Eagles Stadium ~ A Cornucopia of Sustainable Initiatives

By Theodora Filis

Today is Thanksgiving Day in the United States. Other than the traditional Thanksgiving Day feast, Americans celebrate this day by watching football. 


Although the Philadelphia Eagles will not be playing today Eagles Stadium certainly has possession of sustainable initiatives in the 21st century.

The Philadelphia Eagles, already recognized in the NFL as a sustainability leader, have announced a massive renewable energy installation that will catapult them ahead of any sporting club worldwide.

The plan, scheduled to be finished in time for next September's start of the 2011 National Football League season, will see 80 spiral-shaped wind turbines attached atop the stadium and 2,500 solar panels installed. Natural gas and bio-diesel fuel will power the 7.5MW co-generation plant.

“Giving back to the community and leading by example”, is how Don Smolenski, Philadelphia Eagles, COO describes the sustainable initiatives started by Jeffrey Lurie and his wife Christina back in 2003 when the stadium first opened its doors.

Partners such as SCA, suppliers of Tork paper products,and Aramark,who replaced petroleum-based plastic cups with corn-based bio-plastics, and most foodservice items with recycled materials that can be composted, have been strong supporters of the Eagles initiatives.

According to Smolenski, “SCA and Aramark are partners working toward the same goal”. SCA is one of the most environmentally friendly companies in the world. Working with partners like SCA and Aramark, the Eagles have “kept cost to or less than, non-recyclable items” according to Smolenski.

In 2009, the Eagles powered 100% of their operations by the sun and wind. Through a comprehensive program encompassing major and minor energy uses, "the Eagles have cut their electricity usage by nearly 50% since the stadium’s first full year of operation in 2004". Smolenski goes on to say, “A tremendous sense of community pride” resonates throughout the Eagles organization and the city of Philadelphia.

Sustainable initiatives are not the only reason the Eagles have to be proud. In their training facility hangs the "Wall of Hero's" which Smolenski says are "life hero's not football hero's". People like Martin Luther King, Jr. and others who serve as an inspiration for the many programs initiated by Jeffrey and Christina Lurie and team President Joe Banner.

"Programs like Breast Cancer Awareness started with the Eagles and the NFL", Smolenski proudly remarks.  He goes on to explain how the Eagles involvement in social initiatives spans, "From inner-city school make-over’s to reimbursement programs born by an employee" 

It is obvious in the way his voice brightens up when describing the social initiatives taken by the Eagles, as well as how they have affected the community, that these actions are more than mere publicity stunts for Smolenski and the Eagles organization. They are long term goals set by responsible citizens that in the long run will help to make Philadelphia and the NFL become more sustainable.

Airport Scanners ~ What The TSA Is Hoping To Conceal

By Theodora Filis

The U.S. Transportation Security Administration (TSA) X-ray scanning machines are a sci-fi fan's dream. Lower-energy beams that penetrate clothing and the topmost layers of skin, exposing any explosives concealed under clothing. 

The TSA has set-up 385 full-body image scanners at 68 airports across the United States. They hope to have 1,000 up and running by the end of the year.

According to a group of scientists and professors, low-energy rays do a "Compton scatter" of tissue layers just under the skin, possibly exposing some vital areas and leaving the tissues at risk of mutation.

Scientists from the University of California San Francisco wrote to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy expressing concerns that the scanners might expose the skin to high doses of X-rays that could increase the risk of cancer and other health problems, particularly among older travelers, pregnant women and people with weak immune systems.

Tests in Italy raised questions about airport body scanners following field tests at international airports in Rome, Milan, Palermo, and Venice. The Italian civil aviation authority concluded that airport body scanners were inaccurate and inconvenient.

The European Commission has stated that body scanners have “raised several serious fundamental rights and health concerns,” and recommended using less intrusive measures. Governments have been advised to consider other techniques to achieve the same end without the use of ionizing radiation. 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration acknowledges that the X-ray technology used in the scanners poses a cancer risk, albeit one they say is "so low it presents an extremely small risk." 

"A person receives more radiation from naturally occurring sources in less than an hour of ordinary living than from one screening with any general-use X-ray security system," writes FDA Engineer Daniel Kassiday.

So… how much is too much?  Most body scanners deliver less radiation than a passenger is likely to receive from cosmic rays while airborne. That sounds reassuring, but there have been no studies to date indicating what repeated exposure to the X-rays means to frequent air travelers.

Unfortunately, we won't really know what exposing millions of people to X-ray scanners will do until we actually expose millions of people to X-ray scanners.

Until the long-term studies on the use of these machines are concluded, you get to choose between irradiation and being felt up by a non-doctor.

This give the United Airlines slogan "Fly the friendly skies" so much more meaning! 

Shake, Quake & Roll With The Earth’s Punches

By Theodora Filis

Our Earth is changing and not in little, insignificant ways. It is warming and cooling and quaking and shaking in ways we have never known before. There are more earthquakes in areas where one wouldn’t think a quake might be. Storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires and blizzards causing severe devastation and drought. 

As President Obama’s efforts to set stricter penalties for polluters face near certain defeat, hundreds of U.S. scientists have joined a mass effort to speak out on climate change. This move signals a bold approach by scientists, typically reluctant to get involved in policy debates.

“The idea that CO2 is a carcinogen that’s harmful to our environment- it’s almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale CO2.” John Boehner, Speaker of the House

It is easy to forget that politics and science are intertwined when it comes to climate change. When a political group is so blatantly at odds with what is rapidly evolving into a thinly disputed consensus amongst climate scientists, clashes will occur. 

As many as half of the 100 new Republican members of Congress "deny the existence of man-made climate change" while 86 percent oppose any climate change legislation.

But what of the overwhelming evidence? There is not one national or international scientific body on the face of the planet that says that global warming isn't happening or that humans aren't causing it. If you thought there were two evenly divided camps on the issue, that's because the industry and the right-wing media have been working overtime to sow as much doubt in the public's mind as possible. When you go to the actual scientists, there's no such doubt. All of the national and world scientific bodies will tell you that it's happening and that we're causing it, period. 

Too, according to the World Bank, food prices have risen by 83 percent in just three years and will likely continue to rise.  Experts identify drastic changes in global weather patterns as one of the leading factors contributing to the rapid rise in food prices worldwide. 

The U.S. actually pays some farmers to keep their fields bare in order to keep supply down and prices up. As global food costs rise, many nations are limiting exports to try to keep domestic prices from rising any further, and to avoid potential food shortages at home.

The sudden response from the scientific community can be seen as a sign of frustration over increasing political influence over the public view on Global warming.

Michael Mann, a prominent climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, lists some of the elected government officials who have used their positions of power to push a campaign against climate research, in an article for the Washington Post.

Mann states, "The truth is that they don’t expect to uncover anything, instead, they want to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, questioning basic science and promoting doubt where there is none."

Shake, Quake & Roll With The Earth’s Punches

By Theodora Filis

Our Earth is changing and not in little, insignificant ways. It is warming and cooling and quaking and shaking in ways we have never known before. There are more earthquakes in areas where one wouldn’t think a quake might be. Storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires and blizzards causing severe devastation, and drought. 

As President Obama’s efforts to set stricter penalties for polluters face near-certain defeat, hundreds of U.S. scientists have joined a mass effort to speak out on climate change. This move signals a bold approach by scientists, typically reluctant to get involved in policy debates.

“The idea that CO2 is a carcinogen that’s harmful to our environment- it’s almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale CO2.” John Boehner, Speaker of the House

As many as half of the 100 new Republican members of Congress "deny the existence of man-made climate change" while 86 percent oppose any climate change legislation.

Scientists involved insisted their goal is not to influence public policy, but to present the facts when needed.

"I think it is important for scientists to assure that the public and policy makers have a clear view of what scientific findings are and what the implications of those findings are," said Princeton University scientist Michael Oppenheimer.

"To the extent that some members of the new majority in the House have exhibited a contrarianism to science, I think it is a good way to have a scientific community there to help keep its facts clear."

“One group of about 40 scientists has been mobilized as a "rapid response team" to dive into the often hostile media environment and try to correct misinformation about global warming.

We did not form this to take a stance against climate change skeptics. However if a skeptical argument is put forward that doesn't agree with science, we will refute that," said John Abraham, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota.

Abraham said there was a wide gulf between what the majority of scientists accept as fact about climate change and what the American public believes.

"This is in response to a real disconnect between what is known in the scientific community and the consensus among the general public," he said.

"Ninety-seven percent of top scientists are in agreement, but the public is split about 50-50."

Waste Mountain Puts Hong Kong At The Top of the Heap

By Theodora Filis

Hong Kong has topped the list of most waste producing countries in the world, generating 6.34 million tons of garbage in 2009. The mountain of waste takes up an area of about 667acres. 

As Hong Kong’s economy grows so does its municipal waste.  Municipal waste has been increasing since 1986, mirroring Hong Kong's rapid economic expansion over the same period. The population has grown by more than one million people and each person is throwing away more waste. In 2008, the per capita disposal rate of municipal solid waste was 1.35 kilogram’s per day.

The major dilemma facing the metropolis now is that landfills where waste is being dumped are filling up fast, with most expected to be at full capacity by 2015, according to Friends of the Earth data.

Figures released by the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), Hong Kong produces 2,026 lbs of solid waste per capita. This equates to nearly 17,000 tons of garbage per day – enough to fill 340 double-decker buses. On average, people in Hong Kong produced more than twice as much trash as those in Japan (904 lbs) and South Korea (838 lbs), reports the South China Morning Post.

Waste is a common problem of affluent societies. People can afford greater conveniences and more purchases thus, tend to throw away more rubbish. Hong Kong is no exception to this. Unless solutions are identified immediately, Hong Kong could face a crisis in the next decade of having nowhere to put the thousands of tones of waste thrown away each day.

Municipal solid waste includes waste from households, industry and commercial operations, but landfills in Hong Kong are also under tremendous pressure from construction waste. In 2006, the Government introduced the construction waste disposal charging scheme and the quantity of construction waste disposed of at landfills deceased from 6,560 tones per day in 2005 to 2,660 tones per day in 2008. This figure fluctuates depending on the economic situation and the number of construction projects underway.

The good news is that half of the waste generated by the 7 million people on the island is recovered by recyclers. The city's recycling program was introduced in 1998, recycling plastic, metal and paper. Recently there's been a drive to encourage people to find ways to reduce waste and recycle more effectively. Green activists are pushing for the institution of a fee on landfill waste, but so far their efforts remain fruitless.

In 1995 an attempt was made to impose a HK $42 fee per ton of garbage, however the move proved hugely unpopular and was later abandoned by the government.

"It is unlikely the government would set the charge too high, but a low charge, which could just mean one or two dollars per day per person , is not at all a strong disincentive for creating waste," said Dr. Chung Shan-shan, a waste management specialist with Baptist University, according to the South China Morning Post report.

When compared to Britain, where the tax imposed on garbage dumping was more then HK $400 per ton, the incentive to reduce waste was compelling, she noted.