Category Archives: pollution

So many things to write about

Every day the constant barrage of news stories offers me a host of topics worth writing about.  My first choice for this month was to focus on the appalling level of gun violence in this country and the many efforts that are valiantly trying to reduce it.

A raft of other troubling topics keep me up at night.

But I’ve decided to go in another direction.  I want to focus on a more hopeful topic:  Success combatting the longstanding problem of plastic pollution.

I’ve written about plastic pollution before.  Years ago I asked “What shall we do about plastic bags?” https://susanjustwrites.com/2014/04/30/.  I lamented the horrific pollution those bags have created and highlighted a Nigerian artist who uses them in her artwork.

I later focused on the crusade against the use of plastic straws. https://susanjustwrites.com/2017/08/

But the problem of plastic pollution goes way beyond plastic bags and straws.  It’s now recognized as a global problem.  According to the NRDC, negotiations aimed at finalizing the first-ever international treaty to tackle the plastics crisis will resume this August in Geneva.  But that will be less than a year after a meaningful agreement at the last round of talks was “derailed by a coalition of nations closely allied with the fossil fuel industry.” More than a hundred countries had agreed to curb plastic production, but some oil-producing nations, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, repeatedly blocked progress.

That sounds discouraging, doesn’t it?  But activists associated with groups like NRDC will be back in Geneva to push for a strong treaty reducing plastic production, phasing out the most harmful chemicals used in plastics, and eliminating the most toxic forms of plastics.  We have to hope they will be successful.

In the meantime, there’s another reason to hope for change.  We all know that current efforts to recycle plastic haven’t gone very far. Although glass and aluminum can be recycled endlessly, plastic cannot. 

According to Lindsey Botts, writing in the Summer 2025 issue of Sierra magazine, “Almost all the plastic ever created is still with us, polluting the planet.”  But he asks: “What if we had a better way to recycle it?”  His answer: “Nature may offer one solution.”

Here’s the hopeful part.  Botts notes that in 2016, Japanese scientists discovered tiny bacteria that were breaking down plastic in a pile of trash.  The bacteria were consuming one of the most common plastics, one that’s used in food wrappers, clothes, even water bottles.

We’ve since learned that other bacteria can do something similar.  One family of bacteria apparently munches on PET (a type of clear, durable plastic) in wastewater. And in a lab, scientists observed still another form of bacteria working on plastic in seawater.

Bacteria can’t actually eat plastic, but they can absorb it.  Some bacteria do this by producing chemicals that liquefy plastic.  They soak up the resulting goo and use some of it as energy.  What they don’t consume becomes a material that can be used to form new plastic.

Botts concedes that this process is relatively slow.  It requires the right temperature and amount of moisture, and creating those conditions outside of a lab can be challenging.  But a French company has found a way to process about 12,000 water bottles a day.  That will only scratch the surface of the half-a-trillion bottles people are using every year.  But it’s a start.

I agree with Botts’s conclusion:  More plastic is entering the world every day, and bacteria can’t clean up all of it.  Not yet. “The best solution” is still to “stop making and buying plastic.” 

I’ve been doing what I can, buying much less plastic in the past few years.  Here in San Francisco, we put our waste in three bins.  One of them holds trash that must go into landfill, but the other two take items for recycling and for composting.  And that makes things a lot easier.  Instead of plastic bottles, I opt for aluminum cans.  Instead of plastic plates and glasses, I use compostable paper ones or old-fashioned glass and ceramics. 

Even if you don’t live where you can do composting, you can still avoid using plastic as much as possible.  Instead of plastic, you can choose recyclable items made of aluminum or glass.

Of course, plastic has its uses.  It may be necessary, for example, in medical settings.  But even there, the amount of plastic can probably be reduced.

Instead of continuing to follow the lazy ways of our past, grabbing a plastic item and pretending that it doesn’t matter, let’s all adopt a different approach. 

Let’s think about the future of our planet. Until we can track down more and more helpful bacteria, let’s try to avoid buying plastic as much as we possibly can.

Let’s be scent-sible

While I try to ignore the stench dominating the news from our nation’s capital, I’ve decided to focus on some of the more positive scents that dominate in the rest of our world. 

Here’s a story about “scents” I came across in the winter issue of National Parks, a magazine devoted to protecting America’s national parks and public lands.

Author Maggie Downs likes to hike through our now-sadly-endangered national parks, beginning her story with a hike through Arches National Park, where “the air is alive” with scents like the crisp aroma of pines and junipers.  She notes that these scents are different from those in Joshua Tree National Park, where desert aromas permeate the air.

Downs goes on to describe the scents that connect her to each destination she explores, highlighting the significance of scents.  Flowers, for example, rely on fragrance to lure pollinators, while predators like wolves use scent to mark territories, find mates, and track prey.

But Downs worries that many national park “scentscapes” are under threat because of climate change and pollution.  Although we have long treasured our parks for their beauty and their quiet, their “vital aromas” haven’t gotten the same level of protection.   

Will Rice, a professor at the University of Montana, has studied how natural smells are increasingly relevant to tourists in our national parks.  These natural smells “play a key role in what grounds us to a place,” he says.  “Scent…plays a role” in visitors’ strong attachment to the parks,” he adds.  “National parks are places where you can smell natural smells, and that’s increasingly difficult [to find] in a developing and industrial world.”

Maggie Downs adds, “Unfortunately, climate change is already affecting scentscapes…. It threatens native plant species with drought and wildfires, and it disrupts blooming scents, which throws plants and pollinators out of sync.”  She notes that “flowering plants are losing their fragrance,” and air pollution can mask natural scents.

We can’t be sure about the future impact of climate change and pollution, but we should try to protect nature’s smells while we still can.  Will Rice suggests that legislation can help.  The Marine Mammal Protection Act helped seals make a comeback in Cape Cod.  Their return has restored their scent along the beach, a scent Thoreau smelled when he walked up the Cape Cod coast.  And while that smell disappeared for a long time, it has now happily rebounded.

So let’s be scent-sible and protect the natural scents that still surround us.  As I often say (with no originality whatsoever), “Better late than never.”

Coal: A Personal History

It’s January, and much of the country is confronting freezing temperatures, snow, and ice.  I live in San Francisco now, but I vividly remember what life is like in cold-weather climates.

When I was growing up on the North Side of Chicago, my winter garb followed this pattern:

Skirt and blouse, socks (usually short enough to leave my legs largely bare), a woolen coat, and a silk scarf for my head.  Under my coat, I might have added a cardigan sweater.  But during the freezing cold days of winter (nearly every day during a normal Chicago winter), I was always COLD—when I was outside, that is.

My parents were caring and loving, but they followed the norms of most middle-class parents in Chicago during that era.  No one questioned this attire.  I recall shivering whenever our family ventured outside for a special event during the winter.  I especially remember the excitement of going downtown to see the first showing of Disney’s “Cinderella.”  Daddy parked our Chevy at an outdoor parking lot blocks from the theater on State Street, and we bravely faced the winter winds as we made our way there on foot.  I remember being COLD.

School days were somewhat different.  On bitter cold days, girls were allowed to cover our legs, but only if we hung our Levi’s in our lockers when we arrived at school.  We may have added mufflers around our heads and necks to create just a little more warmth as we walked blocks and blocks to school in the morning, back home for lunch, then returning to school for the afternoon.

Looking back, I can’t help wondering why it never occurred to our parents to clothe us more warmly.  Weren’t they aware of the warmer winter clothing worn elsewhere?  One reason that we didn’t adopt warmer winter garb–like thermal underwear, or down jackets, or ski parkas–may have been a lack of awareness that they existed.  Or the answer may have been even simplerthe abundance of coal.

Inside, we were never cold.  Why?  Because heating with coal was ubiquitous.  It heated our apartment buildings, our houses, our schools, our stores, our movie theaters, our libraries, our public buildings, and almost everywhere else.  Radiators heated by coal hissed all winter long.  The result?  Overheated air.

Despite the bleak winter outside, inside I was never cold.  On the contrary, I was probably much too warm in the overheated spaces we inhabited.

Until I was 12, we lived in an apartment with lots of windows.  In winter the radiators were always blazing hot, so hot that we never felt the cold air outside.  The window glass would be covered in condensed moisture, a product of the intensely heated air, and I remember drawing funny faces on the glass that annoyed my scrupulous-housekeeper mother.

Where did all that heat come from?  I never questioned its ultimate source.

I later learned that it was extracted from deep beneath the earth.  But what happened to it above ground was no secret.  More than once, I watched trucks pull up outside my apartment building to deliver large quantities of coal.  The driver would set up a chute that sent the coal directly into the basement, where all those lumps of coal must have been shoveled into a big furnace.

Coal was the primary source of heat back then, and the environment suffered as a result.  After the coal was burned in the furnace, its ashes would be shoveled into bags.  Many of the ashes found their way into the environment.  They were, for example, used on pavements and streets to cope with snow and ice.

The residue from burning coal also led to other harmful results.  Every chimney spewed thick sooty smoke all winter, sending into the air the toxic particles that we all inhaled.

Coal was plentiful, cheap, and reliable.  And few people were able to choose alternatives like fireplaces and wood-burning furnaces (which presented their own problems).

Eventually, cleaner and more easily distributed forms of heating fuel displaced coal.  Residential use dropped, and according to one source, today it amounts to less than one percent of heating fuel.

But coal still plays a big part in our lives.  As Malcolm Turnbull, the former prime minister of Australia (which is currently suffering the consequences of climate change), wrote earlier this month in TIME magazine, the issue of “climate action” has been “hijacked by a toxic, climate-denying alliance of right-wing politics and media…, as well as vested business interests, especially in the coal industry.”  He added:  “Above all, we have to urgently stop burning coal and other fossil fuels.”

In her book Inconspicuous Consumption: the environmental impact you don’t know you have, Tatiana Schlossberg points out that we still get about one-third of our electricity from coal.  So “streaming your online video may be coal-powered.”  Using as her source a 2014 EPA publication, she notes that coal ash remains one of the largest industrial solid-waste streams in the country, largely under-regulated, ending up polluting groundwater, streams, lakes, and rivers across the country.

“As crazy as this might sound,” Schlossberg writes, watching your favorite episode of “The Office” might come at the expense of clean water for someone else.  She’s concerned that even though we know we need electricity to power our computers, we don’t realize that going online itself uses electricity, which often comes from fossil fuels.

Illinois is finally dealing with at least one result of its longtime dependence on coal.   Environmental groups like Earthjustice celebrated a big win in Illinois in 2019 when they helped win passage of milestone legislation strengthening rules for cleaning up the state’s coal-ash dumps.  In a special report, Earthjustice noted that coal ash, the toxic residue of burning coal, has been dumped nationwide into more than 1,000 unlined ponds and landfills, where it leaches into waterways and drinking water.

Illinois in particular has been severely impacted by coal ash.  It is belatedly overhauling its legacy of toxic coal waste and the resulting widespread pollution in groundwater near its 24 coal-ash dumpsites.  The new legislation funds coal-ash cleanup programs and requires polluters to set aside funds to ensure that they, not taxpayers, pay for closure and cleanup of coal-ash dumps.

Earthjustice rightfully trumpets its victory, which will now protect Illinois residents and its waters from future toxic pollution by coal ash.  But what about the legacy of the past, and what about the legacy of toxic coal particles that entered the air decades ago?

As an adult, I wonder about the huge quantities of coal dust I must have inhaled during every six-month-long Chicago winter that I lived through as a child.  I appear to have so far escaped adverse health consequences, but that could change at any time.

And I wonder about others in my generation.  How many of us have suffered or will suffer serious health problems as a result of drinking polluted water and inhaling toxic coal-dust particles?

I suspect that many in my generation have been unwilling victims of our decades-long dependence on coal.