Your eco-questions answered:
Question: Do you have any sources on recycling in Orange County? We live in an apartment [in Yorba Linda], where there isn't (apparently) recycling available. (Management says that the trash stream gets recycled separately, but I'm way skeptical.) I used to live in Seattle, and I can't get used to not recycling stuff. — Greg
Answer: Your management is actually telling the truth. The city of Yorba Linda contracts with Taormina Industries for trash and recycling services. While homeowners get 3 bins (one for yard waste, one for mixed recyclables, and one for everything else) in Yorba Linda, commercial and apartment trash all goes into one bin, which then gets sorted to fish out the recyclables.
As I mentioned before, this unsorted recycling process (a.k.a. dirty MRF-ing) tends to have lower recovery rates than pre-sorted recycling -- so pushing your local government for apartment recycling bins could still be a good idea.
In the meantime, use Earth911.org to quickly locate the recycling center nearest you.
Photos by concrete cornfields via Flickr
Your eco-questions, answered:
 Question: I'm a Santa Monica resident and have a question for you: Do you think there is anything we can do to stop the use of leaf-blowers in LA/SM? I understand that they are illegal, but every single day I see one being used in my 'hood. Currently, I do call the number and report offenders, but I'm just not feeling like it's doing any good in the long term.
If the city can bother itself to ticket street-cleaning violators $47 a pop, why don't they take this environmental disaster seriously enough and have some sort of patrol? Is it because they can't make any money off gardeners? Anyway, I would really appreciate your thoughts on the topic. -- Callie
 Answer: Yes, those noisy and polluting leaf blowers are indeed illegal in Santa Monica and restricted in Los Angeles. And you're not alone in hatin' on the blowers. I too dutifully call in leaf blower violations -- and I too have dealt with the frustration of calling in every week without ever seeing permanent results.
But I did a little research, and now feel a bit more optimistic!
Here's what to do if you've got a chronic leaf blower problem in your 'hood: Call your local Neighborhood Resource Officer, or NRO. Yep -- each patrol beat in Santa Monica got its own NRO in January; you can find your NRO -- along with his (yes, they are all men) phone number, e-mail, and smiling mug on the SMPD website.
Described by the Santa Monica Police Department as a "small town sheriff," the NRO is there to serve as "the direct link between the community and the Police Department." Recurring problems -- such as weekly leaf blowing -- that can't be handled via a regular call can be reported to the NRO for more efficacious resolution.
In addition, the SMPD is working on a leaf blower door tag notice to let offenders know about the law against leaf blowers. According to Sergeant Renaldi Thruston, the Community Relations person at the Santa Monica Police Department, leaf blowers are low on the priority list for police officers -- meaning that by the time an officer actually responds to your leaf blower-related complaint, the blowing's usually stopped and the blower long gone. That, as you can imagine, makes it difficult for police officers to prevent the problem from occurring again.
 Enter the leaf blower door tag. These (samples at right) can be hung by the police officer on the door of the offending property. The tags explain the anti-blower law in both English and Spanish. In addition, the bottom of the tag can be torn off to be given to the gardener, informing them about the law too.
The tags aren't being used yet because they're still going through a review process. However, Thruston says that he expects the police force to start using the tags next month.
So Callie -- I suggest either calling your NRO to report your problems now, or waiting until the end of June or so to see if your problem gets taken care of by the door tags (if not, then definitely call your NRO).
I don't, however, support the idea of having a police patrol to address this issue. Why? I get a LOT of e-mails from various Santa Monica residents asking why we don't have patrols for their specific pet peeve. Everyone has a different one -- Styrofoam use, lawn overwatering, dog poop on the sidewalk, etc., etc. -- and each feels their peeve deserves its own police patrol. While I feel these are legitimate enviro issues, instituting police patrols for all these things would mean 1) paying crazy taxes, 2) living in something that feels a bit like a police state.
I think our time and efforts would be better spent simply letting the city know when something's not working, then complaining loudly enough that the city hears it. Take this leaf blower issue, for instance. Clearly, enough people complained about this that the police dept. decided they needed to do something to address it -- then came the NRO thing and work on door tags.
Sometimes, I think that if Santa Monica residents who send me complaints about city issues simply made the effort to send those complaints directly to the appropriate person in the city itself, we'd get the issues resolved a lot more quickly and efficiently...
Lastly, if you're an L.A. resident who wants the city to address leaf blower problems -- Ha ha! Tee hee! Okay, just kidding (sort of). Call it in both to your police department ( [800] 996-CITY) and your City Council member, and if you're up to it, rally your neighbors around the issue to collectively push your council member to take stronger steps to resolve the issue.
Top image courtesy of zapla.org; photos by Siel
Your eco-questions answered:
 Question: I was reading your blog and noticed that you've been hanging out in the 818 (the Valley). I recently just got rid of my car (long story, but it was a lemon) and have been somewhat car-less for the last couple of weeks and enjoying it. I freelance, so I commute only about twice a week and for those occasions I carpool with my husband (he still has his car, hence the "somewhat" car-less).
Anyway, I was curious how you traveled to the Valley from Santa Monica. I ask only because I'm trying to gather other recommended modes of transportation from fellow car-less folks. Did you cab it or do that hourly car rental thing (forgot the name)? I live in the Valley and I love to hear the best way you've found to travel between the Valley and Santa Monica. Cheers, Liza
Answer: First of all, congrats on the de-car'd lifestyle! Second, it's car-free, not car-less :)
Third, to say I've been "hanging out in the Valley" is not quite accurate, especially as I have many readers who get angry because I allegedly don't give the Valley enough attention or because I make fun of it (my ribbing's just jovial teasing, people).
In any case, I only go to the Valley a few times a year! It's simply that I happened to make two trips last month. Once in a blue moon, I have to rent a car for the weekend -- and when I do, I make a trip to a relatively faraway L.A. spot and hit all the places there I've been meaning to visit. That's why I have a buncha recent posts highlighting places in the Valley -- all of those were from one trip.
The second trip was to a party at my friend's who'd just moved to the Valley. I did that by bus, and it wasn't a happy trip due to the buses not showing up or being late.
This also answers your main question: No, it is not easy getting from Santa Monica to the Valley sans car, IMHO. However, I did notice that the Valley itself has gotten somewhat nicer, with lively shopping and arts districts, colorful sidewalks, etc. The main concept of de-car-ing isn't so much about taking public transit to far-off places, but being able to avoid having to travel far at all because you have everything you want and need near you. For ex., lots of people in less-than-lively places in the Valley (and the O.C.) drive into Santa Monica and spots in L.A. because they have no good shopping/restaurants/bars near them -- at least not more than 1 or 2 (which one can get tired of relatively quickly).
What I'm saying is, if you really need to get to Santa Monica or environs relatively often, not having a car may not work so well right now, unless you have a masochistic streak. (Though I'd say any driver who fights traffic to cross that distance on a regular basis also must have a high threshold for pain.) A cab ride between the Valley and Santa Monica's gonna be quite pricey -- and Flexcar, the car-sharing service you were referring to -- has pulled all the cars out of its L.A. locations except at USC and UCLA.
So what I'm wondering is if you live in a part of the Valley where you have easy access to important amenities. If so, definitely stay car-free and just borrow your hub's car once in a while when you need it.
Part of the de-car-ing effort might simply be an adjustment in your habits, i.e., finding more fave restaurants in the Valley instead of sticking to the tried-and-true ones you may have in the Westside. It may take a lil more effort at first, but over time, you are likely to derive more satisfaction from discovering nice neighborhood spots that become your new favorites that you can walk or bike to.
Lastly -- If you bike and can do the bike-plus-bus thing, you may very well be able to travel between the Westside and the Valley with relative ease. Zach Behrens, editor of LAist, lives in the Valley and manages to get all over L.A. sans car. He does, however, still own a car...
Earlier: Freeways have failed us -- Valley girls
Photo of Sherman Oaks' gas station by Gregg Moscoe
Your eco-questions, answered.
 Question: I can't stand the waste of the phone books. I get 4-6 every year and for no reason. I live in Sherman Oaks. It happens to everybody here. They all end up in the garbage. This is about 8 lbs per book -- which are pure junk mail. Why do i need 6 of them? I don't even want one. What a waste. Do you know how an end can be put to this waste? Thanks, Dave
Answer: Halting phone book deliveries is very difficult, I'm afraid -- especially if you're getting 4-6 every year. Basically, you need to call each phone book company and ask them to take you off the list -- which means dealing with a number of customer service reps, some of whom may be ill informed on the procedures they need to take to get you off the list.
Even if you went through the trouble to do this with all 4-6 phone book companies, you may still get more phone books. Why? Phone book companies often hire independent contractors to make the deliveries, who may either have outdated address lists or who may just throw a book in front of each residence, lists be damned.
I actually tried to stop phone book deliveries to my place back in 2005 -- but then I moved shortly afterwards, so I'm not sure how much effect my efforts had. Now, I live in a sort of enclosed apartment complex, and I've discovered that most phone book delivery people only see the one house up front and leave just one phone book, thereby eliminating my phone book problem.
So my suggestion is this: If you live in a single-family home, and don't plan to move for a while, call the companies and ask to be removed from their lists. A tip: Call the number listed for ordering MORE phone books; it's unlikely you'll find one specifically dedicated to book refusals. Hopefully that'll take the deliveries down from 4-6 to 1-3.
Otherwise, try to focus your eco-energies on related, but more resolvable issues. For example, join the campaign for the Do Not Mail registry. Reduce other types of junk mail. And vow never to tell a company you found them via the yellow pages. If businesses start to see that buying ads in phone books doesn't help their business, they'll stop advertising in them, thereby slowly starving out the paper phone book industry.
In the meantime, you might find this post on one person's effort to stop phone book deliveries humorous. The ensuing comments are especially hilar.
Your eco-questions, answered.
Question: Would you know if LA pursued the Earth Hour?
I know I turned of my lights, but being green seems not popular in LA.... I went to Mulholland Drive and saw no dimming at 8 pm. L.A. was as bright as usual. Very few city buildings have CFLs and solar panels in general.
So why is the LAT, a pretty liberal paper, not talking about earth hour at least (besides your blog)? Must we accuse once again the bad influence of our shameful Mayor? Ed
Answer: Cheer up, Ed. It's true that L.A. perhaps burned a little too brightly during Earth Hour on Saturday, but it may simply be that we've got a little burnout on the lights out thing.
After all, just five months ago we had Lights Out LA, which urged everyone to turn out their lights from 8 - 9 pm on Oct. 20. The city of L.A., led by Supervisor Yvonne Burke and City Councilwoman Wendy Greuel, got behind that lights-out movement. You'll be glad to know that the L.A. Times -- the print paper, not only this blog -- DID cover this city effort back then.
Considering the fact that Earth Hour basically just repeated what Lights Out L.A. did, I'm not surprised that this deja vu didn't get as much attention in the city this time around.
That said, many people -- including both you and I, celebrated Earth Hour and turned the lights out. Great thing about grassroots actions: Government involvement's nice, but not a pre-requisite. In fact, I'm sure if both you and I worked a little more to get the word out, we could've gotten more people to turn their lights out. I'll admit I made no effort as a Santa Monica resident to get my city to sign on to Earth Hour. If I and my neighbors and friends had pushed for it, it could've happened!
Lastly: These lights out events are gonna keep happening, so even if you as an individual or your city as a whole missed the last few, you can take part in the next ones. Rufus Wainwright, for example, is calling for a blackoutsabbath from noon to midnight on June 21. "The time could be spent contemplating alone or with friends on the coming year and what personally one can do to save the planet," he says, in his call to turn off not just the lights, but all electronics for 12 hours!
If all electronics for 12 hours seems like too much, Earth Hour 2009's already taking signups. So there's a challenge you can look forward to -- and perhaps write
your councilmember about, if you're keen on city involvement.
Remember -- If you want your city to do something, you as a resident need to ask them to do that thing. I'll definitely try to get the City of Santa Monica to sign on to Earth Hour next year. Will you do the same for the City of L.A.?
Your eco-questions, answered:
Question: Hi. I am trying to figure out if Los Angeles accepts compostable food scraps in its green bins. I gather from it's website it does not, but i am hoping, perhaps, it is out of date?? Thanks, Tracy
Answer: Yes, you can put food scraps in the green bins -- as long as they come from fruits, veggies, and grains. Don't put any food scraps that contain animal products, even if it's just milk, eggs, or cheese. Your green bin's vegan!
Other things that can go in your green bin: grass, leaves, weeds, tree branches, and clean wood (no nails, etc.).
Unfortunately, compostable food containers, bags, and forks that look like their plastic counterparts cannot go into the green bin, as our composting facilities are not set up to handle these newfangled disposables. Paul Gomez in the L.A. Department of Public Works says plastic-like compostables still need to go in the black bin, though the city is "looking at various aspects" to change that in the future.
And just as an FYI: Here's what goes in the blue bins. Don't have one yet? Get one -- Apartment dwellers can get blue bins too!
Photo by Leo Reynolds via Flickr
Your eco-questions, answered:
Question: I want to ask about taking the bus vs. driving from Torrance to Westwood. Usually, it takes me 30 minutes without traffic, but you know L.A. -- it takes me at least an hour in traffic. Anyway, I had never really tried the bus until I started reading your blog. So, I went to Metro.com and used the planner and found out that it will take me 90 to 120 mins. Unfortunately, that about 30 more mins than taking the car. Yes, time is factor for me.
My question is: how can i rationalize taking the bus over the car if it takes me 30 minutes more?
I'm sure i will save money, but money is not a primary concern. It more a matter of getting to where i want stress-free and arriving there sooner or at very least same time as in the car. I always want to produce way less pollution but i see no practical way to do so.
My second question is rather odd: But i was wondering how can you afford to live in Santa Monica? I wanted to move to Santa Monica, but a room there is at least $1000. That is a lot for a student like me. I mean I'm sure a lot of my friends and I would want to live closer, but the rents are so outrageous. Xing
Answer: Your two questions are not odd and actually very related. My short answer: The reason I can afford to live in Santa Monica is because I don't pay for the privilege of sitting behind the wheel in traffic burning gas for two hours a day.
I don't have car payments. I don't have parking or permit fees. I don't get parking tickets -- something that used to be a huge, huge problem for me. I don't pay for maintenance. I don't pay for car theft issues -- another thing that used to be a big problem. And perhaps most importantly, I don't pay for gas.
You pay for all of the above -- and thus have less money left over for rent.... As well as less time to play with, considering the time you spend on the road.
What I find interesting about your question is that while you say money isn't an issue in terms of your commute, it is an issue when it comes to rent. Why the dichotomy?
I suggest thinking about the cost of car ownership AND the cost of rent as one lump sum. If you lived in Santa Monica, you could take the Big Blue Bus to Westwood very easily, in like half the time you're spending commuting now -- conceivably allowing you to get rid of your car. You'd then likely have enough money to live in Santa Monica, a place where it appears you'd rather be living than Torrance.
Even if you're not ready to give up your car yet, I'd strongly consider moving closer to work so you can either take alternative transportation or walk. First, figure out how much you're spending on gas a month. By my calculations, even if you're driving a relatively fuel-efficient 2-door Honda Accord AND getting the lowest prices on gas ($3.37 a gallon, as of this writing), you're spending at least $160 a month on gas alone for your commute, according to MPGgenie. To that cost, add on parking costs, if any, at your workplace, and/or the kickback you might get if you give up your parking spot -- If your workplace has 50+ employees AND subsidizes leased parking said employees, then you're entitled to a cash allowance in lieu of a parking space, thanks to California Health and Safety Code Sections 43845.
That'll give you a general idea of how much your commute's costing you every month. Take that sum and add it to the rent you pay now. That sum's the amount you could afford to pay in rent if you lived closer to work -- even if you kept your car -- in what would probably be a more fun neighborhood.
Because really, is it actually possible to arrive at your destination "stress-free" after fighting traffic for an hour? I think I'd become mildly suicidal if I had to spend 2 hours a day fighting traffic.... So unless you're in a situation that prevents you from moving for some reason, I'd strongly consider moving closer to work and ditching the painful commute, if not the entire car.
Photo by andropolis via Flickr
Thanks to the recent drugs in drinking water news, I'm getting a whole bunch of tap water-related questions about yesterday's post. Here they are, along with my answers.
 Question: Are you sure tap water is better??? CNN doesn't seem to agree. I cant' stand the smell nor the taste of tap-water. Maybe it is different in California, but it wasn't different in NC, FL, GA or MI (all places where I have lived). Mike
Answer: I often have the sneaking suspicion that most naysayers to my posts don't actually read the articles they email me -- beyond the headline, that is. Mike, you are one of the people proving my suspicions correct. Here's a direct quote from the CNN link you kindly sent me:
Even users of bottled water and home filtration systems don't necessarily avoid exposure. Bottlers, some of which simply repackage tap water, do not typically treat or test for pharmaceuticals, according to the industry's main trade group. The same goes for the makers of home filtration systems.
Your question does, however, bring up a more important issue about the research, regulations, and news surrounding water. Tap water's much more heavily researched, regulated, and written about than bottled water is -- so we get huge headlines about how tap water contains this or that danger fairly frequently. This tends to create the illusion that tap water's dangerous -- which gets a lot of people to assume bottled water's the safer solution -- which is very far from the truth.
I do wish that the mainstream media would stop screaming out the potential dangers tap water in the headline and burying the same bad news about bottled water in like paragraph 30....
On the taste front: Our tap water here's won taste awards, so it is quite possible that my water's better than your water. Sorry dude.
 Question: Does a reverse osmosis filter take out these pharmaceutical molecules in water? Thanks!!! Nancy from New Jersey.
Answer: Yes. Although most home filtration systems -- as mentioned in the quote above above -- do not remove these pharma concoctions, reverse-osmosis filters do. Here's a quote from a more detailed AP article on AOL:
One technology, reverse osmosis, removes virtually all pharmaceutical contaminants but is very expensive for large-scale use and leaves several gallons of polluted water for every one that is made drinkable.
 Question: I have in front of me the May 2007 Consumer Reports article on water filters. They mention that reverse-osmosis filters are "extremely slow and creates 3 to 5 gallons of waste water for every gallon filtered." How do we get the benefits of reverse-osmosis without wasting so much water. Clean water is a priority, but isn't conserving water just as important? Best, Scott
Answer: Good point, Scott -- especially as it's one I pointed out in the original post you're responding to:
Reverse-osmosis filters do, however, tend to have a higher up-front cost -- and as the NRDC points out, "wastes a substantial amount of water during the filtration process."
Then I went on to discuss less water-intensive filter options. But in any case -- This IS a question I wrestle with personally. Yes, the water waste is a concern -- and in general, I encourage people to conserve water. On the other hand, I do know definitively that there are traces of arsenic and pharmaceuticals in L.A.'s water. I also know that many people erroneously turn to bottled water, thinking it's safer, unaware that this bottled water too can contain the exact same contaminants.
Considering those constraints, I personally think it's better to let people know both the up and downsides of different filtration systems and let them decide what's best for themselves, as opposed to coming down with a "everyone must use X type of filter" rule.
But in case you're curious, I use a Brita filter.
 Question: Now I'm wondering about the residual pharmaceuticals in tap water. The L.A Times doesn't seem to have an article about it on their website, but the Washington Post has one on theirs. And how exactly are we supposed to dispose of said pharmaceuticals in a green manner? I know I'm not supposed to flush them or put them in landfills, but when I asked my local pharmacy, I was told, "Oh, just put them in the trash." So what's the right answer, and how do I actually execute it? Kate
Answer: California actually has a "No Drugs Down the Drain" public outreach program to let you know how to get rid of your unwanted meds. Here's the handy disposal guide: Basically, you can take it to one of the hazardous waste facilities around the city -- or just properly seal the stuff before throwing it in the trash.
But I do want to mention that flushed meds are actually not the main cause of our pharma-water conundrum. The bigger problem is simply that a lot of people are taking meds -- and pooping them out. As Umbra of grist points out, "an important companion to responsible waste disposal is using the fewest medicines necessary for your health."
Photos by Jay Wilson , Joe Philipson , J. P. Anderson, all via Flickr;image courtesy of Food and Water Watch
Your eco-questions, answered:
Question: I'm trying to get everyone to dump their water bottles and drink the tap, but they'll only do it if it's filtered.
Our department has about 15 people, so I think we'd need an "under counter" one installed -- we don't have room for one of those
carafes you put in the frig. I'm baffled by the choices, and would appreciate any suggestions! Thanks. Nancy
Answer: Since tap water's better regulated than bottled water, your bottled-water guzzling co-workers' fear of unfiltered tap water's slightly misguided -- though not unusual. L.A.'s water not only tastes good, but is also quite safe. The L.A. Department of Water and Power reports in its Drinking Water Public Health Goals Report (PDF) that "for more the 110 regulated contaminants, none was found at levels considered unsafe by regulatory and health agencies."
Still, although our water meets regulatory standards, it does contain some contaminants that exceed the more ambitious (and non-enforceable) standards called Public Health Goals (PHG) and Federal Maximum Contaminant Level goals (MCLG) (and just to be clear, there's no guarantee your bottled water meets these goals either). The L.A. DWP has kindly put together a handy chart (PDF) listing the few contaminants in our water that exceed idealistic levels:
So if you want to be really anal about your water, you should pick out a filter that takes out these particular contaminants. Filters generally list all the contaminants they remove right on the package. Make sure your filter is also labeled as meeting the NSF/ANSI standard 53, which provides "some assurance that at least some claims made by the manufacturer have been verified," according to the National Resources Defense Council.
From my research, a reverse-osmosis filter -- which gets even arsenic and radionuclides out -- is probably a water prude's best bet. You can find these filters in convenient under counter designs to make things easy, and you'll rarely need to change the filter. Reverse-osmosis filters do, however, tend to have a higher up-front cost -- and as the NRDC points out, "wastes a substantial amount of water during the filtration process."
Less contaminant-obsessed people -- and really, your co-workers might fall into this category since they're drinking under-regulated bottled water -- might be okay with less-expensive methods like carbon filters, most of which get lead, chlorine, THMs, and many other contaminants out. Anti-plastic people might be even happier with a ceramic filter, which doesn't require buying those plasticky disposable filters all the time -- though your co-workers don't seem to fall into the anti-plastic category. The NRDC has an informative list of different types of filters and the particular impurities they deal with.
Earlier: Q&A: De-bottling the workplace
Got a question? Ask me: greenlagirl@gmail.com.
Top image courtesy of Food and Water Watch
Your eco-questions, answered:
 Question: I am happy that I've been indulging in the organic produce lately and have been frequenting farmers markets mostly except the times I don't I have experienced an annoying abundance of stickers! What to do with them?!
I will get a bunch of tomatoes, already separated in a plastic container at Trader Joe's, yet each individual one has those pesky stickers. And the bananas that are in a bunch, each one of them's stickered. Maybe this is necessary, but can these be recycled, or is there some other repurposing I should know about? Thanks. -- Klara
Answer: At first I was gonna tell you to chill out 'bout this small (in the scheme of things) sticker problem -- but then your question actually introduced me to some fascinating contemporary collage art -- so thank you, Klara, for your sticky conundrum!
So: Let me introduce you to the sticker man, a.k.a. artist Barry Snyder (via curbly). This dude upcycles produce stickers to make 4-ft-sq mosaics -- mostly homages of other famous works of art. Check out his oeuvre by watching this short video:
 Then send the stickers to Barry -- who calls himself an "Almost World Renowned Food Sticker Mosaic Artist" -- to benefit his S.O.S. Foundation (Save Our Stickers). Yep -- All you gotta to is mail them to Barry “Wildman” Snyder, POB 301, Erie, CO 80516. Your stickers will then be reincarnated into pop art. You can even support sticker upcycling by buying one of Barry's pieces, which go for $20-$265 a pop.
To avoid un-eco hassles, try to avoid that over-packaged Trader Joe's stuff, which bugged me so much that I opted for an organic produce delivery service -- until I moved to Santa Monica, within biking distance to my nearest farmers' market. Over time, I hope TJ's will get the message and stop jailing produce in annoying packaging.
Lastly -- In case you were curious about what those weird numbers on the stickers stand for, here's an explanation. Basically, opt for the produce with sticker numbers that begin with 9.
Top photo by C Dozo via Flickr; bottom photo courtesy of stickermanproduceart.wordpress.com
|
|
Emerald City calendar