Call us today and learn more on how fall fertilization can benefit your lawn and ornamental plants. 360-629-7378 

Consumers are attracted to choices that are billed as being good for the planet. Guest columnist Todd Myers considers that not all consumer choices or products yield the environmental benefit that people are led to believe they have.

By Todd Myers, Special to The Times

“GREEN is a trend and people go with trends. … I don’t think people know the real facts.”

These words of a green consumer reported in The New York Times last year echo what we see everywhere: environmentalism has become trendy, and green fashion is all the rage.

From plaques on the sides of “green” buildings, to bright green reusable grocery bags and hybrid cars, the evidence is everywhere. People like to publicly proclaim their concern for the planet, politicians prominently highlight their latest green proposals and business owners promote environmentally friendly products – while each seeks to reap social and financial rewards in the process.

Lost in the rise of these eco-fads is an honest assessment of whether these actions are actually helping the planet, or just making us feel better about ourselves.

• Witness Washington state’s requirement that new schools meet “green” standards. The Legislature’s auditing agency this year found most “green” schools use more energy than non-green schools.
• Consider King County Metro’s program to buy soy-based biofuel for their buses. The agency dropped the program after managers found the fuel may actually increase air pollution.
• Take politicians in Seattle and Olympia proclaiming a commitment to reduce carbon emissions, even as they admit those emissions are increasing faster than the national average.

Perhaps most surprising is that buying locally to reduce “food miles” often doesn’t help the environment. Consider this simple example. It is less efficient to ship Yakima hay to cows in King County so Seattleites can buy “local” milk than to leave the hay in Yakima with the cows and ship the milk. Calculating food miles in this instance misleads about the real environmental impact. Why is there such a consistent disconnect between environmental promises and real environmental results?

The reason these approaches fail is simple. Too many of today’s environmental policies are designed primarily to create a green image – not to deliver environmental results. A number of recent studies show how powerful the emotional benefits of looking green really are.

A study involving Seattle and Boulder, Colo., found people were willing to pay thousands of dollars more for a Prius than other hybrids due to its distinctive “green” appearance and style. Another study by J.D. Power and Associates found the No. 1 reason people said they buy hybrids is “what it says about me.”

We should not begrudge anyone for benefitting from decisions that truly help the environment. The problem arises when emotionally satisfying decisions do not actually help the environment. Do we admit our mistakes, losing the good feeling we gained by appearing green, or do we reject the data and jealously guard our carefully built green self-image?

As anyone who has hiked, fished, sailed or cares about wildlife can attest, real concern for the environment is not a fad. So why treat environmental policies like an impulse buy at the supermarket – indulging a desire to publicly demonstrate our green credentials?

Too often the choice made by politicians and green consumers is to reject science and stick with failed, but trendy, environmental fads. The very trendiness that increased awareness about environmental problems is now one of the chief obstacles to making science-based, rational assessments of environmental policy.

This need not be the case. We must recognize that chasing a trendy green image undermines our ability to make sound environmental decisions.

If we obstinately refuse to change failed policies, however, we harm the environment. At a time of tight budgets, continuing to pour scarce resources into failed policies squanders opportunities to improve water quality, protect wildlife habitat and improve energy efficiency.

Politicians, businesses and activists see eco-fads as an opportunity to reap the rewards of cultivating a green image. Unfortunately, eco-fads are now the biggest obstacle to making real environmental progress.

Todd Myers is environmental director at the Washington Policy Center and author of “Eco-Fads: How the rise of trendy environmentalism is harming the environment.”

 Dana Pratt, President of Pratt Pest Management Northwest, Inc, is pleased to announce a new service center opening in Marysville, WA this Fall.

 This newest location at 1105 10^th Street in Marysville will allow Pratt Pest Management to expand on 20 years of success in providing the highest quality pest control and lawn care service to Western Washington.

 “It is an accomplishment to add this location during such poor economic times and it would not be possible except for the extraordinary efforts of our employees who have dedicated themselves to providing the highest quality service and professionalism in our industry” said Pratt. “We look forward to another twenty years of being good neighbors and protecting our customers properties with green science”.

 To celebrate Pratt Pest Management and Lawn Care will be offering 20% off coupons for any new pest control service or N-Viro Liquid Lawn Care Program through December 2011 from their websites at prattpest.com or nvirolawncare.com.

CALL NOW! and take advantage of our introductory special offers.   www.nvirolawncare.com

Managing slugs and snails is best accomplished through integrating various techniques.  The following are a few ideas you may consider for controlling these common garden pests.

Maintain a habitat unfriendly for slugs and snails by eliminating debris, choosing plants that slugs dislike (begonias, geraniums, impatiens, rosemary to name a few) and avoid dense ground cover and mulches around vegetable gardens and succulent plants.

Handpicking can be effective for those with spare time and a strong stomach.  Try using a 10%  household ammonia solution in water to kill collected slugs.

Traps of various designs may be effective.  Beer-baited traps are well known but will only attract slugs within several feet.  Use a steep sided container buried in the ground and refill every few days.

There are numerous natural enemies including snakes, birds, turtles and toads. Domesticated fowl such as ducks, geese and chickens love to feed on slugs if your lifestyle or property can tolerate these free ranging feathered foes of slugs.

In conjunction with the above, baits of Metaldehyde or Iron Phosphate are the most effective.  There is some risk to pets if they consume enough bait so always follow label directions carefully and avoid placements that are readily accessible to pets.

Of course our professional technicians are trained in proper slug and snail control and for a small extra charge will provide effective abatement techniques for you upon request. ]]> http://www.prattpest.com/controlling-slugs-and-snails-2/feed/ 0 http://www.prattpest.com/jerri-b/ http://www.prattpest.com/jerri-b/#comments Wed, 01 Jun 2011 21:48:28 +0000 Carl http://www.prattpest.com/?p=626 I want you to know how much I appreciate working with your company. Pratt Pest exemplifies excellent customer service. You don’t just talk the talk, you walk the talk. And that means more than you know in today’s world.

What can I say about Jody? She’s such a delight to work with. Her voice radiates happiness every time I’ve called. And that says a lot about how much she enjoys working with the staff and the company. You couldn’t be any more fortunate to have her interfacing with the public. And did I mention her follow through, if she says she’ll call back she always does.

Now, last but not least there’s Tom. He is so genuine, he listens and handles the situation at hand. No issues or arguments, he goes about his business with a “I’ll check it out” attitude. Even those you don’t have high on your “love to do list” like crawl into those dark, tight fitting crawl spaces. But today he did just that for me in search of the foul “odor” I smell. No dead rodents or sign of any, no leaks, nothing looks like a problem. Just musty as I found out by crawling in there myself for the 1st time.

Thank you for your company and these 2 employees that made my Tuesday brighter by just interfacing with them. They stand behind customer service with a smile!

OLYMPIA — A court battle threatens to force massive amounts of Washington’s farmland out of production, a development that has the state’s farmers urging the state to intervene.

In 2002, a federal judge ruled the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency didn’t adequately study the effects of certain pesticides on salmon. The environmental groups that brought the lawsuit asked that interim regulations be imposed until the EPA completed studies on the effect of 54 pesticides. Those studies still are not complete.

Several farmers and commercial pesticide applicators told the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on Tuesday that new regulations, as proposed, could put them out of business.

The regulations, which are in the final comment period, would set buffer zones around many more waterways than current rules, Dan Newhouse, director of the state Department of Agriculture, told lawmakers.

In the wrangling over what those interim regulations should be, the EPA now is considering rules that would set much wider buffers on many more streams and canals running through farmland.

“It could take a great deal of land out of production,” Newhouse said.

The proposed buffers for pesticide application would apply to every stream and canal flowing through farmland, regardless of their distance from salmon habitat, and would affect 61 percent of land in the state, according to Heather Hansen, executive director of Washington Friends of Farms and Forests.

The waterways would include intermittent streams and drainage canals. Farmers say that could mean a lot of the land where they now grow crops would have to be left vacant. There would be a 500-foot buffer set on some of those streams.

Hansen has asked both of the state’s U.S. senators and its U.S. representatives to try to get the EPA to work with farmers on the regulations. She asked state lawmakers to put pressure on federal officials to tone down the regulations.

“The buffers will apply to every ditch and canal — if water may drain into something that drains into something that drains into the Columbia River,” Hansen said.

Farmers also will have to get a determination from EPA on what the buffers will be for streams, and those buffers can change with the season.

“That’s a phenomenal amount of time and paperwork,” she told lawmakers.

And a lot of land won’t be farmed because it can’t be sprayed for pests.

Douglas County farmer Jim Kempel said 42 percent of the land he plants with orchards would fall in buffer zones under the EPA plan.

“We as a family farm cannot survive if we can only farm 60 percent of our land,” Kempel said.

Nathan Wilson owns an aerial pesticide application business in Royal City. He talked about ways aerial sprayers already work to keep pesticide on the plants and out of the water. But he said the additional buffer zones could hurt any farm-related business.

“No one is going to grow anything if they can only treat 9 acres,” Wilson said.

Alan Schreiber, director of the state asparagus commission and a Mid-Columbia farmer, said the new regulations could put some already struggling farms out of business.

“There are farms that go broke every year — this is a tough business,” Schreiber said in a phone interview.

The sad part, he said, is the public likely won’t notice shortages of locally grown produce when the small farms go out of business because stores will just buy it somewhere else.

“This is just bad public policy.”