Battery Recycling

Up until recently, whenever it came time to dispose of a used battery, I would simply put it in an ever-growing plastic bag in my pantry that was filled with other spent batteries. This bag has traveled with me for awhile now, even when I have moved apartments. You see, I tend to hoard things that I don't know how to dispose of correctly.

I was recently forced to come to terms with my hoarded collection of used up batteries when I became a member of the "green" committee within my department. One of the jobs of this committee was to continue a battery recycling program that had fallen away when the administrator in charge of it retired. We had a brimming collection pail filled with used batteries and it became my job to recycle them. It turns out that this job was much more difficult that I anticipated. I was really frustrated with the lack of useful information on the topic so I thought I would share what I managed to scrounge up.

*It is really hard to find a way to recycle alkaline batteries, which made up the majority of the batteries that the department had collected. I think the availability of recycling options for alkaline batteries really varies by city. In my city, there was only one location in the whole city that would take alkaline batteries.

-alkaline batteries are non-rechargeable batteries and they are the typical batteries that you probably use in your remote, etc.

*There is only one place that you can recycle alkaline batteries in Saint Louis. You can bring them to the museum store at the Old Courthouse downtown (http://www.jnpa.com/302/Battery_Recycling.htm).

-They do not accept corroded batteries (bad news for me, because many of the batteries I had were corroded!)

-The batteries must have their positive end taped over (bad news for me, because I had sooo many batteries to tape!)

*Many other locations will recycle rechargeable batteries such as Best Buy. This is because rechargeable batteries contain mercury and MUST be recycled. I believe it is against the law to dispose of them in the regular trash.

*There are differing opinions on the utility of recycling alkaline batteries. You can see both sides of the argument here: http://willtaft.com/136/environment/there-may-be-no-need-to-recycle-alkaline-batteries

and here: http://willtaft.com/170/environment/yes-we-do-need-to-recycle-alkaline-batteries. These posts are by the same blogger; evidently he changed his opinion after the first posting.

*I consulted our Office of Sustainability in hopes that they offered battery recycling on campus. They informed me that they do provide recycling pick up for rechargeable batteries but they do not recommend recycling of alkaline batteries. Wait... what? That's right, they stated that they believe there is limited to no benefit to recycling alkaline batteries. Here are some reasons they gave:

-it takes more energy to recycle the batteries than it does to create a new one, resulting in a net energy loss.

-it is very expensive which means that if you want to recycle them, you have to pay for it.

-the materials that can be extracted from the battery for reuse are very minimal

-the battery may travel great distances to a recycling facility which increases the energy used in the process.

*You can pay to recycle alkaline batteries through companies such as: iRecycle (http://www.batteryrecycling.com/new+iRecycle+kits). I tried out one of their kits during my desperate time of trying to recycle my battery stash and it was about $25 for a pretty small box that was filled very quickly.

To conclude, it is still unclear to me what the best option is for trying to recycle nonrechargeable batteries from an environmental standpoint. I ended up doing a combination of bringing some batteries to the Old Courthouse and mailing the rest in via the iRecycle kit. Even though I trusted the opinion of the people from the Office of Sustainability, it still felt really wrong to me to just toss the batteries in the trash. Maybe its all a part of some imagined control that I want to believe I have and maybe it just made me feel better to believe I was recycling the batteries to some benefit. I think a part of it is that if I feel like I made some effort that must be better than simply throwing something in the trash which takes so little effort and thought. However, its important to consider whether this is actually true. I could be wasting time and effort that could be spent on other items that are more beneficial to recycle. I think the bottom line is that the best option may be to switch to rechargeable batteries but that these MUST be recycled. As for those who (like me) have stashes of nonrechargeable batteries, I would recommend researching what is available in your city and weighing the pros and cons of recycling. Ultimately, there is no perfect option and that is something we all have to come to terms with.

Mental Health and Climate Change

(source: life123)

There are many ways to view the relationship between mental health and climate change. One can consider whether environmental toxins contribute to some mental disorders, one can think about how natural disasters lead to post-traumatic stress disorder or acute stress disorder, one can examine how lack of access to green space impacts well-being, etc. Today, I'd like to take a look at the psychological reaction to awareness of climate change.

I recently stumbled upon an article (Wolf, 2008) discussing a young man who was reported to have climate change delusions. According to the report, this man believed that, due climate change, his water consumption could lead to the death of millions of people. He experienced depression, insomnia, anxiety, and suicidal ideation among other symptoms. He reported feeling very guilty about his influence on others' water supply and he even tried to stop drinking water because of these thoughts.

The article mentioned that incorporation of contemporary phenomena is common in delusional disorders, but the authors could not locate other examples of climate change delusions. The young man was prescribed medication, and after a few days, no longer endorsed his climate change delusions.

I think this case is fascinating for a number of reasons. First, I think it is a really interesting example of how fears about climate change are becoming a focus of psychological treatment and disorder. Secondly, although I am not disagreeing that his thoughts were inaccurate, it is interesting to see how we view anxiety about climate change as disordered or delusional.

As people become increasingly aware of climate change and its associated consequences, the fears will likely become a focus of therapy and may increase the rates of anxiety and depression in our population. People who are more prone to anxiety or depression may in fact be the first people to show this anxiety and could be key people in responding to the crisis. I recently read a book called "Surviving the Depression Epidemic" by Bruce Levine and this author brought up the fact that when patients are anxious and depressed about the state of the world, we respond by labeling them as disordered and treating them. I think this response should be somewhat questioned when a reasonable reaction to our predicament may be anxiety and sadness! I'm not saying that people who are struggling with anxiety or depression should not receive treatment, I just think that we should expect these sorts of reactions and validate to clients that climate change is frightening and some amount of anxiety and sadness are normal reactions. Instead, we tend to think that people who are not bothered by anything as "normal." I never really questioned this notion until recently and always felt jealous of people who seem completely unfazed by world problems. However, in thinking about the situation with climate change and how our generation is faced with this huge problem that will be an even greater burden to each successive generation, I wonder what the "normal reaction" should be. Either way, clinical psychologists are likely to deal with increasing numbers of people who feel very anxious about the future and may even feel like they have a fore-shortened future or wonder about what the next generation's quality of life with be. I think that people who are prone to anxiety or depression have probably had concerns about any apocalyptic-type threat throughout history, but I wonder if these types of threats are at one of the highest peaks and that is why we are seeing increasing rates of depression and anxiety. One might think that people who are prone to these symptoms are ill-equipped to deal with climate change and think of these traits as disadvantageous. However, I would think that it would be adaptive for a society to preserve a gene pool that includes some predisposition to these traits- it is advantageous to have some people whose radars go off so that we can respond to problems. Additionally, it may only be when anxiety and sadness become debilitating that they are counterproductive. If anxiety leads to greater awareness and action, then it can be a great asset to a society. I wonder which reaction tends to be more beneficial: denial or anxiety?

I also wonder about the man with the climate change delusions and how he fits into all this. Although his idea that he could kill millions of people by drinking water wasn't accurate, I can see how the idea of inter-connectedness among people and the finite quality of resources was the basis for his delusion. These are ideas that are very important to understanding climate change, and I don't think his ideas are that far-off from some of the anxieties that we all feel sometimes. His ideas may actually be a good example of how a child might experience the anxiety associated with climate change: a slight distortion but based in a scary reality. This is a good reminder that talking to children about climate change and addressing their anxiety will likely be a difficult but important task for current and future parents.

There are many other angles from which to view the relationship between mental health and climate change and I will tackle other topics in posts to come.

Renewable Energy

solarrochester.com

I recently read a New York Times article on renewable energy that complimented some of the downsides I have been hearing to these sources of energy. In a June 7^th, 2011 article (The Gas is Greener), Robert Bryce evaluates the wisdom of new mandates that require states to acquire certain percentages of their energy from renewable sources, such as the one in California that requires the state to use renewable energy for one-third of its electricity. I wish that the story could end there and we could all be excited about mandating the use of clean sources of energy. But, like so many attempts to solve climate woes by replacing what we have now with a new technology or product, this approach is not without its downsides. As Bryce points out in his article, converting wind or sunlight into electricity requires the use of other energy sources, notably fossil fuels, and also uses a very large amount of land. The sources on their own are sustainable, but the process needed to acquire them and transport them takes large amounts of energy and other resources. For example, converting wind to wind energy requires the use of wind turbines- these take large amounts of steel and energy to produce and transport. Wind farms also take large amounts of land and require power lines to transport the energy. From what I understand from the article, both of these sources of energy are not sustainable if you consider the energy needed to produce the equipment and the energy needed to transport the energy. Also, these sources are unlikely to be able to produce all of our energy, meaning, sadly, that they are not a complete solution to our energy problems.

I admit I’m really attracted to the idea of harnassing the power of the sun or wind (Captain Planet, anyone?), but the more I learn about these sources, the less promising I think they are as a replacement for fossil fuels. I believe that these sources could be used in combination with other approaches so that they may be a part of the solution, just not the whole solution.

I agreed with everything I read in the article until I got to the end of the article and read that Bryce was promoting natural gas and nuclear energy. Why is it that the last solution to be suggested is the one that could arguably be the most feasible and most likely to save us? That’s right, I’m talking about (gasp) reducing our energy use! It’s frustrating to see that we keep searching for alternative energy sources so that we can continue to power our current energy lifestyle. Instead, I believe we should be drastically reducing our energy use so that we don’t have such an insurmountable challenge in trying to replace fossil fuels. I think a combined approach of reducing energy use with renewable energy should be considered. I say that it might be easier to reduce our energy use, but only in the sense that I think it should be easier to stop doing something than to discover a magical technology that will provide completely clean renewable energy that can power our entire planet for generations to come. But perhaps I shouldn’t underestimate the strength of our ability to cling to our “way of life.” That being said (trying to end on an optimistic note!), I do think that we can rally and put up with a lot less if it’s seen as a sacrifice for the greater good of the nation (i.e., World War II as others have suggested). It’s just a matter of how we are conceptualizing climate change- perhaps if it were an adversary we could go to war with, things would be different.

Link to article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/08/opinion/08bryce.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=renewable%20energy&st=cse

Us or Them: Spinning Environmental Cuts

(frogworld.net)

In an April 15th New York Times article on proposed cuts to environmental regulation in Maine and Florida, the governor of Maine is quoted as saying, "Maine's working families and small businesses are endangered. It is time to we start defending the interests of those who want to work and invest in Maine with the same vigor that we defend tree frogs and Canadian lynx." His words made me really angry, and I also worried that his message would be persuasive. It's clear that he spent some time crafting his misleading message to suggest that we have to choose: animals or people. He is not only equating jobless people to endangered species, but he is suggesting that protecting animals has a direct negative impact on humans.

There are so many ways in which the statement is illogical, I don't even know where to begin. Let's start with pointing out that the proposed cuts would be to opening up parts of the North Woods to development and suspending a law meant to monitor toxic chemicals found in children's products (according to the NY Times). So when he says protect tree frogs, he means tree frogs, trees, many other animals, and children from toxic chemicals, to name a few. Does he mean that we should protect the interests of those who want to work and invest in Maine above children's health and exposure to toxic chemicals? Also, he seems to be implying that we protect tree frogs and lynx with a lot of vigor, and that we never protect the interest of businesses or investment. Right. I think its also ironic that he states that working families and businesses are endangered. Actually, he's right- just not in the way he means. All of our jobs and businesses that depend on finite natural resources absolutely are endangered. And as scary as it is to think, we as a species are endangered. Even if his statement were true, and we were only choosing between tree frogs and jobs, I wonder if I would even agree with it then? Should we protect jobs with the same vigor as protecting the lives of other animals? Do we have to have jobs that destroy other creatures? I would protect a human life with much more vigor than a tree frog's life, but I don't know that I think we have a right to destroy the homes of other creatures for our work. Even if one considered jobs to be more important than tree frogs, there's a slight problem with that logic: tree frogs do not exist in a vacuum and never do we. We are unavoidably linked to the other creatures in our world and we cannot destroy them without consequences to our own health and prosperity. So even if you doesn't value the lives of other animals, surely you value your own life, and the lives of children that are hopelessly bound to everything else in our environment.

I think it will be interesting to see whether this "jobs are an endangered species" logic is one we will see more of to justify cuts to environmental protection. So much of the struggle to get support for protecting the environmental seems to be about the way we conceptualize these problems and a lot of that has to do with how we talk about them.

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)

A CSA is a network of consumers who support a local farm by buying a "share" of their produce. This usually means that they pay up front directly to the farmers to receive a regularly-occurring share of food. The type of share can range from just fruits and vegetables to include meat, dairy, and other food. The shares are sometimes delivered, and other times you pick up your share from a pick-up location.

A good source for more information on CSAs is local harvest (http://www.localharvest.org/csa/). On their website you can search for CSAs available in your area. This summer will be my first time trying out a CSA; we are getting a half-share, which means pick-up is biweekly, and it will be just fruits and vegetables.

From an environmental perspective, buying local has been emphasized as a way to cut down on greenhouse gas emissions. Most food travels quite a distance to arrive at your grocery store (I think I've heard the average is 1500 miles). Even though I have very limited experience with them, so far I think joining a CSA seems like a good idea. However, I think a focus on local food should be combined with reducing the impact of an even bigger polluter in food consumption: meat. I've heard that reducing meat consumption can actually have a bigger impact and may be easier in some cases. For example, reducing meat may take less work on the part of the consumer; it may be easier to just avoid meat here and there rather than take the time to make sure all produce is local or enroll in a CSA. I do still think buying local is a good idea and still beneficial. The best case scenario would be to try to buy local AND cut down on meat consumption. In the case of joining a CSA, these may go hand in hand because one is likely to need a steady supply of vegetables for all those new vegetarian dishes! This is why I like the concept so much- its like committing up front to eating a lot of vegetables or else you waste your money. I should also mention that there are other benefits to a CSA such as supporting local farmers, rather than industrial agriculture, supporting farming that might be more likely to use organic, sustainable practice, and being better connected to where your food comes from and how it is produced. Plus you buy direct and get to meet the people that actually grow the food!

*Updated with pictures of actual CSA produce. These are little turnips. I love seeing all the irregularities of vegetables that haven't been mass-produced.

Environmental Psychology: Individual change

How effective is change on an individual level as far as addressing climate change? This is a topic that has come up a lot in my course so far that I'd like to explore. Oftentimes sources of information on climate change include sections on "what you can do" and include many suggestions for changes that you can make to your daily life to improve your carbon footprint. I also remember going to the "Inconvenient Truth" movie awhile back and the last part the movie lists a lot of ideas for things to change such as buying fluorescent light bulbs. I think there were many other wider-reaching ideas too, I just remember that there was a long list of possible things you could do and some of them were individual behavior changes. I also fully admit that I have been one to embrace individual changes. Maybe its just because I'm always attracted to self-improvement projects and also enjoy the "do-it-yourself" nature (hence, this blog) of some of these changes. I find it empowering to find ways that I can make small changes in my lifestyle and I am also attracted to the idea of exercising power through consumer choices. Another side to this is that when I'm feeling concerned about the environment (which is a lot of the time these days), I appreciate that there are simple tasks that I can do, that I have control over, that can make me feel somewhat better. Plus, admittedly, these changes are much easier to undertake then trying to enact changes on a more large scale level.

However, as I'm learning more about human behavior and climate change, I'm realizing that focusing on individual level changes is short-sighted. The reality is that without an organized approach supported by some over-arching framework or reinforcement, individual level changes are not going to be enough. Of course part of this is that some people refuse to make any changes, particularly people who do not believe in climate change, but another part of it is that even if you do want to live a "greener" existence, this can be an incredible up-hill battle when everything around you is set-up for you to live in an unsustainable manner. And, according to what I've learned in class, whining to people to change their lifestyle is probably more likely to make them not want to talk to you anymore, rather than make changes (which is a hard pill for me to swallow, given that I'm prone to want to do this). Basically, when all the momentum is for people to maintain their current lifestyle, some people will go against the current, but greater incentive is needed to create a large scale lifestyle change. For example, creating economic incentive for curbing energy use is likely to be more effective than a public service message telling people to care about the environment and take shorter showers.

Another piece of this is that some "green" products and lifestyle changes are out of reach for some people. Products that have less chemicals and may be safer are usually more expensive. It also takes time and resources to research products and make lifestyle changes. This means that richer people have the luxury of buying products that might be safer, whereas people with less means bare more of the burden (and this goes for all sorts of environmental pollutants). Also, people with more means may feel somewhat superior for their green lifestyle when in reality, they probably have a much larger carbon footprint than people with less money. They are more likely to have a large home with less people living in it and more appliances and cars. In addition, focusing on making change through buying can be counterproductive and lead to buying more stuff just to try new "green" products. So feeling too comfortable just because of personal lifestyle changes can be dangerous. This is not to say that making these changes or trying to improve one's carbon footprint is inherently bad or not helpful. I think that it falls on those who do have the means to create change to do so. However, it is also important to consider the effects of environmental justice and include other efforts such as working through government or other organizations to bring about changes. Even the most saintly person can indulge in a long hot shower or a nice Sunday joy ride; right now, its too hard for us to police our own behavior because these tempting choices have no immediate negative consequences. All we see is positive reinforcement. We need changes that make the greener lifestyle the more tempting, reinforcing one and that's not something we can do on an individual level.

One last piece to consider is the role that individual changes may have in fostering empowerment and a sense of control. I don't think these qualities should be over-looked as they could be important for empowering people to make the jump from individual changes to larger scale efforts. Also, I think a part of becoming more aware of the situation with climate change is realizing how our daily behaviors have far-reaching effects. Once you are aware of this, it would seem discordant to not make changes that try to minimize the negative ramifications. In conclusion, my hope is that individual changes can be the first step at becoming more environmentally conscious, but they can't be the only step that we take if we want to make meaningful changes.

Environmental Psychology: Separation of people and nature

Or the myth of the separation between people and nature, rather. According to Koger and Winter (2010) our culture (Western culture, that is) tends to be one that embraces the idea of the duality between people and nature. Interestingly enough, this is not so in other cultures, such as Native American culture. Our current collective mind-frame when it comes to viewing nature or "the environment" as this totally separate entity can be traced back to writings by philosophers who encouraged the use of natural resources to make progress (Koger & Winter, 2010). The Bible may have even influenced this way of thinking by way of passages that proclaim that man has dominion over nature (Koger & Winter, 2010). Importantly, it is thought that this passage has been misinterpreted to mean that nature is here for human benefit, rather than that we are supposed to be responsible stewards of the environment (which may have been the original intention of the passage)... Oops! I guess we got that one wrong!

Another idea that stems out of the concept that nature is separate from humans is the idea that nature exists solely to meet human needs. And I can see how this would seem to be the case, especially after the discovery of fossil fuels; I mean, how convenient is that, a rich, efficient energy source hiding in "our" ground and mountains. I can see how that would seem to be put their for our purposes. Another human characterization of nature that can't be ignored is that nature is thought of as female or a woman (Mother nature) (as noted by Koger & Winter, 2010). Given mankind's track record in treatment of women this can't be a good sign. And once you start to think about it, the analogies are endless. Take what you want, discard the rest; use; abuse; disrespect. The things that we say about "Mother nature" often mirror things we say about the treatment of women.

And where has this conceptualization of nature gotten us? We've behaved exactly in accordance with this viewpoint, taking everything we want without a second thought to the consequences. We've taken for granted that nature is an endless bounty that will always be there is give us what we want. That is why this view of nature is so dangerous. It's completely wrong.

It's interesting the way we talk about the "environment" these days. It makes it sound like this completely separate thing that exists out in some state park and maybe we would care about it more if we had the time or we didn't have bigger problems such as the economy. And it's only something that granola-hippie types get upset over. But when you really think about it, this word doesn't even really make sense because it doesn't distinguish between anything. Everything is the environment. We are all the environment and everything around us and everything we have made is the environment. I think when we talk about "environmental" problems in this way, given that we already have the duality mindframe, it allows people to attach these problems to an outside disconnected entity. Oh, that's just a problem for the environment, and I'm not a part of the environment so that doesn't matter for me. I don't how else to talk about these things, what label would be better, but I think the way we are talking about it now is making it too easy for people to disengage. Perhaps we just need to call them "problems" and refer to the "environment" as the earth or people. I think when people hear "environmental problems" they associate it with a certain type of person that would care about that and if they don't identify, they say "that doesn't relate to me."

Unfortunately, we live in a very inter-connected world with finite resource in which everything affects everything. Once something enters the "environment," it can be very good at persisting. And because we are forever tied to the water we drink and the air we breath (where do those come from again? Oh, right.. nature), it's impossible to escape the pesticides we spray or the plastics we make. These chemicals exist inside each and everyone one of our bodies now, making a fool out of our idea that we are separate from nature.

Environmental Psychology: Denial

This semester I am lucky enough to be the teaching assistant for Environmental Psychology, a class I would have wanted to take anyway, were I an undergrad. I plan to pass on some of the things I learn, because I think they are very valuable in understanding human behavior towards the environment.

One of the first topics we covered in class was defense mechanisms. Though many of Freud's theories are no longer accepted in modern psychology, his conception of defense mechanisms remains relevant and particularly useful in conceptualizing attitudes towards the environment. According to the theory of defense mechanisms, these are strategies that we all employ when we want to be able to simultaneously acknowledge reality while reducing our anxiety.

Not surprisingly, the most relevant defense mechanism to environmental issues is denial. Because our situation is so frightening, it's too troubling to acknowledge, so we deny that the problem even exists. Since the implications of the problems are so devastating, the strength of our denial tends to be quite powerful. And it makes sense; if all of this could somehow just not be true, I think we would all want to live in that world.

In thinking about denial, I realized that even though I believe in climate change and fully acknowledge the severity of our situation, I still like to enter denial-land sometimes. I think it happens in subtle ways; I start to let the comfort of denial distance me from the anxiety of thinking about the state of the environment. Maybe its just too anxiety-provoking to fully acknowledge it at all times and incorporate it into our perspectives in day to day life.

Another thing that makes denial easier is that most of the people around us seem to be in denial as well. If we really are on the brink of collapse, shouldn't all the people around us be in a state of panic? But they're not; they are walking around, going about their daily lives, and worrying not about environmental problems, but interpersonal problems. I think we take our cues from the people around us to interpret what we should and should not be afraid of, and if everyone seems to be fine, then everything is fine, right?

I think its difficult to know how to reconcile what we know about our planet's precarious state with our daily lives. We can all make small changes in our behavior or join a "green" organization, but none of it seems proportional to the size or urgency of the problem. I think if there were some concrete thing we could all do together to "fight" global warming, maybe get together and beat some styrofoam cups with a bat, we would all do it. And I think we would feel much more productive.

In a way, denial is a neat trick that we play for ourselves, to protect our egos or reduce our anxiety. But here's the thing about denial- denying something doesn't make it any less true. Climate change doesn't care if we believe in it or not. And living in a state of denial can be adaptive in the short-term for some problems, but in this situation, it could be our downfall.