July 6, 2017
By Sarah “Steve” Mosko
Various versions have appeared:
Irvine Community News & Views, 14-Aug, 2017
Times of San Diego, 04-Aug, 2017
Fullerton Observer, Aug, 2017 (p.2)
The Daily Pilot, 26-Jul, 2017
Coronado Times, 24-Jul, 2017
Escondido Grapevine, 19-Jul, 2017
San Diego Free Press, 11-Jul, 2017
EarthTalk, 06-Jul, 2017
Though President Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, this is no time for the 70 percent of Americans who believe climate change is happening to recoil in defeat. Rather, we should feel empowered that a 2016 post-election poll of registered voters found that majorities of Democrats (86%), Independents (61%) and Republicans (51%) alike wanted the United States to participate in the accord and that two out of three voters said the U.S. should reduce its greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do.
Thus, it is exactly the time to speak out against the misguided actions of The White House by taking decisive steps well within our reach as individual citizens and communities. After all, the Paris Agreement is only a broad-stroke commitment from participating countries to collectively limit global warming to 1.5 to 2.0 degrees Celsius (°C) compared to preindustrial levels. It has always been true that only Congress and legislative bodies at the state and local level, not the President, can enact laws that can move us from a fossil fuel to a sustainable energy economy.
Here’s what’s happening at various jurisdictions around the nation already.
Read the rest of this entry »
Leave a Comment » | 
California, climate change, energy, global warming, Orange County, politics, sustainable living | Tagged: California, Carbon fee and dividend, climate change, global warming, Paris Climate | 
Permalink
Posted by Sarah (Steve) Mosko
June 2, 2017
Irvine led on restoring the ozone layer and should lead now on climate change.
By Sarah “Steve” Mosko
Appeared: Irvine Community News & Views, 02-Jun, 2017
Ozone Depletion: The First Global Environmental Crisis
The depletion of the protective ozone layer in the Earth’s atmosphere by man-made chemicals was the global community’s first environmental crisis. Today, climate change, largely attributable to greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels, is the second and far more frightening crisis.
The people of Irvine can be proud that actions taken by the City Council in 1989 were instrumental in creating a blueprint at the local level for carrying out the aspirations set forth in the 1987 Montreal protocol, the international agreement to restore the ozone layer. It is widely hailed as the most successful global environmental treaty ever. As the global community today faces the reality that unchecked global warming could unleash catastrophic effects impacting all future generations, Irvine can and should resurrect the same purpose and determination that inspired the City to make a difference back then.
In 1974, scientists at UC Irvine, led by Nobel laureates (1995) F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario J. Molina, predicted that the Earth’s protective ozone layer would be seriously diminished by the rampant use of halogens — chemicals, such as CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other ozone-depleting compounds then used as refrigerants, spray can propellants, and solvents. The ozone layer acts as a shield, preventing the most harmful ultraviolet radiation in sunlight (UVB) from reaching the Earth’s surface. Excessive exposure to UVB is known to cause not only sunburn, skin cancers and cataracts but also damage to crops and reduction of plankton populations vital to the ocean food web.
It wasn’t until 1985 that the infamous hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica was discovered, as Rowland and Molina predicted. That triggered the international alarm that led to the Montreal Protocol. Because action at the federal level was painfully slow in coming, the Irvine City Council, then led by Mayor Larry Agran and City Councilmember Cameron Cosgrove, boldly passed the most far-reaching, legally enforceable measure anywhere to eliminate CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances. This remarkable ordinance prohibited using CFCs and other targeted halogens in most industrial processes in the City of Irvine.
The City Council, in taking responsible action at the local level, believed that other jurisdictions would be empowered to use Irvine’s ordinance as a model. That is exactly what happened in many cities and counties across America and throughout the world, and today we know that the hole in the ozone layer is shrinking and we have overcome that global environmental crisis. Read the rest of this entry »
Leave a Comment » | California, climate change, energy, global warming, Orange County, pollution, science, sustainable living | Tagged: California, climate change, energy, global warming, Orange County, pollution | Permalink
Posted by Sarah (Steve) Mosko
October 18, 2014
By Sarah “Steve” Mosko
Appeared:
Surf City Voice, 26 Oct, 2014
EarthTalk, 01 Nov, 2014
San Diego Free Press, 05 Nov, 2014
Fullerton Observer, Mid Nov, 2014
Photo: Laura Silverstein
I confess, my husband and I both pee in our backyard garden, waiting until nightfall so as not to surprise neighbors.
We’ve always been comfortable relieving ourselves alongside lonely highways, even in daylight when waiting for the next bathroom seems unreasonable. But peeing in our own garden started as something of a lark, a combo of enjoying feeling a little naughty while also stealing a moment to take in the stillness of the night.
However, after a little research into the contents of urine and the ecological footprint of toilet flushing, I’m approaching my nightly garden visitations with a renewed sense of purpose, armed with sound reasons to continue the habit.
#1 Urine is a good fertilizer, organic and free
Contrary to popular belief, urine is usually germ-free unless contaminated with feces. It’s also about 95 percent water. The chief dissolved nutrient is urea, a nitrogen (N)-rich waste metabolite of the liver. Consequently, urine is high in N. Synthesized urea, identical to urea in urine, is also the number one ingredient of manufactured urea fertilizers which now dominate farming industry. Furthermore, urine contains lower amounts of the other two main macronutrients needed for healthy plant growth, phosphorous (P) and potassium (K).
Read the rest of this entry »
5 Comments | California, health, pollution, science, sustainable living, toxics, waste | Tagged: California, drought, groundwater, sustainable gardening, urine fertilizer, water treatment | Permalink
Posted by Sarah (Steve) Mosko
April 8, 2012
Los Angeles City Leaps Aboard Plastic Bag Ban Wagon
by Sarah (Steve) Mosko, PhD
Other versions of this article have appeared in:
- Vall-E-Vents, Sierra Club San Fernando Valley, Jul/Oct 2012
- Southern Sierran as Why L.A.’s Plastic Bag Ban Matters, July/Aug 2012.
- Fullerton Observer as Plastic Bag Ban: Will Fullerton Follow City of L.A.’s Lead? Early June, p. 10.
- Surf City Voice as L.A. Poised to Ban Plastic Bags: Surf City Vote Hinges on EIR Cost, 10 April, 2012
- Santa Monica Daily Press, 09 April, 2012
Will the ban on plastic bags in L.A. be the tipping point for a statewide ban?
The “City of Angels” just joined a growing web of four dozen California jurisdictions banning single-use, plastic carry-out bags.On May 23, the L.A. City Council cast a near unanimous vote to ban the flimsy “T-shirt” style carry-out bags and to phase in a 10-cent fee on paper bags. An earlier proposal also included a ban on paper bags, but the council decided instead to consider after two years whether a ban on paper was needed depending on whether enough people had switched to reusable bags, the real goal of the plastic ban. A bag ordinance is expected to be enacted before year’s end, and a six-month grace period will follow so consumers can adjust and to allow stockpiles of plastic bags to be used up. The ban will not include the plastic bags used for fresh produce or meats.The L.A. Bureau of Sanitation estimates that the city uses 2.3 billion plastic bags and 400 million paper bags a year and that the bag recycling rate is only 5% for plastic and 21% for paper. The rest end up in landfills or, worse still, as litter.
The “Save the Plastic Bag Coalition,” a group of plastic bag makers and distributors, is putting forth an all-out effort to block the spread of plastic bag bans within the state through legal challenges. In March, L.A. County’s 2010 ordinance banning plastic bags and placing a 10-cent fee on paper bags was upheld in Superior Court. Other California jurisdictions which have enacted similar bans include the cities of San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Palo Alto, Santa Clara and San Jose in the northern region and Long Beach, Manhattan Beach, Santa Monica, Calabasas and Malibu in the south. Many more ban ordinances are in the works across the state, including in Pasadena, Dana Point, Laguna Beach and Huntington Beach, to name a few.
Read the rest of this entry »
1 Comment | plastics, sustainable living | Tagged: California, Los Angeles, plastic bag bann, plastic bags, plastics | Permalink
Posted by Sarah (Steve) Mosko
August 14, 2011
Huntington Beach Next City to Ban Plastic Bags?
By Sarah (Steve) Mosko, PhD
Appeared in: Surf City Voice, 14 Aug 2011
On August 1st, Long Beach became the thirteenth jurisdiction within California to ban single-use plastic carryout bags at supermarkets and large retailers. Huntington Beach (HB) could soon join that list if HB City Council members Connie Boardman, Devin Dwyer and Joe Shaw can convince other council members.
A proposal to develop an ordinance to ban flimsy, disposable plastic carryout bags is on the Monday, August 15 HB City Council meeting agenda.
If a HB ordinance were to be modeled after the Long Beach one, it would also include a 10 cent customer fee for each paper bag dispensed, as the goal is not to convert to disposable paper bags but rather to encourage use of reusable bags which can be used over 100 times.
The Long Beach ban took effect after a pivotal unanimous California Supreme Court decision on July 14 which eases the way for local plastic bag bans by ruling that the City of Manhattan Beach did not have to complete a lengthy study of the environmental impact of disposable paper bags before baring retailers from dispensing plastic ones.
Read the rest of this entry »
3 Comments | California, Orange County, plastics, pollution, science, sustainable living, toxics, waste, wildlife | Tagged: California, Huntington Beach, ocean pollution, plastic bag bans, plastic bags, plastic debris | Permalink
Posted by Sarah (Steve) Mosko
July 18, 2011
Time to Air Your Clean Laundry in Public
by Sarah (Steve) Mosko, PhD
Apppeared in:
- E-Magazine ‘s This Week as “Airing Your Clean Laundry,” 19 March ’12
- Surf City Voice, 18 June ’11
If all Californians used clotheslines, one nuclear power plant could be shut down.
During the Leave-It-to Beaver era of the late 1950s, most homes certainly had a clothesline and probably no one thought much about whether it offended their neighbors. It’s a safe assumption that June Cleaver, the perfect homemaker, would have taken issue with anyone even hinting her clothesline was an eyesore.
Then fast forward a half century to the present where the majority of Americans have abandoned the clothesline in favor of electric or gas dryers and homeowners associations (HOAs) routinely prohibit clotheslines or impose such restrictions as to effectively ban them. One can only guess what June would have said to that, even absent her knowing about the threats from global climate change and the pressing need to reduce America’s dependence on fossil fuels.
Few today will dispute that tossing a load of wet clothes into a clothes dryer is more convenient than pinning up clothes, one by one, and surveys confirm that most people living in communities governed by HOAs have no problem abiding by the restrictions on clotheslines from the standpoint of curb appeal or property values.
However, interest in reducing the oversized energy footprint of Americans – twice that of people living in the European Union – has given rise in a handful of states to so-called “right-to-dry” laws that rein in restrictions HOAs or other entities can impose on residents’ freedom to use clotheslines. California is not among them, however, despite its sunny weather and reputation for environmental progressiveness.
Read the rest of this entry »
2 Comments | California, climate change, energy, sustainable living | Tagged: California, clothes dryers, clotheslines, electricity, energy, global climate change, homeowners associations, nuclear power plant | Permalink
Posted by Sarah (Steve) Mosko
September 22, 2009
by Sarah (Steve) Mosko, PhD.
Appeared in:
- Orange Coast Voice, Dec. 16, 2009
- Southern Sierran, Dec. 2009
- Fullerton Observer as A Few Less Toxins in Toyland, Nov. 2009, page 9
- San Fernando Valley Sierra Club newsletter, Nov. 2009
This is an updated version of
Fewer Toxins in Toyland that incorporates recently stalled legislation in California aimed at protecting young children from risky chemicals.
This holiday season, parents shopping for children can rest just a tad easier because of a recent California law restricting the use of toxic phthalate plasticizers in toys and childcare products made of plastic. Additional legislative efforts to rein in two other classes of chemicals suspected of posing health risks to youngsters, bisphenol A and halogenated flame retardants, emerged this year in the State Senate, although neither met with success.
But, perhaps the best news is that California has enacted laws establishing a groundbreaking precautionary approach to the oversight of chemicals that should soon make such painstaking chemical-by-chemical regulation a thing of the past.
Read the rest of this entry »
1 Comment | California, green business, health, plastics, politics, pollution, science, sustainable living, toxics | Tagged: bisphenol-a, California, cancer, endocrine disruptors, flame retardants, Green Chemistry Initiative, halogenated flame retardants, health, infant formula, PBDE, phthalates, plasticizers, plastics, politics, polybrominated diphenyl ether, polyvinyl chloride, PVC, SB 772 Leno, SB 797 Pavley, toxic chemicals | Permalink
Posted by Sarah (Steve) Mosko
August 13, 2009
by Sarah (Steve) Mosko, PhD
Also see an update to this article, Too Fewer Toxins in Toyland, that incorporates stalled legislation in California aimed at protecting young children from risky chemicals.
California has moved to restrict use of toxic phthalate plasticizers in PVC children's toys. Photo courtesy of Center for Environmental Health and Justice.
This holiday season, parents shopping for children can rest a tad easier because of a recent California law restricting the use of toxic phthalate plasticizers in toys and childcare products made of plastic. Additional classes of chemicals suspected of posing health risks to children, bisphenol A and halogenated flame retardants, could be reined in before long too, pending the fate of two struggling state senate bills.
But, perhaps the best news of all is that California has enacted laws establishing a groundbreaking precautionary approach to the oversight of all chemicals that should soon make painstaking chemical-by-chemical regulation a thing of the past.
Read the rest of this entry »
4 Comments | California, health, plastics, politics, pollution, science, sustainable living, toxics | Tagged: bisphenol-a, California, cancer, endocrine disruptors, flame retardants, Green Chemistry Initiative, halogenated flame retardants, health, infant formula, PBDE, phthalates, plasticizers, plastics, politics, polybrominated diphenyl ether, polyvinyl chloride, PVC, SB 772 Leno, SB 797 Pavley, toxic chemicals | Permalink
Posted by Sarah (Steve) Mosko
June 13, 2009
“Hot” Food Controversies That Labels Do Not Disclose
by Sarah (Steve) Mosko, PhD
Appeared in:
- Val-E-Vents, Sept. 2010
- Santa Monica Daily Press, Oct. 26, 2009, as Food Labels Don’t Disclose Everything to Consumers.
- Fullerton Observer, Mid Oct. 2009, page 10.
- Southern Sierran, Sept. 2009, as Caveat Shopper: You Can’t Always Trust Those Food Labels.
Full disclosure on food labels is more critical as controversial food processing practices become commonplace. Photo courtesy of illuminating9_11 at flickr.com.
As the food supply is increasingly altered by controversial practices like liberal use of antibiotics, genetic engineering and irradiation, food labels take on greater significance as shoppers’ only link to how products are produced. Depending on what issues matters most to consumers, what labels do not say can be more meaningful than what they do.
To get a handle on contentious food processing techniques that food labels don’t disclose, it’s helpful first to understand what is mandated. Oversight is split between the USDA, which enforces labeling on meat, poultry and some egg products, and the FDA, which covers most other foods.
Most foods sold in grocery stores are required to sport an “information panel” that lists:
- the ingredients
- Nutrition Facts detailing the calories, fats, protein and other nutrients
- the manufacturer, packer or distributor.
Major Food Allergens (e.g. peanuts), relevant inspections (like USDA) and special handling instructions (such as “Keep Refrigerated”) must also be declared.
However, providing Nutrition Facts on raw foods, like fruits and vegetables, seafood, meat and poultry, is only voluntary but is often posted anyway on the display case.
Fish labels must also specify whether it is wild-caught or farm-raised and, for the latter, if colorant was added to the feed to turn their naturally gray flesh pink. In California, a previous requirement that canned tuna carry a warning label about the potential dangers from mercury was struck down in the State Superior Court in 2006.
Antibiotics
Groundbreaking legislation, which would have made California the first state to prohibit feeding antibiotics to healthy livestock meant for human consumption, was voted down on June 3 (SB 416, Florez). This practice is employed routinely at large-scale industrial cattle, hog and poultry operations to hasten growth and prevent the spread of disease.
Read the rest of this entry »
1 Comment | green business, health, politics, science, sustainable living | Tagged: antibiotic resistence, antibiotics, bacteria, beef, California, COOL, country of origin, diet, factory farms, FDA, Florez, food, food additives, food bourne illness, food iradiation, food labeling, food labels, food safety, genetic engineering, genetically engineered, genetically modified, industrial, livestock, meat, microorganisms, pathogems, pigs, poultry, SB 416, swine, USDA | Permalink
Posted by Sarah (Steve) Mosko
April 1, 2009
Appeared in:
- Vall-E-Vents, July 2010.
- Fullerton Observer, May 2009, page 10
- Orange County Progressive as Don’t Worry About Swine Flu When You Can Worry About Nanotech, May 2009
- Orange Coast Voice newspaper blog, April 2009
Alarms Sound Over Safety of Nanotechnology
by Sarah S. Mosko, Ph.D.
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes exhibit unique properties. Photo courtesy of PEN.
For the nine in ten Americans who know next to nothing about nanotechnology (NT), there is little time to waste in getting up to speed because, ready or not, the ‘NT revolution’ is well underway with new nano-engineered consumer products entering the market weekly.
Another reason, as voiced by consumer protection, health, and environmental organizations, is that NT products are being sold without adequate safety testing and government oversight.
The actual number of NT products in commerce is unknown because there is no labeling or reporting requirement. However, over 800 have been tabulated by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN), an online inventory of manufacturer-identified NT goods funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts. In 2007, at least $147 billion in global manufactured goods incorporated NT, encompassing such varied products as cosmetics, clothing, food, food packaging, and dietary supplements. PEN estimates that figure will reach $2.6 trillion by 2014.
Nanotech Basics
Read the rest of this entry »
1 Comment | California, health, politics, pollution, science, sustainable living, toxics, wildlife | Tagged: AB935, California, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, carbon nanotubes, Colin Finan, cosmetics, environment, EPA, FDA, food additives, food supplements, Mike Feuer, nano, nano foods, nano-engineered, nano-engineered foods, nano-engineered products, nanoscale, Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program, nanosilver, nanosilver pollution, nanotechnology, nanotube, NT, PEN, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Samuel Luoma, science, sustainable living, sustainable technology, technology, toxic chemicals, Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA | Permalink
Posted by Sarah (Steve) Mosko
December 17, 2008
Appeared in:
- Orange Coast Voice newspaper as Gov. Schwarzenegger earns mixed reviews, Jan. 2009, p. 3.
- Vall-E-Vents, newsletter for Sierra Club San Fernando Valley, as Gov. Schwarzenegger’s Latest Scorecard on the Environment?, March 2009.
Schwarzenegger’s Latest Scorecard on the Environment?
Mixed as usual
by Sarah S. Mosko, Ph.D.
Gov. Schwarzenegger hosted a summit on global climate in November, 2008 in Los Angeles.
Throughout his tenure as governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger has earned mixed reviews from the environmental community for his positions on environmental issues. Last September, during the final throes of the 2007-2008 legislative session, reactions again ranged from standing ovations for his signature on groundbreaking new protections against hazardous chemicals to cries of foul play for the veto of legislation to clean up polluted air in the state’s port cities.
The following highlights the fate of several bills impacting California’s environment as they passed through the governor’s desk in the eleventh hour.
Toxic Chemicals
Roughly 100,000 chemicals are in use today, most without any environmental or human safety testing under antiquated federal regulation dating back three decades.
Read the rest of this entry »
Leave a Comment » | California, global warming, politics, pollution, sustainable living, toxics, waste | Tagged: AB1879, AB1972, AB2071, air quality, arnold, California, drought prevention, environment, flame retardants, global warming, Lowenthal, ocean protection, packaging, plastic bags, politics, SB974, schwarzenegger, sustainability, sustainable living, toxic chemicals | Permalink
Posted by Sarah (Steve) Mosko
November 1, 2005
Appeared in
- Vall-E-Vents, the San Fernanado Valley Sierra Club Newsletter, Nov-Dec., 2005.
Thirsty Californians Trash the State
(#5 Plastic Plague Series)
by Sarah S. Mosko, Ph.D.
We all need to kick the bottled water habit and see it for the environmental hazard that it really is. Illustration by Willis Simms.
Is bottled water earth-friendly?
Single-serve bottled water comes in #1 PETE (or PET) plastic bottles, whereas the 1-gallon containers are #2 HDPE plastic. The five-gallon jugs at the office are yet a different plastic, #7 polycarbonate. All three are made from petroleum or natural gas, do not biodegrade, and are thought to last at least a hundred years in the environment. Plastic bottles harm the environment throughout their life cycle.
We all know that petroleum/ natural gas extraction is environmentally costly. Also, toxic chemicals are used or produced in the manufacture of plastic bottles. For example, Bisphenol-A (BPA), a building block of polycarbonate plastics, is known to mimic estrogen and cause reproductive abnormalities when lab animals are exposed as fetuses. Migration of BPA from bottles into water has been documented, and BPA has built up in the environment to the extent that elevated levels are measured in seafood as well as human tissues.
Californians’ thirst for bottled water has contributed heavily to an overall decline in beverage container recycling, down from 70% in 1990 to 55% in 2003. A paltry 16% of #1 PET water bottles Read the rest of this entry »
Leave a Comment » | California, health, plastics, sustainable living | Tagged: bisphenol-a, bottled water, California, contaminants, energy, environment, FDA, green business, HDPE, health, lnadfill, PETE, plastics, pollution, recycling rates, science, sustainability, tap water | Permalink
Posted by Sarah (Steve) Mosko
November 1, 2005
Appeared in
- Orange Coast Voice as Is Your Bottled Water Safer?, May 2007, page 5.
- Vall-E-Vents, the San Fernanado Valley Sierra Club Newsletter, Nov-Dec., 2005.
Is Bottled Water Really Safer? Billions of Plastic Bottles Harm the Environment
(#4 of the Plastic Plague Series)
by Sarah S. Mosko and Stuart Moody (Green Sangha)
The FDA regulates bottled water as a food product, whereas tap water is EPA-regulated. Surprisingly perhaps, FDA rules are not necessarily stricter.
Bottled water has become a symbol of our culture, whether it is the 5-gallon jug at the office or the single-serve bottles we lug around every time we leave the house. We have been led to believe that bottled water is better for us than tap water, but is it? And, what impact are all those plastic bottles having on the planet?
Is bottled water really safer?
The FDA regulates bottled water as a food product, whereas tap water is EPA-regulated. Surprisingly perhaps, FDA rules are not necessarily stricter. For example, the FDA does not prohibit low levels of fecal bacteria in water while the EPA does. Read the rest of this entry »
Leave a Comment » | energy, green business, health, plastics, pollution, science, sustainable living, waste | Tagged: bisphenol-a, bottled water, California, contaminants, energy, environment, FDA, green business, HDPE, health, landfill, PETE, plastics, pollution, recycling rates, science, sustainability, tap water | Permalink
Posted by Sarah (Steve) Mosko
Boogie Green 
