Skip to content

Can antibacterial soap cause infection?

This article also appears on Soap Suds, the blog page for Amore Soap, my company. If you want to learn more about soap, and why natural soap is better for you than commercial soap, check out Soap Suds or Soap 101 on the site.

Why do you use soap?

The answer to this question seems obvious. You use soap to remove dirt and oil from your skin, leaving it feeling smooth and clean. You also use soap to help protect yourself from communicable diseases by killing harmful bacteria.

Because of the second reason, an antibacterial soap would seem to be a sensible choice. So why is there such a backlash against antibacterial soap and cleaning product among the scientific community?

Bacteria: our friends?

The controversy results from a general lack of understanding of the role of bacteria in life. Most people know that bacteria cause disease, but only those who have studied some biology know that pathogenic bacteria (those that cause disease in humans) represent only a tiny fraction of the species of bacteria on Earth.  The vast majority of bacteria have little or no effect on humans.

Aside from pathogenic and benign bacteria, there is a third group: beneficial bacteria. And within that group is a large number of species of essential bacteria. For example, you could not digest food without the thriving population of bacteria that live in your digestive system. To help keep your intestinal bacteria healthy, you eat probiotic foods such as yogurt.

Your digestive system is not the only place inhabited by beneficial bacteria. The number of bacteria that live on your skin outnumbers the number of cells in your body by at least ten to one, according to Faith, Madness, and Spontaneous Human Combustion: What Immunology Can Teach Us About Self-Perception. (Link goes to Amazon product page–highly recommended reading.) I’m not talking about that guy down the street who hasn’t showered in days (give him some Amore, someone!); I’m talking about a clean, healthy individual.

If it weren’t for the symbiotic bacteria that live on your skin, foreign bacteria, both benign and pathogenic, would take up residence. Stated simply,

The good bacteria that live on your skin protect you from the bad bacteria that could kill you.

When you use soap containing a strong antibacterial agent such as triclosan, you are killing not only the bad bacteria that may be on your skin, but the many of the essential bacteria that protect you. After washing your hands with antibacterial soap, the sweat and oils that naturally form on your skin provide a fertile new habitat for whatever bacteria are in your immediate environment.

Chances are, you haven’t sterilized yourself to the point where all of your essential bacteria are gone, but you’ve weakened their population enough that other bacteria will compete with them to establish a population on your skin. If you wash your entire body with antibacterial soap every day, you are providing a favorable environment for the growth of harmful bacteria.

Why does antibacterial soap exist?

The short answer is given in two words: medicine and money.

Triclosan is a biocide that was developed as a hospital scrub, according to a New York Times article on triclosan. It has been used since 1972, and is the active ingredient in many antibacterial products, including Microban, which infuses triclosan into solid products. (See the PAN Product Info page for Microban.)

According to the New York Times article, the US Food and Drug Administration first proposed regulating triclosan in 1972, and proposed removing it from scrubs and soaps in 1978. Anyone who follows the struggle between American government and American business should be able to see why the FDA’s review has not been completed, and their proposed ban has not been implemented.

Triclosan is a broad-spectrum biocide that works by disrupting the formation of fatty acids necessary to form cell membranes. This mechanism makes it very effective at destroying bacterial cells, unless they have some type of mechanism that gives them an immunity to this type of attack. Bacteria with such an immunity include Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa, all of which are common skin flora, but can be pathogenic.

Unfortunately, research has not yet demonstrated a conclusive link between triclosan and cancer (PAN lists triclosan as a possible human carcinogen) or endocrine disruption. However, it has been demonstrated that triclosan breaks down in the environment to form long-lived dioxins and other persistent environmental pollutants that are known endocrine disruptors.

There is some good news in the market for antibacterial products. Because of consumer demand, Colgate-Palmolive has replaced triclosan with lactic acid in its antibacterial dish soap. If Amore Soap ever considers making an antibacterial product, we’ll look at a natural solution such as this.

Recommended reading

I quoted a book earlier in this article: Faith, Madness, and Spontaneous Human Combustion: What Immunology Can Teach Us About Self-Perception. If you know a little about human anatomy, and how our systems work together, this book is a very interesting read. Click the text link to find the book on Amazon.com, or find it in your local library. After reading it, you’ll never think about the immune system the same way.

A research note

I tend to use Wikipedia as a source of basic research. Wikipedia can be a great place to start research, but you have to evaluate the articles carefully. An article that lists a lot of peer-reviewed scientific studies as references, and provides links that allow you to verify what is stated, is much more reliable than an article that quotes news articles, blogs, and sources that give you no way to verify them.

Posted in Corporate Social Responsibility, Global Issues.

No comments

By geobeck – August 21, 2011

When is 100% pure OJ not so pure?

I don’t often post articles that merely point to another article, but this is a case where the other blog has summed up the issue so well, there’s really little I can add to it, and it’s a topic that’s well suited for Buy Right.

Kristen at Food Renegade has a story about orange juice–or what pretends to be orange juice.  It seems that in order to preserve orange juice on its long trip through the supply chain, it is de-oxygenated.  Without oxygen, orange juice in sealed containers will not support the growth of aerobic bacteria, which would spoil it.  So that’s good, right?

Unfortunately, the oxygenated components of orange juice are what give it its flavour.  When you remove the oxygen, you remove the flavour.  So the big OJ manufacturers hire companies to create flavour ingredients to restore what de-oxygenation removed.  That’s why orange juice from a particular manufacturer tastes the same no matter when or where you buy it.

But if that’s the case, why does the label say “100% pure orange juice”, with no other ingredients listed?  the flavour ingredients are derived from oranges.  Although they are chemically modified, labeling laws allow them to be lumped in with oranges in general, allowing the company to keep the ‘pure’ ingredient list.

What’s more, given the chemical nature of the vitamins and nutrients within orange juice (for example, here’s vitamin C), it makes sense that the de-oxygenation process would damage them, reducing the nutritional value of packaged juice.

All in all, I agree with Kristen.  Trade in your juice habit for whole fruit.  Read her original article here.

Posted in Corporate Social Responsibility, Public Service Announcement, social responsibility.

No comments

By geobeck – July 30, 2011

The end of junk mail?

Last Friday, Tiny Green Bubble published a story about several US cities that plan to offer residents the option to refuse to accept junk mail–not e-mail spam, which has grown to comprise the vast majority of all electronic communication, but old-fashioned advertising mail.

This measure, if it passes, will send a significant message to advertisers.  It isn’t limited to small municipalities; the five cities introducing the programs are Chicago, Illinois; Kansas City, Missouri; Berkeley, California; Salem, Oregon; and Ithaca, New York.  The “Mail Preference Service”, designed by a non-profit organization called Catalog Choice, allows residents of participating cities to opt out of junk mail delivery.

The program will benefit more than the residents themselves.  Today, letters are becoming increasingly rare.  The bulk (so to speak) of important postal mail to residential addresses consists of bills–although e-billing services are reducing them too.  Most of what goes into residential mailboxes consists of advertising, and most of that goes straight from the mailbox to the recycling bin.  The apartment buildings I lived in over the last decade or so had garbage cans or recycling bins beside the mailboxes.  By the end of each day, these bins were overflowing because they contained most of the contents of the mailboxes.

Garbage has a real cost, whether it is recycled or landfilled.  Municipalities spend a great deal of money transporting waste paper.  A considerable amount of energy is spent sorting, de-inking, and processing paper into pulp that can be made into new paper.  Sorting is a necessary step; as I’ve mentioned before on this site, recycling is an imperfect process.  When paper is recycled, the fibers are broken into smaller pieces.  High quality paper is downcycled into lower-quality paper.  Mid-grade paper is downcycled into newsprint.  Old newsprint is used as a partial ingredient in recycled newsprint or lower-quality paper products such as take-out drink trays.  The lowest-quality paper products can be composted in jurisdictions that have such a service, or they end up in the landfill or incinerator.

Through municipal taxes, people spend millions of dollars a year disposing of paper they have not chosen to receive, and rarely give more than a cursory glance before tossing it into the bin.  According to Tiny Green bubble, the Mail Preference Service is estimated to save each resident $10 per year in waste disposal costs.  Mulitply that cost by the population of the United States and you can see that disposing of junk mail costs the US over $3 billion a year.  At that per-capita cost, my region (Niagara, Ontario) would have an additional $4 million a year to spend on other programs such as fixing aging roads.

In addition to the municipality-sponsored programs, Catalog Choice offers its opt-out service across the US (not yet in Canada, unfortunately).  With their free service, you have to specify the companies you wish to exclude from your mailbox.  They offer a subscription-based service to help remove you from mass-market mailing lists.

Will these five cities serve as a beacon for other municipalities to reduce their waste costs and remove a daily annoyance from the lives of their residents?  Or will corporate America flex its lobbying muscle and defeat these measures based on a perversion of their right to “free speech”?  This will be a battle to watch.

Posted in Product Reviews.

No comments

By geobeck – March 13, 2011

Green Web Hosting from StartLogic!

I’ve added a new graphic to this site, as you can see on the top of the right sidebar.  StartLogic, the provider that hosts Buy Right, uses 100% wind power for its servers.   They’re also a very reliable host with excellent customer service.

If you’re looking for a host for your site, give them a try, and tell them buy-right.net sent you!

Disclosure: Buy Right is part of StartLogic’s referral program, and is required by FTC rules to disclose on review or testimonial pages that we have a material relationship with StartLogic.  In other words, the owner of Buy Right receives compensation when someone signs up for a StartLogic hosting plan using Buy Right as a reference.  We are independently owned, and the opinions expressed in reviews or testimonials are our own.

Posted in Product Reviews.

No comments

By geobeck – March 10, 2011

The Coca-Cola Bears Need Your Help

Today’s article examines a seasonal promotion from Coca-Cola with a green theme.  I realized I’ve picked on Coca-Cola before, and I don’t mean to single them out, but they’re a huge company with a significant footprint, so it makes sense that they be held up for scrutiny once in a while.  And they are trying to appear more environmentally and socially responsible than their competition, so it’s important to praise their efforts while evaluating their effectiveness.

The Promotion

The current green initiative from Coke ties in with their Christmas polar bear theme.  Specially marked bottles of Coke products encourage the buyer to log into iCoke.ca (and presumably corresponding websites in other countries) and enter a PIN.  According to the bottle, if 1,400,000 PINs are entered before January 5, Coke will donate $100,000 to “polar bear conservation efforts”.  Further investigation on the iCoke website shows that Coke has partnered with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) for their donation.

But before we universally praise their donation, let’s do some calculations: I paid $1.50 for this single-serving bottle of Coke.  Cans and multi-packs are a little less per unit, larger bottles are a little more, so we’ll use this price as an average.  1.4 million sales at $1.50 each equals $2.1 million, so at first glance it appears that Coke is making a lot of money in order to donate $400,000.

But total revenue isn’t the complete story.  Production, distribution, and retail markup all reduce the amount of money that gets back to the Coca-Cola company (although not as much as you’d think.  It hardly costs anything to produce 600 mL of flavoured water; Coke still makes a hefty profit).  So if Coke’s profit amounts to 1/4 of the sale price (a generous estimate), their donation works out to around 4/5 of their profit on those sales.

But wait; we’re not done whittling down the numbers yet.  This promotion only gives Coca-Cola a windfall if it significantly increases sales during the promotional period.  If the 1.4 million people who enter their PINs on the site would have bought those Cokes anyway, the promotion essentially hands Coke a loss of $400,000 compared to not doing anything–although not purely a loss because it’s a tax-deductable donation.  On the other hand, if sales increase substantially as a result of the promotion, but only 1.2 million people enter their PINs, the promotion is pure profit for Coke (minus the cost of developing and advertising the promotion, which is probably a few tens of thousands of dollars).

So the promotion is a gamble.  If the number of PINs entered exceeds the 1.4 million threshold, Coke may lose a bit of money in return for positive public relations.  If the promotional participation falls short, they turn a profit that depends on the increase in sales–although a responsible company would donate something even if they didn’t meet the threshold.

Digging Deeper

Part of Buy Right’s mission is to look deeper into products, companies, and their promotions.  Coca-Cola is donating to a worthy cause.  With polar temperatures increasing rapidly, the ice sheet polar bears rely on to hunt seals in the Arctic Ocean is disappearing, and could disappear completely within a decade.  This proposition, which would once have seemed ludicrous, is becmoing increasingly likely as each new study of arctic temperatures suggests a more rapid warming than the previous one.

Any donation to an organization working to help preserve polar bear habitat is worthwhile, especially a highly respected organization such as the WWF.  However, any company that can afford to donate a significant sum should also examine how spending a similar sum internally could affect the underlying issue.  Coca-Cola has a significant footprint.  They have reduced their footprint little by little with such measures as reducing the amount of material per container, labeling their packaging as recyclable and returnable, and introducing hybrid-powered delivery trucks, but of course there is still a lot of potential for further reductions.

On January 5, when the polar bear promotion ends, I encourage Coca-Cola to donate $400,000 to their chosen cause, and to donate another $400,000 to their own environmental sustainability department to focus on initiatives that will reduce the ecological footprint of their products.  Programs with potential could include increasing the percentage of recycled material in each container, developing sustainable sources of non-petroleum-based materials, developing an alternative to carbon dioxide to put the ‘fizz’ in their beverages (helium cola, anyone?), using clean waste carbon dioxide from another company, or perhaps using a carbon-negative biological process to produce the CO2 they use in their drinks.

Or perhaps Coca-Cola could spend the money as the start of a truly ambitious goal: a real Coke Zero–the first zero-footprint soft drink.

So go ahead, Coke.  Donate to the polar bear habitat organization, then follow that contribution with an investment in your sustainable future.

Posted in Corporate Social Responsibility, Global Issues.

Tagged with , , , , .

No comments

By geobeck – November 9, 2010

10/10/10 – Day of Inaction

Today was the tenth day of October, 2010, and it is a much-celebrated day of inaction. On this day, governments all over the world will do absolutely nothing to combat climate change, deforestation, soil depletion, or toxic pollution. They will continue to subsidize the world’s largest polluters while ignoring companies that could have a large positive impact if they were given a fraction of the support given to companies that would still make enormous profits without the generous help they receive.

On this day, governments continue to fight bloody wars for control of a non-renewable resource that could become economically unviable in as little as ten years as the ability to meet growing demand disappears for geological, technological, and political reasons. On this day, giant companies will continue to create genetically modified organisms that would have given Dr. Moreau pause, with regard to nothing beyond fourth quarter profits. the same companies will continue to keep farmers addicted to substances that deplete their soil instead of nourishing it, annihilate the microorganisms necessary for healthy soil, and force them to buy their ‘terminator’ seeds year after year.

On this day of global environmental awareness, the Earth will die just a little more.

10/10/10 is just another day in the slow but accelerating death of the Earth, another in a series of increasingly frequent “days of awareness” that have become common enough to have lost their impact on the general public. On this day, the most impassioned idealists will stand alongside the trendy greenies, the dutiful corporate representatives, and the public officials sentenced to listen to all. The first group will leave with the satisfaction that their voices have been heard, then become increasingly dissillusioned by the lack of resulting action. The second group will leave pleased that they have been seen in the green scene, and feel good about themselves as they gas up their hemi-Chargers and Yukons. The third group will write off the day’s activities as a public relations coup while continuing to ignore the recommendations of their most recent energy audit because the return on investment goes beyond the current financial reporting period. The fourth group will return to their offices and continue to support the same regressive taxes and unnecessary corporate subsidies while patting themselves on the back for ‘greening’ their party’s image.

Where do we go from here?

It is likely that the tipping point for action on climate change has passed. It is very unlikely that anything the world’s governments and corporations do from this point will prevent the levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide from exceeding 450 parts per million. There is no legal framework for stop producers of agricultural chemicals from destroying soil, or to mandate the use of sustainable sources for the raw materials that make up consumer products. Developing nations will continue to swell their populations and grow their industrial operations in an attempt to participate in a global economy into which they do not fit in their current state of development. People in developed nations will continue to consume disposable products, upgrading their cell phones just because the new one is two millimeters thinner.

In light of the current state of global inaction, a sobering question emerges: Do we deserve to survive? Throughout the history of the world, species have disappeared when they could not fit into their ecological niche, but it has been very rare that one ill-fitting species has taken so many others down with it. Humans are the first species with the level of sentience to understand their effect on the world around them, but we stubbornly refuse to act on that understanding.

So on this day of inaction, I’m asking you, readers, a schoolteacher-style question: Do humans deserve to survive on Earth, and why?

Posted in Events, Global Issues.

No comments

By geobeck – October 10, 2010

Beyond Carbon – Extending the Offset Market

Today there is a large and growing market for greenhouse gas (GHG) offsets.  Companies and individuals have a wide range of options for offsetting the GHG emissions of just about any process, from the fuel a global company burns to produce industrial machinery to the carbon cost of a cup of coffee.  Consumers and CEOs alike are becoming more conscious of the need to seek offsets of acceptable quality: projects that would not take place if the offset funding were not available, and meet international standards that verify the amount of carbon removed from the atmosphere.

But the current offset market focuses exclusively on greenhouse gases.  There are other environmental issues that are at just as important, but are not as yet being offset with internationally recognized credits.  Consider the following…

Other Environmental Issues

  • Deforestation is indirectly addressed through certain GHG offset projects because increasing the total forested area of the planet sequesters carbon.  However, the impact of deforestation is not limited to an increase in atmospheric CO2.  Removing trees from a region increases soil erosion and reduces evapotranspiration (the process by which trees return moisture to the air).  These effects cause desertification, which has a negative impact on regional populations.
  • Soil depletion can result from deforestation and from other effects–including conventional agriculture.  Overuse of fertilizers and pesticides damages the nutrient balance of the soil and kills microorganisms and invertebrates, gradually turning healthy, organic soil into sand and gravel.  This process, along with over-tilling and stubble burning, accelerates erosion and desertification.
  • Fresh water depletion has numerous causes.  Deforestation and soil depletion accelerate runoff, returning fresh water to the ocean more quickly.  Irrigation removes groundwater more quickly than it can be recharged.  If the irrigated land is polluted by excess fertilizer and pesticide, it is not usable.  If this polluted irrigation water sinks back through the soil, the entire aquifer can be rendered unusable as a supply of drinking water.  Use of fresh water for industrial processes can make it unavailable for biological processes, or harmful to life when it is released.
  • Biodiversity depletion results from climate change, pollution, crowding out by introduced species, and over-hunting, fishing, etc.  In particular, the pollution of farms by fertilizers and pesticides is destabilizing the population of bees and other pollinators, which is disrupting the growth of many plants.
  • Marine pollution is possibly the most serious problem facing the planet.  Well over half the photosynthesis on Earth occurs not in tropical rainforest, not in the vast boreal forest, but as a result of the growth of cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) on the continental shelves.  The continental shelves are the areas most affected by industrial and agricultural pollution.  Virtually all industrial effluent dumped into every river or stream eventually reaches the ocean,* where dissolved substances diffuse into the ocean as a whole, and suspended particles sink to the bottom of the delta and concentrate over time.  The oceans used to be thought of as a vast abyss into which our emissions could disappear without a trace, but many of the pollutants that come from modern industry are accumulating in the oceans, destabilizing the ecological balance of marine life and of our atmosphere.

Eco-Credits – How to Quantify?

While it is true that the above problems and GHG emissions are interrelated, offsetting GHG emissions does not replace groundwater, restore soil, or reduce marine pollution.  To address these issues, new offset systems must be developed.  I envision a global market in Natural Capital (a term coined by E. F. Schumacher in 1973).  A system of “Eco credits” would emerge with clearly defined quantities: tonnes of CO2 equivalent (the current credit market), megaliters of fresh water, tonnes of healthy soil, hectares of afforestation, megaliters of diverted effluent, and some quantity of biodiversity increase.

Some of the above quantities are easy to imagine.  The number of hectares of afforestation is a straightforward quantity that is already used for GHG credit projects.  Quantities of fresh water and healthy soil would require maximum thresholds of contaminants.  Soil would also require minimum thresholds of organic content and invertebrate populations.  Diverted effluent would have to be wholly recycled or treated to the quality of incoming water.

But how can you quantify biodiversity?  How can a project guarantee a species is preserved, or that another will evolve?  If a company uses gene modification to create a new species, would that qualify as an increase in biodiversity?  Because of the level of complexity and uncertainty, biodiversity should certainly be the last quantity to enter the offset market.

Current Steps – Next Steps

While there is no global market for these quantities yet, work is being done by various organizations.  Since 1997, the country of Costa Rica has paid farmers not to harvest trees on their land, seeing the forests as “water factories”.  Mexico launched a similar project in 2003.  (See this article for details.)  Both countries have set their own arbitrary values for a hectare of forested land, so these projects would not qualify as verifiable credits, but it should be possible to study similar forested and deforested parcels of land to compare the amount of available fresh water that comes from each throughout the year.  Such a comparison would help develop a standard measurement for this particular ecosystem service.  Since a forest is a complex community of organisms, it would take some time to quantify all of the ecosystem services provided by one.

The Natural Capital Project, a joint venture of the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University, the Nature Conservancy, and the World Wildlife Fund, is a comprehensive attempt to quantify ecosystem services.  In other words, what does the biosphere do for us?  How much would it cost to provide these services ourselves?  The project works with governments around the world to promote an understanding of what the Earth does for us.  This project will most likely be the main source of defined quantities for the new offset market when it emerges, although defining marketable credits is not its mission.

When will we see the emergence of comprehensive eco-credits?  The carbon market has ballooned from its definition under the Kyoto Protocol in 1995 to a thriving market today.  A comprehensive eco-credit system would be much more complex, and take a lot of effort to design (and more effort to achieve consensus on international standards).  But the carbon trading market will serve as a framework around which to build the new system.  Companies that start planning for a general eco-credit system today will have a considerable advantage in the marketplace ten years from now.

If your company is interested in participating in such a system, or if you are already working toward one, please comment below, or send me an e-mail.

—-
*The exceptions would be suspended particles that sink to the bottom of lakes and remain in the soil, and effluent that reaches the world’s few inland deltas.

Posted in Global Issues.

No comments

By geobeck – March 18, 2010

Why Deceive Your Customers?

When shaping sustainability plans or corporate social responsibility strategies, companies usually focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, reducing pollution, and ensuring that their products are produced without using child labour.  But corporate social responsibility goes beyond that.  It means being responsible to your customers as well as your supply chain.

This principle sounds obvious, but it’s easy to find examples of companies deceiving their customers to make their products more attractive–and it’s not just the stereotypical ‘slimy’ salespeople who practice deceptive marketing.  Just the other day, I was in the produce section of my local Marketplace IGA.  I glanced at the prices of the various types of mushrooms: White mushrooms, $3.49; Oyster mushrooms, $2.99, Shitake mushrooms, $1.49.  It looked like a great deal on the more exotic types until I read the fine print.  The white mushrooms were priced per pound, while the other types were priced per hundred grams.  The intent to deceive was made obvious by the fact that the unit of measure was in very small print.

I used Marketplace IGA as an example, but I’ve seen similar pricing practices at Safeway, Save On Foods, and Superstore, where various bulk items are priced per hundred grams, per pound, or per kilogram, whichever unit of measure makes the item look less expensive.  Sometimes the unit of measure is written in a large, clear font, but the initial impression of the number is what an average shopper will see.  The effect?  The initial sale is made, but the shopper will wonder why the total price is so big, and probably not buy the item again.

Sell today, alienate tomorrow is not a sustainable sales strategy.  Honest pricing may deter initial sales to frugal shoppers, but it will not deter repeat customers who will feel cheated by dishonest pricing.  The mantra of business should not be to make a sale at all costs, but to create a profitable, lasting relationship with the customer.

Don’t get me started on cell phone carriers…

Posted in Corporate Social Responsibility, social responsibility.

Tagged with , , .

No comments

By geobeck – February 21, 2010

The Big Picture: Powered Bicycles

I was walking up the street the other day when a powered bicycle put-putted past me up the hill.  The owner was probably secure in the knowledge that he was helping reduce traffic congestion and his environmental impact.  If so, he would only be partially right.

Bicycles certainly reduce traffic congestion.  And they’re great for your health as long as you don’t use the motor for your whole trip.  But power-assisted bicycles aren’t as environmentally friendly as you might think.

Emissions from gasoline-powered engines can be separated into two main types:  greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and criteria air contaminants (CAC).  GHG emissions from gasoline engines consist mainly of carbon dioxide.  CAC emissions include carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and various substances that result from the partial combustion of the fuel.

The amount of GHG and CAC produced by a gasoline engine is determined by the amount of fuel burned, and the efficiency of the engine.  That’s where the similarities end.  CAC emissions can have nasty immediate effects on a local scale, creating smog, increasing the incidence of athsma attacks, causing respiratory distress in the elderly, among other effects.  The effect of GHG emissions is long-term and global, contributing to climate change.

CAC emissions can be reduced by using devices placed in a vehicle’s exhaust system.  For decades now, most engines have had catalytic converters that scrub most of the emissions from the exhaust that leaves the engine.  Producing cleaner fuels and making engines run more efficiently also reduce CAC emissions.  Unfortunately, there is no ‘scrubber’ for carbon dioxide.  Carbon dioxide is the simplest substance that can result from burning a carbon-based fuel.  In fact, reducing CAC emissions by making engines more efficient increases the amount of carbon dioxide produced.

Therefore, while GHG and CAC emissions both increase with the amount of fuel burned, GHG emissions are greater for larger engines regardless of the emissions controls on the engine.  So small engines are always better, right?

Wrong!  Small engines can be much, much worse than large engines for short-term local pollution because engines under a certain size are not regulated under laws that require emissions controls (at least in Canada).  In fact, the 50cc scooter or power-assisted bicycle you see driving up Main Street tomorrow is probably emitting more than a hundred times as many CAC emissions as the Hummer racing past it.

Being green on the road is not as easy as it seems.  Evaluating alternative modes of transportation involves more than just the amount of fuel you burn.  If a large number of people traded in their cars for scooters and power-assisted bicycles, traffic congestion and GHG emissions would be reduced drastically, but our cities would become enveloped in deadly smog.

If you want to commute as cleanly as possible, walk, take public transit, ride a muscle-powered bicycle, or ride a motorcycle if you have a longer commute.  Drive your car if you have to, but find tips on how to drive as efficiently as possible.

More information about on-and off-road engine emissions is available through the following links:

Posted in Public Service Announcement.

Tagged with , , .

No comments

By geobeck – February 18, 2010

Product Review: Mother’s Choice Natural Hard Surface Cleaner

This product is just about the only thing I use to clean my bathroom.  According to the company website, it was originally intended as an oven cleaner so I tried it as such for the first time tonight.  It made short work of most of the minor stains in the oven, and only had trouble with one.  I let it soak into that stain for about a half hour, then applied some elbow grease, and the stain came off fairly easily.  On the other hand, my oven is quite new.  An older oven with tougher stains would probably require more effort.

But the characteristic that sets Mother’s Choice apart from other oven cleaners is what it’s made of, and how safe it is to use.  When cleaning my bathroom or oven, I don’t wear rubber gloves, goggles, or a mask, and I don’t worry about opening all the windows to ventilate the harsh chemicals found in most oven cleaners, and many bathroom cleaners.  The active ingredients in Mother’s Choice are plant-derived enzymes, which attack stains as effectively as the most caustic cleaning agents, but without significant respiratory and dermatological hazards.

The one significant downside to Pink Solution/Earthcare’s products is the lack of information on them.  They do not disclose specific ingredients, although they do publish a material safety data sheet (MSDS, PDF format) that states that the product contains “No Reportable Hazardous Ingredients”.  A conversation with a company representative several years ago revealed that one of the important ingredients in Pink Solution and Mother’s Choice is soda ash, a food-safe substance that is used to increase the pH of the cleaner, enhancing its cleaning power.

However, despite the lack of any claims of sustainable sourcing or fair trade, Pink Solution’s social responsibility is evident because of the safety of their products – safe for you to use, safe for your kids and pets to be around, and safe for the planet.  Price-wise, Mother’s Choice is very competitive.  A single container will last a long time, and will replace several of your current surface cleaners, including your very hazardous oven cleaner.

Responsibility Score

Environmental: Very good
Social: Very good
Quality: Very good
Price: Very good

Overall rating: Very good

Location

Pink Solution/Earthcare is located in North Vancouver, BC.  Zoom out for other Buy Right map locations.

View Buy Right map locations in a larger map

Posted in Product Reviews.

Tagged with , , , , .

1 comment

By geobeck – June 15, 2009