ReNe: blackout 5th anniversary

August 14 (Thursday) was the fifth anniversary of the great blackout that affected much of the eastern seaboard of North America in 2003. I read about that a while back, but I didn't think people would commemorate the anniversary of such an event... The purpose of the anniversary was to remember that time when, without electricity to power anti-social devices like televisions, people were forced to go out and interact.

I found it interesting that the blackout took place during summer; I had read that the highest power consumption (in cities around the eastern coast of North America at least) occurs around summer, meaning that more power is spent in cooling than heating. Well, ok, it's not so surprising because cooling is less efficient than heating, but it is interesting nonetheless. I wonder what the power consumption is like for cities in the tropics...

Thus, there was some stuff happening, organized by 'Streets are for People'. And luckily for us, it was just past our block so when we heard some banging and other noise-makers around nine, we took a walk down to have a look.

The first thing we saw was the mass of people and bicycles blocking up the junction of Bloor and Spadina (the 'Critical Mass Bike Ride'). The Mickey Mouse in the center of that mass was on a soapbox, but as he didn't have any amplification devices, we couldn't quite make out what he was saying. I suppose it's the usual issues about why more people should cycle not drive, and how cyclists' lives are cheap. There was a lot of noise -- drums, trumpets and noisemakers. They even had some portable potted plants; I'm not sure if those plants were there as an environmental message prop or for barricading purposes.



After a while, the group dispersed (finally allowing traffic through), and moved down Spadina with a lot of noise. Meanwhile, at the southeast corner of that junction, some one (or some ones) had set up a rave. It was supposed to be the 'Silent Street Rave' but it was hardly silent. With a couple of big speakers bungee-corded to warehouse trolleys, a macbook pro and a small colored strobe light, the street corner became an instant rave party.

ReNe: unfortunately IMBY

I had learned about nuclear power in physics classes but nuclear power as a means of generating electricity has always been an abstract concept -- for a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) sort of reason, because there is no nuclear plant in Singapore. In my mind, nuclear power has always been one of those 'great in theory but not so in reality' thing, because of potential risks and nuclear waste removal.

Well, I can't say it's not in my back yard anymore -- Canada has nuclear power and we in fact live 31.32 km from the Pickering nuclear power plant. Moreover, with the rising oil prices and increasing environmental awareness, nuclear power is becoming a more attractive option.

Is nuclear really that good? If we take greenhouse emissions as one measure,

A typical coal-fired power plant (burning lignite) emits up to 1,150 grams of CO2 per kilowatt hour of electricity produced. The most modern gas-driven facilities emit 400 grams for the same amount of electricity. And for nuclear power plants? That number is around 30 grams per kilowatt hour when the entire life-cycle of the plant is taken into account.

It is this math that is leading to the biggest nuclear power boom the world has seen in decades.

The inexorable comeback of nuclear energy, Spielgel Online, 11th July 2008

Somehow I feel the equations are lacking something -- surely tallying the emissions alone is not enough? On the other hand, worldwide, countries may have to turn to nuclear for their power needs simply because the other alternatives are too expensive (oil, gas and even coal are becoming more pricey) or are not enough (current 'green' alternatives such as solar, hydro, wind cannot supply enough). The amount of energy that can be generated from nuclear power could be more than sufficient to meet current needs.

But what about the radioactive waste?

In the last 50 years of nuclear power generation, some 300,000 tons of the stuff has been produced, with an additional 10,000 tons coming each year. A part of that waste is plutonium, and it is incredibly volatile. Just a single gram contains as much energy as a ton of oil -- and it can give hundreds of people cancer should it be inhaled as radioactive dust. Should one stand next to a gram of plutonium for just a single minute, death is the result.

Not only that, but radioactive waste stays deadly for hundreds of thousands of years, meaning any terminal storage site has to be incredibly large, incredibly stable and incredibly isolated.

Spiegel Online

The problem of nuclear waste is probably the biggest disadvantage to nuclear power. Also, nuclear power is not sustainable; the amount of uranium is, like oil, finite. Uranium supplier countries such as Canada, Australia and Kazakhstan (in decreasing order) are scrambling to increase production at their mines.

In 2006 producers met only 62% of demand. (The rest was recycled from a diminishing supply of decommissioned warheads or taken from dwindling Cold War stockpiles.) The World Nuclear Association says uranium mining could need to increase by almost 300% in the next two decades.

Talk of such a crunch has brought the market to fever pitch. Spot prices for uranium jumped from about $7 a pound in late 2000 to a record high of $136 in June. Prices today hover at $74.

Nuclear power's white-hot metal, CNN Money, 27 March 2008

I'm not disparaging nuclear yet because we may yet find a way to circumvent the problem of nuclear waste. It is a very viable alternative because the technology is well-developed and affordable for many countries, but unfortunately, what may decide the ultimate choice for most countries could be that of pragmatic economics, i.e. the bottom line.

With energy prices rapidly approaching the unaffordable, however, concerns about waste storage may once again take a back seat. There are handsome profits to be made from nuclear energy, especially when oil and gas, but also coal, are becoming more expensive. And in Germany, with its older reactors that have long since paid for themselves, the black numbers are truly impressive. The reactors at Biblis, for example, make a pre-tax profit of €1 million -- every single day.

Spiegel Online

ReNe: the dumbness of 2-pin sockets

One of the things that irks me is the use of two-pin electrical socket. It was irritating when I first got here, and downright irritating now after many months. I think that the fact that most plugs here (with the exception of big appliances like the microwave) are two-pin means that the earthing pin is missing, and that's a little worrying. But what's irritating is that sockets here do not have a switch; this means that for appliances without a built-in on/off switch, the only way to turn the appliance off is to pull the plug. Or pay money for a power strip, and it's only the more expensive power strips that have that on/off switch.

I think it's quite dumb. Never mind that, one would think that given that limitation at the wall socket, people would then design appliances with on/off switches, right? Not really. We actually have a lamp that requires the wire to be pulled from the socket to turn it off. Even appliances like the kettle and coffee grinder have a blue LED light going when not in use, continually sucking up a small but continual drain of electricity. No wonder the power consumption in North America is so high. So when environmentally friendly messages go, "save energy! turn off your appliances!", that means you probably have to bend down or crawl behind the fridge to, literally, pull the plug. No wonder many people don't bother. The 3-pin plug and wall socket with a switch seems like a much brighter idea to me.

ReNe: scaling down on consumerism

One headline in BBC news reads, "Arctic has 9bn barrels of oil". With some US politicians pushing hard for off-shore drilling and the rising oil prices, this increasing interest in the oil under the Arctic is rather worrying for environmental and ethical reasons. Given that the oil's located in the Arctic, 'who' does the oil 'belong' to? What about the wildlife? Sure, the rising oil prices have hurt everybody, some just more than others, some life-styles more than others. I think the problem is, everyone's looking at the dwindling oil supplies and trying to look for *more*, but what about looking at how we spend this oil and seeing if we can cut back unnecessary usage?

My question is: do you think it's all right to cut back on aspects of our consumerism if it meant conservation of the earth's resources?

ReNe: the fairness of coffee

Read an interesting book a while back: Coffee, A Dark History, by Anthony Wild.

What first attracted me to the book was the word 'coffee', but what was really fascinating about the book was the social history surrounding it. I'd admit I was in a hurry to return the book to the library so I skipped the parts about the bean's history, but the parts about the current global economics of coffee and social (in)justice between the countries producing and buying it were compelling.

I may love coffee and the cafe culture but I've cut down visits to cafes in the past few years because they're quite pricey -- they're all right for the occasional afternoon out with friends but not a place I should be going every few days, something we used to do when dating. And after reading the book, I can add another reason to that list: social justice, which in a way, is closely tied to the economics of coffee.

Consider: Raw Arabica coffee beans (the more expensive cousin to Robusta beans) currently sell for about 82 cents a pound on the world market. The Arabica beans are (or should be) the beans you buy or consume at fancy cafes because they are generally considered to be of higher quality. Let's say the consumer (you) pays $5 per pound for roasted beans, though the price is probably more; Blue Mountain retails for $30 per pound. (Sure, roasting costs money, but the price differential from 82 cents to many dollars seems excessive.) Also, given that it costs farmers about 60 cents a pound to produce coffee, how is that fair to the farmer? Wait, the numbers get better. That pound of coffee can make 30-40 cups of coffee. Taking the lower bound of 30 cups, at $2 a cup of plain black coffee in a fancy cafe, that means a cafe makes $60 per pound of ($5) coffee, before subtracting other costs. To be sure, there's a lot of middlemen that take the coffee from farmer to consumer, but still, in that 'cheap' $2 cup of coffee you're holding, only 3 cents goes to the farmer.

I'm quite disturbed by that. It's a very bloated pipeline.

So, what can I do about it? Stop going to cafes, stop paying for over-priced coffee? Yeah, that's one conclusion I've came to.

The fair-trade minimum price, which hasn't changed since 1988, is $1.26. But if I'm not mistaken, that price also includes the 'cut' by the fair-trade organization body; still, the farmer gets more than just 60 cents, maybe it's a dollar instead. Doesn't sound very much better, but it is still a better scenario, right? Given the choice, we should all buy fair-trade (FT) coffee, right?

However, though I don't have exact figures right now, have you noticed retailers tend to charge a premium for FT coffee? FT coffee doesn't just cost a few cents more per pound; retailers tack on a few more dollars per pound, while farmers just receive a few cents above the 'market price'. In other words, the retailers are profiting more than ever from FT coffee (and not just coffee, actually) because consumers are willing to pay more for so-called 'fair-trade'. To me, that doesn't seem very fair. I don't mind paying a bit more, if I know that all of the 'bit more' goes wholly towards the farmers. Retailers and middlemen are already making enough profit (before the FT movement came along), and now they're trying to salve the guilt of consumers while still skimming yet more off the top?

So, what's the conclusion? Give up coffee completely? Probably not, as I love a cup of joe. Plus, would that actually help the farmers? The middlemen could probably move to handling and selling other products, so the hardest hit by such an action could be the farmers. From a purely pragmatic point of view, I'd buy coffee as close to the source as possible, and I'd buy the cheapest FT coffee.

ReNe: on bottled water

"Last year 16 million gallons of oil were consumed to make plastic water bottles."

Source of advertisement: DDB

(The figure of 16 million gallons was just for plastic water bottles produced in the US, and the above advertisement was produced for Brita, a water filtration company.)

“Imagine a water bottle filled a quarter of the way up with oil. That’s about how much oil was needed to produce the bottle.”

National Geographic

ReNe: 30km

Apparently, we are currently living 31.32km away from a nuclear power plant. The Pickering nuclear plant to be exact. Pickering is Canada's oldest nuclear power plant, and is situated 30km from downtown Toronto, closer than any other reactor to a major population center, and provides 50% of Ontario's power needs.

Scary, ain't it?

The Canadian government is considering spending billions to upgrade the reactors so as to extend their lives till 2060, but many think that the money could be better spent on greener, alternative energy resources, and I agree. For example, Denmark produces more than 20% of its energy from wind power. Though I keep complaining about how windy (and chilly) Toronto is, I'm not sure if it's as windy here as in Denmark. Still, it is one very viable alternative. In 2006, wind power accounted for 0.7% of Canada's energy generation, but it is poised to grow significantly and approach a figure of 5.5% by 2015. However, I'm not certain if 5.5% refers to a theoretical ceiling or if it is based on current growth rates for the wind industry (Canada has a rapidly growing wind industry, which has doubled in the past year).

Or, we could all use less power.

Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol, with an initial target of a 6% reduction in emissions, but embarrassingly, Canada is second only to Austria, worldwide, in the staggering size of its failure to meet its Kyoto target. Canada's greenhouse gas emissions were more than 34% above its (6%) reduction target!

ReNe: it's tough to be a green cyborg

Although the internet seems as airy as a butterfly when it comes to environmental footprints, there's actually a lot of hidden cost behind computers.

First, there is the environment cost in the manufacture of a PC, which apparently requires ten times the weight of the product in chemical and fossil fuels, and uses heavy toxic metals such as lead, arsenic, antimony, cadmium, chromium, and so on.

Next, if we look at the running costs (electricity costs) alone, it's can be quite staggering.

According to surveys conducted by the market research firm IDC, between 2000 and 2005, the power consumption of network computers doubled worldwide.
--snip--
Depending on the initial data, one Google search consumes enough electricity to run an 11-watt, energy-saving lightbulb for 15 minutes to an hour. [news article]

However, on the flip side, there are also a lot of environmental savings that could be had with computers. For example, online newspapers, magazines, articles, movies, music -- moving these from physical objects to digital data is environmentally friendly. I haven't subscribed to newspapers in almost ten years, and now that I read more news than before and from all over, if I had to buy each paper I read, I'd be very much poorer. I haven't bought a CD in years, and in the past year, I've only bought one book; many books can now be found online. No more bulky photo albums and envelopes of negatives that would degrade in years. Although I don't watch TV, I'm sure you can watch TV with your computer, thus saving one more appliance. At work, one can theoretically save a lot of paper by keeping all the bookkeeping digital, using powerpoint instead of transparencies, using emails instead of paper notices, etc.

I would like to be more environmentally friendly but I'm not going to turn all pastoral. Like I've said before, I'm a cyborg and I need my computer and internet. Ah, hard choices. I'd continue to use my computer but I'd pay more attention to reducing electricity wastage.

Some ways to reduce the power draw of the PCs if you have leave them on all the time (though not all apply to laptops):

• Configure the hard drives to sleep on inactivity.
• Do the same for the monitor. In fact, don't use an active screensaver, aka CPU-eaters. Have it blank out.
  
• In fact, switch your monitor to a LCD. A LCD typically draws less than half the power of a CRT.
• Configure your system preferences to run on energy-saving modes.
  
• Disconnect peripherals that are not in use, e.g. portable hard drives, CD-ROMS.
• Shut down when not in use. This is very hard for me; my computer's up-time tend to be measured in weeks, though it does go to sleep.
  
• Don't use a high-end video card. Unless you really must. After the CPU, the video card is by far the biggest power consumer in a typical PC.
• Upgrade to a more efficient power supply. (I didn't know this until I was googling around for tips.) Apparently, a certain percentage of the input power to your PC is lost as waste during the conversion from wall power to something the PC can use. At typical power loads (~90w), the average power supply efficiency is a disappointing 65%. So check your power supply efficiency.
  

ReNe: does anyone ever think that the term 'gas' is simply odd?

The price of oil just keeps going up.

By the way, does anyone ever think that the term 'gas' is simply odd? If gasoline is gas, then what's natural gas? Here's an example where the use of 'gas' becomes awkward: Gas liquids, while valuable hydrocarbons, are not a viable substitute for oil and cannot be economically used as a feedstock for gasoline, diesel or jet fuel. The term 'gas liquids' obviously refers to the oil fractions that's distilled from crude oil during the refinement process, but to someone who's not familiar with the American names, 'gas liquid' just sounds like a contradiction.

The other irritating thing to hearing about all these complaints about oil is that, if you say 'petrol here in North America, most people will stare blankly. I was educated in British English, but I also know the common American English terms; I just wish the North Americans can do the same. I, and probably most other people not from North America, can use metric and imperial, spell in both British and American, understand if you say 'dah-tah' or 'day-tah'.... why can't the North Americans?

Anyway, back to oil prices going up. (And I agree with those who say that world oil production has peaked, so oil prices would only get higher from now on.) So what does it probably mean, for the average consumer? The top three things that pop immediately to my mind are:

(1) The costs of many things around the globe are going up, most notably food prices, and I do think a large part of the rising costs are due to the increasing price of oil, even if there are other factors involved. I think it's likely the 'world will become larger', in the sense that, while it may be cheap and feasible for one to buy 200-mile lettuce or other products that have traveled halfway across the world, this may not remain the case for long and we might see a shift towards to the buying of more local products. Not that I think we will return to a more provincial time, especially since we've opened the 'internet' box, but that on some levels, we can't enjoy all the conveniences globalization once promised because cheap transport of goods and services will not be so cheap anymore.

(2) Driving will probably get very much more expensive. If I was still riding my motorbike, it would cost me CAD19.84 to fill it up now (at CAD1.24 a litre, gas is really much cheaper in North America; it was about SGD1.90 last July, anyone can tell me what's the average price now?) and an estimated CAD36 in four years. This means, very probably, no more big bikes for us. No Ducatis, no petrol-guzzling huge bikes, no revving down a highway at 10,000 rpm. No fun.

(3) Telecommuting and working from home would probably be the way to go. I've been saying that for years but that's because I'm lazy. Now, I can throw in the practical and environmental angle as well: "It's not that I don't want to get dressed in a penguin suit and commute to work, but we should all be more environmentally friendly."

ReNe: earth day

Today is Earth Day.

Apparently, it's been around for a long time (38 years), but before I moved to Toronto, I didn't know that. Somehow I'm not surprised; Singapore may pride itself as the 'Garden City' but it isn't terribly environmentally aware. Myself, I'm learning, and I would like to make a difference. Of course, it is very heartening to be more environmentally conscious when I'm living in a place that encourages habits such as recycling. For people who wonder why they should bother with all this environmental action/sacrifice when it feels like throwing starfish back into the sea, Michael Pollan wrote a very good article.

What follows are some random, possibly incoherent thoughts from some of the stuff I read today.

A bit of practical advice: given that organic food is usually more expensive, and coupled with the recent increases in food prices, it's helpful to strategize food expenses. A study of 43 fruits and vegetables found that some of the produce that contains the highest amounts of pesticides (either they retain a lot naturally or they require more during growing) include peaches, apples, bell peppers and celery, while the bottom of the list include produce such as onions, avocado and mango.

On another note, I'm much more pleased with my efforts to mix my own soap. The switch from castile soap to another brand (Au Naturel) was good; the soap now feels much better. A good ratio is equal amounts of soap and glycerin; it's not too drying or heavy. Plus, it smells much better now. The trick is to include a citrus top-note as well, even though the idea of adding a fresh citrusy scent to heavier oils such as lavender or ylang ylang or sandalwood seems very strange. I am now moving onto shampoo recipes; one organic toiletry project at a time, hurrah.

While it is good to see more companies 'greening', sometimes I'm dubious. Sometimes, it just seems as if green is the new hip, but while people think they're doing something for the Earth by buying organic stuff, it all just the same song and dance because people are still as consumeristic as ever and nothing fundamental has really changed.

And a more sobering, fact from today's Star article: even though Canada ractified the Kyoto Protocol, its greenhouse gas emissions has actually increased 25% from 1990 to 2005. Moreoever, Canadians still rank as some of the highest producers of greenhouse gases; while Canada has about 0.5% of the world's population, it contributes about 2% of total global emissions. Each Canadian produces about 23 tonnes of emissions in 2005, comparable to the average of 24.4 tonnes in the US and 27.7 in Australia. These figures are all almost double other industrialized countries such as Germany, the UK, France and Japan. If Canada wishes to achieve the planned 20% reduction in emissions from 2006 levels by 2020, they've quite a way to go.

Lastly, calculating carbon footprint. Using this site and doing a very, very rough calculations, we apparently have a decent footprint right now because we have no vehicle and we walk or cycle almost everywhere (about 3.3 tonnes; average Canadian 20 tonnes, average industrialized nation person 11 tonnes, global average 4 tonnes). But if I reset it to our habits in Singapore, and once I factor in our motorbikes (and the fact that we had quite a lot of mileage on them), it jumps to 5.4 tonnes.

ReNe: the clothesline ban

Ontario will soon overrule the current regulation that outlaw clotheslines because they're considered unsightly.

Personally, I've always thought the ban ridiculous. When I first moved to St Louis, I didn't know that most places in North America, apparently, have such regulations. My apartment had a balcony and St Louis was hot and dry. Wet laundry hung out, especially at the height of summer, dried in less than two hours. Even the heavy cottons. Stepping out onto the balcony was like stepping out into a furnace; summer temperatures in St Louis were sometimes over 40C (100F)!

'Perfect for laundry', I thought. 'Strange. I wonder why nobody else is drying their clothes out and saving money?'

Much, much later, I found out that you're not supposed to do it. And it's not like, oh, you shouldn't pick your nose in public because it's unsightly but nobody will catch and fine you if you do. There's actually a law in place forbidding clotheslines for purely aesthetic reasons. I guess I was lucky nobody reported me? And I meant that sarcastically.

I wonder if the clothesline ban applies to drying racks as well?

Dryers account for 5 to 6 per cent of Ontario's household electricity demand. An average machine consumes about 900 kilowatt-hours of energy each year and results in the discharge of up to 840 kilograms of air pollution and greenhouse gases. Each dryer adds about $90 a year to a household's electricity bill. [from the same article]

Mike and I approximate 2 laundry loads a week, that's $3 saved by not using the coin dryer. This works out to $144 a year. And that's just the monetary cost. Clothes also last longer when air-dried. Most importantly, it's more environmentally friendly, and you can't put a price tag to that. (Well, I know people do try, but quantifying unquantifiables seems silly to me.)

I wonder what North Americans think of the laundry bamboo poles that are ubiquitous over many parts of Asia? While searching for such an image, I came across the following in an article, and it's about Singapore. Nice!


Yes, that photo above (on the left) looks just like our first flat. It's not too ugly, is it? Charming, in a ugly-but-full-of -character way. I used to hang out bamboo poles like that; really worked out my deltoids. I'm proud to say I can carry a pole with a wet quilt cover on it, from only one end, and stick it out of the window into the little bamboo pole holder. Sometimes it's pretty windy but I've never dropped a pole, which is good, because dropping a pole of wet laundry from the 14th floor is Not Done.

But there were problems too. Inconsiderate people hanging out dripping clothing... dripping mops, even buckets... killer litter... often, flats were so tiny people 'extended' their storage space outside and hung everything from cleaning equipment to plants. I even had curry on my clothes before. A neighbor opposite my place set up an awning (like those shop awnings) to protect their laundry, an obviously home-made structure hanging out of their window on the fourteenth floor. People below yelling obscenities at the people living above. Still, like most events past, selective amnesia sets in and you tend to look back at such memories with considerably more fondness than they warranted. Ah, nostalgia.

Note: April 19 is apparently National Hanging Out Day in North America. Because hanging clothes out to dry is so amazing.

ReNe: to toss out that nalgene

Saw an article today:

Health Canada is calling bisphenol A a dangerous substance, making it the first regulatory body in the world to reach such a determination and taking the initial step toward measures to control exposures to it.

--snip--

Bisphenol A, or BPA, is one of the most widely used synthetic chemicals in modern industry. It is the basic building block for polycarbonate, the see-through, shatter-proof plastic that resembles glass, and is also used to make the epoxy resins lining the insides of most tin cans, along with some dental sealants, sports helmets, and compact discs.

Experts are worried about BPA in food and beverage containers. Products such as CDs aren't considered a problem.

Huh. So I guess the Nalgene bottle we're currently using is not good. Checking (AKA googling), yes, the polycarbonate Nalgene bottles do contain BPA.

Interestingly, there were conflicting reports on just what factors influence the rate of BPA leaching. A 1999 study found that new bottles, washed gently before using, leached 3.5 parts per billion (ppb) of BPA into water, while extremely worn and scratched bottles leached levels of BPA as high as 28 ppb (J Health Sci, 45(6): 318-323, 1999). In a more recent 2008 study, researchers tested new and old, scratched bottles, and found that age of the containers didn't influence how much BPA they leached in an hour, but adding hot water to them did, by up to a 55-fold increase. (Tox Lett, 176(2): 149-156, 2008). Most probably, it's both, i.e., both heat and old bottles increase leaching. It makes sense: heat should increase the migration of BPA molecules and an old, scratched bottle would have an increased surface for BPA to leach from.

ReNe: more about avoiding plastics

A more general note about plastics.

I see three main issues:
(1) Do plasticizers leach out of plastics? Yes, I think there are strong evidence for this. Google around. What I've read so far makes sense.

(2) Are these plasticizers harmful? This is harder to answer. The amounts that do leach out are tiny, and probably not too harmful in the short term, though the jury's still out on possible harmful effects from long-term dosage. There is also the extent of harm to consider; toxicology studies examine the obvious and extreme effects of a toxic compound, for example, if a compound causes death or cancer, and the lethal dosage. But just because something doesn't kill you doesn't mean it can't make you chronically sick.

(3) Can plastics be avoided? The practical question. I think it's hard to completely avoid plastics, though some do, and I'd think it makes sense, and is much easier, to prioritize the plastics to avoid. Plus, plastics are really useful in many capacities.

Recently, I've been trying to minimize usage of plastics, especially as food containers. The rate of plasticizer leach is greatest when the plastic is heated, which makes sense, so while I'm still carrying my cold lunch to work in a plastic container, I've stopped microwaving my lunch in that same container but instead transfer it to a ceramic bowl.

I've also read that plasticizers leach best into high fat foods, which also makes sense. For example, pthalates are alkyl esters and are highly soluble in hydrophobic solvents. Finally, not all plastics are the same. Some either contain more toxic plasticizers or maybe higher concentrations (and hence a higher leach rate), and studies have looked into this (as soon as I can find the original research that showed this, I'd link it). Some plastics to avoid include #3 (PVC, or poly vinyl chloride), #6 (PS, or polystyrene), #7 ("other," often polycarbonate), where the numbers refer to the plastic recycling numbers in the tri-arrow triangle.

Along the lines of not all plastics are the same, specific plastic water bottles like Nalgene are better than those 'singe-use' plastic bottles. At work, I've thrown away the 'single-use' plastic bottle I re-used over and over again to hold water and now I use a glass juice bottle (free, after a seminar that provides refreshments). The latest fad now, after the reusable plastic Nalgene bottle (a little bling), is the aluminium Sigg bottle (even more bling-bling), but it's all pretty consumeristic I feel. Besides, I'm not sure aluminum is perfectly safe as well.

I still use a lot of plastic containers in the kitchen, such as yoghurt or ice-cream tubs to store dry foodstuffs. I would gradually make the transition to replace these plastic containers, but small steps first.

From an environmental viewpoint, it's good to also minimize use of plastics. Plastics that are not very recyclable include #3, #4 (LDPE, or low density polyethylene), #5 (PP, or polypropylene), #6 and #7. Given that there are only seven categories and that five of those seven are considered 'not easily recyclable', we should say that it is not easy to recycle plastic and stop patting ourselves on the back when we see that little plastic recycling triangle and 'properly' toss the plastic garbage into the recycling bin.

ReNe: pthalates and bisphenol A

Hey Jess,

Gotta watch out for plastic baby bottles (and plastic teething rings, later).

Just remembered something I read a couple of months back, when pthalates (a type of plasticizer) in baby bottles, and their potential harmful effects, were creating a ruckus in the local (Toronto) newspapers. Then I thought I should blog it so others can panic too (heh) and also for my own reference archive. One such news article. A better article.

A bit of background on plasticizers:
Plastics are made up of two components: (1) the polymer, which forms the bulk, and (2) the additives, which are used to give plastic useful properties. Mainly, it is the additives that allow the great variety of plastics, and one of the more important classes (65%) of plastic additives are plasticizers, which give plastics flexibility and durability.

The problem with plasticizers is that they are not tightly bound to the polymers. They are not bonded, covalently or ionically, and instead sit between the polymer chains, lubricating and allowing the chains to slide over each other, like meat sauce on spaghetti. And because they are not bound, they can leach out of the plastic. Sometimes this is obvious, for example, the new plastics smell. Studies have shown that plasticizers can and do migrate to the surface of plastics, and then evaporate or leach out into the surrounding environment.

The most common type of plasticizers are chemicals called phthalates. Phthalate plasticizers will eventually migrate out of plastics entirely, and as a result the plastics become brittle. Because of the widespread use of phthalates, they have become one of the most abundant industrial pollutants in the environment; many phthalates are classified as toxic chemicals by the EPA's Toxic Release Inventory. More...

Pthalates have been associated with liver abnormalities including tumours, as well as fertility problems, especially male reproductive development. Some phthalates (there are many types) may act as endocrine disruptors, which mimics the naturally occurring hormone estrogen. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals can duplicate, block or exaggerate hormonal responses that control development of the brain, the reproductive system, and other functions. More...

The other compound that's of concern in baby bottles is bisphenol A (BPA). BPA is also considered an endocrine-disruptor. More... A new study released by Environmental Defence (Canada) found that 90% of plastic baby bottles sold in Canada leach BPA into infant formula, milk or other liquids being drunk by babies.

Yes, I know. As if you didn't have enough baby stuff to worry about.

ReNe: soap saga

Recently, I've been trying my hand at mixing my own skincare toiletries, as in, acquiring some base ingredients and putting them together.

It started last year, when I first noticed that some brands of organic toiletries sold in North America (soap, shampoo) are not expensive. I've never bought organic toiletries in Singapore because since organic stuff is all so expensive and I'm not rich, I'd spend money on the organic stuff that I actually ingest.

Then I read about sodium lauryl sulphate, a very common surfactant found in commercial toiletries. It's widely used because it's cheap and also because it's a good degreaser and foaming agent. Unfortunately, the degreasing properties also means that SLS is very drying on the skin. A look at the material safety data sheet shows that it is an irritant and a possible carcinogen.

MANUFACTURERS MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET ON SODIUM LAURYL SULPHATE

Health Hazard Acute And Chronic:

ACUTE: CAUSES MILD IRRITATION ON CONTACT WITH SKIN, EYES OR MUCOUS MEMBRANES. SKIN CONTACT COULD CAUSE IRRITATION OR ALLERGIC REACTION. MODERATELY TOXIC BY INGESTION.

CHRONIC: TESTS ON LAB ANIMALS INDICATE MATERIAL MAY CAUSE MUTAGENIC EFFECTS

So, I thought, how to avoid it? Well, I could just buy the organic stuff, though not all avoid the use of SLS. Often, they use some derivative such as sodium laureth sulfate (SLES), which are not very much better. Or I could mix my own. The latter appealed to the chemist in me. (Yes, I've not stepped into a chemistry lab for almost a decade, but once in a while, I still like to muck around with liquids.)

The first soap I got was castile soap, which is just a really simple soap made from olive oil and sodium hydroxide. It's an all-purpose cleaner, grease-cutter, and disinfectant; in fact, such soaps were the original cleaners, before detergents were invented (though to be precise, animal fat-based soaps came before vegetable-based soaps). Apparently it can be used straight out of the bottle as a cleanser (since it came as a thin liquid), but I found it too drying on my skin, probably because my skin's naturally dry. So I started reading up a bit more.

Backtracking a bit towards the basics:
Although we generally refer to skin cleaning products when we say soap, and house cleaning products when we say detergents, strictly speaking, soap is a salt of a fatty acid, and is made through a saponification reaction between a fat and a strong base, or alkali. The fat can be animal fat or a vegetable oil (which would give castile soap its name), and the alkai is usually sodium hydroxide (also known as lye), potassium hydroxide (potash) or sodium cabonate (soda ash). In saponification, the alkali hydrolyzes the fat and converts the fatty acids to glycerol (also known as glycerin) and soap, which is the fatty acid salt.

However, many of the cleansing products we use today are technically not soaps but detergents, which are defined loosely as a compound, or a mixture of compounds, intended to assist cleaning. In other words, it's encompasses the wide range of cleaning agents that are not soaps. Soap cleans by acting as an emulsifier, i.e. it allows oil and water to mix so that oily grime can be removed during rinsing. Detergents are primarily surfactants, which lower the surface tension of water so that it (water) is less likely to stick to itself and more likely to interact with oil and grease.

So what are the problems associated with current commercial skincare cleaners today? For one, some are not technically even 'soaps', but detergents, which are harsher. A look at the ingredient list of most shower gels/creams shows that a major ingredient is SLS, or its cousins, and this is the detergent because this is the degreaser at work in the cleaner. Even for 'real' bar soaps, most commercial bar soap manufacturers take out the glycerin that is (always) produced during the saponification process, and replace it with a lesser-quality chemical moisturizer. Why? Because glycerin is a humectant, i.e. it is the moisturizer component of the soap, and apparently it is valuable. Companies remove glycerin because they can sell the glycerin for use in other products. A look at moisturizers often show glycerin listed as one of the major ingredient; in a tube I'm holding, glycerin comes right after water!

Sounds ridiculous right? To remove the moisturizing component of the soap, replace with a lesser quality moisturizer, and then because the soap now becomes too drying, sell you a separate moisturizer, which incidentally contains the glycerin from that soap. Even without going into other controversial problems with many commercial soaps such as artificial fragrance, dyes, triclosan (anti-bacterial agent), already there is a strong case for making or at least mixing your own soaps.

(Apparently, a lot of people do MAKE their own soap. You can buy lye, as sodium hydroxide is known to soap-makers, and add it to your own choice of vegetable oil, but the process apparently requires some precautions. Like proper ventilation. Duh. Heating sodium hydroxide over your kitchen stove does come with its hazards. But if I know where to buy sodium hydroxide, I may try it... I did it once before in secondary school.)

Having read all that, the next logical step, for my dry skin that is, would be to add some moisturizing component to the castile soap, such as glycerin and/or oils. Luckily, I happened to also discover an organic shop nearby called Grass Roots that sells in bulk many common cleaning agents, including glycerin. Nice. I bought some (it's not expensive) and added it to the castile soap. (The castile soap already has glycerin, by the way, retained from the saponifiation process; I just wanted more.) It worked; the soap is now more moisturizing. I also added a bit of glycerin to our non-organic (detergent) hand-soap, thinking more moisture is always good. Because when I was playing around with all these, it was winter and my skin was feeling *really* dry.

I experimented with various ratios of soap and glycerin. A good ratio for optimal foaming seems to be about 30-40% glycerin, the rest castile soap, but this mixture is still a little too drying for me. 50% glycerin and 50% soap works nicely and I can live with the lowered foaming qualities. Then I tried adding some sesame oil (because I read a bit about super-fatting soaps) but that really killed the bubbles. I'm also experimenting with another organic soap I bought from Grass Roots. However, because after I mix up a small batch, I'd have to test (and use that lot up) over the next few days, so the trials are moving along slowly.

So, is it cheap(er)? Compared to buying the high-end skincare (organic or non-organic), yeah. Buying all these stuff in bulk is comparable to buying the cheap skincare stuff. However, as the liquid castile soap and glycerin are very, very liquid, I go through them relatively quickly. Overall, I think it's still quite cheap. As I mentioned, I'm trying another brand of organic liquid soap -- it's more viscous (easier to use) and much cheaper.

The other big problem I have as well is with the scents; till now, I've not been able to settle on a pleasing scent. I guess I could leave the soap 'scentless', but while the fragrance-free organic soaps do not smell disagreeable, pure glycerin smells a little weird. More about scent mixing in a later post.

ReNe: it's cold. or is it?

Officially, it's the first day of spring today.

It was flurrying lightly when I walked to work and the temperature was about zero. According to local newspapers, this has been a colder, and snowier, than usual winter, and it will be a colder than usual spring. At this time last year, the temperatures averaged 13-15C higher. Well, I don't mind much. It's not cold enough that I have to bundle up with scarfs or hats, and it's quite nice to walk in the cold.

The severity of this year's winter was all over the news; it's colder than average in western Canada, while in eastern Canada, quite a number of the cities are on track to break their snow level records; Toronto apparently only has 20cm more to go. Thus some articles, like this and this, have been roughly along the lines of: "Colder than Average Winter. Ice Shelf Thickening. Global warming? Ha!"

(Tried to go back to hunt for the links as much as possible, because it's important to reference claims, but either the newspapers' search engine sucks or my 'search engine', and I'm not referring to Google, sucks. This happens very often. I'd read an article, and later, even on the same day, I'd go back to the site and I can't find it. Just yesterday night, I wanted to show Mike an article I read in the morning on BBC news. Oddly, the BBC search engine couldn't find it, but Google could. So apologies if I refer to a claim that's not linked.)

But writing off global warming because of an unseasonably cold winter is a premature, knee-jerk reaction. For the past two years, it was warmer than average and people were going "Oh No. Ice Shelf Melting. We Will All Drown." I'm sure people must have been complaining last year, "Only 60cm of Snow? What Kind of Canadian winter Is This?" This year, yes, it was colder than average -- in North America and parts of Asia, but apparently not so in western and northern Europe.

In Norway, "this February was the second-warmest since records began in the year 1900", and Germany's Federal Maritime and Hydrographic Agency says that "this winter will likely go down in history as the one with the least ice since 1720... The Gulf of Bothnia, the northern end of the Baltic Sea between Finland and Sweden, is normally completely icebound from late February until mid-March, but this winter there was ice only in its northernmost tip and in a few archipelago zones farther south". The Swedish weather service reported that this is their "warmest winter ever... the average temperature in Stockholm was above 2 degrees Celsius from December to February -- the highest temperatures since records were first kept in 1756". There was not enough snow so dog sled races and tours were canceled and "instead of dog sledding, tourists could go on hikes in the coastal mountains with the temporarily unemployed huskies". Ski races have been canceled, ice-breaker ships were also idle.

So. What's up?

First, looking at the temperatures one year at a time is statistically not significant. Just because a winter breaks records (whether high or low) is not enough for panic; one has to look at the past trend for decades. You know, a pretty chart, like this:


Moreover, statistics can be very confusing, even misleading. All those statements above about the record warm temperatures, and previous posts about record snow levels and cold temperatures -- they're all true. But here's another statistic: the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the eighth warmest on record for December and the fifth warmest on record for 2007. The combined global land and ocean surface temperature for January was the 31st warmest on record (since 1880), 0.32°F/0.18°C above the 20th century mean. Temperatures were colder than average across large parts of central and southern Asia. The January global land surface average was below the 20th century mean (-0.02°F/-0.01°C) for the first time since 1982.

So. Is it cold? Or not?

Wait, there's more. If the earth really is warming up, there could be more than one cause (referring to the oft-mentioned carbon emissions). This year's lower than average temperature have been attributed to La Niña; some warmer than average seasons have been attributed to her big brother.

And, totally separate from the La Niña phenomenon, we also happen to be at a solar irradiance minimum [Geophys. Res. Lett. 30(5): 1199, 2003]. In other words, there is cooling from a strong La Niña and there is also a little more cooling from being at a solar irradiance mimumum. So if this is still the 16th warmest winter on record, then we are all confused.

Were you expecting me to say, then global warming IS happening? Probably. I think it is. But there is no easy answer.

MiKE: end of suburbia

So here I go with my own additions to serene's comments...

For many people around the world, the dream is to be able to live up to the 'America' standard of living, the 3 car garage, huge lawn, even bigger house, rooms filled with stuff which continually get replaced whenever the latest and greatest technology and fashion come out, 'better living through chemistry', and relatively peaceful, comfortable lives. Consumption of natural resources just becomes a bill which one pays every month, and stuff just magically gets made, with little or no sight of the costs, environmental, social, and economic, that go into the production of this stuff. One lives on 'private property', in lands cleared from tracts of nature[1], to give the (often caricatured) idyllic sense of being close to wilderness, away from the noise and bustle of the city, away from the closest neighbour even; and in order to get to work, play, school, and sites of consumption, one drives, often great distances (50-100 miles daily).

But then, what many people do not know, the dirty little secret behind all of this, is that this entire lifestyle (and this is the proper use of the term, not the warped sense of 'gay lifestyle' some people have co-opted) is predicated on the availability of cheap oil: Oil is refined for petrol for cars, natural gas for electricity generation, and the heavier fractions for the multitude of chemicals from plastics and other synthetic materials that are now ubiquitous in our lives.

And the oil is running out. Except that, unlike the situation where we are all familiar with, say, in cars, where, if the fuel tank runs out, the engine dies, and that's the end of it, with oil production, the graph of production over time follows a bell shaped curve, and past the peak, although oil will still be extractable, it will become progressively harder and more expensive to continue to extract. In the 1800s and early 1900s, oil was so abundant that it was even cheaper than water in Texas, but now, as serene has noted, oil just crossed the $100/bbl mark, and it does not look like we would be able to go back to the days of cheap oil.

What does one do?

One could, if one had a sufficiently developed sense of moral responsibility for future generations, divert funds away from war (and the military-industrial complex) spending into an R&D surge looking for alternative sources of energy, while at the same time, convincing the population of the benefits of new urbanism, in short, moving people into denser population centres, where one can work, play, spend time, create a sense of community, and be close to other people, without excessive claustrophobia or ills associated with excessive urbanisation and inner city decay. Convince people to stop using energy and petrochemical derived products as if there was no tomorrow - and that includes the 'green revolution' farming methods of using the earth as a sponge for our generous application of growth compounds, pesticides and other chemical products. Retool industries and prepare work processes to take advantage of technologies - for example, why not telecommute?

Or:

Start wars all over the world in an attempt to further secure hegemony and ensure continuity of oil supplies in the guise of a 'never-ending war on terror'; open up drilling in the Arctic and other wildlife refuges; continue pretending that it is 'business as usual', the corporations still need to get fatter and the most important thing is that the way of life of suburbia must prevail; continue externalising costs to parties outside the country, making other people pay in terms of environmental, social and psychological costs; all the while laughing to the bank?

Somehow, I am not optimistic that the first option is going to be taken up anytime soon.

[1] Ironically, the interviewee (I think it was James Kunstler) described how many suburban housing projects often name themselves after the species that have been murdered to make way for the project. James has interesting ideas. A concise summary of many points in the first part of the video can be found here:

ReNe: end of suburbia

Just watched yet another environmental issue-related documentary that was very well done and powerful. The full title is The End of Suburbia: Oil depletion and the collapse of the American dream, and was produced/directed by two Toronto filmakers Gregory Greene and Barry Silverthorn.

The focus of the film was on two issues, I'd say: suburbia and oil. Suburbia is driven by cheap oil, and so suburbia cannot be discussed without mentioning oil, but a large portion of the film also examines the peaking of oil (production) and its implications.

Back in Singapore, I've heard a little bit about suburbia, but I had imagined mostly in the context of the term 'suburbs', the 'residential' area where people live, as compared to 'commercial' and 'industrial' areas where people work. Like what the private estates in Yishun or Sembawang are to Shenton Way or Tuas. It was only after coming to North America that I found out more about what 'suburbia' in the North American context actually means, both from informative media and through a short experience (in St Louis). It's more than just a zoning label to describe a separate municipality; it's a concept.

It's also a misguided ideal, as this film (and many other people, books, etc.) expounds in detail. I'm not in a position to say very much about suburbia, having never really lived it, but I found myself nodding (figuratively) at parts during the film where suburban sprawl was discussed. The strip malls, the one-storied mega-malls with huge carparks, the ubiquity of car ownership (it's like a civil right). On the drive from St Louis to Toronto, I noticed huge empty tracts of land -- no surprise there; the US is huge -- and then the occasional building or house, almost literally, in the middle of nowhere. I was mystified; whoever lived or worked there would have to commute (i.e. drive) many tens of miles... I also noticed a lot of huge trucks on the inter-state highways. They probably formed half, or more, of the vehicular population on the road on a regular weekday.

Guess it's one thing to learn about such things intellectually, but like visiting a foreign culture, it's quite another to actually see it. I would say that living in St Louis was very comfortable; things were cheap and plentiful, and I can see the seduction of the so-called American dream.

Released in May 2004, the film was made very soon after the US invaded Iraq. Some of the experts interviewed in the film cited their doubts as to the veracity of the justifications for war, and its projected length (remember the WMDs that were never found, and Rumsfeld's claims that US soldiers would be welcomed with flower strewn streets?) "If there wasn't oil in Iraq, the US wouldn't have invaded it." A couple of the experts further predicted that the ongoing Iraq war, which they consider part of a more generalized war (or euphemistically, 'contest') for oil and gas resources, could easily last a lifetime, as a template for upcoming conflicts between nation-states to secure energy supplies.

Here's a ratio: the US gets 15% of their natural gas from Canada, but that 15% accounts for 50% of Canada's production. Clearly, it will only be a matter of time, given the diminishing stocks, that Canada will reduce exports to the US. When that time comes, what is going to happen to US electricity rates?

There were some interesting predictions mentioned in the film. One was about the peaking of oil production by Marion King Hubbert; he predicted that the US would peak in the late 1960s to early 1970s, and this came true in 1970. Experts also realized that though the price of oil after WWII was extremely cheap, oil prices would continue to rise, and rise rapidly, after the peaking of oil production. A tickertape on the TV footage in the film showed the price of crude oil to be $38 per barrel (accompanied by terms like 'record' and '!'). That was in late 2003. Curious, I googled around. Post-WWII, the price per barrel rarely exceeded $18.53 and until 2000, only exceeded $24 per barrel in times of crisis or conflict in the Middle East. Interestingly, only 50% of the time period from 1947 to 2006 have oil prices exceeded $18.53 per barrel. This time last year, the price of oil was between $50-60 per barrel. On 12 Mar 2008, that number hit $110.70 per barrel (all prices here in USD).

That's a very rapid rise in the past few years.

Global oil production has, very most probably, peaked already. The fact that it would peak is not even a matter of dispute anymore; it's only a matter of when. As Richard Heinberg says it in the title of one of his books, the party's over. And this would have far-reaching consequences, most fairly bleak, some not-so, but overall, it means that we simply cannot go on leading a non-sustainable lifestyle. Environmentalism is not for a small group of 'hippies' anymore.

At the moment, alternative energy sources cannot provide the same level of energy production and at the same kind of prices as oil, and the hype over hydrogen and ethanol is simply overdone. It takes more energy to produce hydrogen (energy that requires electricity produced from oil) than it provides, and the earth does not have enough land to grow the corn needed for ethanol required to maintain Americans' current lifestyle. That was what the interviewees were saying back in 2003, and this has shown to be even truer today. But the crux of the problem is that of excess -- Americans simply cannot afford to live the lifestyle they've been leading for the past half-century. Coming up with new fuels just so that one can continue driving cars (which require resources to make) on long six-lane roads (which also take resources to maintain) between their suburbs and city is not solving the problem at its fundamental level.

Good show. Go watch (promo).

ReNe: about whales

Actually, this is not really about whales. More like, about humans.

Haven't really been following the anti-whaling debate but the very little I've seen from the headlines leaves me disgusted with the groups on the anti-whaling sides, particularly Greenpeace.

Considering the tactics they used, their name is an oxymoron.

On the whalers' side, they claim that they avoid species that are in danger, catching only those that remain plentiful such as the minke whales. That may or may not be true -- to verify that would take a lot more digging around as to the actual numbers. That said, the so-called Japanese 'research whaling trips' sound really dubious. Incidentally as dubious as the 'moose/bison/traditionally hunted animal cullings' in the US. So right, giving the whalers the benefit of doubt for the moment.

On the anti-whalers side, however, their claims remind me of the way the West decry the 'barbaric' way Chinese eat dogs (the *horror*). (Sidetrack: but, what's the difference between eating dog and cow? How about rabbits? Meat is meat.) There's a touch of xenophobia and arrogance in the anti-whaling statements. If groups like Greenpeace are truly for environmentalism, they should be focusing their efforts on the beef industry in the US and Australia. Oh wait, Greenpeace and such are also for saving species from extinction. Sure, the cows are in no danger of being extinct soon, but the beef industry creates a lot more environmental problems, which in turn leads to the extinction of a lot of other species, which are probably small and not as visible as the whale.

Cynically, I think it's simply easier to drum up outrage in the West against the whale-eating Japanese (conveniently forgetting that they are not the only group to eat whale; what about Norway or Greenland? Australians, I believe, also used to eat whales.) rather than go up against the beef industry. The tactics Greenpeace use seem more sensationalist than effective, their actions at odds with their message. Greenpeace say they have no money to 'head to the southern seas to stop the whalers', others claim Greenpeace is pulling in over $50,000 in donations a day. I'm not sure if that number is correct, but I should think that given their glossy advertising, that figure might not be far off. Overall, there's something a bit off about an environmental group that constantly slips in the message, give us money so we can do this and that.

Somehow, Greenpeace reminds me very, very much of NKF in Singapore.

My conclusion? Glass houses all around and lots of stones.

ReNe: zoos in general

This is directly related to the previous post about zoos, but more along a serious vein of: what are zoos for?

(It's not intended to be a through, serious discourse. More as an foot-note and rumination based on the zoo trip post.)

I won't deny I do enjoy going to zoos. They are interesting, especially to a city-kid. But zoos also have their negative aspects. Caging animals for humans to gawk at -- that's an ugly side of zoos. Sure, there is an educational aspect, but people *do* go to the zoos to be entertained, hence the popularity of animal shows and the unequal treatment of 'star' animals. More than that, do humans have any right to confine animals like that? Don't people feel uncomfortable when they read the information signboards that say, "this animal has a natural forage range of x square kilometers", and then realize that said animal is currently kept in an enclosure a tiny fraction of that range?

So zoos started off as a way to showcase the exotica. However, these days, we *know* of zebras and giraffes and other animals that would have amazed the masses a century ago. We can read about them in books and watch them in their natural habitat in documentaries... certainly those are more humane options and probably a lot more educational as well.

What other purpose do zoos serve? To allow people to see animals 'up close and personal'? I don't agree with that, and personally think it probably does more harm than good. Petting zoos seem rather traumatic for the animals, I should think. Personally, I think zoos only have one 'good' function left, and that's as a genetic repository. Sure, saving the habitat is important, but sometimes, there may not be a habitat left for that species -- zoos can play the equivalent of a sperm bank and safehouse. And not just for endangered species -- storing the genetic material of any species could possibly come in useful in the future. Of course, in that case, then the concept of a zoo would have to be drastically re-evaluated.

To sum, I enjoy going to zoos but if zoos were to be banned because, to put it a little clumsily, they were deemed unjust to animals, I would support that.