The Moment of Truth: California Cap-and-Trade Policy vs. Prop 23

On November 2nd, California voters will vote on Proposition 23, which is an attempt to postpone the CO2 cap-and-trade legislation initiated by the 2006 AB (assembly bill) 32. It stipulates that in order for regulations to be put into place, unemployment must drop from 12% to below 5.5% and remain there for four quarters.

On Friday, the Air Resources Board released its most current draft of regulations. It reads like standard cap-and-trade policy: set a cap for CO2 from heavy emitters, allot credits (for free), and then allow these companies to sell/trade these credits each year. The program is set to begin in 2012, and if it functions properly, emissions will be reduced 15% by 2020.

Current polls show that California voters are split 33% for and 48% against Prop 23 (with the rest undecided). Hopefully, these numbers are accurate, and the policy freeze won't pass.

Cap-and-trade was a great success for reducing SOx emissions and acid rain. Who's to say it won't work for CO2 and global warming? If any state can start us off, it's The Golden State.


I hope all of you vote on Tuesday, especially if you're registered in California.

The Storms Are Coming...

As I was leaving Tech yesterday, I witnessed a tree-sized branch crash down onto black convertible. Poor guy. This disaster is evidence of a larger phenomenon. On Tuesday, the Great Lakes region witnessed the lowest barometric pressure in history.

A satellite image from Tuesday afternoon.

This Midwestern "megastorm" caused 24 tornadoes and 282 instances of damaging winds.

Climate scientists say that global climate change will lead to more severe storms. Is this evidence or a coincidence?

Innovative Spray Bottles by Replenish

Consumer product companies have always had the knowledge, resources, and consumer base to make their products more sustainable. Over the past few years, they've found the will power to complete the equation. Think about the products you've been seeing on the shelves: 3x concentrated detergent, water bottles made with 30% less plastic, and the unfortunate SunChips bags.

Here's another one, and it's called Replenish (thanks Kutgun). Watch the short video to see how it works:

It proves that the a simple design can have a great impact.

Get Rid of Old Electronics, Make Some Money, and Save the World

Gazelle is a company that will buy your old, unused, and broken electronics (phones, gaming systems, computers, cameras, etc.).



Here's a short video. It's simple:

1. You fill out a form, which asks for the device's name, details, and existing condition.
2. Gazelle instantly estimates the device's worth and shows you its market value history.
3. If you agree to sell it, Gazelle with ship you a prepaid box for your device.
4. Once the device is received, Gazelle will pay you through Paypal or by check. You even have the option of donating to charity.
5. If your device isn't worth anything, Gazelle will still ship it to a recycling facility for you.

DO IT! Make some money while saving the environment from toxic e-waste.

Addendum: I wanted to add this link. Apparently, a blogger at the NYTimes also had e-waste on her mind yesterday. She describes way to get rid of batteries and printer cartridges.

Here's to you, Sierra Club

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) team, which is largely funded by the UN, recently released a 3-year study showing just how beneficial ecosystem preservation can be (NYTimes). The study is enough to convince even the most steadfast skeptics. To those who believe anything can be engineered:

• $3.7 trillion - can be saved by 2030 if we conserve forests, which help absorb CO2 emissions. 
• $50 billion/yr - is how much fisheries could be making if they all harvested in a sustainable manner. 
• 30 million - is the number of people reliant on coral reefs for food and income. 1/4 of all aquatic species are located in coral reefs.
• $20-67 million -  could be saved over a four year period from planting trees in Canberra, Australia.  These trees regulate micro-climate and reduce urban pollution.
• $213 million/yr - is generated in agricultural production as a result of bee pollination of fruits and  berries (equivalent to what is generated from honey/beeswax directly).

There are no replacements for the myriad of services ecosystems provide. As much as we think we know, the intricacies of biological systems are yet to be understood. Every day, new behaviors and functions are discovered. Oftentimes, our actions have repercussions on living systems we never would have imagined. If mangroves and wetlands had been left undisturbed, there is no doubt that the destruction caused by the tsunami in Asia and Hurricane Katrina would been tamed. 

Wetland preservation could have severely reduced the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. Wetlands are also pivotal in waste detoxification and degradation.

Benefits of ecosystems:

1. Provisional - food, water, crops medicines
2. Regulatory - CO2 sequestration, climate regulation, pest/disease control, waste detoxification and decomposition, protection from natural disasters
3. Supportive - nutrient cycling, soil formation, photosynthesis, seed dispersion
4. Cultural - biophilia (humans <3 nature), religious and spiritual values, recreation

All You Need is an Angle

Seven Kansas towns were recently featured in the New York Times. It's interesting how in a farming region where climate change could be most devastating, less than half the population believes it actually exists. The questions is: how do you motivate these communities to become more sustainable when climate change isn't a motivating factor?

People at the Climate and Energy Project believe they've found a way, and it's through their "Take Charge" program. The recipe calls for one part foreign oil dependence fear and one part competition. Throw in a handful of non-profit money (around $150,000), and you get a bunch of motivated citizens. They installed new lightbulbs, implemented geothermal energy, weatherized their homes, and made plans for wind turbines. Two communities ended up reducing their overall energy use by 5% over the course of one year, which is actually quite impressive.

Weatherization, efficiency education, and citizen-led energy planning

The Climate and Energy Project just earned themselves a grant from the Kansas Energy Office to sponsor a competition in 2011 for 16 communities. Hopefully, they get similar results.

Flooded Sidewalks, Flooded Cities. Is There a Way Out?

Have you ever successfully navigated a puddle-filled sidewalk only to look up and see the impenetrable lake ahead? You should have known there was no hope. Here's looking to the future.
In September, the Illinois EPA announced its implementation of measures to reduce storm water runoff. It's called the Green Infrastructure Grant program, which has $5 million dollars from the US EPA already in its pocket.

There are a large number of technologies supported by the new program. But, ever since I was introduced to  permeable pavement (PP) technology at the EPA P3 (people planet prosperity) Expo last spring, it has been my favorite. They are exactly what they sound like. Unlike typical pavements, these allow water to seep through and into the ground below.

IL EPA and local officials showcasing semi-permeable block pavement (Sept. 16th, 2010)

Types (detailed information):

• Block Pavers (pictured): These are impermeable (often concrete) blocks that are interlocked/spaced in a way that allows water to penetrate the soil below. Some brands include Aquaterra, UNI Eco-Stone, SF-RIMA, Turfstone, and Hastings Checkerblock. 
• Grid Pavers: These are the weak cousins of block pavers. They are typically made of plastic and can be filled with grass, gravel, or soil. Examples include Turfgard, Netpave, Gravelpave, Grasspave, Tufftrack, and Geoblock.
• Permeable Asphalt/Concrete: These are the originals without finer particles in the mix. The absence of these particles leaves voids through which water can flow. Check out the design below. 

Permeable asphalt design

Here are some pros and cons of permeable pavement. Keep in mind, all designs have different capabilities.

PROS:

• limit flooding
• reduce chemical runoff, which harms lakes/rivers/streams
• allows water to seep back into the water table, replenishing aquifers

Before and 10 years after permeable pavement installation at Brown University (2004)

CONS:

• may be vulnerable to ice damage, called frost heave, in freezing temperatures. However, there have been pavements designed to resist it.
• can't handle heavy loads (like trucks) or large amounts of traffic (busy roads).
• may require a little maintenance. Some types of permeable pavement are prone to get small rocks stuck in the pores. Occasionally, these may need to be cleaned via street sweeping or vacuuming.
• cost more.

Because of current performance specs, permeable pavement is limited to areas like sidewalks, walking paths, bike trails, parking lots, low traffic side roads, driveways, etc. Hopefully, in the future, design breakthroughs will allow permeable pavements to be used more widely in the world. Perhaps one day, they will answer to urban flooding like that in India. 

Chicago is Safe, but for How Long?

Various nations in Africa and South America have begun to recognize that collaborative efforts may be necessary in order to control freshwater exploitation. This is apparent in the recent call for aquifer use agreements, which would protect cross-country water resources.

Various aquifers in question

In order to protect our water resources, it is important to understand how we are affecting them.
What are we doing wrong? (from what I gather is least to greatest impact, please share your ideas)

1. Road Salt: I always wondered how it could possibly be environmental OK to use so much road salt. I asked myself, "how can there be no consequences when 2 minutes of driving encrusts my car in it?" Apparently, it does matter. One study published this year shows that runoff from salted roads increases water salinity in rivers/streams/lakes, threatening plant and animal life.

Snow or salt?

2. Unleashing Aquifers: Our aquifers are being  drained faster than they can naturally be recharged, causing water shortages in places from Wisconsin to India. That's not the only problem. The water we release from the ground eventually ends up in the world's oceans and is responsible for 25% (.8mm/yr) of rising sea levels.

3. Global Warming: There is significant evidence that global warming hastens the water cycle, which results in increased evaporation and precipitation. Unfortunately, when you mess with the water cycle, you don't get more rain everywhere. In wet regions, rainfall increases, which fosters damaging floods. In dry regions, less rain will fall, and freshwater bodies may increase in salinity and/or dry up, which may cause devastating droughts.

I've always had great appreciation for Chicago. It isn't just because of the city's impressive architecture, positive energy, and seasonal variation. It's also because when the world's water supply fades, Chicago will be at the heart of the largest freshwater system on Earth, The Great Lakes. However, my guess is that, in time, even Chicago won't be immune.



Evidence from near and far:

• East Antarctic Lakes have seen increases in salinity.
• Salinity increases in India have led crocodiles into populated areas.
• Cities in Wisconsin were hurting when they were cut off from Lake Michigan.

Companies Are Making the Effort, and Soon You Can Actually Believe Them.

Have any of you bought SunChips in the past year? Have you noticed that the bags are really crinkly? Well, here's a video from the Wall Street Journal back in August:


This video represents a sentiment expressed by a large number of SunChips consumers. Not surprisingly, the bags managed to get themselves a Facebook fan club titled, "Sorry but I can't hear you over this Sun Chips bag," which boasts over 44,000 members.

So, why exactly would Frito-Lay create a bag that makes so much noise? To be environmentally friendly. They claim that their new packaging biodegrades in only 14 weeks. You have no idea how amazing this sounds to me. One of the ESW groups I'm a part of goes to Portobelo, Panama to work on wastewater issues and to teach sustainability. I can't imagine how much cleaner the town would be if their packaging waste simply degraded over time. There would be a lot less of this:

Trash in the creek near the septic tank in Portobelo, Panama

It's something we don't appreciate as much in the US because litter isn't really a problem.

It's no wonder that Frito-Lay decided to take these bags off the market.

I'll check for the bags next time I'm at the grocery store, but if you happen to get your hands on one, eat your chips and pass the bag on to me. I want to test these "compostable" bags on my worms. If they really do what they claim, then I'll be very impressed.

Note: The biodegradable bag is still available for SunChips - Original Flavor.
Where's the news?  *Eco-labeling*

Well, do you remember this? A gasoline-powered alarm clock. A feather duster space heater. Energy Star labels.



There are hundreds of "eco-labels" floating around the market, and various companies are making countless claims that their products are "biodegradable", "made with renewable energy", and "use 20% less packaging". 20% less packaging than what? The Federal Trade Commission plans to ensure that these "biodegradable" products are actually biodegradable. If not, they say, "we're going to go after them." They're in the process of a long overdue revision of their "Green Guides", which were last updated in 1998. Once finished, the revisions will hopefully give teeth to the soft consequences felt by today's offending companies.

Party Politics and Peter Rouse (Obama's new Chief of Staff)

The History:
The very first day of my Environmental Law & Policy class, my (undisclosed party) professor brought up the topic of environmental party lines. I had never cared to look into before; it was assumed that besides the occasional crossover, Democrats were for environmental issues and Republicans were against. Obviously, it's not that simple. Which party do you think was responsible for environmental protection and emissions control? Who were the original environmentalists? Contrary to what I always thought, they were Republicans.

1st National Park (Yellowstone): President Theodore Roosevelt, Republican, 1872
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): President Richard Nixon, Republican, 1970
Clean Air Act (extension): President Richard Nixon, 1970
Clean Water Act: President Richard Nixon, 1972
Endangered Species Act: President Richard Nixon, 1973
Resource Conservation Recovery Act:  President Jimmy Carter, Democrat, 1976
CERCLA (Superfund): President Ronald Reagan, Republican, 1980

Or were they? Although legislation was passed under Republican presidents, environmental legislation had the support of both Republicans AND Democrats. Environmental safety and protection was common ground. So, where did we go wrong? What caused the bipartisanship of the past to yield the ugly divide that exists today? Our class brainstormed some answers, and these were my favorites:

• Unobservable consequences - In the past, signs of environmental degradation and threat to human health were clear as  rivers catching on fire. With climate change, the effects are less obvious. Different regions will experience different symptoms and to different degrees.
• Hard economic times - In the 70's, 80's and 90's, environmental issues were not clouded by today's economic depression, which causes us to focus on personal and financial issues.
• No united national front - The generations that lived through WWII and the Cold War shared a common national experience, which bonded them and fostered collaboration. Now, the parties are at each other's throats.

Today:
Climate change legislations just can't seem to come through. The promising bill proposed by Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham was like a Senate hot-potato. People showed interest but didn't want to get burned, and Obama's absence was palpable. While two wars couldn't unite us, I had hoped climate change would. Instead, it proves to be one of the most divisive issues of them all.

A Democrat, a Republican, and an Independent walk into a bar...
Three unlikely friends came together to form a climate super team, nicknamed the "Three Amigos": Kerry (D), Lieberman (I), and Graham (R). These three politicians set aside past rivalries and hurt feelings to fight, tooth and nail, for the passage of a climate bill. They fought hard for votes in the Senate. They called up T. Boone Pickens and big oil. They compromised. By offering to include legislation such as offshore drilling allowances, nuclear loan guarantees, and natural gas benefits, KGL (Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman) were able to accrue support from both industry and Senate Republicans. So, why are we not currently in the process of instituting cap-and-trade? While the Senators were negotiating hard behind the scenes, Obama stole any ounce of bargaining power they had by announcing nuclear loan guarantees and the expansion of offshore drilling rights. Ryan Lizza said it best, "Obama had served the dessert before the children even promised to eat their spinach." Once the phrase "carbon-tax" caught hold, a YouTube viral video accused Graham of being gay, and KGL lost G, the climate bill was in all practical sense, dead.

Left to Right: Graham, Lieberman, and Kerry

I highly recommend this New Yorker article that comments on the politics and actions of involved parties.

So, why did the climate bill fail so impressively? Why couldn't these dedicated Senators get the votes? Why didn't the White House back the bill whole-heartedly? I'll give you one guess; it's because of us. That's right: we're a democracy, and we, as the people, actually have an immense impact on decision-making. Near the beginning of the year, citizens ranked climate change as the last priority of 21 issues. Rising sea level, droughts, floods, and extreme biodiversity loss lead most people to think, "I can't feel it. It doesn't affect me right now. I don't care."

New Hope for the Future:
After listening to chatter about Rahm Emanuel on NPR for 3 straight hours last Friday, I had heard enough. What I needed was a good laugh.

Who doesn't love a little Jon Stewart tearing up someone's character?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Rahm-A-Gone
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

I honestly can't say much about the effectiveness of Emanuel so I'll leave it at that. All I know is that Lizza (from the New Yorker) describes Emanuel as a man who was all about the win. If the votes weren't already there, he wasn't going to support it. The votes weren't there for the climate bill, so he didn't push it. His replacement, however, serves as new hope for climate activists everywhere. His name is Peter Rouse.

Peter Rouse

'"He's very green," said Eric Washburn, who helped write the energy bill of 2002 as [Democratic Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's] legislative director. "He's someone who I think has deeply held views about [climate change], but he's also someone who can temper them" to get the "best [outcome] the political system can deliver at that moment."' - Lehmann


I guess we'll have to wait and see. With more Republicans in the Senate, there will be quite a bit to overcome.

How to Dispose of a Body (for the Environmentalist)

A few weeks ago, I had an engaging conversation about life after death, or rather, the life of a dead body. Although a lot of us make a real effort to be eco-conscious in life, i.e. turn off the lights, use public transportation, reuse, recycle, etc., we forget about what happens afterward.

The AVERAGE funeral in the US has a price tag of nearly $7,000. This includes everything (i.e. coffin, plot of land, embalming, cremation, transportation, funeral services, etc.).  Environmentally speaking, it has been estimated that "Americans bury more metal each year than was used to make the Golden Gate Bridge and enough concrete to build a two-lane highway from New York to Detroit... More than 800,000 gallons of the [embalming fluid] are interred... annually, most of it containing carcinogenic formaldehyde." Cremation isn't much better. "The average cremation produces about 250 pounds of CO2 equivalent, or about as much as a typical American home generates in six days." (Slate)

Death is one of those untouchable subjects that is not only scary and heartbreaking, but also closely tied to religion and tradition. Talking about it can be offensive. I don't think it should be, and there are others who agree.

Let's avoid our potential post-humus environmental impact and plan for our futures. Here are some of our options:


1. Conventional Burial

In addition to the use of toxic embalming fluids, conventional burials require a significant plot of land. Coffins are placed in cement encasements to prevent degradation, which can be either good or bad. Although it's not a serious problem yet in the US, cemetery space shortages are occuring in places around the world. Back in 2007, BBC published this. Furthermore, burial is actually MORE carbon intensive than cremation, mainly due to cemetery maintenance, i.e. lawn mowing, pesticides, etc.. To make conventional burial more sustainable, consider wood coffins without the cement encasements so that the body is allowed to naturally compose. Find a funeral home that will refrigerate a body, rather than embalm it, before burial.  Also, consider natural burial (#4).

Price: $5,000 on the lower end.

Avaiability: Very common.

2. Cremation

Cremation, although better than conventional burial, is energy intensive and still has a very large carbon footprint. There are two types of cremation, incineration and traditional cremation. Incineration is when the body is put into a furnace and burned at almost 1,000C. With traditional cremation, the body is burned in the open on a funeral pyre. In India, the average person's carbon footprint may be greater in death than in life. One way to reduce the footprint of traditional cremation is to create a pyre structure requiring less wood, and  Vinod Agarwal says he can reduce it by 60%.

Price: The lower end is around $500.

Availability: Very common.

Funeral in India (on a wood pyre)

3. Resomation (recently coined as aquamation)

This past week Time published an article on an alternative to burial and cremation: aquamation. Ok, I'll admit, the name is a little market-y. It was orignally known as resomation and has been around for a while, mostly as a means of disposing of bodies  "donated to science". The body is put in a stainless steel pot filled with water and a strong potassium hydroxide (KOH) solution and heated to roughly 95C for four hours. Flesh and tissue dissolve, leaving a basic solution and softened bone, which is then ground up and given to relatives. No tissue particles remain; not even DNA survives. After the solution is neutralized with a common acid like vinegar or citric acid, it can be used as fertilizer. While the "ew" factor is high for some, this method requires 1/10th of the energy of cremation and doesn't produce any pollution. Bury the ground up bones, and plant a tree above.

Price: Uncertain. Claims to be cheaper than burial/cremation.
Availability: Very limited, only in Austrailia. On the other hand, why not donate your body to science? You body might just end up here.

Bone remnants from resomation

4. Natural Burial

If resomation doesn't strike you as a good way to go, then consider natural burial. A natural burial is about as close as you can get, legally, to digging a hole and dropping a body in. It appeals to those who want their bodies become part of the Earth by way of nature (i.e. microorganisms). Or, it could be for people who get the heebie-jeebies from options like resomation. Depending on the law in your state and county, you are able to perform different levels of  natural burial. Some places allow you to wrap the body in a shroud (cloth) and bury it while other require a "receptable", i.e. biodegradable coffin. You may or may not require a funeral home or cemetery for burial. In rural areas, it's often allowed to bury a body on your own land, and perhaps plant a tree over the grave. The Islamic Society of North America has a pretty good state-by-state summary of burial laws.  If you're interested in natural burial, take a look at your state and see if it's legal. Scattered across the country are natural burial parks/preserves where bodies are tracked by small stones, trees, or GPS coordinates so that families can visit their loved ones. It's never too early to plan.

Price: Depends if you dig your own hole. If you're going to a green burial funeral home, ~$2,500.
Availability: Although not in your immediate vicinity, there are various natural burial areas across the country.

A natural burial

5. Promession
A little farther off is promession. You let the body sit in liquid nitrogen (around -196C) until it's very brittle. At this point, ultrasonic vibrations cause the body to shatter. The resulting powder is dried, and the remains can be dealt with similar to the bone remnants from resomation. It has a lower "ew" factor but unfortunately, it's not drop dead ready.

Price: Similar to cremation.

Availability: Not available in the US. It's a Swedish technology, but I'm not sure it's in practice yet.

Liquid nitrogen

More information on green funerals can be found of the Green Burial Council website. They're the USGBC (US Green Building Council) of funerals.


My family's response
I visited my parents for the weekend, and before writing this post, I ran the concept of resomation by them. My family is Hindu, so cremation is traditional. First, I surveyed my mom and cousin-in-law, Vinti, as we were preparing dinner. "What? That's crazy! I would never do that." At least, that's what I thought they would say. Instead, calmly, both of them responded similarly. "I would consider that. It doesn't matter how it's done, as long as my remains are returned to nature". In Hinduism, people are cremated so that their ashes can be spread and their bodies returned to Earth. Cremation, to Vinti and my mom, is just a means of achieving a natural ending. I also figured that since my mom is a doctor and Vinti is a dentist, they were both immune to the "ew" factor.

So what happened when my doctor father and doctor cousin, Gaurav, were approached with the same concept? Disaster ensued. My father preached that cremation was the traditional way to go and that it is the only way he would do it. My cousin agreed. After a little more prodding, I got my cousin to say that he would consider it if he learned more about it and the practice was more common. After hearing the women's argument, my father finally admitted that it was really the "ew" factor that bothered him, not tradition.

Talk to your friends and family. If you're ready to breach this morbid and uncomfortable topic, it can make for fun and interesting conversation.

Vermi-Composting: The Beginnings

My dear friend (and ESW alum) Robbie kindly pointed out to me that my herb post mentioned “fertilizer”. Fertilizer? Really? What kind of environmentalist are you?! Yes, fertilizer is horrible for the environment, causing eutrophication of water bodies.When crop fertilizer runs-off into lakes, rivers, etc., it promotes growth of  large algal blooms, which deplete the water of nutrients for native species.  However, I didn't mean commercial fertilizer, and the only place my fertilizer is running off into is my sink (and to a wastewater treatment facility). Good catch, though, Robbie.

Three years ago, I did Alternative Student Break (ASB) at a greenhouse farm called Growing Power in Milwaukee. It’s funny: Will Allen, the head honcho my group hung out with and got free sweatshirts from, is now friends with the Obamas. How cool is that? Anyway, I learned all about vermi-composting. Vermi-composting is the act of using worms to enhance the composting process. They process the waste and convert it into “black gold”, an amazing fertilizer. Let me tell you, I became an expert at shoveling up worms, dirt, and compost.

Two years ago, I pitched a vermi-composting seminar to Engineers for a Sustainable World (ESW-NU) Exec.  They went for it. We had a great seminar, and everyone in attendance got to take home a worm bin, some hungry worms, and an uneasy sense that they would wake up to a worm infestation. If not that fear, there was the more legitimate fear that, like mom and the puppy that followed you home, the roommates would not have it.  So it went. We were excited, and ESW’s mini-project was featured in The Daily Northwestern. Time passed. Excitement faded. A lot of worms died. People gave up. I’m proud of the fact that my worms were the last surviving clan. When I moved from my old apartment, I had to set them free because I didn’t have room to store them. It was a sad day watching them slowly crawl away, but I know they’re happily burrowing away in a better place now.

Imagine my pain when I realized my basil plant needed fertilization. I had let go all of my factory workers. It doesn’t matter; the whole situation inspired me to do better. My old, one-tiered, sad excuse for a worm bin needed a face lift anyway, and that is just what I did.

BEFORE (this isn't it, but it was practically the same)

AFTER

Ok, so maybe the after picture isn’t very representative of what my final product looks like. But the  “Worm Factory” ranges between $60-$80, and let’s be honest, I’m just a college student, and I can’t afford that on my stipend.  Here's my adaptation.

My version of the worm factory

I tried to copy the Worm Factory without having to spend a lot of money. I bought three equally sized 16-qt. plastic bins for ~$10 in total. Keep in mind, I used clear bins because I think it's interesting to see what's happening. However, I would recommend buying colored bins because worms don't like the light, and it can paralyze them. I'm going to make sure that I have my bin in a dark area at all times. My version of the Worm Factory is composed of three plastic "trays":

• Tray 1:  This is where the magic happens. This tray sits on top so it's easily accessible. Fill it with worm bedding and food until you want to harvest the compost. Then, you switch it to the position of....
• Tray 2: This is the inactive tray, and it sits between Tray 1 and Tray 3. Set Tray 1 on top of this tray and the worms will naturally move up in the soil, into Tray 1 above, where the food is at. Once they do, you can harvest your compost.
• Tray 3: The bottom tray, Tray 3, has no holes. It is there to collect "worm tea", the liquid that is generated by composting. "Worm tea" is really rich in nutrients, and can be used as fertilizer. Harvest this whenever you like.

You can add as many trays as you want, depending on the amount of compost you want each week.


How to make your own worm bin:

1. Find 2+ plastic bins (depending on how many trays you want), with an area of 200-400 sq in. and a depth between 18" and 25". Find one lid that fits securely.

2. Ventilation Holes: Use a 1/16" drill bit to poke around 30 holes in the top of the lid and around 16 holes around the top of the sides of the bins (except for the bottom tray).

3. Drainage Holes: Use a 1/4" drill bit to poke about twenty holes in the bottoms of the bins (except for the bottom tray). These holes should be big enough so that the worms can crawl up through them.

4. Start with two trays. One that will be the active tray, and one will be the bottom tray. Rip old newspaper (and/or magazines printed with soy ink but nothing glossy) into strips for bedding. You can also use coconut coir, the fancy pants version, or dryer lint, which my worms instantly loved.  Wet it so that it's as damp as a wrung out sponge, and add it to your active tray.

I stole a bunch of dryer lint from the garbage can in my apt. laundry room. Gross. I know.  One man's waste is another man's treasure.

5. Get your worms. Some claim that if you put wet cardboard on your lawn for a couple days, the worms will flock, and you can collect them. I've never tried it. You can. I ordered my worms from Uncle Jim's. They were about $20 with shipping. I got 500 red wigglers, which are superstar composters. They came healthy, happy, large, and only one day later than expected.

There were even instructions!

Strong, healthy, squirmy

6. Put your worms on the bedding, add food (here are some good rules on feeding), and top it off with a piece of damp cardboard (or more ripped up paper). Snap on the lid, and let the worms start their new, wonderful lives. They may take a couple days to adjust to their new environment.

Damp newspaper and lint bedding

Worms

Food and cardboard

Important things to note:

1. Temperature: It should be between 55F-77F. Otherwise, the worms could either freeze or overheat.
2. Moisture level: If you're getting a lot of "worm tea", it's probably because it's too wet. If you reach in, and the newspaper/lint/soil feels dry, you might want to add water. Remember the wrung out sponge rule. A bad moisture level makes unhappy worms, and they might die, try to escape, or worse yet, smell.
3. Don't let the light get in. Not only can they paralyze the worms, they can also foster fruit flies and unwanted microorganisms.

Happy Worming!