But beyond the plastic, these filters—which are on cigarettes in the first place to absorb contaminants to prevent them from going into the lungs—contain trace amounts of toxins like cadmium, arsenic and lead. Thus when smokers discard their butts improperly—out the car window or off the end of a pier or onto the sidewalk below—they are essentially tossing these substances willy-nilly into the environment.

Studies done by Johns Hopkins University, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and even the tobacco industry itself show that these contaminants can get into soils and waterways, harm or kill living organisms and generally degrade surrounding ecosystems.

While individual discarded cigarette butts may be small, they add up to a huge problem. Some 5.5 trillion cigarettes are consumed worldwide each year. The non-profit Keep America Beautiful reports that cigarette butts constitute as much as one-third of all litter nationwide when measured by the number of discarded items, not volume. According to the Ocean Conservancy, a non-profit that advocates for stronger protection of marine ecosystems, cigarette butts are the most commonly littered item found on America’s salt and fresh water beaches according to feedback received by hundreds of thousands of volunteers taking part in the group’s annual Coastal Clean-up event.

While the tobacco industry may have its hands full just trying to stay afloat in the maelstrom of ongoing bad publicity, critics say it should be doing more to prevent cigarette butt litter. “Just as beverage manufacturers contribute to anti-litter campaigns, and have invested in public education on litter issues, so too should the tobacco industry,” says Kathleen Register, founder and executive director of Clean Virginia Waterways, a non-profit that has spearheaded the fight against cigarette butt litter in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. She adds that cigarette manufacturers “need to take an active and responsible role in educating smokers about this issue and devote resources to the cleanup of cigarette litter.”

Register suggests a number of strategies including putting anti-litter messages on all cigarette packaging and advertisements, distributing small, free portable ashtrays, and placing and maintaining outdoor ashtrays in areas where smokers congregate. She also suggests putting an extra tax on cigarette sales, with proceeds going toward anti-litter education efforts and to defray the costs of cleaning up butts. “Picking up littered cigarette butts costs schools, businesses and park agencies money,” she says. “By taxing smokers for anti-litter educational efforts, some of the costs of cleaning up cigarette butts will shift onto smokers.” One way or another, Register hopes, smokers will learn that the Earth is not one giant ashtray.

The next thing you know, you’re rounding the block, zeroing in on a neon sign containing an aquatic maiden surrounded by a distinctive green loop. Starbucks is beckoning you to over a Venti nonfat half-caff soy latte with extra whip.

So what inspired you to make the purchase? It was not the store location or the advertising that Starbucks pays for. This morning, it was that empty coffee cup you saw in the gutter.

The image of the Starbucks logo triggered your memory to think about your last cup of coffee — how it tasted when the hot liquid met your mouth and when your upper lip touched the frothy whipped topping. And on your way to work, all you can think about is that cup of coffee. You may normally walk past Starbucks, but today you went inside.

Brand logos have an incredibly high value because of their ability to make you, the consumer, instantaneously think about the bigger picture.

If a woman sees a CVS bag blowing down the street, it might remind her that she needs more Q-Tips and shampoo. And when she goes to make that purchase later, she is probably more likely to shop at CVS.

Think about an empty Cinnabon box you see at the mall. Not only are you going to be stopping at American Eagle and Express, but you will be finding your way to the food court to grab a bite of that cinnamony deliciousness. You know in the back of your head that every mall has a Cinnabon, but it is not until you see the empty container that you now want to go there.

What do the Starbucks cup, the CVS bag, and the Cinnabon box all have in common? They are trash!

Trash is driving sales all across America. It’s the company’s logo on the trash that is really driving the sales, but the fact is, it is free advertising for companies. When somebody litters or reuses a bag with a retailer’s name and logo on it, then that person is indirectly driving sales for the company.

There are so many advertisements which bombard us everyday that many times, we simply ignore the message. It seems that incremental sales growth is mostly likely to happen when consumers least expect it-when looking at trash.

Whether it is resting in a waste can or lying in the street, the logos on the trash remind us of things we may want. And once we get thinking, especially about food, many consumers make a purchase. During a difficult time for economic growth, litter-bugs may just be the secret step to growing sales.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), CDs and DVDs are typically manufactured by combining various mined metals (aluminum, gold, silver and nickel) with petroleum-derived plastics, lacquers and dyes. Given what complicated beasts CDs and DVDs are-products with thin layers of different materials mixed together are nearly impossible to recycle-most municipal recycling program won’t accept them, leaving consumers to fend for themselves in figuring out how to dispose of them. As a result, most discarded discs end up in the trash. 

These difficult-to-recycle materials can pollute groundwater and, in turn, contribute to a whole host of human health problems. But the low cost of producing such top-selling consumer items means that replacing them with something greener is not likely anytime soon. 

Research has shown that polylactic acid (PLA), a biodegradable plastic-substitute derived from corn and other agricultural wastes, could replace plastic polycarbonate as a disc’s main substrate, but the present high cost of using such a material makes it unlikely to catch on any time soon with those paying to produce mass volumes of CDs and DVDs. 

As for jewel cases, most are made out of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), an inexpensive petrochemical-based plastic that is notoriously difficult to recycle and has been linked to elevated cancer rates among workers and neighbors where it’s manufactured. Furthermore, when PVC is thrown in with regular recyclables it can contaminate entire batches, ruin equipment and cause human health problems. While cardboard and paper jewel cases may be all the rage among a few record labels-Warner Music Group’s U.S. division, for example, has been using 30 percent post-recycled paper for the packaging in all of its CDs and DVDs since 2005-the high cost and low durability of such alternatives have kept them largely out of the mainstream. 

So what’s a conscientious consumer to do? Those willing to pay a small processing fee can send old CDs and DVDs to one of a handful of private companies (such as Washington-based GreenDisk) set up to recycle them into high-quality plastics used in auto parts, office equipment, alarm panels, street lights, electrical cable insulation, jewel cases and other specialized items.  

A shift in consumer preferences already underway may be just the thing that will make everyone’s personal collections of music and movies greener. Consumers are already able to download some six million individual digital songs via the 500 or so legal online music services now up and running on the Internet. According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, digital sales now account for some 30 percent of all U.S. music sales and 15 percent globally. And most consumer analysts expect these percentages to grow steadily in the coming years, which is good news for the environment. 

CONTACTS: EPA’s “Lifecycle of a CD or DVD,” www.epa.gov/osw/students/finalposter.pdf; GreenDisk, www.greendisk.com; International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, www.ifpi.org. 

Dear EarthTalk: What are the major environmental issues that our next president, be it Obama or McCain, will have to confront? – Melinda Barnes, via e-mail 

Global warming is unquestionably the most pressing environmental issue facing whoever ends up in the White House in January 2009. Not only does climate change impact-and in most cases exacerbate-other environmental problems, it has even wider implications for the economy and society at large. Luckily for all of us, both Barack Obama and John McCain are committed to tackling climate change, although their proposed approaches differ in significant ways. 

The non-profit League of Conservation Voters (LCV), America’s leading voice for environmental advocacy within electoral politics, would prefer to see Obama elected president given his environmental track record and plans for the future. While both candidates favor instituting a mandatory “cap-and-trade” program (whereby the federal government allows polluters to trade for the right to emit a reduced overall amount of greenhouse gases), Obama is for more strident cuts. He would like to see the U.S. reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by some 80 percent by 2050, while McCain supports only cutting back by 65 percent. Both candidates have authored legislation in the Senate designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, although no such bills have come close to passing. 

Even though McCain is by far the most forward-thinking of the original Republican presidential contenders on global warming and the need to take action, LCV still gives him poor marks, only a 24 rating (out of 100) lifetime and zero for 2007. LCV says that McCain missed all 15 critical environmental votes last year and that he “repeatedly clings to outdated policies and flip-flops on core environmental issues.” By comparison, Obama earned a score of 67 in 2007 and has a lifetime LCV rating of 86. 

One area where environmentalists take issue with McCain is his support for expanding the role of nuclear power in cutting fossil fuel use. Obama would rather bolster alternative energy sources like wind and solar power that do not have the nasty side effect of radioactive waste in need of storage and disposal. (McCain also supports the development of new renewables, but not to the extent that Obama is willing to commit). 

Some of the other hot button environmental issues sure to occupy the next president’s time include: how to best protect the nation’s water resources and wetlands; whether to allow more drilling for oil and natural gas both offshore and within Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; whether to reinstate the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, a Clinton-era law (subsequently overturned by the Bush administration) calling for protection of some 58 million acres of public land from logging; how to meet U.S. commitments on existing environmental laws in international trade agreements; and whether to bring back the so-called “polluter pays” part of the government’s “Superfund” toxic waste clean-up program. 

While Obama is clearly the greener candidate on most of these issues, the fact that McCain even takes them seriously-and is committed to any greenhouse gas reductions whatsoever-is a plus for environmental advocates exasperated by eight years of green naysaying by the Bush administration. 

CONTACTS: Obama ‘08, www.barackobama.com; McCain for President, www.johnmccain.com; League of Conservation Voters, www.lcv.org. 

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Environmentalists consider litter a nasty side effect of our convenience-oriented disposable culture. Just to highlight the scope of the problem, California alone spends $28 million a year cleaning up and removing litter along its roadways. And once trash gets free, wind and weather move it from streets and highways to parks and waterways. One study found that 18 percent of litter ends up in rivers, streams and oceans.

Cigarette butts, snack wrappers and take-out food and beverage containers are the most commonly littered items. Cigarettes are one of the most insidious forms of litter: Each discarded butt takes 12 years to break down, all the while leaching toxic elements such as cadmium, lead and arsenic into soil and waterways.

The burden of litter cleanup usually falls to local governments or community groups. Some U.S. states, including Alabama, California, Florida, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia, are taking strong measures to prevent litter through public education campaigns, and are spending millions of dollars yearly to clean up. British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland also have strong anti-litter campaigns.

Keep America Beautiful (KAB), the group known for its “crying Indian” anti-litter TV ads of bygone days, has been organizing litter clean-ups across the U.S. since 1953. KAB has a strong track record of success in litter prevention, though it has been accused of doing the bidding of its industry founders and supporters (which include tobacco and beverage companies) by opposing many mandatory bottle and can recycling initiatives over the years and downplaying the issue of litter from cigarettes. Nonetheless, 2.8 million KAB volunteers picked up 200 million pounds of litter in KAB’s annual Great American Clean-up last year.

A more grassroots-oriented litter prevention group is Auntie Litter, which started in 1990 in Alabama to help educate students there about the importance of a healthy and clean environment. Today the group works internationally to help students, teachers and parents eliminate litter in their communities.

In Canada, the nonprofit Pitch-In Canada (PIC), founded in the late-1960s by some hippies in British Columbia, has since evolved into a professionally run national organization with a tough anti-litter agenda. Last year 3.5 million Canadians volunteered in PIC’s annual nationwide Cleanup Week.

Doing your part to keep litter to a minimum is easy, but it takes vigilance. For starters, never let trash escape from your car, and make sure household garbage bins are sealed tightly so animals can’t get at the contents. Always remember to take your garbage with you upon leaving a park or other public space. And if you’re still smoking, isn’t saving the environment a compelling enough reason to finally quit? Also, if that stretch of roadway you drive everyday to work is a haven for litter, offer to clean it up and keep it clean. Many cities and towns welcome “Adopt-A-Mile” sponsors for particularly litter-prone streets and highways, and your employer might even want to get in on the act by paying you for your volunteer time.

CONTACTS: Keep America Beautiful, Auntie Litter, Pitch-In Canada.

Dear EarthTalk: My uncle worked for over a decade on the top floor of an office building with cell phone towers directly above him. He was recently diagnosed with cancer. Is there any scientific evidence of links between exposure to cell phone tower radiation and cancer? — Jennifer L., Wellesley, MA

No one doubts that cell phone towers give off low-level radio-frequency radiation (similar to the microwave oven in your home), but scientists are still debating the health effects of long-term exposure. Some people are genetically predisposed to certain types of cancers, while others are not (for example, some lifelong smokers get lung cancer while others don’t). And with so many different chemicals, pollutants and other substances around us in our air, food and water, it is very difficult to determine with certainty if a particular environmental influence (such as a cell phone tower) is the culprit when health problems, such as cancer, arise in a particular locale or among certain populations.

But that hasn’t stopped many communities from worrying about this issue and taking cautionary measures. In San Francisco, for instance, concerned individuals and neighborhood groups have formed the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU) for the purpose of preventing “the placement of wireless antennas on or near residences, schools, health care centers, day care centers, senior centers, playgrounds, places of worship, and other inappropriate locations…”

SNAFU is worried that San Francisco is “already immersed in a sea of electromagnetic radiation” from, among other sources, some 2,500 licensed cell phone antennas at 530 locations around the city. The group is distributing petitions calling on local public officials to increase “restrictions on the number and location of cellular phone antennas and other wireless transmitters.” Other controversies have erupted in communities in Connecticut and elsewhere over churches renting their rooftops and steeples to cell phone companies for placement of antennas. And parents in Ossining, New York waged an unsuccessful battle in 2000 to ban revenue-generating cell towers from school grounds.

Still, the American Cancer Society (ACS) does not seem concerned, stating that limited epidemiological evidence suggests no link between cancers and living or working near a cell phone tower. ACS says that the energy level of radio waves coming off cell towers is too low to cause any noticeable human health impacts, and that a person would have to stand right in front of an antenna to pick up even trace amounts of radiation. And unlike X-rays or gamma rays, radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation is “non-ionizing,” meaning it lacks the gusto to break the bonds that hold molecules (like DNA) in cells together.

Still, cell phones and their towers are a fairly new technology, and very few studies of their health effects have yet been conducted. And the bulk of the research cited by the American Cancer Society has focused on direct and prolonged exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation in general, not on cell towers and their effects specifically. SNAFU reports that “no systematic attempt has been made to determine what current cumulative exposures to this radiation are….” Lingering public concerns about the issue surely means that more research on the topic is to come.

CONTACTS: American Cancer Society, San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU).

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.