Applied Materials is a major supplier of equipment to the semiconductor industry. In many ways the innovations by Applied Materials enables the rest of the semiconductor industry to continue moving forward. In any case they have made a series of acquisitions of companies specializing in solar power manufacturing tools. The latest is Baccini, a European company specializing in manufacturing tools.
A report titled 'the State of Green Business' is discussed, written by some people from 'Greener World Media'. State that businesses are making progress on environmental issues, however it seems insufficient to significantly reduce environmental threats. Supposedly an increase in companies recognizing the importance of pursuing environmentally sound policies.
It seems the businesses surrounding us, the businesses that fill our stores with products, that these businesses are dependent on ever growing sales. The stock market values companies whose earnings are always growing, and punish those whose earnings are stagnant or declining. But, what does this have to do with "use it once and throw it away"?
It used to be that products were reliable, that they would last for years, that you could repair things, and that people did actually repair things and keep using them for years on end. Today most products are cheaply built, they don't last, they are unrepairable, they tend to fall apart quickly, and many products are meant to be used only once and then thrown away.
If a product can only be used once doesn't this encourage more consumption of products? If your eating utensils are plastic and unwashable, then you have to buy a new set of them after every meal. If your pen cannot be refilled then you have to buy a whole new pen, rather than buying just a refill. If your MP3 player cannot have its battery replaced, if the circuit board is too complex to repair, what do you do when it breaks? It goes on and on like this with product after product.
This makes for an ever increasing flow of stuff being sent to landfills, and ever increasing destruction of the planet to make raw materials. Well, to be precise there is always a constantly increase in products being made simply because the population constantly increases. But I think that compounding the ever increasing population is the higher quantity per person on the rate of consumption, that we are consuming more per person than did our ancestors.
Making any raw material, whether it's a metal, a plastic, a fabric, or a wood, requires taking some sort of resource and converting it to the raw material. For example it might mean mining and smelting copper ore, and the copper ore is gotten by tearing rocks out of the depths of the earth or in some cases by destroying mountains. Producing the copper leaves a residue of many other chemicals and slag left over from the industrial processes. And, then, say the raw material is turned into a product that's used once, and thrown away. This isn't making very good use of the resources given to us by the planet. An ever increasing use of raw material means an ever increasing destruction of the planet.
If a resource is reused multiple times then that planetary destruction rate is lessened. But a use-once-and-toss paradigm hastens planetary destruction.
Our ancestors did a lot of recycling through simply reusing discarded stuff. Recycling and repairing used to be normal, but today recycling seems to be so completely foreign that one almost has to beg and plead with everyone to get them to recycle.
A short, academic essay on plastic grocery bags and their environmental impact: http://www.healthgoods.com/Education/Environment_Information/Solid_Waste/paper_or_plastic.htm Reduce: How to reduce the number of plastic grocery bags used by yourself and your community The main way people seem to be working to reduce the usage of plastic grocery bags is through the use of reusable canvas bags.
...This segment from National Public Radio on the San Francisco plastic grocery bag ban: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=8888798 9.... This article discusses California law AB2449 which requires retailers to sell reusable bags and to provide for recycling of plastic grocery bags: http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2007/jul/11/grocery-bags-get-recycled/ Recycle: Here’s information on how and where to recycle plastic grocery bags Many stores now recycle shopping bags.... An article on How to Recycle Plastic Grocery Bags http://www.ehow.com/how_10885_recycle-plastic-grocery.html Reuse: Here are some great resources to give you ideas on how to reuse plastic grocery bags Reusing the bags is an great idea especially if it allows you to reduce or eliminate some other material you’re currently purchasing.
Charlotte Brody is the executive director of Commonweal, an organization that works on health and environmental issues. I recently heard her speak at the Bioneers 2007 conference about chemical pollution in the environment, and how much of it mimics estrogen and is leading to biological mutation of sex characteristics in all kinds of animals.
There's a large number of chemicals which haven't been tested for their effects on humans. Generally the chemicals which are tested are ones which end up in food or beverage or drugs or other things which people consume into their bodies. Other chemicals aren't tested. But any chemical that's used to make anything will eventually get into the environment. A product will eventually end up broken and discarded by its owner, and end up in e.g. a landfill or an incinerator or dumped in the ocean etc. Eventually the environment will break that product down to its constituent chemicals and those chemicals will leach into the air, water, soil, etc. Every product goes through this, and every chemical used to make every product eventually ends up in the environment.
One effect from these chemicals is they mimic estrogen, and this ends up mutating sex characteristics of many animals. There are studies of fish showing multi-sex characteristics, having both male and female sex organs. This shows up in humans as well, especially in places with high levels of chemical contamination. She described an indiginous settlement in Ontario, across from Port Huron Michigan, where the ratio of baby boys to baby girls is 1/3 boys and 2/3 girls. Normally the ratio is slightly more than 50% baby boys. This happens elsewhere, and she described a village in Greenland where no baby boys are born.
You might think, Greenland? How is Greenland having chemical contamination? They don't have any industry. While this is true, there is a curious effect with the spread of chemical pollutants. Certain compounds are persistent, in that they don't break down and the global environment causes these compounds to collect in the polar regions in abnormally high concentrations. See Having Faith for a detailed discussion. Hence, even though the polar regions like Greenland don't have their own industry, they are chemically contaminated by the industry which occurs further south.
She makes an interesting point that this is a "common wound". We are all affected (wounded) by the chemical contamination of our environment. We all drink water and eat food and breath air and this affects us all.
Our health is being violated without our permission. The decisions which lead to the chemical contamination of our world, they're made far removed from where the typical person on the street has any input. These decisions are made inside corporations, legislatures, research labs, etc. The result of these decisions is the contamination of us all, one result of which is the confused sex characteristics I just mentioned.
This caused Charlotte Brody to suggest a Marxist view of this -- as in, "Who controls the means of production". I don't think she would call herself a Marxist, but she is raising an interesting question. Who controls what chemicals are used in the production of products around us? Who determines the burden of proof and other methods to decide which chemicals to use?
The default burden of proof currently used is to require that a given chemical be shown to be harmful before it can be banned. This has given industry an open road to using pretty much any chemical they desire, regardless of its safety or lack thereof. A different approach might be to require all chemicals be studied and shown to be safe, before they are allowed to be used.
But this leads to the other idea she discussed. There is a long history of environmental activists who get attacked by business and government. She especially focused on the story of Rachel Carson and how she was accused of being a hysterical bitch. The rhetoric defenses from business, when they feel threatened, is rarely to engage in a reasoned debate. But instead they accuse the activist of trying to stop all commerce, trying to overthrow the state, etc.
Businesses and governments have survival traits as do people and other animals. Businesses and governments can feel threatened, and if one suggests a given chemical must be banned because it's unhealthy then the maker of that chemical will feel threatened.
Carol Bebelle is a writer and poet living in New Orleans and I recently heard her talk (at the Bioneers 2007 conference) about the rebuilding of New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina. She talked at length eloquently about the rebuilding of the city and its culture. A city is more than buildings, it is people and all the things that go into being human beings. She talked of ceremonies and culture and artwork and more that brings the life of humans into a city.
She described New Orleans as being 2 years into a rebuilding process which will take another 8 years to accomplish. Wow.
She also talked about an opportunity presented by the destruction of New Orleans. That opportunity is to rebuild the city in an idealistic new model rather than simply returning to the old form. While I agree the opportunity is there, and while I agree that we humans desire more 'green' technology and buildings and cityscape, I doubt the rebuilt New Orleans will be a bright perfect city exemplary of green ideals.
The history of humankind has many destroyed cities ravaged by natural disasters from earthquakes to fires to storms to flooding to land subsidance and more. New Orleans is only a recent example.
Consider the plight of San Francisco in 1903. That city was razed to the ground by earthquake damage and the resulting fires, and the people very clearly had the opportunity to rebuild their city in a bright and wonderful new layout and plan. They even considered doing so. But did they? Nope. They reused the same streetplan etc, though they did learn a few things about building safety in earthquake zones.
When disaster happens and destroys a city ... the people who survive are facing a destroyed world. What will they do? They have two choices: a) Recreate the world they know, b) reinvent their world in a better way of some kind
I've never lived through the destruction of a city. The closest I've come is looking at houses destroyed by tornado's. But I can imaging that the survivors of destruction are going to be traumatized. Duh. And traumatized people aren't always going to make the best choices.
Still, I wish New Orleans the best. I wish them to rebuild their city in the bestest way they possibly can.
A leading international renewable energy company and operates in over 20 countries across 5 continents. We manufacture components and systems for generating solar electricity as well as solar thermal hot water systems.
