Blissfully, BBC Earth: Arctic Sea Ice [Infographic] agrees. They've taken decades of stats and put them into two, count 'em 2, easily understood images that show - graphically - the dramatic changes in age and expanse.

Age of Arctic Ice (1984-2011)

This is a statistic I had never considered - how old is the ice in the Arctic? In mid-1985, for example, more than 30% of the ice was more than 5 years old; by 2011, that number was more like 10%. Meaning, to my mind, that less and less ice is surviving from year to year.

The chart bears this out. More than 85% of the ice was more than 2 years old in 1985; compared to less than 50% today. Although there has been a steady decline since 1985, the absolute worst periods seem to be mid-1995 through late-1996, and late-2007 through 2008 Frightening, isn't it?

Average of Arctic Sea Ice Extent (1979-2011)

Now, this is the more common measurement, in my experience: how far does the Arctic ice extend? The answer is a little surprising. Not because there's less now than 25 years ago, but because of the variance within any given decade.

From 1978 to 1981, there wasn't much change - over 7 million square kilometers. Then, 1984 saw a bit of a reduction and 1987 a huge increase in area. In 1990 and 2002, the extent dropped more than a million square kilometers.

The worst year, so far, was 2008 at barely over 4 million square kilometers. But the year that saw the greatest spread of Arctic sea ice was 1996 with over 8 million square kilometers measured.

Good News?

While it would appear that the ice is not lasting several years anymore and the older ice is not-so-slowly disappearing, there might be some good news: this newer ice seems to be covering a bit larger area. Between 2008 and 2011, the extent of the sea ice has increased moderately, as has the age of the remaining ice.

I hope this means that there are changes happening in the world having a bit of a positive impact on the Arctic. Although, having lost about half of the sea ice in a short 12 years does not bode well for the flora and fauna of the area - as well as the rest of the planet.

What do you think? Is the message getting through? Or are these tiny improvements a fluke of nature?

There isn't much I can do about shipper damage, beyond avoiding companies that notoriously maul packages. However, the weather is - stay with me here - a little more within my control. By using freezer paper, specifically biodegradable freezer paper, I can minimize moisture damage and avoid using plastic bags to protect my products.

Why freezer paper? Because one side is coated to prevent moisture transfer. When you wrap food, you keep the coating on the inside to keep fluids in. For wrapping packages, keep the shiny side out - to keep fluids out. And, again, biodegradable.

Win - Win - Win

Shipping Companies

One item I hadn't thought about, except for the maulers referenced earlier, is the shipping company. The article on sustainable shipping I was reading today really made me think beyond box-bashing.

Just how 'green' are these companies? From what I've read, the USPS hasn't ever measure their carbon footprint. Or, if they have, they aren't sharing it with the rest of us.

FedEx and UPS, on the other hand, are committed - to different degrees - to sustainable shipping and environmental responsibility. (Click on a company name to read what they're doing.)

It's something to think about, when you (or I) get ready to ship to our customers. Or, with the holidays approaching, when we send packages to our friends and families.

One caveat, before we begin: some of what we're looking at, as far as refilling containers, is not about food storage. Not all plastics are food-safe. They can leach chemicals, some of which are known carcinogens, into your lunch or leftovers.

Containers

One thing we are famous for, at our house, is repurposing plastic bottles. That big, empty dish soap bottle - rinsed well - now holds the feeding solution for our plant. The oven cleaner spray bottle - thoroughly washed - is our plant mister.

There's no reason why, if the bottle for the window cleaner doesn't spray anymore, you can't repurpose the one from the carpet cleaner. Just wash it well first. (The window cleaner might just bleach the carpet.)

Bulk Buying, Refilling, and Going Green makes a really good point about containers. Old mayonnaise or pickle jars make great canisters and dry goods storage. Since they're clear, you can easily see what's stored in them. If you don't have room on the shelf for a big can or box, these smaller jars are perfect.

At our house, we love coffee and oatmeal containers. The large coffee ones are a great size for our small cupboards, have great stay-fresh lids and easy-grip handles, and hold about 4 pounds of flour or sugar, each. I covered several tall oatmeal containers in matching contact paper to hold our rice, corn meal, and spaghetti noodles.

Concentrates

One great way to save money, and save the environment, is to buy cleaners in concentrated form and refill smaller, easier-to-manage bottles. Ready-to-use products are already diluted with water, meaning they weigh more to ship - further increasing cost to the consumer.

Some manufacturers, like Windex®, are already testing the shopping waters, by offering small pouches of concentrated products that you just cut, pour, and dilute - at home. Some, like LA's Totally Awesome, have always offered a concentrated version of their most popular products. Hopefully, this will keep a little more plastic out of the landfills.

We make our dish soap do double duty. The brand we buy is concentrated and we buy the largest bottle they have. Part of it goes, full strength, into a smaller bottle at the kitchen sink; part of it, diluted by 1/4 to 1/3, goes into a pump bottle at the bathroom sink for hand soap.

It's easy to see the 1,000,001 ways that bottles, jars, cans, and containers can be used and reused. Plus, as Greenery points out, the more we reuse and refill - the less we have to schlub to the trash can.

(Press any of the above links for more great ideas from the three writers who inspired this post.)

Asbestos Removal

I've written about asbestos before - major health issues, mesothelioma, lung cancer. It's incredibly bad stuff that, thus far, the government hasn't quite managed to out-and-out ban. They have, however, put in place some serious guidelines for dealing with it - especially in renovations and rehabs where removal is legally required before new construction can take place.

Notices must be posted; current occupants/tenants must be told of the findings.

And I quote:

The Clean Air Act requires that owners of public buildings that contain asbestos follow federally established work practice standards to ensure the safe removal of the asbestos. The required standards include providing notice to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) before starting asbestos removal, adequately wetting the asbestos during the removal and before disposal, and properly disposing of the asbestos at an EPA-approved disposal site.

From what I've seen, rooms and buildings found to contain asbestos are, virtually, sealed up. Only experts, certified and approved by the government, are allowed to perform removal of this hazardous waste. And, believe me, if you've ever seen a team descend on a home to get the stuff out - it looks like a biohazard SWAT strike.

Violations

Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'll simply present the EPA charges:

[...] while Knapp was overseeing the project, material containing asbestos was removed from the building and disposed of in an uncovered dumpster. [...] demolition work was performed by workers who were not provided with personal protective equipment to reduce exposure to the asbestos. [...] building workers, one of whom was disabled ^[1], and tenants, were exposed to large amounts of dust that resulted from the demolition. A worker testified that the workers were not instructed to wet tiles containing asbestos before and during the demolition process, which increased their exposure to dust.

Mr. Knapp pleaded (pled? plead?) guilty to one count of conspiracy and one count of failing to remove all material containing asbestos before beginning renovation of the building. The renovation took place between 2005 and 2008. Which says, to me, lots of violations and lots of exposure for workers and tenants.

Part of the plea agreement (you knew, after all this, that there had to be one, didn't you?), good ol' Bobby Joe admitted that he and Russell Coco, also charged, conspired to get the asbestos out of the building without adhering to government requirements.

Sentencing

In addition to 41 months in prison, the sentence provides for "two years of supervised release and 300 hours of community service. [Mr. Knapp] must also pay a $12,500 fine and $200 crime victim special assessment fee ^[2]."

Bottom Line

I don't mean to pooh-pooh 3 years and 5 months in prison; wouldn't want to do it, myself. But the release doesn't mention whether Bobby Joe will be required to do the full 41 months. And, heaven knows, he won't be doing it in Walla Walla or Corcoran.

Frankly, it's the financial slap on the wrist  that caught my attention. Given the cost of proper (and legal) asbestos removal, especially on a building with more than 10 floors, the fine is small potatoes. As a deterrent to future offenders, it simply doesn't work.

I've been slapping at the EPA for months over their inability or reluctance to P the E. This doesn't do much to improve my opinion of them.

What do you think? Did Mr. Knapp get what he deserved? Did the punishment fit the crime? Or was this a token action, meant to make it appear as though the government and the EPA are actually doing their jobs?

1. There was no clarification as to whether the worker was disabled before, or disabled by, the exposure.
2. "Since 1984, the federal government has collected a small monetary assessment from all convicted defendants for each federal crime committed. This "special assessment on convicted persons" ranges from five to two hundred dollars depending on the seriousness of the crime and the status of the criminal."

   Marie T. Farrelly, Special Assessments and the Origination Clause: A Tax on Crooks?, 58 Fordham L. Rev. 447 (1989), http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol58/iss3/5

Wildlife Protection

Hunting is illegal in Kenya. Period. Intending to stop big game hunters, the government's blanket law has been applied at all levels - including traditional tribes. In addition, Ol Kinyei (where the tribe and three lion prides coexist) has recently been set aside by a Maasai community as a wildlife sanctuary.

The Ol Kinyei Conservancy, part of the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem, "covers an area of 8,500 acres in the Koyaki Lemek area of the greater Mara ecosystem." A 4-hour trip from Nairobi, it is a pristine wilderness that is home to plains, forests, streams and rivers, and a wide variety of animal species. It deserves to be protected.

Allowing man to slaughter its animals, in this time of ever-decreasing animal populations in the wild, should be aggressively discouraged. And yet ...

Source: BBC Earth

Lifestyle Protection

"In a time when stories about endangered wildlife regularly hit the headlines, few people seem to notice that incredible human cultures are being lost; ‘like swatting a mosquito – no-one seems to notice’." This is the threat to the Dorobo.

This Kenyan tribe has hunted, gathered, and scavenged on these plains for generations. When they were unable to make a kill to feed their families, they bravely (or foolishly) took from the lions. If the hunt was good, they left the excess for the lions.

Living in harmony with the lions, almost symbiotically, they know the Ol Kinyei and they share it, peacefully. But because other humans cannot share, cannot live in peace and harmony with nature, the Dorobo way of life is as threatened as that of the lions.

Choices

Hopefully, there are choices.

Jackson Looseyia, who runs a safari lodge in the Masaai [sic] Mara, has started employing Dorobo men to be spotters and trackers for his tourists. Jackson says, 'If the Dorobo way of life disappears, so too does their knowledge. The Dorobo can spot and name any distant bird or animal, identify any nearby track or noise, and tell the story of hunt through reading the tracks in the sand.'

Only time will tell if an entire culture must be sacrificed to save the animals of the Masai Mara.

* Actually, from what I've been able to determine, there is no specific 'Dorobo' tribe. The term Dorobo "referred to the original forest-dwelling hunters in the Rift Valley of what is now Kenya and Tanzania." Various unrelated groups are called by that name, possibly originating from the Maasai word Torobo which sounds very much like Dorobo and means 'poor people (who do not have cattle)'.

Today, I got slapped in my crocheting ego. Rather than use and toss the pads that come with the Swiffer WetJet, zillions of people-who-hate-cleaning - just like I do - are greening up Swiffer with reusable {blush} crocheted pads. Hence, the ego-bruising.

I can't believe that I didn't think of this. Color me supremely embarrassed. But - ha, ha - recovering quickly.

There are bits and pieces of yarn in my scrap bag that I think would be perfect for these pads. Woo hoo - I'm off to do some creating.

Keep watching - you may well be buying your very own Swiffer-ish scrub pads right here, real soon.

Little changed in all these years, that law an expanded mining industry to take about $1 billion in metals from U.S. public lands every year -- without paying any royalties.

And, thanks to rising metal prices, things are not about to slow down. Claims are up 2,000 percent since 2004, in the area around the Grand Canyon. More than 60% of the claims around Yosemite, and nearly all around Arches and Canyonland in Utah, have come since 2005.

Above and beyond giving away the store - allowing mining without compensation, the government is putting every inch of public land at risk. Were they required to pay royalties, it's possible that these companies would choose carefully where they dig; stay away from 'high-priced' National Parks and Monuments.

While attempts to revise the 1872 Mining Law in 2009 got nowhere, the Secretary of the Interior has started "a process to protect approximately 1 million acres around the Grand Canyon that were threatened by uranium mining operations." The administration has called for comments.

Well, I certainly feel better. How about you?

Squirrels

ENN.com

On the same day, a federal judge reinstated endangered status for the West Virginia Northern Flying Squirrel and that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had violated the Endangered Species Act by ignoring the species recovery plan that they had established in 1990.

I guess USFWS, with the backing of the timber industry, decided that making paper and boxes was more important.

Black Coral

Gallery: USGS.gov

Two days later, the U.S. Geological Service released a report on deep-sea black corals living in the Gulf of Mexico. Fascinating creatures, over 2,000 years old, living in the deep waters of the Gulf. It is hoped that, given their growth patterns, they will offer insight into the health of the region, over decades of change.

Despite their name, black corals come in a variety of colors.

Wolves

It is, however, the wolves of the Northern Rockies who have had the most 'exciting' few days. And that isn't necessarily a good thing, if you've been following the plight of these animals.

In 2009, the federal government delisted some of the wolves in the Northern Rockies. Conservation groups complained, and sued. A U.S. district judge ruled with conservationists and, in August 2010, ordered protections for all of the wolves in the area restored.

Wikimedia Commons

Not willing to stand on legalities, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - the federal agency that is responsible for protecting endangered species in the United States - started negotiations to, once again, delist the Northern Rockies wolves. On April 9th, the same judge refused to approve the latest delisting plan. A 'settlement agreement' that would have allowed Idaho and Montana to, essentially, put 1,200 wolves on the 'most wanted list' for ranchers and hunters in their states.

It didn't last long. In fact, it never - technically - happened.

Late on the night of April 8th/9th, Congress reached an agreement on the budget. Buried in that budget bill was a "provision to strip federal protections for wolves in Idaho, Montana and portions of Oregon, Washington and Utah as part of [the] Continuing Budget Resolution". In passing the budget, Congress effectively took the potential settlement agreement off the table. Long before the Montana judge made his decision, Congress had rendered it moot.

While headlines joyously proclaimed Northern Rockies Wolves are safe for now, the government was painting a bulls-eye on virtually every Northern Rockies wolf. They opened hunting season and put these amazing animals at the top of every list.

I was under the impression that Congress had no say in listing or delisting endangered species in the United States. That job belongs (belonged?) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service who, it must be said, isn't very good at it. Although at least they, periodically, pretend to care.

Frankly, I have to believe that this unprecedented action means big trouble for the climate, as well as protection of the environment and all endangered species. Anything that gets in the way of big business and their lobbies is now seriously threatened.

Photo: Wikimedia/Michael Haferkamp

The existence of these natural cycles might lead one to believe that the Earth is going through a normal warming period. That man is not contributing, negatively, to the climate changes that we're currently experiencing. Undoubtedly, there are those who use that rationale to attack environmental beliefs.

A logical thought process that might even work, except for one minor detail: The Earth shouldn't be getting warmer.

Scientists have taken samples from a dry lake bed, the Valles Caldera in New Mexico. They developed a technique, analyzing sediment and soil bacteria, to determine temperature changes throughout the ages. Those studies tell them that, without man's intervention, we would be heading into a cooling period right now.

According to an article I was reading today, online shopping is green shopping. How's that for tremendous news? Of course, you probably already knew that; I certainly did.

Shopping at your local mall or favorite store means that a shopper, and dozens like him/her, are increasing energy consumption and pumping more emissions (that we really don't need) into the air. By staying home, comfy and cozy in that favorite chair, and ordering what we need online, we aren't putting cars on the roads and crap into the atmosphere.

Of course, you can't quite get everything online. But for every trip that you don't make, you're doing the planet a favor.

It's estimated that 150,000 tons - yes, tons - of contaminated feed may have been fed to animals. By consuming this dioxin-laced food, the contamination spread to eggs, poultry meat, and pork. (South Korea and China have already banned imports of German eggs, chicken, and pork products.)

Some of those eggs made it to the Netherlands, where they were processed and mixed with non-contaminated eggs. This liquid egg product was then shipped to the UK for use by bakeries and manufacturers in products for human consumption. Although officials said the level of dioxins in the mixed eggs didn't pose a health risk, it's still a frightening prospect - not knowing what might be in that cake, quiche, or jar of mayonnaise.

Today, Germany announced an anti-dioxin action plan that sets higher standards for the production of animal feed. This plan includes a licensing system for oil and fat producers, as well as mandatory separation of fats and oils intended for industrial use and those meant to be a component in animal feed.

In addition, animal feed producers will be required to personally test their ingredients and report the results to authorities. Private laboratories will also be required to report discovery of suspect items in food or animal feed.

"The government will investigate expanding the criminal law to food and feed safety regulations, possibly making infringements of food safety law a criminal rather than civil offence," according to the Reuters article. This comes amid suspicions that the Harles and Jentzsch plant in Schleswig-Holstein may have operated illegally. It, apparently, sought to avoid official regulations by not registering the company, according to an earlier statement by a spokesman for the German Agriculture Minister, and is now in bankruptcy (insolvency).

Today's article explains that "prosecutors in Germany are investigating the cause of the contamination and specifically whether industrial fats and feeds company Harles and Jentzsch distributed fatty acids meant for industrial paper production to animal feed processors." Dutch and EU authorities are also investigating the possible involvement of an intermediate trader.

Even if that were the case, if a third-party mixed up the shipments - delivering the industrial product to the feed manufacturer - wouldn't there be obvious labeling differences to eliminate improper application of the ingredients? I'd be willing to bet that the mandatory separation of industrial and feed ingredients is going to include some strict new labeling guidelines, as well. If not, they probably should.

1. ""Dioxins" refers to a group of chlorinated organic chemicals with similar chemical structures. Dioxins have no uses. They are formed unintentionally and released as byproducts of human activities such as waste incineration, fuels combustion, chlorine bleaching of pulp and paper, or pesticide manufacturing."
   "Scientific Facts on Dioxins." GreenFacts - Facts on Health and the Environment. 13 Dec. 2004. Web. 14 Jan. 2011. <http://www.greenfacts.org/en/dioxins/index.htm>

From the news release and Dogwood Alliance:

Today, GP is stepping away from business-as-usual forestry practices, announcing boldly to the world its new policies to end purchasing wood from endangered forests and from any new plantations established at the expense of over 90 Million acres of natural hardwood forests. Going beyond words on a piece of paper, over the past 2 years, GP, working with Dogwood and NRDC has mapped 600,000 acres of endangered forests and special areas in the Mid-Atlantic Coastal eco-region.

“No other U.S. company has demonstrated this level of initiative in mapping unique forests across such a broad region,” said Debbie Hammel, NRDC Senior Resource Specialist. “Through this process, GP has proven that—by harnessing scientific advances and seeking conservation guidance—corporations can help protect unique places without sacrificing profitability.”

Personally, I find it ridiculous that any company (ahem ... International Paper? Are you listening?) would put whole eco-systems in danger when - as Georgia-Pacific is proving - environmental responsibility doesn't mean losing money. And the customers of IP are no better. If KFC and Yum! Brands (to name two) were to demand a change, maybe IP would man-up and do the right thing.

For me? I'm going to start voting with my wallet. Support Georgia-Pacific brands.

In Arizona, no one leaves the house without fluids. It's simply too hot and the risk of dehydration too great. Finding a way to compensate is important to all of us. Without, hopefully, breaking the bank.

Yes, you'll have to get the unit and reusable water bottles - one-time expenses and frequently (at least out here) on sale. Our first unit lasted almost 10 years, which works out to about $3.00/year. And we have some terrific travel mugs, the kind with no handles, that I got on sale for something like $3.00/each at the corner store.

Think about it. Where in the world can you buy a one-liter bottle of water for a nickel? (Even on sale at my local store, the best I could find was about 12 1/2 cents per bottle.) Or a gallon for seventeen cents?

And you're not adding to the ever increasing mounds of garbage piling up all over our planet. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Asbestos and the Navy

Not surprisingly, veterans (especially Navy vets) make up a large percentage of those with asbestos-related illnesses and cancers. A fire at sea is a frightening thing - death by fire or in the ocean. Therefore, due to its fire-resistant properties, virtually every part of a Navy vessel contained asbestos.

There literally was no safe place onboard. While some rooms were more heavily treated, asbestos was in the pipes and the pipes ran everywhere. Those who worked in shipyards and dry docks, repairing and refitting the ships, had the greatest exposure.

Asbestos Products

While lead in house paint was banned and is rarely an exposure risk in the 21st century, there is no way of knowing how many buildings still contain asbestos insulation. In addition, asbestos was frequently added to cement. That treated cement was used in thousands of public works projects and uncounted building structures.

For years, manufacturers added asbestos to thicken textured paints. Construction products, from wallboard to adhesives, benefitted from the improved strength and insulation. The variety of items to which this inexpensive mineral was added boggles the mind.

As does the fact that, to this day, there are consumer products that can - legally - contain traces of asbestos.

Prognosis

To my mind, as long as asbestos continues to be mined and allowed into even one product, consumers and workers will continue to develop asbestos-related illnesses. And lawsuits against irresponsible companies will keep lawyers in court.