Author Archives: Zero Waste Scotland

My Last Post

Posted on by
Reply

I’m leaving waste behind me. Not literally of course; that would rather make a mockery of my efforts over the last two years. I’m leaving it behind in the sense that I am changing jobs and won’t be working in the waste field as of next Monday as I am joining another team in KSB (Going Carbon Neutral Stirling) to try and help local businesses and the local council reduce their dependency on carbon. I guess waste will still play a part in my new role, as recycling helps reduce carbon overall, but the major components of carbon output tend to be energy based – transport, fuel, heating, lighting, that kind of thing. Also, Waste Aware Business is set to continue, including this blog, so be sure to check back regularly to see new posts from new faces.

A cheeky plug for my new team...

Anyway, I want to thank any and all of you for reading my musings over the months since I began writing both the Waste Aware Scotland and Waste Aware Business blogs. It has certainly been an interesting addition to my day job and a useful outlet for sharing ideas about climate change and waste in Scotland.

I am hugely looking forward to my new role, although I am of course sad to leave my friends at what is now Zero Waste Scotland. I am certain that, with the new Zero Waste Plan (pdf alert – launched yesterday!) the right policies are now in place to reduce, reuse and recycle all waste in Scotland over the coming years to eliminate the need for landfill altogether, or at the very least to meet the 70% recycling target by 2025.

I am convinced a solution to the issues of peak oil and climate change are out there, waiting to be discovered and implemented to create a world where concerned citizens no longer have to fear the environmental effects of economic growth, because that growth will be coupled with a sense of responsibility about the state of the planet for future generations. I am also glad to be living in Scotland at this time, as we seem to have understood this better than many other countries. Although we face challenges, I am certain we are beginning to find the right track to take us to where we need to be, provided we all take our share of responsibility for traversing the road ahead.

Now, if you will allow and indulge me, I would like to leave you with an idea, grounded in philosophy, which translates very neatly into a guide for everyday actions:

Immanuel Kant wrote the “categorical imperative” which he argued should be the basis for all human behaviour:

“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”

With a head that big, he must be brainy...

This simple statement sums up the solution to many of the problems we face. It asks people to think before they do something, to consider what would happen if everyone else was also to do it. If, in doing so, you create an unpleasant future, then refrain from that action. We do not live alone in this world. Your litter is my litter. Your pollution is my pollution. Your wasted energy is my wasted energy.

Thanks and good luck.

What Will You Pass On?

Posted on by
Reply

On 5 June this year Scotland will celebrate its first ever Pass It On day, a day created by Community Recycling Network Scotland and Zero Waste Scotland for the purpose of encouraging all of us to share (pass on) those items which we no longer need but which may still have a value for someone else. You know the kind of thing: that little-used breadmaker in the bottom of your kitchen cupboard, the old bike in the garage or perhaps some furniture you’ve grown tired of.

I’m sure we’ve all got things that were bought with good intentions that fell by the wayside. Well why not let someone else learn that having a new piece of exercise equipment won’t magically make you thinner and that buying things to make your life less complicated actually just means you have to find space in your home for more stuff. I jest of course. Some of these items may have brought great joy to your life and you can do others a good turn by passing them on.

The idea behind the day is not just to encourage everyone to be charitable but also to avoid things with value being sent to landfill. This will help the environment in two key ways: firstly it reduces the need for new materials which would otherwise be turned into brand new things and, secondly, it reduces the amount of waste sent to landfill.

So long as they are in good condition then someone is likely to find a use for them then reuse organisations all over Scotland will gladly take them off you hands. Details of Pass it on Day events in your area and information about reuse organisations across Scotland (who can take your stuff) can be found here.

The slippery path of oil

Posted on by
Reply

Being eco is nothing new. And I don’t mean because of the bearded forefathers of green proclaiming impending doom in the 1970s. It really isn’t new. Since the dawn of time, survival has depended on careful use of available resources. Our evolutionary ancestors had to learn this the hard way (with the ultimate price for failure) and we, in most developed countries, are in the uniquely fortunate position of having far more than we need at very little cost.

The reason for this is very simple: cheap oil.

Without a plentiful supply of black gold the industrial revolution would have never happened and our lives would be unfathomably different, akin to the dwindling number of people still living in untouched, pre-industrial societies around the world. You wouldn’t be reading this because, along with every other blog post, article, website or book published with the help of electricity, it wouldn’t have been written. You wouldn’t be worried about the amount of plastic packaging waste you put in your bin each week because you wouldn’t have any plastic.

Do you think these people have a problem with waste?

So, oil has led us down an exciting yet slippery path. At the beginning of our energy-intense journey we rejoiced in the availability of this seemingly endless source of energy which revolutionised so many aspects of our lives. Yet, before long, we began to take it for granted and assumed cheap and plentiful oil was the status quo. This shows how short-sighted we can be: oil was first drilled on a commercial scale just 160 years ago, a mere fibre in the tapestry of time. Even so, we now find it difficult to grasp the fact that much of modern life, including all capitalist economic systems, rely on this once abundant energy source to exist. It is so entwined in our everyday that, for most of us, the idea of it not being available as and when we want it is unthinkable. After all we use it in so many ways: to extract the materials which become the products we consume so hungrily; to produce the products, package the products and within the products; to travel, to work, to light up our lives and to lift us above the apparent boredom of an otherwise oil-less existence.

But an oil-less existence is precisely what we are going to have, in a very short space of time. It is generally agreed that we have reached the peak of oil discovery (places we can extract it) so it is only a matter of time before we reach a peak in production. Add to that an increase in demand from countries that previously didn’t rely on oil so much and it is easy to see that oil is about to become a precious commodity affordable only by the extremely rich. We may be 5 years away from that point, or we may be 40, but either way our children will be affected massively by the changes they will need to make to the way they live.

However, becoming oil-less may be precisely what we need to solve some of the most pressing problems we face on the planet. Take global warming. Without oil we won’t produce anything like the amount of CO2 we do at present. So, if oil does peak and becomes something that most people can’t afford, we will have solved one of the biggest challenges we face without even doing anything about it. Also, take population growth. Without oil we will be unable to indefinitely sustain a planet with a growing population. The number of people will adjust to the amount of food we can produce, just like in the animal kingdom.

So we may be forced to make changes, but some of those changes may be for the better. They may allow us to break free of the shackles of an energy intense, consumerist lifestyle in the knowledge that we are doing it as a whole society – not just as “worthy” individuals. We may face a different future, but that doesn’t mean it will be worse.

Invisible impacts

Posted on by
Reply

A recurring piece of advice about waste that I give to businesses and members of the public is that “the waste you can’t see often has a greater impact than the waste you can”. It’s a message that needs explaining (so bear with me) but it’s important because it helps to show the true nature of things, and how often do we get to see that? The phenomenon is known by waste experts as “the iceberg effect”, which is an obvious analogy: more of an iceberg lurks ominously beneath the water’s surface than sits proudly above it.

Watch out for the hidden impacts...

But what do we mean by “waste you can’t see?” The answer, as with most things, depends on your perspective about what matters. This is because disposing of waste encompasses a huge number of environmental, social and other factors and any or all of these could be perceived as negative depending on who’s involved. I told you it needed explaining.

Let’s look at some of the main factors:

Environmental / Social

Energy - it’s obvious but well worth stating that disposing of materials as waste involves huge amounts of energy. Mining the earth to extract materials; producing and transporting materials and their packaging; storing them and finally transporting the unused or leftover materials to landfill (or for that matter a recycling plant) all takes energy. When you see the carbon footprint on the label of a product in the supermarket, which is increasingly common, it generally looks at the embodied energy of an item (i.e. the energy required over its lifetime) which is the main reason why fresh orange juice has a higher overall footprint impact than ambient (aka long-life) – put simply the former requires a fridge. Here is an example of the footprint of a bag of crisps, showing the various stages of production and consumption. The key point with regards waste is that it is clearly more of a problem if we waste materials that could have been used (or reused) because the embodied energy to make new items is proportionally massive.

Water - An amazing amount of water is used in every single item we use. Again, the term “embodied” crops up because we need to consider the water involved throughout a product’s life-cycle, not just in its end use. Embodied water is also commonly referred to as “virtual water” although it is, of course, very real and has to come from somewhere. A fascinating water calculator of common items was produced by the BBC recently which shows, for example, that a chicken breast contains 683 litres of embodied water! So, if you don’t finish your dinner tonight and throw some chicken away, the waste also contains a proportion of this embodied water. I dread to think how much embodied water is connected to everything deposited in an average landfill site, but it’s safe to say that the volumes involved would be far greater than the waste itself. It’s just that we can’t see it. Other examples include nearly 11,000 litres of water for a pair of jeans.

The Natural Environment - In other words, the nice bits of where we live like forests, green areas, natural habitats etc. These are areas we lose whenever a landfill site or quarry is put there or when a river is polluted or trees chopped down. Equally, we lose part of our natural environment whenever someone decides to put, for example, a bauxite quarry nearby. Admittedly this is more likely to happen if we live in Vietnam or Guinea than Scotland, but you get the idea.

Quality of Life – This is a difficult one to quantify but there is a certain sense of pride for a clean and tidy area which we lose when waste is scattered about. For some people, litter and waste regularly tops the list of things that bother them. So their life is genuinely affected by other people’s waste.

Other Hidden Impacts - A hidden effect of landfilled organic waste is that it will emit methane as it breaks down in landfill which is a highly potent greenhouse gas. It’s a big reason for trying to avoid organic waste in landfill and supports the argument for composting waste. Another hidden impact is the potential for pollution when chemicals from products and packaging escape into the surrounding environment.

Businesses
If you own or manage a business what matters most is likely to be money, so wasting money is something you would most try to avoid. Coupled with this is wasted time because for most businesses the old adage holds true that time equals money. Disposing of waste has many costs associated with it over and above the invoice you receive from your waste service provider. In fact, it is estimated that the actual cost is 10 times higher than these upfront, obvious costs! Here are just some of the reasons for this:

  1. Over-buying - the cost of buying too many materials in the first place is wasted money. A lot of what businesses throw out is actually unused or poorly used materials, particularly in some industries, like retail or catering.
  2. Time – the staff time involved with emptying bins is a significant factor for some industries.

The Solution

So what can be done to minimise these impacts? Fortunately, quite a lot. If you buy recycled products or products with recycled packaging then you minimise the embodied impacts because you remove the need to mine the earth for materials, which is one of the most energy intensive parts of producing materials. If you buy products produced locally then you help to remove even more of the energy involved (transportation) and also the amount of water used (stats show that local products tend to involve less water than those imported, for a variety of reasons.

Above all, if you can reduce the amount you buy you will necessarily reduce the waste created as well as minimise all the impacts mentioned above.

Does it matter what other people think of us?

Posted on by
Reply

Unless you are a curmudgeonly so and so you probably spend at least two minutes a day trying to make yourself look presentable. After all, it’s not nice when people gasp and recoil as you step on a bus. And it’s not just about looks; most of us do a wide range of activities at least in part because we want to have things to talk about and share with other people and because we don’t them to shun us.

Without resorting to amateur psychology, sometimes we behave in certain ways because we want to be liked. It ties in with the part of our brain that makes us smile at people instead of growling like a werewolf when they approach our desk, for example. But for some people this social-politeness disappears as soon as we think no one’s looking. So we curse at the people on the radio in our cars but sit in silent contemplation on the train. We might toss the odd drink can aside on a remote beach path but it wouldn’t cross our minds in a crowded shopping centre.

Unfortunately this is one of the reasons why we have a litter problem in certain areas of the country. People act one way in private and another in public and forget that their actions, when added to those of other people, have a massive impact. This scenario can be expanded. If we look at Scotland as a whole we see a nation proud of its history and natural landscape and generally well thought of around the world. Yet, when people from abroad look closer, they sometimes see things that Scottish people couldn’t be proud of: rubbish on streets and beaches, landfill sites filled with rubbish, a general lack of recycling bins.

At Keep Scotland Beautiful we want people to stop and consider the consequences of their actions. Before you drop litter just think “what if everyone did this” and “what impression does this leave people visiting Scotland with.” We work everyday to combat litter and the problems of waste, not just for climate change but also because it will make ours a better society.

How to promote recycling in the workplace

Posted on by
Reply

As you might expect, at Keep Scotland Beautiful we are keen to minimise our own environmental impact. We rent our office space, which limits what we can do but there are still lots ways for us to reduce, reuse and recycle our waste and keep energy bills to a minimum.

When we moved offices in 2009 we set up a new recycling service which potentially covers a wide range of our waste, from paper and cardboard to metal and plastics. A team of volunteer staff help to make sure the recycling bins are emptied into the large outside bin in time for collection.

But even with the best will in the world, it is difficult to make sure that all of our 100 staff always put their waste in the correct bin. We also know, from our work with businesses, that this is often the last major hurdle for other businesses trying to minimise their waste. Setting up recycling services is one thing but making sure they are used properly is quite another. There are several reasons why it happens but most boil down to one central issue: communication.

Communication

At a very basic level, staff need to know where to put their waste. For us, this meant putting up material specific posters at recycling points to highlight which materials can be recycled and which, unfortunately, can’t. You can produce your own posters using the completely free poster creator tool on our website (you need to register, which only takes a minute).

We also emailed staff to let them know that recycling points were available and where they were located.

However, that was only phase one. Some people still throw recyclable rubbish in the black-bagged bins which, in our case, gets sorted by the waste company but around 60% of it ends up in landfill. We know that this is also a problem for other businesses and for us, this led to phase 2: engagement.

Engagement

Engagement is an active form of communication where we try to reach out to staff and show them what we want and why we want it. There are different ways to achieve this but it can be done via any communication channel available such as intranet, email, briefings, meetings, notice boards, phone calls etc. Any medium is suitable, provided it ends up with a positive change in behaviour (which you ideally will measure, to show improvement over time).

Competition

We recently ran a Recycling Slogan Competition in which we invited entries from any member of staff to help promote recycling in the office. The idea wasn’t really to find the best slogan, although some great entries were received, it was to engage staff in the process. By entering a competition where you could win a prize you are becoming part of the solution towards zero waste, whether you like it or not. We received entries from 11% of staff, including several from management. Overall it was successful with the following winning a small prize (plus the honour of being chosen):

Show Taste, Recycle Your Waste

We produced a shortlist from which the judge chose a winner (anonymously):

It’s got to be in it – just recycle bin it
See more than waste, Recycle
Don’t be a Chump, save me from the Dump!
Don’t throw me away – Help keep climate change at bay
What we want to see in KSB is all our staff, litter free!
Recycling is anything but a load of rubbish

All the shortlisted entrants were named in the final email which again helped with engagement.

Other methods

As well as engaging staff it is also important to try to help them recycle in other ways. At Keep Scotland Beautiful we have removed desk bins for most staff and have removed the lids from the recycling bins, making it easier to use them.

We are also looking at ways to recycle the materials which we currently can’t recycle, like food waste. We want to get to the point where there is no reason to have a black-bagged bin. This will also involve talking to our recycling provider to ask them how they process certain materials and to double-check which plastics they can accept. Contamination can be a problem as well, so we need to check whether it is essential for all food residues to be wiped off or if the odd yoghurt smear is ok.

There are lots of ways to reduce, reuse and recycle in businesses but it is vital that the people working for the business join in. Without the help of staff, all the recycling points in the world aren’t going to make a difference but, with their help, anything is possible.

Predicaments, not problems

Posted on by
Reply

I saw an excellent presentation today, made in the kind of relaxed yet informative and engaging public speaking style that I am unlikely to ever successfully emulate (annoyingly). The speaker was Chris Martenson who is in the UK to present to various groups including the All Parliamentary Party Group on Peak Oil. The topic for today’s presentation was: Economy, Energy and the Environment which was part of an event organised by my colleagues here at Keep Scotland Beautiful. Chris eloquently outlined the challenge we all face without once mentioning climate change and presented the complex in a simple way. As he admitted, a lot of what he said was actually common sense, yet the amazing thing about it was just how many people have wilfully ignored it.

I’m not going to repeat everything he said; there’s plenty of information on his website to get you started. However what I will repeat is one of his fundamental messages which is that we face a predicament, not a problem.

This is important because a problem is something we can solve whereas a predicament is something we cannot: we can only manage our response. Chris used photographic examples to demonstrate these two situations. In one photo we saw two climbers, with one man hanging off the foot of another as they cling to the edge of a cliff. This shows a problem with potential solutions: the man dangling could theoretically climb up the other man to safety. Or a third person could arrive on the scene and help cushion the fall. On the other hand, in the photo showing a predicament, a man was seen in the air, having just leapt off a cliff. There was no solution to his situation, only an inevitable landing in the water beneath. All this man could do was minimise the impact by trying to land safely.

As far as Chris is concerned that is essentially the position we face. He asserts that we cannot realistically hope to solve the problems of peak oil, limited resources and unsustainable economic growth. All we can do is try to manage our response to it at a local level and  to ensure that as the world changes over the next 20 years (and we can be sure it will change) we are equipped to cope.

It’s difficult to argue with this. A global consensus to the impending energy crunch has not been reached. Countries are reacting very differently to oil resources. However, in some ways it makes little difference to our approach. Whether we are providing a solution or helping to manage the response; waste reduction, reuse and recycling is still vital. By preserving materials and treating waste as a resource we can extend the time available before we hit the water.

I’ll leave the final word to Chris: “Our individual challenge is to accept the possibility that the future may be quite a departure from the present.”

Why money saved is worth more than money earned

Posted on by
Reply

At an event in Edinburgh on Monday I met an elder statesman of the UK environmental consultancy industry. I won’t mention his name because I can’t be sure he would want to be attributed to what I am about to write. Needless to say, I thought his points were valid and worth repeating.

The Botanical Gardens Edinburgh - A Great Event Venue

Earning vs. Saving
Among some interesting points about Combined Heat and Power, he also mentioned how businesses (and households) tend to forget one of the elementary economic rules: profit = income less costs.

This matters because most forms of income come with costs attached. Let’s say you run a business selling bananas (Bananarama Ltd). You have to buy the bananas that you sell, so your profit can never be 100% of the sale price. On top of this you have to pay for somewhere to store your bananas and staff to help sell them plus the sundry costs of power, heating, water and taxes.

Your balance sheet for each banana might look like this:

Selling price of banana: 25p
Wholesale cost of banana (the price you paid): 10p
Storage: 3p
Wage costs (per banana): 3p
Sundry costs (taxes, waste, transport, energy bills): 2p

Average profit per banana = 7p

So, how many bananas do you need to sell to make £1 in profit? 100/7 = 14.28 (let’s call it 15).

15 bananas to make £1! It’s a wonder anyone bothers. But then, as we know, most people selling bananas also sell lots of other things and generate sufficient turnover that all their small margin items add up.

Now, compare the cost of earning £1 with saving £1:

Bananarama Ltd spends £1,000 on paper for their office each year. They decide to enforce double-sided printing throughout their head-office.

Assuming this can be achieved by assigning someone to do it as part of their normal job (i.e. they don’t get additional salary to set it up and train staff in the new procedures) the company saves in two ways. Firstly they need to buy paper less often and secondly they have less waste to dispose of (by recycling we hope!). They could conservatively expect to save £250.

Saving: £250
Profit: £250
Costs: Zero
Equivalent number of bananas that would have to be sold to achieve the same profit: 3750

These calculations work on anything you care to think of. Whenever you can save (avoid expenditure) it is worth more to you than trying to earn the equivalent.

Relevant for households too
Householders pay tax so, on average, £1 earned is actually worth around 78p. On the other hand, if the household saves £1 by avoiding food waste, they save a full £1 to spend on something else.

It’s this kind of common sense logic which should help us focus all on the best strategy for sustainable economic growth.

What does peak oil mean for you?

Posted on by
Reply

As anyone with even a modicum of common sense knows: we are running out of oil. We use it far quicker than it can be replaced. It’s a bit like a bankrupt alcoholic’s wine cellar: the thirst is unquenchable yet, somewhere in the deep recesses of the claret-addled neurons, a tiny voice screams “stop, it’s running out, and you can’t afford any more!”.

Eeny meeny miny moe...

You know the end result: the man drinks himself to oblivion until the cellars lie empty. Yet, in this rather crude analogy is an interesting sliver of hope. Just like the drunk man, we too can’t help but consume from our bountious oil fields. We also can’t replace the oil in them. Yet, once they are gone (or to be accurate, once they have peaked, and the prices sky-rocket) we will have to stop. We will sober up!

Sobriety brings challenges. How will we fill our time once denied our many fun-filled, oil-derived activities? Just think of the sheer amount of what we do that currently depends on oil, even assuming that electricity can be generated without it on a massive scale – which is not a given. This BBC Video shows some of the things made from oil. Highlights include innocuous yet vital things like wire insulation. Just imagine if there was no more plastic to insulate wires. That means no more plugs. No more extension leads. No more house wiring!

If we take it to the extreme then anything plastic is pretty much on its way out. No more iGadgets; no more TVs, mobile phones or computers; no more lipstick! On the plus side it means less plastic waste, which can be hard to get rid of (although kerbside plastics recycling is on the increase and businesses can find a recycling service for their plastic waste on our directory. Sorry, back to the story.

The rather apocalyptic yet brilliantly named website Wolf at the Door makes some thought-provoking predictions about peak oil:

I think it is likely, a hundred years from now, that Homo Sapiens will be living in small communities, supplying most of their needs from the surrounding farmland, rather like medieval Europe.

Personally I am more positive (a tame lion at the door?) as I don’t see an inevitable decline to another stone age. We are infinitely more technically aware in all sorts of ways than we were before oil came along. Also, “peak oil” is not the same as “no oil”. When it becomes scarcer we will need to switch our main oil-derived activities to other fuel sources (or re-think our activities) but there will be some left for the essentials.

The main issue is that we do need to think about and debate the sort of world we want to inhabit once oil does peak, as one thing’s for sure: things will have to change.

Is bottled water really the green choice?

Posted on by
Reply

Research conducted on behalf of multi-national companies often carries with it the scent of mistrust. Modern consumers are savvy enough to realise that the parameters of most company-instigated research will have been skewed firmly in the favour of the company paying for the study to be carried out. But is this research always greenwash or can it provide a valuable insight into issues which would otherwise remain uninvestigated?

The devil's in the detail

When I heard on the tweet vine that a recent Nestle funded study shows irrefutably that bottled water is the “greenest” packaged beverage I was sceptical. But scepticism is different from cynicism and I was keen to learn more and discover the truth. Having looked in some detail at the study it appears to have some merit. It’s a peer-reviewed life-cycle analysis (LCA) of various drink options and includes comparisons with other water choices (tap, filtered etc.) as well as other beverage choices (vitamin water, coffee, wine). Ignoring the fact that wine isn’t what most people would consider a viable alternative to water (unless it’s a Friday night of course) the parameters of the research look, to my hugely untrained eye, to be fair. But what about the results?

As you can see from the chart above, bottled water forms a significant proportion of the average US consumer’s beverage consumption. In fact US consumers apparently drink more bottled water than tap water and more “soda” (e.g. cola, lemonade etc.) than anything else. Wow. More soda than water? That’s a lot of fizzy drinks.

Anyway, leaving this health issue aside, the key findings of the report show that the environment would benefit if people switched from soda to bottled water. In fact, if you switch today from your preferred beverage (coffee, wine or whatever) to bottled water you will, on average, reduce your daily “impact” by 9%. Why? Because the non-water elements of soda involve lots of things which contribute to climate change (like growing the sugar, making the chemicals etc.) If you then switched from bottled water to tap water you would see a further decrease in your impact of around 4%.

The conclusion of the report: removing bottled water (i.e. banning it) would be unlikely to result in an environmental improvement. This makes sense because most people would switch to a less environmentally friendly option rather than drink tap water. But it doesn’t remove the fact that we would all be better off drinking more tap water (where clean tap water is available) instead of packaged alternatives. It also doesn’t remove the fact that the waste generated from the packaging of beverages across the world makes up a significant part of our waste streams and that more needs to be done to reduce packaging and complete the circle when it comes to recycling packaging waste.

In conclusion, it may be true that bottled water has less impact across its life-cycle than alternative packaged beverages but it is also about the only drink which most people in developed countries have available, cheaply and with less impact, by simply turning a tap.

For information about recycling plastic bottles in Scotland see here (public) or here (businesses).

Key findings from the study

– Water is the least environmentally damaging beverage option

– Tap water has the lightest footprint, followed by tap water consumed in reusable bottles (if used more than 10 times), and then by bottled water

– Water of all types accounts for 41% of a consumer’s total beverage
consumption, but represents just 12% of a consumer’s climate change impact

– Milk, coffee, beer, wine and juice together comprise 28% of a
consumer’s total beverage consumption, but represent 58% of climate change impact

– Bottled water is the most environmentally responsible packaged drink
choice

– Sports drinks, enhanced waters and soda produce nearly 50% more
carbon dioxide emissions per serving than bottled water

– Juice, beer and milk produce nearly three times as many carbon
dioxide emissions per serving as bottled water