Plastic bags
Beep..beep..beep..paper or plastic ma’am? It doesn’t seem like that big of a question but when it really comes down to it this could be a huge decision. This simple question can mean more than picking your case on deal or no deal. You never really stop to think “I wonder which one will help our world’s problems we are facing this day?” I think that this problem can take the pro and con side not only because of what I have read and researched about but because we have yet another available choice, reusable bags. It has been estimated that 1 trillion plastic bags are made every year and only about 1/3 of them are used. Also, it is said that the United States consumes 380 billion plastic bags every year and only about ¼ are recycled. From what I have researched and learned I have come to the conclusion that reusable bags need to be made more in order for our economy to be made better in just a little way. I think that when “pessimists” say that something this simple thing can’t help our environment, they are wrong. It could be the start to something completely new and improve this planet more than anyone could think. So I suggest that next time you go to the store you stop and think about that “easy” decision of what kind of bag you want. If that decision could change our world, I would make the smartest choice..wouldn’t you?
http://www.reusablebags.com/facts.php
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:35 PM GMT0 •
comment (16) • Reads 906
|
|
AD -- VROOOM or DOOOOM
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:39 PM GMT0 •
comment (20) • Reads 1255
|
|
You may ask, "what exactly is a hybrid car?" Hybrid cars are vehicles that have 2 types of engines working together; a standard gas powered engine and an electric motor assist powered by a rechargeable nicked-metal hydrade battery pack. These vehicles have higher gas mileage and lower engine exhaust emissions.
Some pros of hybrids consist of: 80% cleaner running than regular cars, environment friendly, low emissions, an 8 year warranty, and if driven responsibly, our oil consumption will drop. Some cons include: they do not consist of high speeds fr the highway, some of the cars have waiting lists, and they cost a few thousand more than their conventional gas-engine counterparts. They have things such as regenerative braking, periodic engine shut-off, advanced aerodynamics, low-rolling resistance tires, and lightweight materials. I personally think hybrid cars would do us better now and in the future. Are you will to make the Earth cleaner and healthier? I am.
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:39 PM GMT0 •
comment (20) • Reads 1255
|
|
CD -- Light Bulb Super Bright Mania
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:43 PM GMT0 •
comment (19) • Reads 1049
|
|
I have chosen to research the issue of fluorescent light bulbs and their impact on the environment compared to the more commonly used incandescent light bulbs. My position is that fluorescent lights have a much more positive impact on the environment. The Union of Concerned Scientists has stated that if every home in the USA would replace one incandescent light bulb with a fluorescent, it would prevent ninety billion pounds of greenhouse gas emission from power plants. That is equal to taking 7.5 million cars off the road. Besides saving you money on energy costs (compact fluorescent light bulbs use about two-thirds less energy for the same amount of light as incandescent lights, and also last longer), this is clearly a major help for the environment. It's also a help for your safety, because fluorescent lights conduct seventy percent less heat than incandescent light bulbs.
One drawback brought up by many who don't endorse the use of fluorescent light bulbs is that they contain mercury, which is hazardous to our health. It is highly suggested that consumers recycle the bulbs after using them. This prevents mercury ending up in landfills and causing harm to us. But companies are actually currently working on creating fluorescent light bulbs with less mercury.
I believe that if people are responsible and recycle the light bulbs then this drawback won't have a negative affect. There should perhaps be stricter guidelines for large companies not using fluorescent light bulbs, and even those using them, (to make sure they are properly getting rid of them after use) to avoid corporate carelessness resulting in danger to the environment and people.
http://www.atlantalightbulbs.com/pages/alto3.html
http://environment.about.com/od/greenlvingdesign/a/light_bulbs.htm
http://www.nema.org/stds/lamps-env.cfm
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:43 PM GMT0 •
comment (19) • Reads 1049
|
|
EF -- Should you care what your food travels in?
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:42 PM GMT0 •
comment (18) • Reads 1050
|
|
Paper vs. Plastic
I believe that plastic bags are more environmentally friendly than paper bags. Plastic bags have more advantages than disadvantages. The advantages are that they only require generated electricity from the burning of old tires (made from rubber, which is plastic). Paper, on the other hand, is made with harmful chemicals, electricity, and dangerous emissions come from the machinery. The plastic bags can be reused (garbage liners, to hold other material, etc.), and they can be recycled by re-melting and re-forming. Also, after they are recycled over and over, they become brittle allowing them to be made into other materials (mouse pads, doormats, etc.). The paper bags require many trees to manufacture them causing less oxygen, less homes for animals, and more sunlight on bodies of water (making the water heat up, which is bad for the water organisms). Also, to create the paper bags it takes many gallons of water. Even though plastic takes many years to disintegrate in landfills, there is also an advantage. It helps to decrease the landfills mass. Plastics make up 18%of waste in landfills by volume and 7% by weight. They take up little space, and if replaced by other materials, trash would increase by 150%. This means that energy consumed by the industry in packaging would increase 100%. Personally, I like plastic bags more than paper bags, because they are more convenient to use than paper. My family and I reuse them on a daily basis.
Sources:
http://www.greenfeet.net/newsletter/debate.shtml
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:42 PM GMT0 •
comment (18) • Reads 1050
|
|
AH -- re-chicka chicka-charge it
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:38 PM GMT0 •
comment (18) • Reads 1160
|
|
Rechargeable Batteries vs. Throwing Away Batteries
In my opinion, rechargeable batteries are a wonderful idea compared to throwing away batteries. Rechargeable batteries can be recharged and reused after they are “dead”; however, regular batteries cannot be recharged and reused. Once they are dead, they are dead, and they just take up space in landfills.
Even though regular throw away batteries cost less than rechargeable batteries, they are still pretty expensive considering they only last a few days. Some rechargeable batteries plus charger are relatively cheap, considering they have the possibility of lasting up to 3000 charges or more. I purchased my rechargeable batteries and charger for only $10.00, and the batteries hold a charge for a longer time period than regular batteries.
When you throw away batteries there is no way to be certain that the toxic acid is completely drained from the battery; if the battery leaks, those toxic chemicals are being put into the earth and possibly into the water table. In China, it is proven that the toxic chemicals corporations dump into streams and on the ground can find their way into water tables. Then the people drinking that specific water have a higher risk of developing cancer. A perfect example of this is a region nicknamed “Cancer Valley” in China, one of the areas that is most affected by dumping chemicals because their water table is so polluted many of the residents in that area have developed cancer.
In my opinion, rechargeable batteries are so much better than regular batteries because they last longer and they also keep toxic chemicals out of landfills.
SOURCES:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:38 PM GMT0 •
comment (18) • Reads 1160
|
|
JH -- Where does the Energizer Bunny go?
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:33 PM GMT0 •
comment (16) • Reads 1200
|
|
Rechargeable batteries vs. throw away batteries
It is my belief that we should all invest in rechargeable batteries instead of throw away batteries. They are better for the environment and can be recycled, without causing any extra trouble for the user (unless you count the charging). By doing this, you prevent all the chemicals inside a normal battery from leaking into the ground, perhaps contaminating our groundwater and damaging wildlife populations and their habitats in the area.
The average household uses 21 batteries a year; the UK generates 20,000 - 30,000 tons of general-purpose battery waste every year, but less than 1,000 tons are recycled. Most of these batteries are placed in landfills, where the heavy metals they contain may leak into the ground if disposed of incorrectly. This can pollute both soil and water as well as endanger wildlife.
Rechargeable batteries, on the other hand, not only have a longer energy life; they also reduce the number of batteries requiring disposal. Although 80% of them contain nickel cadmium (a known human carcinogen) and need to be disposed of safely, I feel they are less of a threat to the environment, as well as being more convenient.
Resources:
http://www.wasteonline.org.uk/
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:33 PM GMT0 •
comment (16) • Reads 1200
|
|
PK -- Diaper Decision Dilemma
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:00 PM GMT0 •
comment (9) • Reads 1085
|
|
Cloth vs. regular diapers
In earlier years cloth diapers were used all the time, but now we use plastic, polyester, or as we call, regular diapers. As you may notice back then when they used the cloth-like diapers, they didn’t have anywhere near as many environmental problems as we do now. In the United States, it was estimated a few years ago that we sold and used about 27.4 billion disposable diapers. Another reason we should not use disposable diapers is because 92% of them end up in land fills. Looking at all of the statistics I found on the link at the bottom of this page, it makes me wonder what people don’t get. How can you possibly look at all these estimations and not agree that these simple things can change our environment in a huge way? I think that cloth diapers should come back in, just like a dressing style, because they can simply help our environment change into like a new place to live.
http://krichert.wordpress.com/category/cloth-diapers/
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 06:00 PM GMT0 •
comment (9) • Reads 1085
|
|
KM -- Charge or Not to Charge?
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:40 PM GMT0 •
comment (9) • Reads 1022
|
|
Many people don't understand that Rechargeable batteries are the way to go. You save money and time by spending a large sum of money on something that will last months, did you know rechargeable batteries last up to 3000 charges? This way you can use them over and over. By buying batteries that you can throw away they die easily and then you have to waste gas to go to the store and buy more. In time the cost of buying them catches up with you, and wastes natural resources. Throw-away realized toxic chemicals into the earth. Although many batteries can be recycled it doesn't always help. Wouldn't it be better to recycle batteries you have used for a long time? Or recycle some every month? It's a quick and easy choice. Did you know that there were 507,259,000 batteries sold in California in the year 2001. According to survey results published in the report, only 0.55% of these batteries were recycled. That is a horrible alternative, and a truly universal waste. So it shouldn't take much thought - spend your money on something you can use forever, like you would do for clothing and food.
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:40 PM GMT0 •
comment (9) • Reads 1022
|
|
LM -- the battle between glass and plastic.
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:52 PM GMT0 •
comment (12) • Reads 1005
|
|
I believe that glass containers are better for the environment than plastic containers. Most people have glass plates, bowls, and cups in their cabinets. You take out a glass, pour yourself something to drink, drink it, wash it, and put it away. If we usually reuse our glassware, why is it that when we buy something that is packaged in a glass container that we throw it in the trash? It is perfect for recycling. Here are a few reasons why: they require less energy to recycle than plastic; they use no fossil fuels, and are easy to recycle. On the other hand, we are living in 2008. Not everyone is in a place where they can easily reuse their glass containers. Therefore, people seem to choose disposable bottles, which are usually made of plastic. Plastic degrades very slowly and can harm the environment. Burning plastic has a very negative effect on the environment. “Ok, so if I don’t burn my plastic bottles, everything will be fine.” But most people don’t realize that to form the bottles, plastic has to be burnt, letting off a lot of air pollution. Plastic has been proven to be hard to recycle. But, recycling is still a better alternative than throwing it away. Recycling a single plastic bottle can conserve enough energy to light a 60W lightbulb for up to 6 hours. But, did you know that when recycling glass, the glass is made into cullet, which is just broken glass, but lowers the melting temperature and saves on energy? Also, by recycling glass it reduces related air pollution by 20% and related water pollution by 50%. In my opinion, glass is a much better alternative than plastic.
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:52 PM GMT0 •
comment (12) • Reads 1005
|
|
AM -- Which diaper reigns supreme? Cloth or Disposable?
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:40 PM GMT0 •
comment (12) • Reads 1024
|
|
I believe cloth diapers are better than disposable diapers for many reasons. On big reason is that disposable diapers are thrown away and are sent to landfills, whereas cloth diapers do not fill landfills. Diapers do not break down so they will sit in landfills forever. Cloth diapers do not stain your babies clothes. Also, they are environmentally friendly which is very good for the environment. Washing a piece of cloth is very easy when you think of how much damage you are doing when you throw away a diaper. Another reason for cloth diapers is that they reduce the need for gels and creams because they reduce diaper rash. The cost of diapers is usually a great concern for most parents. Cost estimates show that disposable diapers will run approximately $50 to $80 per month, using a diaper services will cost approximately $50 to $80 per month and laundering your own cloth diapers will cost slightly less at approximately $25 to $60 per month. In my opinion cloth beats diapers any day.
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:40 PM GMT0 •
comment (12) • Reads 1024
|
|
JN -- Paper and Plastic: Fueling the Next Depression
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:57 PM GMT0 •
comment (12) • Reads 1160
|
|
A couple of years ago, I was driving along the road with my dad. I asked him, “why are there more plastic products along the curve and not any paper products; he said, “it’s because plastic takes longer to degrade, and some plastics can survive for hundreds of years. Paper on the other hand, degrades quickly and recycling is a lot easier.”
There is a great problem with this however. Plastic is made out of oil products, and oil is in danger of being a costly and rare item in the near future. Plus, paper is not a reasonable resource because, trees are decreasing in number, and paper can only be used in certain situations- you can’t drink a sierra mist out of a paper bottle.
If only we can invent a type of plastic that is not made of oil and is degradable within days of being discarded. Furthermore a paper that isn’t made out of trees.
It is not a question of paper vs. plastic- it is a matter of finding a new resource. Everyday, we sacrifice hundreds of thousands of trees, and innumerable gallons of oil to fuel our economy. This must stop, our thirst for these products will not end in a comfortable resolve, a lot must be sacrificed. We have to find that miracle compound, though I cannot hint onto what this miracle resource would be consisted of, I only know that in our vast world of various matter, it has to exist.
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:57 PM GMT0 •
comment (12) • Reads 1160
|
|
CQ -- What Type of Bag is Better?
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:33 PM GMT0 •
comment (13) • Reads 1121
|
|
If I were given the choice between paper bags and plastic bags, I would not choose either of these two because they both pollute the world. Making paper bags kills about 14 million trees. Plastic bags take about 1,000 years to decompose. Because both paper and plastic bags are harmfully to the environment, I would prefer a cloth bag. I would use a cloth bag made of 100% cotton. A cloth bag can be reusable, therefore using one will save resources. I would also say they do not use a bunch of trees to make or a lot of time to decompose. As you can see I would rather use cloth bags instead of plastic or paper bags. If more people chose to do this with me, it would help the environment greatly.
Resources
The Oprah Winfrey Show
www.google.com
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:33 PM GMT0 •
comment (13) • Reads 1121
|
|
HR -- What do YOU think?
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:42 PM GMT0 •
comment (12) • Reads 1500
|
|
Paper vs. Plastic Bags Heather Rodgers Pd. 7
When given the choice between paper and plastic bags, I believe that paper bags should be chosen. There are many reasons why I feel that choosing paper over plastic would be helpful to our environment. First, plastic bags are not biodegradable. It takes roughly 1,000 years for a plastic bag to break down. Also, plastic bags are a pollutant to our environment. Because it takes so long for plastic bags to degrade, they become brittle and break up into tiny pieces, which stay in the ground. Paper bags, on the other hand, can easily degrade and cause little or no pollution. It takes only 17 trees to make a ton of paper. In papermaking, many of the trees used would be harvested or die anyway. Trees are a renewable resource while petroleum, a base ingredient for plastic bags, is not. Furthermore, trees used for paper can be grown domestically, whereas petroleum is mainly imported. I feel that as long as no new trees are cut in the process of making the bags, paper bags should be used. Whether you decide to used paper bags or plastic bags, you can do your part to help the environment by recycling them.
Sources Used:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index:qid=1006042310690
http://www.tappi.org/paperu/all_about_paper/earth_answers/Howmuch3.htm
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:42 PM GMT0 •
comment (12) • Reads 1500
|
|
IS -- Will you make the wise decision next time at the grocery store?
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:35 PM GMT0 •
comment (12) • Reads 1014
|
|
Paper or Plastic?
Each and every time you go to the grocery store, you are asked the question if you want paper or plastic bags. Most people don’t realize that their answer to this simple question could affect the environmental conditions for their children and grandchildren.
There are many disadvantages of using plastic bags. Plastics bags are made of petrochemicals, which come from oil and are nonrenewable resources. Plastic bags are also hazardous and can easily cause a wildfire. Plastic bags are dangerous for infants, as they can suffocate. However, there are several advantages of using plastic bags. They are resistant to water as well as chemicals and are very cheap to produce in large quantities. There is an estimated 4 trillion plastic bags used each year world wide, but only one percent of these are returned for recycling.
A single paper bag takes centuries to disintegrate in a landfill. There is an estimated 10 billion paper bags used each year in the US alone. This cuts down 14 million trees.
After researching both plastic and paper bags, I came to the conclusion that the best solution would be to use a recyclable tote as a grocery bag. So the next time that you go to the grocery store, carry your own reusable bag. A recyclable bag will not fill up the landfills. They aren’t nearly as hazardous as paper or plastic, which both eat up unnecessary natural resources and cause immense pollution to our environment.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_shopping_bag
http://www.myownbag.com/activism.html
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:35 PM GMT0 •
comment (12) • Reads 1014
|
|
MW -- Paper or plastic? That truly is the question.
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:34 PM GMT0 •
comment (9) • Reads 1083
|
|
At some point in your life you have been asked the question that has been asked on a daily basis for many years. I am of course talking about the dreaded “paper or plastic.” Chances are that you and I share a healthy skepticism about each alternative. In this report I will give you, the reader, some information so that the next time you go into the grocery store, you can make the right choice.
Let’s start with plastic. Plastic bags have been used for as long as anyone can remember. Plastic bags can be an easy option because they are light-weight, flexible and they stretch to meet your needs, what’s not to like? Also because it is so light-weight, if plastic was to be replaced by other materials, trash weight would increase by 150% and energy used by the industry would increase by 100%. Beyond all this is the true and simple truth that plastic bags just don’t go away. They can stay intact for thousands of years without decomposing. Plastic also has some impacts on the environment too. When a plastic bag is manufactured half of the electricity used comes from nuclear fission. This of course makes nuclear waste and it is obviously harmful. Another drawback is that burning plastic to get rid of it can also be harmful. The plastic itself when burned is harmful enough because the ashes are toxic. Besides that the dyes in the bags are very poisonous if inhaled.
Next I will move on to paper bags. Paper bags are often much bulkier than plastic but they are much sturdier which is a definite plus. One of the only environmental problems with paper bags are that they require the cutting down of trees. Another plus with the paper bag however, is that they are easily reusable and recyclable. Paper bags can be reused in the form of crafts, and other household jobs.
All in all, this should answer any questions about the great bag debate. So you may be wondering, what exactly is the better choice? That is something you need to decide for yourself. Personally I side with the paper bag but that’s just me. I hoped that after reading this you will be able to make the right choice.
http://www.greenfeet.net/newsletter/debate.shtml
|
|
Article posted January 7, 2008 at 07:34 PM GMT0 •
comment (9) • Reads 1083
|
|
MW -- h-h-h-hybrid
Article posted January 8, 2008 at 06:50 PM GMT0 •
comment (18) • Reads 886
|
|
With the overwhelming gas prices you see when driving past any local fuel station nowadays, you start to wonder if there are any other alternatives to fueling your car without using your whole pay check to get to the next city. In fact, there are many alternatives to this and one of the most booming is a hybrid vehicle. A hybrid car is a car that uses its own energy system to better the mileage than any conventional oil-run vehicle. I do believe that America, at least, should be using these hybrids rather than sucking up all of the oil from other countries that we will never be able to renew. Some people argue that hybrid cars say they will get a certain mile to the gallon and then they fall short. When really, according to Consumer Reports magazine, most cars on the lot anywhere you go do the same, whether or not they’re hybrid. Another argument may be that you’re paying an arm and a leg just to save money maybe in fifteen years or so. This statement would be true, if only they calculated this information with the gas prices that they are right now. Take in example the Honda Civic Hybrid, this vehicle runs about five thousand dollars more than the regular Honda Civic and the buyer would only start seeing the savings benefits in more than a dozen years. This statistic is based on that gas is going at two dollars and forty cents a gallon. Now, if at anytime recently you’ve seen a gas station you know that this is almost a dollar off. What does this mean? It means that the buyer would start to see the savings in much less time than expected and counteracts the argument that hybrid cars don’t start to pay off soon after you purchase it. One of the final points, and in my opinion the strongest, is that it benefits the environment. As stated before, hybrid cars run on their own energy, or battery pack. This means that instead of an electric car, which needs to be supplied by an outside source to fuel it, hybrids have their own and lessen the amount of energy put into using it. This can reduce the amount of greenhouse gases put into the atmosphere and also decreases the amount of gasoline used everyday. Even if you’re not an environmentalist, hybrid cars are the way to go.
Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_electric_vehicle
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=435228
|
|
Article posted January 8, 2008 at 06:50 PM GMT0 •
comment (18) • Reads 886
|
|
NW -- Your baby doesn't care, why should you?
Article posted January 8, 2008 at 04:07 PM GMT0 •
comment (9) • Reads 944
|
|
When you are planning on having a baby, shouldn’t you think of how they will grow up in today’s ever expanding world? Well think of this. You have a baby and you use disposable diapers thinking that all is well. Well that’s not necessarily the case. Disposable diapers are filled with cellulose pulp and super absorbent polymers. What’s that you may ask? Well that’s what stops the diaper from leaking. That’s not a good thing though. The absorbent polymers are not biodegradable meaning that they will always be there and cannot be broken down. Cloth diapers on the other hand, although not as leak-proof as disposable ones, can be washed and reused. Some people argue this by saying that in order to clean the diapers you need electricity and that’s true. There’s less damage being done by washing the diapers than with landfills filling up with diaper polymers.
|
|
Article posted January 8, 2008 at 04:07 PM GMT0 •
comment (9) • Reads 944
| |
Latest 10 Comments:
|