Savannahbest Earth Talk Page

Earthtalk

Welcome to Savannah, America's Most Beautiful City

To see more Earthtalk Columns go to the archives

From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: I heard a reference to “Earth-friendly chocolate” and was wondering about what goes into chocolate that would raise environmental concerns. -- Ben Moran, Providence, RI
Like coffee beans, the cacao seeds from which we derive chocolate can only be grown successfully in equatorial regions—right where the world’s few remaining tropical rainforests thrive. As worldwide demand for chocolate grows, so does the temptation among growers to clear more and more rainforest to accommodate high-yield monocultural (single-crop) cacao tree plantations. What are left are open, sunny fields with dramatically lower levels of plant and animal diversity. Adding environmental insult to injury, most cacao plantations use copious amounts of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides that further degrade the land that once teemed with a wide variety of rare birds, mammals and plants.
Another problem with chocolate production, although not specifically an environmental concern, is the conditions endured by workers that pick and process the cacao seeds. The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture has documented some 284,000 children between the ages of nine and 12 working in hazardous conditions on West African cacao farms. In Africa’s Ivory Coast, for example, where more than 40 percent of the world’s cacao is grown, underage cacao workers are routinely overworked, performing often-dangerous farming tasks in a setting that some liken to slavery. As a result of these and other related injustices, so-called “fair trade” advocates have targeted large producers of cacao to improve working conditions and pay living wages that allow workers to get their kids out of the fields and into school.
Some cacao farmers have enlisted the help of scientists and environmental groups to find ways to produce chocolate more fairly and more sustainably. The nonprofit Rainforest Alliance, which works on similar issues with coffee growers, is now partnering with cacao growers in Ecuador to develop environmentally and socially responsible cacao production and processing standards. The standards seek to maintain critical conservation areas, reduce pressures to convert more forestland to cacao plantations, and provide social and economic benefits to local communities. As a result, some 2,000 cacao growers in five Ecuadorian communities have now formed cooperatives that help find new markets for their products while overseeing adherence to fair labor standards and environmental protection measures. Rainforest Alliance hopes to expand the program to other cacao growing regions of the world in the coming years.
Those looking to get their hands on some organically grown fair trade chocolate have more options than ever before. Leading brands include Dagoba, Endangered Species Chocolate, Equal Exchange, Green & Black’s, Sjaak's, Sunspire, Terra Nostra Divine, Theo, Sweet Earth, and Yachana Gourmet. Actor Paul Newman has gotten in on the act, too, with his Newman’s Own brand. Like Newman’s Own, many of the companies donate money to environmental and other nonprofit efforts. Whole Foods and other natural foods retailers stock many of these brands, which are also available via various Internet-based retailers including Global Exchange’s Fair Trade Online Store.
CONTACTS: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, www.iita.org; Global Exchange’s Fair Trade Online Store, www.gxonlinestore.org.

Dear EarthTalk: What is the status of sharks around the world? I see occasional stories about sharks attacking humans, but on balance aren’t we a lot more brutal to them then they are to us? -- Pam Hitschler, Radnor, PA
It’s true that humans do a lot more damage to shark populations than vice versa. Marine biologists report that sharks are in rapid decline around the world. In the North Atlantic Ocean, shark populations have declined more than 50 percent over the past 20 years alone, with some species now nearing extinction.
Experts see the primary cause as overfishing, which depletes sharks as well as their prey. Sharks are especially vulnerable to illegal “longlines” (fishing nets strung across dozens if not hundreds of miles of ocean), where they get inadvertently snared along with the tuna and swordfish fishermen intend to catch.
Rising demand for shark fin soup in is also contributing to the demise of sharks. According to a report by Wildaid, shark fins are among the most expensive seafood products in the world, selling for some $700 per kilogram on the Hong Kong market. With prices like that, many longline fishermen, who are already operating illegally, are happy to augment their incomes by “finning” a few sharks along the way. (Finning is the practice of removing a fin from a shark and discarding the rest of the carcass at sea.)
Often, threatened wildlife species manage to maintain their numbers in spite of excessive human predation. But sharks face an especially uphill battle, says renowned shark expert Ransom Myers, because they “take a long time to mature and have relatively few babies.”
So what is being done to save sharks? In the U.S., the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act is the primary law that oversees the conservation of U.S. fisheries and has established various management regulations for 39 species of sharks in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. It outlaws finning if the carcass is discarded but not if the rest of carcass is kept, clearly an unfortunate loophole.
The U.S. also helped develop a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization treaty (the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks) whereby 87 countries agreed to develop their own plans for the conservation of sharks. However, only two countries—the U.S. and Australia—have lived up to the agreement. The U.S. plan is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which has been working with regional fisheries authorities to make sure fishermen are sticking to cautiously low quotas regarding the number of sharks they are allowed to catch.
What can consumers do to save the sharks? The Monterey Bay Aquarium in Monterey, California urges consumers to avoid all shark products, not just on restaurant menus but also all souvenirs such as jaws and teeth, and shark-cartilage pills, which have been touted as cancer cures but which have been proven to be completely ineffective and are now widely considered a scam. The aquarium also encourages consumers to support with their pocketbooks conservation groups working to protect sharks and oceans, and specifically those working to set aside marine reserves that are off-limits to fishing.
CONTACTS: Wildaid, www.wildaid.org; Monterey Bay Aquarium, www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp.

Dear EarthTalk: What are some of the best online sources of environmental information? -- Hip2bGreen, Seattle, WA
One of the best places to start in venturing out into eco-cyberspace is the website of a green group you already know—perhaps one for whom you have donated money or volunteered. Most groups use their websites to keep their supporters updated on the issues they cover, and provide links to many other green websites. Beyond such groups, several independent “third-party” sources also provide useful information on a wide range of environmental topics, from consumer tips to news to action alerts.
One leading green website is Grist (grist.org), which reports environmental news in a witty and engaging manner, billing itself as “gloom and doom with a sense of humor.” Checking out Grist’s daily rundown of environmental news is de rigueur among eco-activists, and many regular folks keep tabs on it, too. Other excellent news sources include Environmental News Network (enn.com), and Environmental News Service (ens-newswire.com). And one new kid on the block is The Daily Green (thedailygreen.com), which bills itself as the “consumer’s guide to the green revolution.” Owned by major magazine publisher Hearst, The Daily Green offers news, green tips and advice, and a plethora of green home, food and lifestyle topics.
The Green Guide (thegreenguide.com), run by National Geographic, is probably the best online source for green consumer information, specializing in green living tips, product reviews and environmental health news. Looking for guidance on saving water around the house, choosing among non-toxic paints or packing greener lunches for your school-age kids? The Green Guide would be a good place to start.
If you’re interested in more comprehensive looks at green issues and topics, emagazine.com posts much of the content of its flagship E – The Environmental Magazine, along with weekly news and commentary. Visitors can also access 18 years worth of in-depth articles—the magazine has been turning out bi-monthly print issues since 1990—on just about every green topic imaginable.
Those interested in social networking and the environment should look to Care2 (care2.com), the world’s largest online environmental community. The site offers its eight million members free e-mail accounts and provides lots of background information on just about every environmental issue.
A handful of green ‘blogs are starting to get a lot of media attention and web traffic. The king of them all is Treehugger (treehugger.com), which offers several posts each day from a stable of thinkers committed to environmental issues. Its coverage is not comprehensive, but Treehugger excels at tapping into trends in environmental thinking and culture. Another source of environmental tips and culture online is IdealBite (idealbite.com), a blog-style site offering up “bite-sized ideas for light green living.”
And then there are the “click-to-donate” websites, where visitors can read up on a variety of conservation campaigns and then contribute money via credit card. Ecology Fund (ecologyfund.com), the Rainforest Site (the rainforestsite.com) and Red Jellyfish (redjellyfish.com) are some of the leaders in this category.
So cue up that browser and start clicking. You’ll be amazed at what you can learn, let alone accomplish!

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that traditional mattresses and bedding can cause environmental and health problems, and if so, what alternatives are out there? -- Jay & Aubrey Gillespie, via e-mail
With all we know today about synthetic chemicals and their effects on our health, going green in the bedroom—where we spend a third of our lives—makes more sense than ever.
Traditional mattresses and bedding contain a slew of potentially harmful chemicals that can “off-gas” from fabrics, padding and framing and get inhaled or ingested. One of the most harmful is formaldehyde, which is used in many adhesives and can cause eye and throat irritation, headaches and nervous system disorders. And carcinogenic flame-retardants known as PBDEs, many of which are now banned in Europe and some U.S. states, still turn up in some sleep products. Most people fare just fine on their mattresses despite proximity to such offensive substances, but those with sensitivities to synthetic chemicals might want to consider greener bedding options. Luckily, there are many varieties to choose from.
Some very affordable green mattress options are available from manufacturers like Lifekind, Cozypure, Vivetique/Dreamlite, Royal-Pedic, Greensleep/Vimala, EcoChoices and Keetsa. Most of these companies make mattresses with natural latex cores, wrapped in naturally flame-retardant cotton and/or wool. Online retailer Gaiam carries some of these brands, and Ikea also now offers PBDE-free mattresses that just about anyone can afford. Also, many independent green stores are sprouting up in communities around the country and are probably the first place to look in the interest of supporting local merchants and minimizing the need to ship products long distance.
As for bedding, environmentalists’ main bugaboo is the use of traditional cotton, which requires huge fertilizer and pesticide inputs to grow and causes pollution during the industrial bleaching process. But with consumer demand for greener products through the roof, organic unbleached cotton is becoming more widely available. Some leading organic cotton bedding labels to look for include Cozypure, Lifekind, Holy Lamb Organics, Mary Jane’s Farm, The Green Robin, Jan Eleni, Kushtush Organics, Native Organic, Northern Naturals and Under the Canopy, among many others. Most environmentalists embrace wool blankets for their warmth and breathability, although sustainably harvested down in organic cotton duvets provides a viable green alternative as well. Online retailer Greenandmore.com has a wide selection of environmentally friendly and hypoallergenic down comforters, as do many local green stores.
Once you’ve banned synthetics and chemicals from the bedroom, no doubt you and your whole family will rest a little bit easier.
CONTACTS: Lifekind, www.lifekind.com; Cozypure, www.cozypure.com; Greensleep/Vimala, www.greensleep.ca; EcoChoices, www.ecochoices.com; Keetsa, www.keetsa.com; Gaiam, www.gaiam.com; Ikea, www.ikea.com; Holy Lamb Organics, www.hoolylamborganics.com; Mary Jane’s Farm, www.maryjanesfarm.com; The Green Robin, www.thegreenrobin.com; Jan Eleni, www.janeleni.com; Kushtush Organics, www.kushtush.com; Native Organic, www.nativeorganic.com; Northern Naturals, www.northernaturals.com; Under the Canopy, www.underthecanopy.com; Green and More, www.greenandmore.com.

Dear EarthTalk: My global warming guilt is starting to catch up with me, and I’ve heard that I can buy “carbon offsets” to help make things right. How do they work? -- Miranda Snavely, Milton, WA
Carbon offsets are monies that consumers and businesses pay voluntarily to compensate for the greenhouse gas emissions they generate directly by driving, flying, running the air conditioning and otherwise using non-renewable energy. Companies and nonprofit groups that sell offsets use the dollars generated to fund alternative energy and other projects that will ultimately eliminate greenhouse gas emissions (such as wind farms that can replace coal-fired power plants in generating electricity).
“Carbon offsetting is one of many economic actions you can take to address climate change, and it is a powerful one,” says the nonprofit Co-op America, “Many promising projects that would help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions lack the capital they need to get built; by directing your offset dollars to these projects, you can help finance new wind farms, solar arrays, and more.”
Dozens of carbon-offset vendors have sprung up in recent years. Consumers interested in buying offsets should do their homework, as some firms have better reputations than others. Co-op America recommends offsets that support specific projects that wouldn’t have happened otherwise and that have measurable near-term goals. Legitimate offset providers should also be able to back up all claims and show a clear money trail to the projects being funded. Co-op America urges consumers to avoid tree-planting programs, which are hard to quantify, and “climate exchange allowances” (also known as “pollution trading” or “emissions trading”), which many consider to be veiled ways of letting companies buy the right to pollute.
Co-op America lauds the Climate Trust (non-profit, funds wind farms in Oregon), TerraPass (for-profit, funds methane gas capture from landfills and farms), Native Energy (for-profit, funds new wind farms and solar arrays) and Sustainable Travel International’s MyClimate (non-profit, funds clean energy in developing countries) as some of the leading offset providers with reputable business models.
Those looking to dig deeper into the ways different offset providers operate should check out Clean Air-Cool Planet’s Consumer's Guide to Carbon Offsets. The free 44-page PDF download assesses the strengths and weaknesses of some two-dozen carbon offset programs. The guide gives highest marks to Climate Trust, Native Energy and MyClimate, although other providers are also praised for specific programs. Another good free online resource comparing various offset programs on one page/chart is on the Carbon Offsets Survey page on the EcoBusinessLinks Environmental Directory.
Consumers should understand that offsets may be convenient, but are essentially only icing on the cake of an otherwise diligent effort to reduce emissions by using energy less and more efficiently. “All the offsets in the world won’t help us,” warns Clean Air-Cool Planet, “if we in the U.S. don’t make big reductions in our overall greenhouse gas emissions and effect a transition away from wasteful use of fossil fuels.”
CONTACTS: Co-op America, www.coopamerica.org; Climate Trust, www.climatetrust.org; TerraPass, www.terrapass.com; NativeEnergy, www.nativeenergy.com; Sustainable Travel International, www.sustainabletravelinternational.org; Clean Air-Cool Planet, www.cleanair-coolplanet.org; EcoBusinessLinks, www.ecobusinesslinks.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Where do the leading presidential candidates stand on the issue of climate change and other environmental issues? -- Max S., Seattle, WA
The outcome of the 2008 presidential election could very well have a big impact on a wide range of environmental issues, especially climate change.
All of the Democratic candidates—Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich—support reducing carbon dioxide emissions nationally upwards of 80 percent by 2050 in order to stave off global warming. Likewise, each would like to see fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks raised to at least 40 miles per gallon within the next few decades. Meanwhile, only one of the major Republican contenders, John McCain, has even articulated a position on the issue of global warming, with most favoring expanding our base of greenhouse gas-spewing coal-fired power plants.
As for specific track records, Clinton has an impressive record of introducing pro-environment legislation into Congress, and for her time in the Senate scores a 90 (out of 100) on green voting from the nonprofit, non-partisan League of Conservation Voters (LCV). Obama is newer to the politics of the environment, but scored a 96 for his two years in the Senate from LCV, and has garnered kudos from environmental leaders for the aggressive climate and energy plan he unveiled in October 2007.
Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich wants to launch a Works Green Administration similar to the Works Progress Administration of the Great Depression, only this time to benefit the environment through the development of alternative energy technologies and infrastructures. Bill Richardson, who served as Secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton and more recently as governor of New Mexico, wants to be the “energy president,” and has an 82 lifetime rating from LCV to back it up. He has proposed the most ambitious carbon reduction plan of any of the candidates (90 percent by 2050). John Edwards was the first candidate to make his campaign carbon neutral in March 2007, and greens consider him perhaps the most progressive of all the Democrats on the climate issue.
On the Republican side, the environmental bright spots are few and far between. McCain is really the only choice with any declared concern for the environment. In 2003 he co-sponsored the first Senate bill aimed at mandatory economy-wide reductions. While the bill didn’t garner enough votes to pass, it set the stage for future iterations that could put the U.S. on par with European nations as leaders in the fight to cut carbon emissions. McCain is also the only Republican candidate specifically opposed to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Mike Huckabee scores some points with greens for his willingness to consider a specific increase in automotive fuel efficiency standards and for his (limited) embrace of alternative energy. Mitt Romney is willing to consider a cap on emissions, but only if enacted on a global basis (including China and India, that is). The remaining Republicans (Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Ron Paul) have best been non-committal on climate change and environmental issues in general.
CONTACT: For more detailed information on specific candidates’ positions and track records on environmental issues, check out the League of Conservation Voters’ Voter Guide, www.lcv.org/voterguide.

Dear EarthTalk: Most of us know how to recycle paper, plastic and glass, but how do we find out about recycling the many other items we use that eventually break or die out, such as light bulbs, disposable batteries, portable electronics, and so on? -- Elizabeth Lauer, via e-mail
It’s true that recycling items other than paper, plastic and glass is still no easy task. But if you’re committed to unloading something without adding it to a landfill, a little research can go a long way. Fortunately there are some great resources out there to help.
One of the best is a May 2006 article published in E – The Environmental Magazine by Sally Deneen entitled “How to Recycle Practically Anything.” Besides debunking myths about the ineffectiveness of municipal recycling programs, Deneen outlines where and how to recycle dozens of different types of household items not typically picked up by the recycling truck at your curbside.
Regarding compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs)—which shouldn’t be thrown in the trash as they contain trace amounts of the toxic heavy metal mercury—Deneen recommends first checking with your local household hazardous waste disposal facility to see if they will take them for recycling. If not, many hardware stores will take back spent CFLs. If none of these options pans out, a free online listing of companies that recycle CFLs can be found at the lampecycle.org website.
As for disposable batteries, Deneen says they, too, can usually be dropped off at municipal hazardous waste facilities, where they will be disassembled and their parts recycled for use in other products. If such facilities in your area won’t take them, some local or national retailers (such as Walgreen’s in some areas and Batteries Plus nationwide) may—just call and ask. Another option is to pay for the privilege by sending them to Battery Solutions, a mail-order company that will recycle them for 85 cents per pound.
Another common question is how to recycle (or at least responsibly dispose of) portable electronics—cell phones, video games, MP3 players, etc.—given that they usually contain heavy metals and chemicals that can pollute soils and groundwater. Deneen recommends dropping them off at your local Staples, Office Depot or Radio Shack store, which should take them back free of charge even if you didn’t buy them there. Another option would be shipping the worn out items to CollectiveGood (4508 Bibb Boulevard, Tucker, GA 30084), which will recycle them and donate the proceeds to the charity of your choice.
If you’re stumped about how or where to recycle an item, check out the Earth911.org website. It offers a free keyword-searchable, zip code-based database of municipal and commercial recycling and hazardous waste disposal facilities across the United States. The frequently updated database, which is funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as well as state governments and several non-profits, can also direct you to the proper municipal facility or local business to off-load potentially toxic items, like old tires or unused paint, in a safe and responsible manner. If you don’t have handy Internet access, give Earth911’s toll-free telephone hotline a call at 1-800-CLEANUP.
CONTACTS: “How to Recycle Practically Anything,” www.emagazine.com/view/?3172; LampRecycle.org, www.lamprecycle.org; Battery Solutions, www.batteryrecycling.com; CollectiveGood, www.collectivegood.com; Earth911.org, www.earth911.org.

Dear EarthTalk: How much of an effect, if any, does the carbon dioxide in carbonated beverages have on global warming? -- Michael Holmes, Shenandoah, VA
A typical 12-ounce can of soda contains up to six grams (.013 pounds) of carbon dioxide (CO2) gas, which either escapes into the atmosphere from the liquid upon opening, or from your body after you consume the contents. So yes, drinking carbonated beverages does contribute to your “carbon footprint,” but only ever so slightly.
To provide some context, every time you burn a gallon of gas driving from point A to B in your car, about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide wafts skyward (if you find this hard to believe, visit the U.S. Department of Energy’s fuel economy website at: www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml). So, extrapolating out, a typical car commute to work produces upwards of 700 times the greenhouse gases as drinking that can of Coke.
But cans and bottles of carbonated (or non-carbonated) drinks are still no friends of the environment. The production and distribution of single-serving beverages of all kinds generates untold millions of tons of greenhouse gases and other pollutants every year, while also wasting billions of gallons of fresh water. And once the drinks have been consumed, all those cans and plastic bottles have to go somewhere.
Some communities are diligent enough to capture more than half of all such containers for recycling—an activity which itself generates significant amounts of greenhouse gases—but that still means that more than 40 billion cans are ending up in landfills each year, or even worse, as litter, according to data compiled by the non-profit Container Recycling Institute (CRI).
Each un-recycled can or bottle then must be replaced by an equivalent one made from virgin materials. CRI reports that just the manufacture of these replacement aluminum cans each year generates about 3.5 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions, while also causing other environmental damage from the extraction of the bauxite from which aluminum is made. Even a larger amount of resources are used (petroleum-based in this case) and greenhouse gases emitted from the significant number of plastic single-serving drink bottles that are thrown away and not recycled each year.
Consumers can take a bite out of all this resource waste and pollution by remembering that, first and foremost, water is the least costly and healthiest beverage of all (on virtually all personal and ecological counts). And water drawn from the kitchen faucet requires no disposable packaging or shipping to get there, thanks to the highly efficient water-delivery systems that have been in place in developed countries in the vast majority of communities for a very long time.
For those who cannot get by without their soft drinks—carbonated or otherwise—the best way to lower that carbon footprint is to buy them in large containers and parse out servings in cups or glasses. A typical two-liter (67.6 ounce) plastic soda bottle holds five and a half times the liquid of a 12-ounce container and over four times that of a 16-ounce container, so it is easy to imagine the resource savings over time.
CONTACTS: Container Recycling Institute, www.container-recycling.org, fueleconomy.gov, www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/co2.shtml.

Dear EarthTalk: Green groups don’t seem to discuss human population growth, but I think the biggest issue confronting the planet is the collective demand we put upon it. And what is the difference in impact between population growth in Third World countries, which are poor, against that in the U.S., where we consume and waste so much more? -- Ronald Marks, via e-mail
The global rate of human population growth peaked around 1963, but the number of people living on Earth—and sharing finite resources like water and food—has grown by more than two-thirds since then, topping out at over 6.6 billion today. Human population is expected to exceed nine billion by 2050. Environmentalists don’t dispute that many if not all of the environmental problems—from climate change to species loss to overzealous resource extraction—are either caused or exacerbated by population growth.
“Trends such as the loss of half of the planet’s forests, the depletion of most of its major fisheries, and the alteration of its atmosphere and climate are closely related to the fact that human population expanded from mere millions in prehistoric times to over six billion today,” says Robert Engelman of Population Action International.
According to Population Connection, population growth since 1950 is behind the clearing of 80 percent of rainforests, the loss of tens of thousands of plant and wildlife species, an increase in greenhouse gas emissions by some 400 percent and the development or commercialization of as much as half of the Earth’s surface land. The group expects that half of the world’s population will be exposed to “water-stress” or “water-scarce” conditions feared to “intensify difficulties in meeting…consumption levels, and wreak devastating effects on our delicately balanced ecosystems” in the coming decades.
In less developed countries, lack of access to birth control, as well as cultural traditions that encourage women to stay home and have babies, lead to rapid population growth. The result is ever increasing numbers of poor people across Africa, the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and elsewhere suffering from malnourishment, lack of clean water, overcrowding and inadequate shelter, and AIDS and other diseases.
And while population numbers in most developed nations are leveling off or diminishing today, high levels of consumption make for a huge drain on resources. Americans, who represent only four percent of world population, consume 25 percent of all resources. Industrialized countries also contribute far more to climate change, ozone depletion and overfishing than developing countries. And as more and more residents of developing countries get access to Western media, or immigrate to the U.S., they want to emulate the consumption-heavy lifestyles they see on their televisions and read about on the Internet.
Given the overlap of population growth and environmental problems, many would like to see a change in U.S. policy on global family planning. In 2001, George W. Bush instituted what some call the “global gag rule,” whereby foreign organizations that provide or endorse abortions are denied funding support. Environmentalists consider that stance to be shortsighted, that support for family planning is the most effective way to check population growth and relieve pressure on the planet’s environment accordingly.
CONTACTS: Population Action International, www.populationaction.org; Population Connection, www.populationconnection.org.

Dear EarthTalk: My New Year’s Resolution is to reduce my “carbon footprint” to help fight global warming. Do you have suggestions for ways I can make good on my promise? -- Carrie, via e-mail
There’s never been a more urgent time to reduce your carbon footprint. With the U.S. government still opting out of mandatory emissions cuts, it’s up to every individual, business owner and city or state government to take steps. So here are 10 ways to get you started in the new year:
(1) Step-up Recycling and Composting. Recycling prevents carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by saving the energy it takes to make products from new materials and by saving the energy it takes to incinerate or landfill what we discard. And composting food scraps turns organic material back into fertile soil, which itself is an efficient carbon “sink.” To get started, see: www.earth911.org and www.howtocompost.org.
(2) Stay close or stay put: About half the CO2 we generate comes from our car trips, so walk, bike or take mass transit instead. Air travel also produces huge amounts of CO2, so the less you fly, the smaller your carbon footprint. See: www.culturechange.org.
(3) Eat organic and local: Stick to foods produced organically and you prevent harmful pesticides and fertilizers from polluting air, waterways, soils and family members. And if the food is grown nearby, thousands of pounds of CO2 weren’t emitted getting it to your grocery store. See: www.100milediet.org.
(4) Buy green power. Your power company might just source part of its supply from renewable sources like hydro-electric or wind, and will sell it to customers who know to ask for it. See: www.green-e.org.
(5) Change out your lightbulbs. A compact fluorescent lightbulb (CFL) uses less than a third of the energy of an incandescent bulb to produce the same amount of light—and it lasts 10 times longer. And some CFLs now have 3-way capabilities and can be dimmed. Visit Energy Federation, Inc. at: www.efi.org.
(6) Upgrade and unplug: Upgrading any appliances (including computers and TVs)? Be sure to look for the “Energy Star” logo, which only energy efficient models can wear. Also, turn off appliances when not in use to prevent wasting so-called phantom energy coming in off the grid. See: www.energystar.gov.
(7) Adjust your thermostats: If you don’t need a sweater indoors, your heat is too high. Likewise, in hot weather turn down the AC. Also, keeping your hot water at no more than 120 degrees—the minimum temperature to keep the water bacteria-free—is another way to save energy, money and the environment.
(8) Plant a tree…or 300! An average tree stores 13 pounds of carbon per year; a mature tree can absorb upwards of four times that amount. Just 300 trees can counterbalance the amount of greenhouse gas pollution that one person produces in a lifetime. So get to work! See: www.americanforests.org/planttrees.
(9) Buy offsets: Many organizations sell “carbon offsets,” whereby you pay a voluntary fee to offset your daily CO2 emissions. The money usually goes to develop alternative, renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar. See: www.climatetrust.org, www.nativeenergy.com and www.my-climate.com.
(10) Get involved: Donate time or money to groups working to fight global warming. Just about all green groups devote some work to climate change, and they need your help. See: www.volunteermatch.org.

Dear EarthTalk: I can’t understand why it is not mandatory to recycle in the U.S. In my home we recycle 80 percent and toss 20 percent and I am trying to improve those percentages. What needs to happen to make recycling the law of the land? -- Vicki, Geneva, NY
Mandatory recycling is a hard sell in the U.S., where the economy runs largely along free market lines and landfilling waste remains inexpensive and efficient. When the research firm Franklin Associates examined the issue a decade ago, it found that the value of the materials recovered from curbside recycling was far less than the extra costs of collection, transportation, sorting and processing incurred by municipalities.
Plain and simple, recycling still costs more than landfilling in most locales. This fact, coupled with the revelation that the so-called “landfill crisis” of the mid-1990s may have been overblown—most of our landfills still have considerable capacity and do not pose health hazards to surrounding communities—means that recycling has not caught on the way some environmentalists were hoping it would.
However, many cities have found ways to recycle economically. They have cut costs by scaling back the frequency of curbside pickups and automating sorting and processing. They’ve also found larger, more lucrative markets for the recyclables, such as in developing countries eager to reuse our cast-off items. Increased efforts by green groups to educate the public about the benefits of recycling have also helped. Today, dozens of U.S. cities are diverting upwards of 30 percent of their solid waste streams to recycling.
While recycling remains an option for most Americans, a few cities, such as Pittsburgh, San Diego and Seattle, have made recycling mandatory. Seattle passed its mandatory recycling law in 2006 as a way to counter declining recycling rates there. Recyclables are now prohibited from both residential and business garbage. Businesses must sort for recycling all paper, cardboard and yard waste. Households must recycle all basic recyclables, such as paper, cardboard, aluminum, glass and plastic. Businesses with garbage containers “contaminated” with more than 10 recyclables are issued warnings and eventually fines if they don’t comply. Household garbage cans with recyclables in them are simply not collected until the recyclables are removed to the recycling bin. Meanwhile, a handful of other cities, including Gainesville, Florida and Honolulu, Hawaii, require businesses to recycle, but not yet residences.
In perhaps the most famous case of a city putting recycling to the economic test, New York, a national leader on recycling, decided to stop its least cost-effective recycling programs (plastic and glass) in 2002. But rising landfill costs ate up the $39 million savings expected. As a result, the city reinstated plastic and glass recycling and committed to a 20-year contract with the country’s largest private recycling firm, Hugo Neu Corporation, which built a state-of-the art facility along South Brooklyn’s waterfront. There, automation has streamlined the sorting process, and its easy access to rail and barges has cut both the environmental and transportation costs previously incurred by previously using trucks. The new deal and new facility have made recycling much more efficient for the city and its residents, proving once and for all that responsibly run recycling programs can actually save money, landfill space and the environment.
CONTACTS: Franklin Associates, www.fal.com; Recycling in Seattle, www.seattle.gov/util/Services/Recycling; Hugo Neu Corporation, www.hugoneu.com

Dear EarthTalk: My condo kitchen floor is vinyl, installed back in 1979. I am told the vinyl contains asbestos. Now it needs replacing. How do I safely remove the vinyl and what are some green choices for a new floor? -- Green Dreamer, via e-mail
Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that can be used in a variety of industrial applications due to its strong flexible fibers, its resilience to heat and chemicals, and the fact that it does not conduct electricity. From the late 1800s through the 1970s, asbestos was used extensively in the U.S. and elsewhere in everything from pipes and insulation to siding and flooring, including vinyl tiles.
The problem with asbestos is that its microscopic fibers can become airborne when materials containing it get worn out, damaged or disturbed. Inhaling these airborne fibers can lead to a variety of health problems such as asbestosis (a chronic lung ailment that can produce shortness of breath and permanent lung damage) and a variety of cancers, including those of the lung, larynx and gastrointestinal tract.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) effectively banned asbestos in 1989. (The ban was later overturned in federal court as a result of pressure from mining and construction interests, but the damage to the substance’s reputation was too formidable for industry to start using it widely again.) Today, the only money to be made from asbestos is by those in the business of getting rid of it, and an entire industry has sprung up specializing in safely removing asbestos from both commercial and residential buildings.
The EPA recommends that homeowners who want to remove asbestos-containing materials from their residences hire a licensed contractor to do the dirty work, so as not to compromise family or personal health. The EPA maintains an online listing of asbestos removal specialists across the country, and homeowners can also look in their local Yellow Pages under “asbestos abatement” or “asbestos removal” to find local contractors qualified to remove and dispose of the stuff safely and completely.
Hiring such a firm can cost thousands of dollars; so many do-it-yourselfers still take it upon themselves to remove worn asbestos-containing materials (tiles, siding, etc.) from their own homes. Anyone willing to undertake such risks should make sure to get a respirator and other safety equipment to protect against inhaling airborne asbestos particles, and should seal off work areas so the carcinogenic dust does not spread into other areas of the building. The Flooring Lady website is chock full of details on how to minimize risks and includes strong reminders that such a task is not for the risk-averse.
As for what to replace those worn vinyl tiles with, many greener choices abound. Bamboo, cork, linoleum, and sustainably harvested or reclaimed wood are all environmentally sound and widely available flooring options. Some of these products are available at the big box home improvement stores like Lowe’s and Home Depot, but better selections can be found at online green building supply stores like Ecohaus, Green Building Supply and GreenFloors, among others.
CONTACTS: U.S. EPA Asbestos Information, www.epa.gov/asbestos; The Flooring Lady, www.theflooringlady.com; Ecohaus, www.ecohaus.com; Green Building Supply, www.greenbuildingsupply.com; GreenFloors, www.greenfloors.com.

Dear EarthTalk: We just started an environmental club at our high school. What issues and activities do you recommend we get involved with to make the most difference? -- Kurt Perry, Cedar Park, TX
Participating in an environmental club is an excellent way for high school students to learn about environmental issues while providing measurable benefit to their community.
Given their local focus, most clubs focus on issues close to home. Many undertake hands-on activities like cleaning up local riverbanks and beaches strewn with litter, restoring degraded wildlife habitat and planting and managing a community organic garden. Other worthy ideas include starting a recycling program (or setting up a compost bin) on school grounds, involving the school or community in measuring and lowering their “carbon footprint,” organizing energy- and emissions-saving carpools for students who drive, and asking school officials to print all documents double-sided (to save paper).
Another way for an environmental club to get involved is to offer assistance to a local green group already working on a project, be it an effort to preserve a threatened parcel of open space, promote bus ridership, get a wind turbine installed in town or pressure a local polluter to clean up its act. Polling club members on what issues matter most to them is a good way to get started on picking projects and activities.
Several national nonprofits also help environmental clubs find focus areas and accomplish their goals. One of the leaders is EarthTeam, formed in 2000 with the mission of “creating a new generation of environmental leaders” by introducing teens to inspiring environmental experiences. The group’s website offers up extensive resources for starting an environmental club, finding resources and getting going on various environmental projects. The group also helps facilitate collaboration among clubs.
Some popular events among EarthTeam clubs include tree plantings, river and beach clean-ups, visits to local wetlands and nature preserves, and holding environmental awareness days at schools. Movie nights are also popular. Showing a relevant environmental documentary on the big screen in a school auditorium or some other venue is a sure way to get a larger membership base and stir up student interest. Some recent releases that might stimulate discussion and ideas include: The Cost of Cool, an in-depth look at the environmental consequences of excessive consumerism, hosted by former Baywatch star Alexandra Paul; A Crude Awakening, about the impact of global oil dependency; and Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth.
Another great resource is Earth Tomorrow, a national network of high school environmental clubs administered by the National Wildlife Federation. Through the network, clubs gain access to a wide range of resources on which they can base projects. Examples include the Schoolyard Habitats How-to Guide, which walks high schoolers through the steps involved in enhancing wildlife habitat and ecological health on school grounds, and the Science and Civics program, which shows students how to use science, economics, the law and politics to address a local conservation issue and implement an action plan. Beyond these pre-packaged resources, Earth Tomorrow members can tap each other for project ideas, help and general guidance to help make their club experience as productive and rewarding as possible.
CONTACTS: EarthTeam, www.earthteam.net; Earth Tomorrow, www.nwf.org/earthtomorrow.

Dear EarthTalk: I’m in the market for new furniture. What should I look for in natural furniture and where do I find it? -- Debbie Fine, Philadelphia, PA
Along with replacing your incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescents and driving your car less, upgrading to greener furniture is one of the healthiest things you can do for your family and the planet. Most furniture is made with wood from the tropics, so the chair you are now sitting in may have played a role in rainforest deforestation, loss of wildlife habitat, even global warming (cutting forests releases carbon dioxide). Also, furniture is often full of chemicals that release unhealthy fumes into your home.
So what’s a green-minded couch potato to do? Looking for furniture made of wood certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) is a good place to start. Founded in 1992, FSC establishes standards for sustainable forestry around the world, and certifies timber operations that follow its guidelines. A growing number of furniture makers are availing themselves of FSC-certified wood in order to meet increasing demand for greener products. Local furniture stores usually stock some FSC-certified products (the best way to find out is to call and ask), and many manufacturers now showcase and sell FSC products online.
Beyond wood, bamboo furniture is strong and resilient and usually harvested from sustainable sources. Stainless steel, most of which is recycled, is also a good eco-friendly furniture framing choice. Also, many cutting edge furniture designers are making use of reclaimed timber and other recycled materials in their products, breathing new life into old wood and sparing live trees in the process.
The other major issue with traditional furniture is the pollution from all the noxious synthetic chemicals used to produce it. One leading culprit is formaldehyde, a known carcinogen found in furniture made from pressed wood and particle board and in many of the glues and resins used to bind furniture frames, padding and upholstery together. Another villain is synthetic flame-retardant, commonly added to foam filler materials and linked to human nervous system and reproductive disorders (accordingly, it has been banned by the states of Washington and California, as well as the European Union).
Luckily, a large number of non-toxic alternatives are now available to manufacturers. Water-based glues, for example, do not contain formaldehyde or synthetic chemicals. Also, designs such as tongue and groove joinery eliminate the need for adhesives altogether. And a handful of natural materials, such as wool batting, can work well as flame-retardants while providing ample padding.
Furniture makers committed to non-toxic and/or recycled materials and FSC-certified or reclaimed wood include Vivanti, the Joinery, Woodshanti, Furnature, Pacific Rim Woodworking, Berkeley Mills, Steckley Woodcrafts and Urban Hardwoods, among many others. Many of these producers specialize in higher end custom orders but also offer readymade items. For a quick fix, browse the aisles of Ikea, which besides being committed to less toxic materials, is also a big buyer of FSC-certified wood.
CONTACTS: Forest Stewardship Council, www.fsc.org; Vivavi, www.vivavi.com; The Joinery, www.thejoinery.com; Woodshanti, www.woodshanti.com; Furnature, www.furnature.com; Pacific Rim Woodworking, www.pacificrimwoodworking.com; Berkeley Mills, www.berkeleymills.com; Steckley Woodcrafts, www.steckley.com; Urban Hardwoods, www.urbanhardwoods.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Many foods like tuna and pet foods that formerly were sold only in cans are now available in “pouches” as well. Is this kind of packaging less harmful to the environment or just cheaper to make for the seller? -- Stefanie Galdolfi, Oakland, CA
Food pouches, which are made from a combination of food-grade aluminum foil, plastic and adhesives, do appear to have some front-end environmental advantages over the cans they are increasingly replacing on supermarket shelves. However, they are not as easily recycled.
Food pouches take up far less space and weight (in both warehouses and on supermarket shelves) and are simpler to manufacture than tin-coated steel cans. Minneapolis-based flexible packaging manufacturer Kapak Corporation reports that one truckload of the pouches it makes has the same holding capacity as 25 truckloads of traditional rigid containers (cans), and saves as much as 96 percent in warehouse storage space. The company also says its pouches use 75 percent less energy than cans to manufacture, and that they reduce the amount of source materials needed to make cans by a factor of 25 to one.
According to Anthony Andrady, author of the 2003 book, Plastics and the Environment, the pouches used to store Whiskas cat food require 30 percent less retorting time (retorting is the process of pressurizing the interior of the vessel to ensure it is sterilized) than the 10 ounce steel cans they replaced because the pouch can be heated more evenly and quickly. “That translates directly into reduced energy use for the retorting process and probably into a decrease in the amount of cooling water required as well,” he says.
On the down side, most of these pouches, despite their upfront advantages, are destined for the landfill once they are empty because their multi-material construction makes them difficult to recycle. Some manufacturers, like California-based Flex Products Inc., are working on variations of the pouch that are less complex and inherently more recyclable than what’s on supermarket shelves right now, but such products may be years away from widespread adoption. Nevertheless, technological improvements could make recycling of pouches more feasible in the future.
In contrast, the tin-coated steel cans that tuna and pet foods usually come in are both easy to recycle and are likely to have been manufactured with a large percentage of recycled steel to begin with. In fact, most steel used in the U.S. today contains a large percentage of recycled material (and creating new steel cans from recycled materials uses only about a quarter of the energy needed to produce them from raw materials). And steel cans are not just recycled to make new cans; they provide raw material for a variety of steel products, including bicycles, car parts, washing machines, refrigerators and tools.
Still not sure what to do (it is a tough call)? Perhaps Cook’s Country magazine’s cans-versus-pouches tuna taste test will break the tie: The magazine tested eight brands of solid white albacore packed in water (the most popular tuna variety), and canned tuna took four of the five top spots. The main reason given by samplers was bigger and meatier chunks of fish in the cans, compared to the “mushier, less appealing texture” of the tuna in the pouches.
CONTACTS: Kapak Corporation, www.kapak.com; Steel Recycling Institute, www.recycle-steel.org; Cook’s Country, www.cookscountry.com/tasting.asp?tastingid=411&bdc=4932.

Dear EarthTalk: Where does all the medical waste from labs, doctor’s offices and hospitals go? Does it just get put in a barrel and buried? Do they dump it in the oceans? With all the waste that is probably generated, it would be interesting to know where all those vials of blood and stuff go. -- Lee Senat, Haverford, PA
Medical waste is defined as the “biological byproduct of the diagnosis, treatment or immunization of human or animal patients” and includes so-called “sharps” (needles and scalpels), lab cultures and stocks, blood and blood products and any other wastes generated from sick patients or patients with infectious diseases. Such wastes have traditionally been disposed of by burning, either onsite at large medical or veterinary facilities, or offsite by licensed contractors that specialize in handling infectious materials. In most cases, incineration has been found to be effective in neutralizing potentially infectious agents.
But incineration, whether for medical or other purposes, doesn’t come without its health and environmental risks. The process generates some highly noxious pollutants, such as mercury and dioxin. Despite modern pollution control equipment on smokestacks, some of this discharge becomes airborne where it can foul the air and end up in waterways. And the incinerator ash left over after burning is usually sent to local landfills, where the pollutants can seep into soils and groundwater if not properly contained.
Given such problems, many of the nation’s largest medical waste incinerators have been shut down in recent years in the face of more stringent regulations promulgated under the U.S. Clean Air Act. In their place a wide assortment of alternative methods, including autoclaving (steam sterilization), chemical disinfection, irradiation and enzymatic (biological) processes have emerged. Today more than 100 different technologies are in use in place of incineration. Once medical waste has been decontaminated by any of these methods, it usually ends up in landfills alongside regular municipal solid waste.
Most of us never even thought about medical waste until it started washing up on beaches in New Jersey in 1987 and 1988 in an event that became known as the “Syringe Tide.” The event hit the New Jersey tourism industry hard, costing it almost $1 billion in lost revenues. It also served as the basis for Barbara Ehrenreich’s book, “The Great Syringe Tide” and reportedly was the inspiration for the line “hypodermics on the shores” in Billy Joel’s 1989 hit, “We Didn’t Start the Fire.”
While there were few if any cases of people getting sick from exposure to such waste on beaches—medical waste poses a far greater risk to health care workers than to casual beachgoers—the events served as a wake-up call to federal and state governments charged with ensuring public safety. In response, Congress passed the Medical Waste Tracking Act (MWTA) in 1988, which classified different types of medical waste and called for the creation of a “cradle-to-grave” tracking system requiring medical facilities and waste haulers to account for the proper handling and whereabouts of the waste they handled.
Congress only funded MWTA for two years, but various states have since enacted their own laws and protocols based on standards set by the original legislation. Not surprisingly, the toughest laws are in place in New Jersey and other Northeast shoreline states.
CONTACT: Medical Waste Tracking Act of 1988, epa.gov/epaoswer/other/medical/mwpdfs/mwta.pdf.

Dear EarthTalk: The impacts of all the paving that is done for new roads and parking lots must be considerable. Other than Joni Mitchell’s “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot” issue, what else is this activity doing that will come back to haunt us? -- Libby Morse, via e-mail
The history of paving dates back to Roman times if not earlier, but our modern society has taken the practice to the extreme. Originally conceived as a way to make dirt- and mud-covered thoroughfares passable, roads (and parking lots) now cover the majority of urban and suburban areas around the world. In the U.S. alone, pavement covers some 60,000 square miles, or about two percent of the nation’s total surface area. One out of every 10 acres of arable land is paved over.
Beyond larger issues like urban sprawl and the loss of farmland, paving itself is an environmental scourge, preventing the natural seepage of rainwater at the soil surface, and increasing the volume and speed of water run-off. The result is often severe soil erosion on adjacent unpaved areas. Also, paving reduces the total area through which the soil absorbs rainwater, forcing pollutant-laden run-off quickly to lower ground, increasing the risk of flooding accordingly.
Another environmental problem created by our overzealous application of asphalt is that, because the soil underneath paved areas absorbs very little water, natural aquifers below can dry up, reducing the overall amount of potable water available to people, wildlife and the larger ecosystem. Paving also prevents the growth of plant life and destroys wildlife habitat.
According to the nonprofit American Farmland Trust, which works to preserve farmland and promote healthier farming practices, Americans lose three acres of productive farmland to new paving every single minute of every day. The group reports that since the first Earth Day in 1970, the U.S. has lost more than 40 million acres of farmland to development. With Americans now spending upwards of $200 million a day building and rebuilding roads, such problems are only getting worse.
In response to such concerns, a diverse coalition of 170 community groups, individuals and businesses came together in 1990 as the Alliance for a Paving Moratorium (APM), with the goal of addressing the “tremendous environmental, social and economic damage caused by endless road building.” The group charges that our society’s obsession with paving and road-building draws public funds away from alternative transportation projects in service to the automobile, destroys inner cities as it promotes sprawl, fouls the air and water, contributes to global warming and—because most asphalt is a product of fossil fuels—plays into ongoing conflicts in the Middle East.
Jan Lundberg, a former oil-industry insider and transportation policy analyst who helped create APM, sees a bright future in putting less emphasis on paving and roads: “Money would immediately become available for public transportation and making cities more walkable. It could also go toward refurbishing existing downtown buildings so that people could live in them. Parking lots could be de-paved to make gardens and parks. Cities can be pleasant places, you know.”
CONTACTS: American Farmland Trust, www.farmland.org; “The High Costs of Paving,” www.culturechange.org/issue19/high_costs.htm.

Dear EarthTalk: I have been alarmed at recent news about dangerous substances in kids’ toys shipped to the U.S. from China, though I doubt that such concerns are limited to Chinese products. What are the major issues associated with chemicals in child toys? -- Carla M., Chicago, IL
Recent concerns surrounding toxic chemicals in children’s toys have focused on “phthalates” (pronounced THA-lates), a group of chemical compounds typically added to plastics to increase their softness and flexibility, and bisphenol A (BPA), a building block for polycarbonate plastic that is used primarily in shatter-resistant baby bottles. Phthalates are found in numerous industrial and consumer products, including plastic intravenous (IV) bags used in hospitals, fishing lures and nail polishes. One phthalate, diisononyl phthalate (DINP), is commonly used in the manufacture of soft vinyl products made for babies, such as bath books, rubber ducks and teething rings.
Studies have linked BPA to the disruption of hormone function in rats, and to increased breast and prostate cancer cell growth, early puberty and obesity in humans. Other studies have linked phthalates like DINP to rodent cancers and genital abnormalities, especially in males.
The city of San Francisco would have been the first U.S. jurisdiction to ban phthalates and BPA from children’s toys and feeding products under a “Stop Toxic Toys” bill signed by mayor Gavin Newsom in June 2006, but lawsuits backed by chemical and toy manufacturers (and filed by a coalition including the California Retailers Association, the California Grocers Association and the American Chemistry Council) stalled the initiative, which had been set to take effect December 1, 2006.
Then on October 15, 2007, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law AB 1108 (also known as the California Toxic Toys Bill), making California the first state in the country to ban the use of phthalates from children’s products. “We are thrilled that California is taking action to protect our kids from dangerous chemicals,” said Dan Jacobson, Legislative Director for Environment California, which co-sponsored the legislation along with the Breast Cancer Fund. “This bill is so important because as children’s minds and bodies go through the delicate processes of growing and developing, they are particularly vulnerable to chemicals that could affect proper development.”
The European Union considers phthalates dangerous enough to ban them from children’s products, and has ordered the removal of many variations from children’s products and banned still others, including DINP, from anything that kids might put in their mouths. Environment California and other groups see the EU ban as evidence that alternatives to these plasticizers exist and must be explored in the U.S. “Many places in the world have to comply with restrictions on phthalates,” says Rachel Gibson, an attorney for Environment California. “It’s a mystery why we sell toxic toys to American kids.”
Until more stringent regulations are passed, consumers can use the recycling codes on plastic products to determine content. If it’s marked #7, it’s polycarbonate plastic and contains BPA; if it’s marked #3, it’s polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and contains potentially harmful phthalates.
CONTACTS: Environment California, www.environmentcalifornia.org/environmental-health/stop-toxic-toys; Breast Cancer Fund, www.breastcancerfund.org/site/pp.asp?c=kwKXLdPaE&b=3486437.

Dear EarthTalk: What are the best sources out there for environmentally friendly consumer products? I don’t want to have to drive all over creation for green laundry and other cleaning products or to find carpets, bedding and other necessities that won’t bring chemicals into my home. -- Vanessa G., via e-mail
Although green-friendly goods are starting to show up just about everywhere, finding all the right products is still not as simple as a one-stop trip to the mall or major grocer. However, there are several reputable websites, mail order catalogs and storefront retailers that cater to the eco-motivated consumer.
Online shoppers need not steer their web browser any further than Gaiam.com. The company sells, via its website and a printed catalog, a wide range of green items—from phosphate-free detergents and organic cotton bedding to compact fluorescent light bulbs and backyard composting kits. In 2000 Gaiam acquired RealGoods, the nation’s foremost retailer of “solar living” products, including solar water heaters, energy-efficient lighting and household battery chargers. Beyond mail order endeavors, the merged company also gets green goods out into mainstream retail outlets via partnerships with Target, Borders and others.
Another good one-stop shop for green consumer goods is Green Home, which sells thousands of environmentally responsible home products online. From bedding and table wear to paper goods and lunchboxes, Green Home has the green consumer covered. Green Home was founded by Linda Mason Hunter, author of The Healthy Home: an Attic-To-Basement Guide to Toxin-Free Living, because she was having trouble sourcing environmentally friendly home items. Green Home also publishes the online magazine Living, a repository of feature articles on various aspects of living a greener lifestyle.
If you’re more inclined to browsing store aisles than websites, natural foods markets like Whole Foods and Wild Oats (now being acquired by Whole Foods) carry a large number of green lifestyle products on their shelves. These stores aren’t just about organic produce anymore, and now stock everything from green detergents to cookware.
Looking for more durable kinds of goods? The best one-stop source for green building materials is Ecohaus (formerly the Environmental Home Center), which stocks and ships a wide range of building materials, household equipment and supplies, kitchen and bath fixtures, flooring, countertops and cabinets, paints, finishes, wall coverings and home energy systems. The company has three stores in Portland and Bend, Oregon and Seattle, Washington, and also sells online.
For those harder-to-find green goods, check out EcoSeek.net, which bills itself as “the Internet’s first green product search engine.” The site includes links to and in some cases reviews of more than 6,500 different green products from over 300 merchants. While it’s no one-stop shop—users purchase individual items direct from individual merchants—it does make for some interesting browsing. Another good online stop is EcoMall, which lists thousands of socially responsible manufacturers and distributors of just about every type of green product imaginable.
CONTACTS: Gaiam, www.gaiam.com; Green Home, www.greenhome.com; Ecohaus, www.ecohaus.com; EcoSeek, www.ecoseek.net; EcoMall, www.ecomall.com.

Dear EarthTalk: We’ve all seen the current generation of hybrid cars, but what vehicles do the automakers have coming out that are even greener? -- Brian Smith, Seattle, WA
No longer just the domain of the Japanese, greener cars are forthcoming from just about all of the major automakers. Toyota will improve on its hot-selling Prius by adding a plug so owners can juice up the batteries overnight and make it at least six miles before switching over to the car’s gasoline-powered internal combustion engine. Toyota’s president hinted that the plug-in hybrid, though still in the prototype stage, could attain double the fuel efficiency of the current Prius, which gets 46 miles per gallon.
While gas-electric hybrids are all the rage today, carmakers are also looking at other technologies, though none are on the market yet. Mitsubishi’s new concept car, the iMiEV, runs for more than 120 miles exclusively on electricity stored in high-capacity lithium-ion batteries, and sports small electric motors on each of the front wheels, as well as another propelling both back wheels. Nissan is also getting into electrics with its Mixim concept car, which can reportedly go 155 miles on a single rapid-charge (20-40 minutes only). While Nissan says it has the technology to mass-produce the Mixim today, costs remain too high to make feasible from a marketplace perspective.
General Motors (GM) recently released a prototype of its futuristic Chevrolet Volt. This concept car is designed to go 40 miles on just its batteries, but it has an onboard gasoline-powered internal-combustion engine (not connected to the wheels) that can recharge it on the fly. GM hopes to make the Volt available to consumers within three years, but because of slow lithium-ion battery development, competitors wonder if such a timeline is too ambitious.
On the fuel-cell front, Honda already has a few dozen of its zero-emission hydrogen-powered 2007 FCX sedans on the road, and plans to lease 100 or so more of the sleeker 2008 model. Honda will only lease the vehicles to a few lucky individuals, since each FCX costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to produce.
General Motors is launching a “test” fleet of a 100 fuel-cell powered Chevrolet Equinox SUVs in select cities across the U.S. in 2008. The company will also set up hydrogen refueling stations in the same locales. The program will last two years and GM engineers hope to glean important information on how to improve its fuel cells to perform better at lower cost.
South Korea’s Hyundai is also getting involved in fuel cells, launching a U.S. test fleet of some 300 of its Tucson SUVs. The company also recently unveiled its i-Blue concept car, a decidedly space-age vehicle that reportedly can cover 372 miles before needing to refuel. The company says that it will put fuel cells into mass production by 2015, if not sooner.
Automakers are responding to growing environmental concerns—and consumer demand—by producing vehicles that our grandparents would not recognize as cars. The dream of futuristic vehicles may just yet become a reality.
CONTACTS: Toyota, www.toyota.com; Mitsubishi, www.mitsubishi.com; Nissan, www.nissanusa.com; General Motors, www.gm.com; Honda, http://automobiles.honda.com; Hyundai, www.hyundai-motor.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I recently had an argument with a friend who says that if we pollute and cut down the forests, it doesn’t matter because the Earth will take care of itself anyway. How would you counter such an argument? -- Alison Berglof, via e-mail
It is true that Mother Nature has amazing powers to restore her ecosystems, and most scientists agree that it would be nearly impossible for humans to destroy the Earth itself, despite our success at wreaking environmental havoc. Short of a catastrophic meteor strike or some other unforeseen galactic trauma, the Earth will likely continue to spin in the solar system, perhaps as long as there is a solar system.
Example after example from distant and recent history underscore the fact that the Earth can recover from just about any trauma—including the meteor strike 65 million years ago that many believe caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. Whether subjected to tidal waves, volcanic eruptions or nuclear bomb blasts, landscapes reform anew, even if it takes years, decades, centuries or eons.
But what is at stake if we don’t clean up our act may be life itself as we know it, both our own and that of other species with which we share the planet. We are already witnessing what may be an even larger species extinction than occurred with the dinosaurs—but this time thanks to various human activities. Eminent Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson predicts that human-caused environmental destruction will lead to the extinction of half of all species on the planet within 100 years. Such species loss is a big problem for humans. That incredible diversity of life keeps our water, soil and air healthy, our stomachs full and our ailments in check (many modern medicines originated as herbal plant remedies).
And regardless of the fate of other species, the destruction of our environment also impacts us directly. Though early conservationists sought largely to preserve nature for its own sake and beauty, most environmentalists today see a direct correlation between environmental protection and human health. Modern environmental problems like fast-paced habitat destruction, toxic chemical releases and global warming (which is exacerbated by cutting down forests) raise concerns about the spread of diseases for which we have not evolved proper defenses.
According to a 2002 Princeton University study published in the journal, Science, “Pathogens that have been restricted by seasonal temperatures can invade new areas and find new victims as the climate warms and winters grow milder.” That trend is already underway and has, so far, primarily impacted non-human animals. However, said Andrew Dobson, a co-author of the study, “The accumulation of evidence has us extremely worried. We share diseases with some of these species. The risk for humans is going up.”
“Epidemics of Rift Valley fever, a deadly mosquito-borne disease, rage through northeastern Africa during years of unusual warmth,” said the study. “If the climate becomes permanently warmer and wetter…Rift Valley fever epidemics will become frequent…Malaria and yellow fever may become more common as milder winters permit the seasonal survival of more mosquitoes, which carry these diseases. A warmer climate also could enable them to move into areas where the cold once kept them out.”
CONTACT: World Health Organization “Climate and Health Fact Sheet,” www.who.int/globalchange/news/fsclimandhealth/en/index.html.

Dear EarthTalk: Are the rumors true that refilling and reusing some types of plastic bottles can cause health problems? -- Regina Fujan, Lincoln, NE
Most types of plastic bottles are safe to reuse at least a few times if properly washed with hot soapy water. But recent revelations about chemicals in Lexan (plastic #7) bottles are enough to scare even the most committed environmentalists from reusing them (or buying them in the first place). Studies have indicated that food and drinks stored in such containers—including those ubiquitous clear Nalgene water bottles hanging from just about every hiker’s backpack—can contain trace amount of Bisphenol A (BPA), a synthetic chemical that interferes with the body’s natural hormonal messaging system.
The same studies found that repeated re-use of such bottles—which get dinged up through normal wear and tear and while being washed—increases the chance that chemicals will leak out of the tiny cracks and crevices that develop over time. According to the Environment California Research & Policy Center, which reviewed 130 studies on the topic, BPA has been linked to breast and uterine cancer, an increased risk of miscarriage, and decreased testosterone levels. BPA can also wreak havoc on children’s developing systems. (Parents beware: Most baby bottles and sippy cups are made with plastics containing BPA.) Most experts agree that the amount of BPA that could leach into food and drinks through normal handling is probably very small, but there are concerns about the cumulative effect of small doses.
Health advocates also recommend not reusing bottles made from plastic #1 (polyethylene terephthalate, also known as PET or PETE), including most disposable water, soda and juice bottles. According to The Green Guide, such bottles may be safe for one-time use, but reuse should be avoided because studies indicate they may leach DEHP—another probable human carcinogen—when they are in less than perfect condition. The good news is that such bottles are easy to recycle; just about every municipal recycling system will take them back. But using them is nonetheless far from environmentally responsible: The nonprofit Berkeley Ecology Center found that the manufacture of plastic #1 uses large amounts of energy and resources and generates toxic emissions and pollutants that contribute to global warming. And even though PET bottles can be recycled, millions find their way into landfills every day in the U.S. alone.
Another bad choice for water bottles, reusable or otherwise, is plastic #3 (polyvinyl chloride/PVC), which can leach hormone-disrupting chemicals into the liquids they are storing and will release synthetic carcinogens into the environment when incinerated. Plastic #6 (polystyrene/PS), has been shown to leach styrene, a probable human carcinogen, into food and drinks as well.
Safer choices include bottles crafted from safer HDPE (plastic #2), low-density polyethylene (LDPE, AKA plastic #4) or polypropylene (PP, or plastic #5). Consumers may have a hard time finding water bottles made out of #4 or #5, however. Aluminum bottles, such as those made by SIGG and sold in many natural food and product markets, and stainless steel water bottles are also safe choices and can be reused repeatedly and eventually recycled.
CONTACTS: The Green Guide, www.thegreenguide.com; Environment California, www.environmentcalifornia.org/reports/environmental-health/environmental-health-reports/toxic-baby-bottles; SIGG, www.mysigg.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that global warming can exacerbate allergies? -- Alex Tibbetts, Seattle, WA
Global warming can make allergies worse simply because the major pollen producers that trigger allergic reactions thrive and flourish in warmer air. A recent report from the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) entitled “Sneezing and Wheezing: How Global Warming Could Increase Ragweed Allergies, Air Pollution and Asthma” details how ragweed, one of the most common allergens in the U.S., grows faster and for longer periods as air temperatures rise due to climate change.
Ragweed also thrives on direct exposure to carbon dioxide (CO2), so as we emit more of this chief greenhouse gas from our tailpipes and smokestacks, we are unwittingly also causing more allergy-aggravating pollen to be produced. According to Kim Knowlton of NRDC, the group’s analysis shows that “there is a clear interplay” between the onslaught of global warming and increasingly higher levels of ragweed pollen, especially in warmer urban areas already plagued with allergens.
“People living in some of the most populated regions of this country may be feeling the effects of global warming every allergy season,” says Knowlton. The NRDC report concludes that an increasing number of the 110 million Americans who live in areas with existing ragweed problems will suffer the consequences of global warming as their noses begin to run and their eyes begin to water. Major metropolitan areas in the U.S. likely to be most affected include Atlanta, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Los Angeles and Chicago, among other locales.
Public health statistics show that about 36 million Americans suffer from some form of seasonal allergy. While allergies can be annoying in their own right, they are also a main contributor to asthma and other serious respiratory problems, making them a serious health threat in their own right. Some 17 million Americans suffer from asthma, with well over half of them also sensitive to the allergens that can spark an asthma attack. Meanwhile, CO2 emissions also contribute to smog, another trigger for asthma. Thus global warming represents a double whammy for asthmatics with pre-existing allergies.
“Global warming—through both its components and by-products—is creating a perfect storm of sneezing and wheezing for allergy and asthma suffers in the U.S.,” says Gina Solomon, a senior scientist in NRDC’s health program. She adds that her group’s recent analysis “shows us that people throughout the U.S.—in the North, South, East and West—will be very personally affected by global warming, and we need pollution controls throughout the country to help offset this problem.”
According to NRDC, industrial and personal actions can help reduce increases in allergens and combat their effects. Federal, state and local governments can protect communities by reducing the sources of global warming pollution and by creating better resources for citizens in need of information about pollen levels in their areas. Individuals can reduce their own exposure to ragweed and other allergens by checking news outlets for daily pollen counts before venturing outside for long periods of time.
CONTACT: NRDC, “Sneezing and Wheezing,” www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/sneezing/contents.asp.

Dear EarthTalk: The hospital I work at doesn’t recycle at all, not even plastic bottles and cans or food service trays. I was wondering how to get the facility to start up some kind of recycling system? -- Adrianna Schultz, via e-mail
Getting a large institution or corporation on board with recycling is no easy job, especially when you are starting from scratch. A good place to begin is to get permission from higher-ups to solicit bids from waste haulers and recyclers interested in new business. Such service providers can provide you with both the supplies needed to gather recyclables as well as regular weekly or daily pick-ups, depending on needs.
If convincing your employer to look into recycling in the first place is a stumbling block, there are many resources available to help turn that tide. The Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation (RIRRC), a state agency dedicated to helping Ocean State businesses manage solid waste in environmentally sound ways, publishes “In the Workplace,” a print and online pamphlet that outlines the steps for setting up a workplace recycling and reduction program. According to RIRRC, wannabe workplace recyclers need to start by securing organizational support and commitment and educating fellow employees about the importance of recycling. The pamphlet also includes useful tips about reducing waste altogether.
The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s “Recycling Works” program offers a similar set of guidelines specifically for recycling at hospitals and health care institutions. Additionally, New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation publishes a free guide showing health care facilities how to evaluate their performance in preventing waste and pollution and identify opportunities for recycling and for cutting back resource use.
Another good resource for information on hospital recycling is the website of the nonprofit Waste Reduction Resource Center, which offers case studies detailing how several small and large health care facilities coast-to-coast have launched successful and money-saving recycling and waste reduction programs. Examples include a Vermont hospital with no budget for recycling that set up a self-sustaining, money-saving system for organics collection and composting, and a Pennsylvania hospital that now saves $150,000 a year due to the implementation of its recycling program.
Those looking to reduce waste in hospitals should be sure to consult the “Plan-Do-Check-Act” section of the Sustainable Hospitals website. The summary provides useful tools for getting management approvals and enlisting the support of employees in both recycling and lowering disposable product consumption. It also has a section on how to reduce energy usage.
Implementing recycling and waste reduction programs at hospitals makes sense not only for local ecology and for institutional bottom line, but also for the examples that can be set for the millions of patients and workers that pass through the health care system every day.
CONTACTS: Waste Reduction Resource Center, http://wrrc.p2pays.org; RIRRC “In the Workplace,” www.rirrc.org/documents/10221%20Workplace%20Brochure3.pdf; “Recycling Works,” www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/wm/RECYCLE/Recywrks/recywrks1.htm; Sustainable Hospitals, www.sustainablehospitals.org/HTMLSrc/PlanDoCheckAct.html.

Dear EarthTalk: Please help settle the debate about whether or not my cats should stay in or go out. My neighborhood is relatively safe for cats, vis-à-vis car traffic, and I think it is more natural for them to be outside and not always inside. They do kill wildlife, including birds, but aren’t they just taking the place of natural predators that once did the same? -- Bill Thomson, Bangor, ME
Most environmental advocates believe that keeping cats indoors is better for both the health of the felines themselves and for their prey. Scientists estimate that the typical free-roaming housecat kills some 100 small animals each year. This means that the 90 million domestic housecats living in the U.S. alone are killing hundreds of millions if not billions of birds, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians every year. And while housecats on the prowl may serve to replace the natural predators long ago extirpated by humans, their popularity as pets puts their population density far ahead of those that came before them.
“Cat predation is an added stress to wildlife populations already struggling to survive habitat loss, pollution, pesticides and other human impacts,” says the American Bird Conservancy (ABC), which in 1997 launched its controversial Cats Indoors! campaign to educate animal lovers about the benefits of keeping Tabby inside. ABC also points out that free-roaming cats are exposed to injury, disease, parasites and collisions with cars, and can get lost, stolen or poisoned. Cats can also transmit diseases and parasites such as rabies, cat-scratch fever and toxoplasmosis to other cats, wildlife or people. To help drive its point home, ABC produces a wide range of educational materials (including a brochure, “Keeping Cats Indoors Isn’t Just For The Birds”) and public service announcements in the service of their ongoing campaign.
Nonetheless, many cat lovers believe that it is inhumane to confine felines indoors, since they have evolved as hunters and thrive on the natural stimulation only available outside. To help soften the blow and wean your cat off of the outdoors slowly, ABC suggests gradually curtailing your cat’s out-of-doors time over the course of a few months until it is eventually not let out at all. In doing so, you will need to provide your cat with a lot of attention and play indoors. New scratching posts and toys are a good bet as they may entertain cats that ordinarily occupy themselves chasing birds and rodents. ABC suggests hiding various toys around the house so cats can sniff them and not miss so much the thrill of the hunt outdoors.
One last bit of important advice: Many fear that confining their cats indoors will lead to more shredded upholstery. But de-clawing your cat should never be an option. According to Veterinarian Dr. Christianne Schelling, cats’ claws are a vital part of their anatomy. De-clawing is not simply fingernail trimming but the removal of the last joint in a cat’s “toes.” It is a painful procedure and can lead to serious physical, emotional and behavioral complications.
Alternatives to de-clawing include providing scratching posts in various locations around the home, and trimming your cats nails occasionally. This involves trimming only the clear tip of the nail (never the pink or dark fleshy parts, which are skin) and should be done only upon first consulting with a veterinarian. Another option is a product called Soft Paws, lightweight vinyl caps that you apply over your cat’s own claws. They have rounded edges, so your cat's scratching doesn’t damage your home and furnishings.
CONTACTS: Cats Indoors! www.abcbirds.org/cats/; Declawing Cats: More Than Just a Manicure, www.hsus.org/ace/11780; Soft Paws, www.softpaws.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Short of buying a new hybrid or other “green” car, are there ways I can make my existing vehicle more eco-friendly? I bought my car recently and am not quite ready to give it up. -- Bettie Hilliker, Lansing, MI
Choice of vehicle may well be the biggest factor in determining the environmental impact of your automobile-based travels. But a considerable amount of energy is used—and pollutants emitted—in the production of any new vehicle, including hybrids and other more fuel-efficient options. As a result, many environmentalists believe that practicing good driving habits and performing adequate maintenance on an older car are probably better options for the environment than causing the production of a new vehicle.
According to the website GreenerCars.org, there are many ways to green up one’s driving habits. Obeying speed limits, utilizing cruise control and avoiding jackrabbit starts will maximize fuel economy and minimize tailpipe emissions while also preventing unnecessary wear-and-tear. Staying off roads during rush hours is also advisable, as stop-and-go driving burns excess gasoline and promotes smog. Opening vents and windows to cool off instead of using the air conditioner, an inherently inefficient appliance that consumes more fuel and leads to more emissions, is also good advice.
Drivers can also help minimize their environmental impact by keeping their cars well maintained. According to GreenerCars.org, getting regular tune-ups—where a qualified mechanic changes fluids and checks for and corrects problems such as worn spark plugs, under inflated tires, dragging brakes, misaligned wheels and clogged filters—can significantly improve fuel economy and minimize harmful emissions. GreenerCars.org also recommends seeking out low-rolling-resistance (LRR) replacement tires, which are specifically designed to improve a vehicle’s fuel economy, when the original ones wear out.
Beyond regular maintenance, a handful of small companies now sell green-friendly fuel additives that purport to increase fuel efficiency while reducing emissions. Such products—including Bluestar Environmental’s Omstar D-1280X gas additive and Suntec Bio-Energy’s diesel additive—are normally targeted at fleets of vehicles, but individuals are free to use them as well. Owners beware, though: Use of such products could invalidate automakers’ warranties, so read the fine print in your owner’s manual before pouring anything out-of-the-ordinary into your fuel tank.
Of course, getting out of your car altogether—or most of the time—is a far greener choice than driving even a well-maintained new or old car conscientiously. Some employers now offer federally-subsidized “commuter choice” incentives whereby workers can derive financial benefits by telecommuting (working from home), or by walking, biking, using public transit or carpooling to and from the office.
Another option is to join a car sharing service like Zipcar or Flexcar, whereby you pay a modest monthly membership fee and can then rent cars parked nearby by the hour only when needed. The companies operate on both U.S. coasts, as well as in major Midwestern and Canadian cities.
CONTACTS: GreenerCars.org “Green Driving Tips,” www.greenercars.org/drivingtips.htm; Bluestar Environmental, www.ablustar.com ; Suntec Bio-Energy, www.suntecbioenergy.com; Zipcar, www.zipcar.com; Flexcar, www.flexcar.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve heard about the die-off of coral reefs due to global warming. I’ve also read that coral reefs themselves store carbon dioxide (CO2), one of the main global warming gases. So if coral reefs are dying out, isn’t that a double whammy that increases the CO2 in the atmosphere? -- Tom Ozzello, Maplewood, MN
According to marine scientists, the world’s coral reefs—those underwater repositories for biodiversity that play host to some 25 percent of all marine life—are in big trouble as a result of global warming. Data collected by the international environmental group WWF (formerly World Wildlife Fund) show that 20 percent of the world’s coral reefs have been effectively destroyed and show no immediate sign of recovery, while about 50 percent of remaining reefs are under imminent or long-term threat of collapse.
Most scientists now agree that global warming is not a natural phenomenon but a direct result of the continual release of excessive amounts of CO2 and other “greenhouse” gases into the atmosphere by human industrial and transportation activity. And the small but prolonged rises in ocean temperature that result cause coral colonies to expel the symbiotic food-producing algae that sustain them. This process is called “bleaching,” because it turns the reefs white as they die.
But researchers working with the Coral Reef Alliance have found that while coral reefs do store CO2 as part of photosynthesis, they tend to release most of it back into the ocean (so they are not what are known as “carbon sinks”). As such, the release of CO2 from dying coral reefs is not a major concern.
Of course, the ocean itself is a large carbon sink, storing about a quarter of what would otherwise end up in the atmosphere. Landmasses (and their plants) soak up another quarter of all the CO2 emanating from the Earth’s surface, while the rest rises up into the atmosphere where it can wreak havoc with our climate.
Recent findings indicate that the Antarctic Ocean is getting less efficient at storing CO2, and this raises serious questions about the ability of our oceans to handle everything we throw at them. The study’s authors fear that “such weakening of one of the Earth’s major carbon dioxide sinks will lead to higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the long-term.”
Not everyone is forecasting gloom and doom. Some Australian researchers believe that coral reefs around the world could expand in size by up to a third due to increased ocean warming. “Our finding stands in stark contrast to previous predictions that coral reef growth will suffer large, potentially catastrophic, decreases in the future,” says University of New South Wales oceanographer Ben McNeil, who led the controversial 2004 study that was published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal, Geophysical Research Letters. “Our analysis suggests that ocean warming will foster considerably faster future rates of coral reef growth that will eventually exceed pre-industrial rates by as much as 35 per cent by 2100,” he adds.
In spite of such theories, the majority of marine scientists remain pessimistic about the future of coral reefs in a warmer world. One can only hope that the optimists are right.
CONTACTS: WWF, www.panda.org; Coral Reef Alliance, www.coralreefalliance.org; “Coral reefs may grow with global warming,” New Scientist, www.newscientist.com/article/dn6763.html.

Dear EarthTalk: Are there any efforts underway to lessen the environmental impact—which must be considerable—of all the “18 wheelers” and other large vehicles that are numerous on our highways? -- Sadie Strauss, Madison, WI
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, although large trucks account for just six percent of total highway miles driven in the U.S., they are responsible for a host of environmental threats. These include over half the soot and a quarter of the smog-causing pollution generated by highway vehicles, six percent of the nation’s global warming pollution, and more than a tenth of the country’s oil consumption.
A typical diesel-powered 18-wheeler can emit as much nitrogen oxide and fine particulates—key elements in the formation of asthma-inducing smog—as about 150 passenger cars. Although strict limitations on emissions of various pollutants from cars have been in place in the U.S. since the 1970s, trucks and other large transport vehicles have been allowed to emit as much as five times as much pollution per mile.
But thanks to new regulations put in place by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), new trucks coming off assembly lines in the years immediately ahead promise to be much cleaner and greener. Known collectively as the EPA’s Heavy-Duty Highway Diesel Rules, the new regulations mandate that trucks manufactured in 2007 or after produce 75-90 percent less nitrogen oxide and 90 percent fewer particulates than earlier models. Of course, with most of the trucks on the road made prior to 2007 and thus exempt from the new regulations, air quality improvements won’t happen overnight.
In the meantime, though, the federal government has also instituted new regulations mandating that diesel fuels contain 97 percent less sulfur, another primary component of smog, than previously required. This means that all diesel-powered vehicles in the U.S., new or old, will be polluting less. Regulators hope that the combination of greener trucks and cleaner fuel will eventually bring emissions from large trucks into parity per mile driven with cars and light trucks (SUVs, pickups and minivans).
Beyond making existing truck engines more efficient, new technologies promise to green the trucking industry even more. Biodiesel, a form of diesel fuel derived from renewable plant crops, is coming on strong. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, use of the most common blend, B20 (80 percent regular diesel and 20 percent biodiesel), cuts petroleum use by 19 percent, greenhouse gas emissions by 16 percent and hydrocarbon emissions by 20 percent.
Also, hybrid technologies popularized by the Toyota Prius are starting to show up in trucks. Federal Express is pioneering the use of hybrid technology in trucks by outfitting many of its new delivery trucks accordingly. And several U.S. cities now run hybrid diesel-electric buses. Environmental leaders hope such fuel- and emission-saving technologies will trickle down into the private trucking industry as well.
CONTACTS: Union of Concerned Scientists, www.ucsusa.org; EPA’s Heavy-Duty Highway Diesel Program, www.epa.gov/otaq/highway-diesel.

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that some ingredients in common air fresheners can cause health problems?-- Mike Jaworski, Seattle, WA
Air fresheners are a $1.72 billion industry in the United States. An estimated 75 percent of homes use them regularly. According to a September 2007 report released by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), most common household air fresheners contain potentially noxious chemicals that degrade the quality of indoor air and may even affect hormones and reproductive development, particularly in babies.
As part of its “Clearing the Air” study, NRDC researchers tested 14 brands of common household air fresheners and found that 12 contained chemicals known as phthalates. Only two, Febreze Air Effects and Renuzit Subtle Effects, contained no detectable levels of phthalates. Products testing positive included ones marketed as “all-natural” and “unscented.” None of the brands tested listed phthalates on their labels.
Phthalates are “hormone-disrupting” chemicals that can be particularly dangerous for young children and unborn babies. Like some other man-made chemicals, phthalates can affect normal hormonal processes—those that control brain, nervous and immune system development, reproduction, mental processing and metabolism—by blocking them altogether, throwing off the timing or “mimicking” natural hormones and interacting with cells themselves, with very unhealthy consequences. The State of California notes that five types of phthalates—including one commonly used in air freshener products—are “known to cause birth defects or reproductive harm.”
Despite these issues, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not regulate the use of phthalates or require the labeling of phthalate content on products. Other governments take the phthalate threat more seriously. The European Union forbids the most harmful phthalates in cosmetics or toys, and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to soon sign similar legislation for his state.
NRDC bemoans the fact that the U.S. government does not test air fresheners for safety or require manufacturers to meet specific health standards. “More than anything, our research highlights cracks in our safety system,” says Dr. Gina Solomon, a senior NRCD scientist. “Consumers have a right to know what is put into air fresheners and other everyday products they bring into their homes,” she says, adding that the government should keep a watchful eye on potentially dangerous products.
In conjunction with the study, NRDC—along with the Sierra Club, the Alliance for Healthy Homes and the National Center for Healthy Housing—is petitioning federal agencies to start assessing the risk air fresheners pose to consumers by testing all products now on the market. And NRDC has already begun working directly with some manufacturers to find ways to eliminate phthalates from these products.
NRDC recommends that consumers be selective and purchase only air fresheners that have the least amount of phthalates. Better yet, the group suggests consumers first try to reduce household odors by tending to their root causes or improving ventilation rather than masking them. “The best way to avoid the problem is to simply open a window instead of reaching for one of these cans,” concludes Solomon.
CONTACTS: Natural Resources Defense Council, www.nrdc.org/health/home/airfresheners.asp.

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that biologists want to bring African and Asian wildlife to roam free in North America to help restore natural ecological balances here? If so, what are the implications for biodiversity and our environment? -- Naturegirl, Victorville, CA
A group of biologists and environmentalists is advocating just such a plan to help save wild animals from extinction and restore the ecological vitality of North America’s wildlands to a state that existed before humans set foot on the continent some 13,000 years ago. The concept—whereby large mammals are reintroduced across the continent to fill ecological gaps abandoned eons ago—was first posited publicly two decades ago by bio-geographer Paul Martin of the University of Arizona.
In arguing for the introduction of lions, elephants, camels and other large mammals from around the world to North America, Martin cites the important role that so-called “megafauna” play in maintaining overall ecosystem integrity, including keeping predator/prey populations in balance and invasive species in check. Some conservationists like the idea because hosting such large mammals would require a large amount of preserved, natural open space for habitat. Others see it as a terrible idea, citing human safety issues and the difficulty such exotic animals might have adapting to such different landscapes and ecosystems.
Building on Martin’s ideas, a group of conservationists came together in 2004 to form the New Mexico-based Rewilding Institute. Members of the group co-authored a 2005 commentary in the scientific journal Nature, in which they suggested starting with a series of controlled experiments on fenced private land, as was previously done with condors and bison and led to population rebounds. Some of the first species suggested for North American introduction include giant tortoises, wild horses, camels and elephants. If such experiments pan out, cheetahs and lions could be next.
The group also wants to restore native species such as mountain lions and wolves, both of which roamed North America in large numbers before European settlers first arrived in the 1600s. The group argues that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has approached recovery of these animals “in a haphazard and minimalist way.”
“Obviously, gaining public acceptance is going to be a huge issue, especially when you talk about reintroducing predators,” says Josh Donlan, Cornell biologist and lead author on the Nature article. “There are going to have to be some major attitude shifts [including] realizing predation is a natural role, and that people are going to have to take precautions.”
Donlan adds that “rewilding” could be a win-win situation as far as people and wildlife are concerned. Portions of the Great Plains, for instance, could see an increase in tourism dollars as people flock there to see the wildlife, while the animals themselves—many of which are seriously endangered in their native lands—can take advantage of increased habitat and a decreased threat of extinction.
CONTACTS: The Rewilding Institute, www.rewilding.org.

Dear EarthTalk: Is removing the salt from ocean water (desalination) a feasible fix for the world’s shortage of fresh water? -- Nora Jones, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
Fresh water scarcity is already posing major problems for more than a billion people around the world, mostly in arid developing countries. The World Health Organization predicts that by mid-century, four billion of us—nearly two-thirds of the world’s present population—will face severe fresh water shortages.
With human population expected to balloon another 50 percent by 2050, resource managers are increasingly looking to alternative scenarios for quenching the world’s growing thirst. Desalination—a process whereby highly pressurized ocean water is pushed through tiny membrane filters and distilled into drinking water—is being held forth by some as one of the most promising solutions to the problem. But critics point out it doesn’t come without its economic and environmental costs.
According to the non-profit Food & Water Watch, desalinated ocean water is the most expensive form of fresh water out there, given the infrastructure costs of collecting, distilling and distributing it. The group reports that, in the U.S., desalinated water costs at least five times as much to harvest as other sources of fresh water. Similar high costs are a big hurdle to desalination efforts in poor countries as well, where limited funds are already stretched too thin.
On the environmental front, widespread desalination could take a heavy toll on ocean biodiversity. “Ocean water is filled with living creatures, and most of them are lost in the process of desalination,” says Sylvia Earle, one of the world’s foremost marine biologists and a National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence. “Most are microbial, but intake pipes to desalination plants also take up the larvae of a cross section of life in the sea, as well as some fairly large organisms…part of the hidden cost of doing business,” she says.
Earle also points out that the very salty residue left over from desalination must be disposed of properly, not just dumped back into the sea. Food & Water Watch concurs, warning that coastal areas already battered by urban and agricultural run-off can ill afford to absorb tons of concentrated saltwater sludge.
Food & Water Watch advocates instead for better fresh water management practices. “Ocean desalination hides the growing water supply problem instead of focusing on water management and lowering water usage,” the group reports, citing a recent study which found that California can meet its water needs for the next 30 years by implementing cost-effective urban water conservation. Desalination is “an expensive, speculative supply option that will drain resources away from more practical solutions,” the group says.
Despite such arguments, the practice is becoming more common. Ted Levin of the Natural Resources Defense Council says that more than 12,000 desalination plants already supply fresh water in 120 nations, mostly in the Middle East and Caribbean. And analysts expect the worldwide market for desalinated water to grow significantly over the coming decades. Environmental advocates may just have to settle for pushing to “green” the practice as much as possible in lieu of eliminating it altogether.
CONTACTS: Food & Water Watch, www.foodandwaterwatch.org; Natural Resources Defense Council, “Turning Oceans into Tapwater,” www.nrdc.org/onearth/04sum/saline1.asp.

Dear EarthTalk: The soil beneath our feet is a critical resource we often take for granted. But I have heard that there are many threats to soil. What are they and how do we make things right? -- J. Lyons, Andover, MA
Even among the ecology-minded, soil falls well below the radar of important causes. But the relationship between soil quality and both environmental and human health is intricately entwined. From the food we eat and the clothes we wear, to the air we breathe and water we need to drink, we depend upon the dirt beneath our feet. Soil nurtures and feeds all life on Earth, while it under girds our cities, forests, waterways and crucial agricultural activities. Further, healthy soil and the plant matter it holds steady act as important “carbon sinks” that lock vast amounts of carbon up that would otherwise contribute to global warming.
Throughout history, great civilizations prospered where soils were fertile and fell when soils could no longer sustain rough treatment. In Mesopotamia, poor land management caused soils to become degraded, leading to loss of agricultural productivity, migrations—and ultimately, civilization collapse. Ancient Greece suffered a similar fate. Many experts also blame the fall of the great Mayan civilization on soil exhaustion and erosion, resulting from agricultural practices and clear-cutting of forests.
Today, we face many of the same issues: forest loss, over-consumption, overpopulation and over-worked soils nearing collapse. While factors such as logging, construction, off-road vehicles, floods and droughts threaten soil, high use of agricultural pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals, as well as livestock grazing and the “factory farming” of food animals, are primary culprits.
Chief among threats to soils is damage to or loss of fertile topsoil. According to the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers (ASABE), topsoil erosion today reduces productivity on 29 percent of U.S. cropland and negatively affects 39 percent of rangeland. In West Africa, fertilizer overuse is causing already acidic soils to become even more so, making the farming of even native crops difficult. In Sub-Saharan Africa, declining soil fertility from intensive farming is a main cause of poverty and hunger.
Urban erosion is equally significant and is becoming more serious as population growth fuels urban development. Housing and building projects gouge the soil and strip its vegetation. Rain then washes the soil away into sewers and then waterways. This leads not only to water pollution, but the glut of nutrients the soil carries with it causes “algae blooms” that use up oxygen and choke out the aquatic life.
Educating farmers in the U.S. and abroad about the damaging effects of intensive agriculture and over-application of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides is a good place to start to try to make things right. Converting more farming over to organic methods that eschew chemicals altogether is an even better solution. Supporting local farms also promotes better land stewardship, as mega farms make heavy use of synthetic fertilizers, and factory animal farms generate huge amounts of animal waste, which pollutes surrounding land and soil. And cities and towns can do their part by supporting low-impact development and mandating greener design standards.
CONTACTS: ASABE, www.asabe.org; E – The Environmental Magazine, “The Scoop on Dirt: Why We Should all Worship the Ground We Walk On,” www.emagazine.com/view/?3344.

Dear EarthTalk: I was surprised to learn recently that some cities, including New York, have outlawed kitchen-sink garbage disposals, at least in homes. I would have thought these machines were Earth-friendly. What’s the deal? -- Maggie Mangan, St. Louis, MO
Kitchen sink garbage disposals are not necessarily Earth-friendly in and of themselves, but they do play a valuable role in grinding up food scraps into small enough bits for local sewer or on-site septic systems to handle. In the U.S. overall, about half of all homes have a garbage disposal in the kitchen. New York did outlaw the devices for many years, thinking a ban would alleviate the strain on the city’s aging sewer system. But a study later conducted in the mid-1990s found benefits to lifting the ban, including a likely reduction in rat and cockroach problems and a reduced flow of solid waste to landfills already bursting at the seams. So in 1997 the Big Apple began allowing the devices again.
But garbage disposals are not the greenest way to dispose of food waste. According to Mark Jeantheau of the popular eco-website Grinning Planet, conscientious consumers interested in returning food-based nutrients back to the Earth should bypass the garbage disposal in favor of composting.
“The ground-up waste [in a garbage disposal] does not go back to nature’s water supply to be gobbled up by fish and other life forms,” he says. Sewage-treatment and septic systems remove “any food value the waste might have had.” Indeed, most modern-day sewer filtration systems utilize chemicals to rid the outflow of any life forms, beneficial or otherwise. Plus, grinding food in a garbage disposal uses a lot of freshwater, which is becoming a more and more precious commodity.
Those on their own septic systems also might want to minimize their use of the garbage disposal. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), regular use of garbage disposals leads to a “more rapid buildup of scum and sludge layers in the septic tank and increased risk of clogging in the soil adsorption field due to higher concentrations of suspended solids in the effluent.” Jeantheau adds that even if a given septic system is designed to handle heavier, food-based loads, it still might not be worth the risk: “There are few homeowner nightmares worse than having your septic system go belly up.”
While composting may sound like a messy proposition, it doesn’t have to be. For starters, those doing the dishes should make sure to dump any and all food waste items into a kitchen-based composting bin with a lid that seals tight. Many municipalities now make such bins available to interested residents. A mesh strainer in the hole in the sink can catch smaller food scraps and be dumped into the composting bin when the dishes are done.
When the kitchen-based compost bin fills up, it can be dumped into a larger composting bin outside. After four to six months, you should have some nice compost to add to your garden and jumpstart the health of your soil. Companies such as The Compost Bin and Clean Air Gardening offer online sales of a wide variety of quality compost bins of different shapes and sizes, and provide a wealth of comparative information for the interested consumer.
CONTACTS: Grinning Planet, www.grinningplanet.com; The Compost Bin, www.compost-bin.org; Clean Air Gardening, www.cleanairgardening.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I want to give my baby fresh, organic food but I don't have the time to make her special meals. What options are out there? -- Marie L., via e-mail
Babies deserve the best possible start in life, so giving them nutritious food is a must, not only for good health but also to establish positive eating habits as early as possible.
According to Consumers Union (CU), publisher of Consumer Reports magazine, commercial baby foods, many of which are made up of condensed fruits and vegetables, can contain high concentrations of pesticide residues. “A lot of these pesticides are toxic to the brain,” says Philip Landrigan, a professor of pediatrics and preventative medicine at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. Citing studies that have linked smaller head circumference and reduced intelligence in babies to in utero exposure to pesticides consumed by their mothers, Landrigan says it is best not to gamble when it comes to baby food.
If you’re not already serving organic baby food, CU urges making the switch as soon as possible. A 2005 study ordered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency measured pesticide levels in the urine of 23 children in Washington State before and after a switch to an organic diet. After five straight days on the diet, pesticide measures fell to undetectable levels and remained so until the conventional diets resumed. The study concluded: “An organic diet provides a dramatic and immediate protective effect” against pesticide exposure.
Fortunately for concerned parents the organic food industry is growing rapidly, and one result is the availability of a wide selection of organic baby foods in both natural food stores and mainstream supermarkets. Some leading jar- and box-based choices come from Gerber, Earth’s Best, Homemade Baby and others. And frozen meals from the likes of Happy Baby, Plum Organics, Bobo Baby and other relative upstarts mix good flavor and fresh healthy ingredients with convenience. Using the power of cold temperatures to keep their foods fresh allows these companies to avoid the use of traditional preservatives.
Happy Baby’s frozen meals come in individual cubes in flavors like “Baby Dahl and Mama Grain,” an organic mixture of bananas, black beans and quinoa (pronounced KEEN-wah). Quinoa is a high-protein whole grain that is considered a complete protein because it contains all eight essential amino acids.
Plum Organics offers flash-frozen, nutrient-rich organic meals that come in reusable four-ounce cups in varieties like “Super Greens” (peas, spinach and green beans) and “Red Lentil Veggie” (potatoes, carrots, corn and red lentils). Bobo Baby specializes in organic, kosher and allergen-free flash-frozen baby meals.
For parents inclined toward cooking instead of opening jars or microwaving, making baby food out of fresh organic ingredients does not have to be complicated or time-consuming. Fresh Baby sells cooking kits, cookbooks and food trays to help parents concoct and serve the freshest and healthiest baby food possible right from their own kitchens.
CONTACTS: Earth’s Best, www.earthsbest.com; Homemade Baby, www.homemadebaby.com; Happy Baby, www.happybaby.com; Bobo Baby, www.bobobaby.com; Plum Organics; www.plumorganics.com; Fresh Baby, www.freshbaby.com.

Dear EarthTalk: What are the ramifications for shorelines around the world if predictions about rising sea levels due to global warming actually come true? -- James Florino, Palm Beach, FL
Sea level rise, and the accompanying loss of shoreline, promises to be one of the most devastating results of global warming. A recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of leading atmospheric scientists, forecasts a global sea level rise of between seven and 23 inches by 2100. This they foresee due to the greenhouse gases we have already pumped into the atmosphere—even if we start cutting back now. Such dire but realistic predictions are based on computer models that factor in the heating and expansion of the ocean, the melting of polar ice sheets, and storm surges that can affect tides by a foot or more.
What does this mean for shorelines around the world? Simply put, existing shorelines, especially in low-lying areas, will become submerged—a sea level rise of less than half an inch can cause shoreline retreat upwards of four feet—forcing inhabitants to relocate their homes, businesses and ways of life. Perhaps the most striking example of this type of upheaval is already underway in Bangladesh, a low-lying country of 140 million people. According to the World Bank, an international lending and development agency, sea level rise will likely inundate as much as 20 percent of the country’s habitable land, affecting as many as 30 million people already living on the edge of survival. As much as a third of the country’s rice crop will be lost, and natural treasures like the Sundarbans mangrove forest will be reduced to just a memory.
With about a third of the world’s people living within 60 miles of a shoreline, and 13 of the world’s 20 largest cities located on coasts, people are bracing for the worst beyond Bangladesh as well. Scientists fear that sea level rise, especially when combined with intense storms, could deliver a knock-out blow to areas already devastated by 2004’s Indian Ocean tsunami. China, India and Egypt are also expected to experience major flooding. One result could be a humanitarian crisis as millions of so-called “climate refugees” could seek higher ground, perhaps across national borders where they are not welcome.
Here in the U.S., scientists fear rising sea levels could put a recovered New Orleans back under water, but this time permanently. In New York, stronger and more frequent hurricanes, also thanks to global warming, could combine with rising sea levels to essentially put most of Manhattan and outlying areas under water, wreaking untold havoc for millions of people in the region. And in the San Francisco Bay Area, according to a report by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and summarized in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle in February 2007, San Francisco’s sewage-treatment facility on Islais Creek and both San Francisco and Oakland airports could be under water.
With scientists uncertain about the amount of sea level rise to anticipate, municipal officials are working to get their cities ready in a number of ways, including “nourishing” beaches with additional sand and building overlapping layers of levees and sea walls. But engineers warn that already strained municipal budgets have no room for the staggering costs of buttressing entire cities against sea level rise, so planners will be forced to pick and choose to hopefully avert disaster. For the rest of us, it might be a good time to sell that waterfront vacation property that has appreciated so much in value in recent years.
CONTACTS: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, www.ipcc.ch; World Bank-Bangladesh, www.worldbank.org/bd.

Dear EarthTalk: What is the issue with the Gulf Stream in relation to global warming? Could it really stop or disappear altogether? If so, what are the ramifications of this? -- Lynn Eytel, Clark Summit, PA
Part of the Ocean Conveyor Belt—a great river of ocean water that traverses the saltwater sections of the globe—the Gulf Stream stretches from the Gulf of Mexico up the eastern seaboard of the U.S., where it splits, one stream heading for Canada’s Atlantic coast and the other for northern Europe and Greenland. By taking warm water from the equatorial Pacific Ocean and carrying it into the colder North Atlantic, the Gulf Stream warms up the eastern U.S. and northwestern Europe by about five degrees Celsius (41 degrees Fahrenheit), making those regions much more hospitable than they would otherwise be.
Among the greatest fears scientists have about global warming is that it will cause the massive ice fields of Greenland and other locales at the northern end of the Gulf Stream to melt rapidly, sending surges of cold water into the ocean system and interrupting the flow of the Ocean Conveyor Belt. One doomsday scenario is that such an event would stop or disrupt the whole Ocean Conveyor Belt system, plunging Western Europe into a new ice age without the benefit of the warmth delivered by the Gulf Stream. “The possibility exists that a disruption of the Atlantic currents might have implications far beyond a colder northwest Europe, perhaps bringing dramatic climatic changes to the entire planet,” says Bill McGuire, a geophysical hazards professor at University College London’s Benfield Hazard Research Centre.
Computer models simulating ocean-atmosphere climate dynamics indicate that the North Atlantic region would cool between three and five degrees Celsius if Conveyor circulation were totally disrupted. “It would produce winters twice as cold as the worst winters on record in the eastern United States in the past century,” says Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s Robert Gagosian.
The slowing of the Gulf Stream has been directly linked with dramatic regional cooling before, says McGuire. “Just 10,000 years ago, during a climatic cold snap known as the Younger Dryas, the current was severely weakened, causing northern European temperatures to fall by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit,” he says. And 10,000 years earlier—at the height of the last ice age when most of northwestern Europe was a frozen wasteland—the Gulf Stream had just two-thirds of the strength it has now.
A less dramatic prediction sees the Gulf Stream slowing down but not stopping entirely, causing the east coast of North America and northwestern Europe to suffer only minor winter temperature dips. And some scientists even put forth the optimistic hypothesis that the cooling effects of a weakened Gulf Stream could actually help offset the higher temperatures otherwise caused by global warming.
To McGuire, these uncertainties underscore that fact that human-induced global warming is “nothing more nor less than a great planetary experiment, many of the outcomes of which we cannot predict.” Whether or not we can trim our addiction to fossil fuels might just be the determining factor in whether global warming wreaks havoc around the world, or just causes us minor annoyances.
CONTACTS: University College London’s Benfield Hazard Research Centre, www.benfieldhrc.org/climate_change/index.htm; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, www.whoi.edu.

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that anti-bacterial soaps are no better at preventing infections than plain soaps and that they are actually harmful to the environment? -- Avery Bicks, New York, NY
University of Michigan researchers reviewed numerous studies conducted between 1980 and 2006 and concluded that antibacterial soaps that contain triclosan as the main active ingredient are no better at preventing infections than plain soaps. Further, the team argued that these antibacterial soaps could actually pose a health risk, because they may kill beneficial bacteria and also reduce the effectiveness of some common antibiotics, such as amoxicillin. The study was published in the August 2007 issue of the peer-reviewed journal, Clinical Infectious Diseases.
These findings concur with earlier research conducted by Tufts University’s Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics. The Tufts study concluded that overuse of triclosan could cause new strains of bacteria to develop, thus “changing the kind of bacteria in our houses to those that may actually be harmful or resistant to antibiotics…” said Tufts’ Dr. Stuart Levy.
According to the non-profit group Beyond Pesticides, laboratory studies have found a number of different strains of mutated bacteria that are resistant to triclosan and to certain antibiotics. The organization also cites reports of triclosan converting into a carcinogenic class of chemicals known as dioxins when exposed to water and ultraviolet radiation. Besides cancer, dioxins have been linked to weakening of the human immune system, decreased fertility, altered sex hormones and birth defects.
If antibacterial hand soap is not effective at reducing infections, consumers may wonder about whether alcohol-based hand sanitizers may do a better job. Combing through different studies on the topic yields mixed conclusions. According to one study conducted at Colorado State University, alcohol-based hand sanitizers were as much as twice as effective as either regular soap or antibacterial soap at reducing germs on human hands.
A Purdue University study, however, contradicts these findings, concluding that while alcohol-based hand sanitizers may kill more germs than plain or triclosan-based soaps, they do not prevent more infections that make people sick. Instead they may kill the human body’s own beneficial bacteria by stripping the skin of its outer layer of oil.
The best advice might just come from a study published in the journal Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation back in 1998, which concluded that washing hands thoroughly for 20 seconds or more with plain soap and warm water is by far the most effective way to reduce harmful bacteria, and as such remains our best defense against getting sick.
CONTACTS: Clinical Infectious Diseases, www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/; Tufts’ Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics, www.tufts.edu/med/apua/; Beyond Pesticides, www.beyondpesticides.org.

Dear EarthTalk: What is the status of the land mines issue popularized by Princess Diana and Paul McCartney’s ex-wife, Heather Mills? How many mines have been removed? How many are left? What is being done? -- Jonas Schultz, via e-mail
Land mines were first widely used in World War II and have since been used in Vietnam, the Korean War, the first Gulf War, and in about a half dozen conflicts around the world today. Initially, mines were used for defensive purposes, to guard certain areas and keep the enemy out. Today they are used for more insidious reasons such as to terrorize civilians and limit their movement. And, of course, many remain behind from past wars and continue to unintentionally kill or maim civilians, including many children.
Today, an estimated 110 million mines are still scattered around the world in 78 countries, injuring or killing upwards of 26,000 people each year. According to a recent United Nations (UN) study, the countries most affected by mines are Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Croatia, Eritrea, Iraq, Mozambique, Namibia, Somalia, Nicaragua and Sudan. The landmines in these countries make up almost 50 percent of all mines deployed in the world today.
Stats like these have prompted outcries from concerned people all over the world. Organizations such as the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and Adopt a Minefield work to both rid the world of these weapons and to aid those injured by them. In the last decade, such organizations have spearheaded the destruction of as many as 30.5 million mines. Their work has also led to such a dramatic decrease in the mine trade worldwide that, since 2003, the manufacture and sale of mines has essentially ended (or at least no evidence exists that any trade in mines is still going on). In addition, Costa Rica, Djibouti, El Salvador, Kosovo and Moldova have all been declared “mine safe” as of 2004.
The UN itself does more than conduct studies and issue reports. Some14 different UN departments, agencies and programs work on de-mining efforts in some 30 countries. The actual work is done by non-governmental organizations and various military entities employing commercial contractors. Many intergovernmental and charitable organizations also support the UN’s efforts with financial assistance.
Many rather low-tech methods are used to detect and destroy mines. In Denmark, for instance, scientists have genetically modified Thale cress, a fast-growing green plant from the mustard family, to turn red whenever its roots are exposed to nitrogen dioxide, a gas released into soil by degrading mines. The Danish company Aresa Biodetection works with governments around the world to sow fields with the plant in areas plagued by mine problems. In another example, Colombian researchers have trained rats to freeze when they encounter mines in the ground. Since rats weigh so little, they don’t trigger explosions.
In December 1997 an international conference held in Ottawa, Ontario yielded the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, otherwise known as the Mine Ban Treaty. The treaty was formalized in March 1999 when 122 countries became signatories. The international treaty works to prevent mine use, production and trade, assist victims and to destroy existing mines.
CONTACTS: Adopt a Minefield, www.landmines.org; International Campaign to Ban Landmines, www.icbl.org; Mine Ban Treaty; www.icbl.org/treaty.

Dear EarthTalk: What are the best kinds of dishwasher and laundry soaps to use in consideration of where all the wastewater goes after use? -- Jessica Weichert, Waterford, CA
The average North American produces between 60 and 150 gallons of wastewater every day, much of it a result of washing dishes and clothes. Municipal water treatment facilities do their best to filter out the synthetic chemicals common in most mainstream dishwasher and laundry soaps, but some of these pollutants inevitably get into rivers, lakes and coastal areas, where they can cause a wide range of problems.
Perhaps the most worrisome of these pollutants, phosphates, can cause large build-ups of algae and bacteria that rob water bodies of oxygen and thus choke out other life forms. In response to just such a problem occurring in Lakes Ontario and Erie in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the U.S. and Canada signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972. The agreement banned the use of phosphates in laundry detergents and dish soaps used in the region, and resulted in a significant decrease in algae blooms throughout the Great Lakes.
Despite the success of the agreement, phosphates and other synthetic chemicals continue to be widely used in laundry and dish soaps throughout the world. Aside from their effect on water bodies, these ingredients also trigger allergies, irritate the skin and eyes and carry other health risks.
Fortunately, consumers now have more environmentally friendly choices than ever. Companies such as Seventh Generation, Ecover, Bioshield and Naturally Yours make safer dishwasher and laundry soaps that do not contain phosphates or other harmful synthetic chemicals. Many of these greener options are available at retail stores like Whole Foods and Wild Oats as well as online from websites like Kokopelli’s Green Market and a host of others.
According to Seventh Generation CEO Jeffrey Hollender, consumers interested in doing the right thing for the environment should look at ingredients, not slogans. “Just because a product says it is natural doesn’t mean it is nontoxic,” he says. Environmentally friendly ingredients to look for include grain alcohol, coconut or other plant oils, rosemary and sage. Synthetic ingredients to avoid include butyl cellosolve, petroleum, triclosan and phosphates. It is also best to avoid detergents that employ fragrances, as they can contain chemicals known as phthalates that have been linked to cancer.
Although household-cleaning chores can often be accomplished with non-toxic, homemade alternatives—such as water mixed with borax, lemon juice, baking soda, vinegar or washing soda—laundry and automatic dishwashing soaps are not so easily replaced with home concoctions. However, Emily Main, senior editor at The Green Guide, recommends adding one-quarter cup of baking soda or white vinegar to clothes washes to act as a fabric softener, and for stain removal suggests soaking fabrics in water mixed with either borax, lemon juice, hydrogen peroxide or white vinegar. As to home recipes for dishwashing, some hardcore homesteaders recommend trying an equal mix of borax and baking soda, but this is probably best used only in a pinch as the abrasiveness of such a mixture can scratch glassware over time.
CONTACTS: Ecover, www.ecover.com; Seventh Generation, www.seventhgeneration.com; Kokopelli's Green Market, www.kokogm.com; The Green Guide, www.thegreenguide.com.

Dear EarthTalk: How is it that flushing cat litter down the toilet has negatively affected sea otters? What is the responsible way to dispose of cats’ waste? -- Margo Boss, San Dimas, CA
According to Dr. Melissa Miller of the California Department of Fish and Game, cat feces can contain Toxoplasma gondii, a parasite that gets into feline systems from the eating of infected rodents, birds or other small animals. When cats later expel these parasites in their droppings—sometimes hundreds of millions at a time—each can survive in soil for over a year and also contaminate drinking water.
Most municipal sewage treatment systems are not designed to filter out Toxoplasma, and so the parasites also get into storm drains and sewage outflows that carry them out to near-shore ocean waters. Here, researchers have found, sea otters prey on mussels, crabs and other filter feeders that can concentrate Toxoplasma. Hundreds of sea otters have been found dead on California beaches in recent years with no obvious external injuries, and Miller and other scientists think that Toxoplasma may be the cause.
There are other possible culprits, too, including toxic algae blooms caused by urea, an ingredient in fertilizer, and the plethora of other man-made pollutants that end up in ocean waters. But California’s legislature last year nonetheless passed a bill to protect sea otters, in part by requiring that all cat litter sold in the state carry a warning label advising cat owners to not flush cat litter or dispose of it in storm drains.
Toxoplasma can also cause health problems for people, especially those with compromised immune systems (such as AIDS patients). While not typically fatal in humans, Toxoplasmosis, as the disease is called, can also cause birth defects, blindness and/or brain damage in children born to infected mothers.
The best way to avoid the infection is to use plastic gloves when changing the litter box and to wash hands thoroughly afterwards. It is also advisable to stay away from raw or undercooked meat and uncooked or unwashed vegetables that may have been contaminated by manure (although felines are the parasites’ primary host, other warm-blooded animals and birds can also be carriers). Toxoplasmosis doesn’t normally spread from person to person (with the exception of pregnant women, who can pass it on to their fetuses), but in rare instances it has contaminated blood transfusions and organs donated for transplantation.
So what’s a responsible cat owner to do about dumping the contents of their cat’s litter box? According to Dr. Patricia Conrad, a veterinarian and parasitologist at the University of California at Davis who has studied Toxoplasma contamination in sea otters, cat owners can start by keeping their cats inside, where they are not able to hunt the small animals that can pass Toxoplasma along to them in the first place. (Bird lovers have been requesting this for years.)
Those cat owners unwilling to keep their cats inside should do their part by at least not flushing cat litter or cat feces down the toilet. Cat fecal material should be placed in double plastic bags and included in the household trash. As such it will end up in the landfill where precautions are taken to prevent environmental contamination.
CONTACTS: “What’s Killing California Sea Otters?” www.seaotterresearch.org; “Parasite in Cats Killing Sea Otters,” www.research.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/spot_otter.html.

Dear EarthTalk: How can we get schools to offer healthier and more eco-friendly cafeteria food to our kids? I don’t have time to bag a healthy lunch every day. -- Leslie Morris, Richmond, VA
Now that many schools have stopped selling sodas and other unhealthy vending machine items to their students, improving the nutritional quality of cafeteria food is on the agenda of many parents and school administrators. And luckily for the environment, healthier food usually means greener food.
Some forward-thinking schools are leading the charge by sourcing their cafeteria food from local farms and producers. This saves money and also cuts back on the pollution and global warming impacts associated with transporting food long distances. And since many local producers are turning to organic growing methods, local food usually means fewer pesticides in kids’ school lunches.
Alarmed by childhood obesity statistics and the prevalence of unhealthy foods offered to students in schools, the Center for Food and Justice (CFJ) in 2000 spearheaded the national Farm to School lunch program. The program connects schools with local farms to provide healthy cafeteria food while also supporting local farmers. Participating schools not only obtain food locally, they incorporate nutrition-based curriculum and provide students with learning opportunities through visits to the local farms.
Farm to School programs now operate in 19 states and in several hundred school districts. CFJ recently received significant support from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to expand the program to more states and districts. The group’s website (link below) is loaded with resources to help schools get started.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) also runs a Small Farms/School Meals program that boasts participation in 400 school districts in 32 states. Interested schools can check out the agency’s “Step-by-Step Guide on How to Bring Small Farms and Local Schools Together,” which is available free online.
Other schools have taken the plunge in their own unique ways. In Berkeley, California, noted chef Alice Waters holds cooking classes in which students grow and prepare local organic fruits and vegetables for their peers’ school lunch menus. And as documented in the film, “Super Size Me,” Wisconsin’s Appleton Central Alternative School hired a local organic bakery that helped transform Appleton’s cafeteria fare from offerings heavy on meat and junk food to predominantly whole grains, fresh fruits and vegetables.
Of course, parents can ensure that their children eat well at school by forgoing the cafeteria offerings altogether and sending their kids to school with healthy bag lunches. For on-the-go parents unable to keep up with a daily lunch making regimen, innovative companies are beginning to sprout up that will do it for you. Kid Chow in San Francisco, Health e-Lunch Kids in Fairfax, Virginia, New York City’s KidFresh and Manhattan Beach, California’s Brown Bag Naturals will deliver organic and natural food lunches to your kids for about three times the price of a cafeteria lunch. But prices should change for the better as the idea catches on and more volume brings costs down.
CONTACTS: Farm to Schools, www.farmtoschool.org; USDA Small Farms/School Meals Initiative, www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/Downloadable/small.pdf; Kid Chow, www.kid-chow.com, Brown Bag Naturals, brownbagnaturals.com; Health e-Lunch Kids, healthelunchkids.com; Kidfresh, kidfresh.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I read that hybrid cars are actually less green-friendly than even Hummers, because they have two motors and very environmentally damaging batteries. Is this true? -- Renee Sweany, Indianapolis, IN
The claim you read about was from “Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles from Concept to Disposal,” a controversial study by researcher Art Spinella of Oregon-based CNW Marketing. It ranks more than 300 vehicles for their energy use over their entire lifecycles—from raw materials extraction and manufacturing, to driving and burning fuel, to the recycling and disposal of parts. What surprised even Spinella was how the Toyota Prius, the world’s most successful gasoline-electric hybrid car, stacked up against General Motors’ behemoth Hummer, the modern poster child for unsustainable transportation.
“The Hummer over the lifetime of the vehicle ends up being less of a drain of energy on society in general than does the Prius,” wrote Spinella in his report. A key-determining factor was the hybrid battery’s use of nickel extracted from a Sudbury, Ontario mine that has emitted so much sulfur dioxide that acid rain has turned a once healthy nearby forest into a bleak landscape. That mine, however, which supplies nickel for many industrial purposes and not just hybrid batteries, has cut pollution 90 percent since the 1970s.
Another common criticism of hybrids is that their batteries will be a pollution threat once they land in the junkyard. But hybrid advocates insist that the nickel-metal hydride batteries found in the Toyota Prius, Honda Insight and other hybrids contain far fewer pollutants than the lead-acid varieties used in traditional cars. And initial worries that hybrid batteries would need replacement every few years have not borne out; Toyota says the batteries should go for 150,000 miles, which they predict to be the car’s life expectancy.
Spinella pegs the life of the typical Prius bought new today at only 100,000 miles, and contrasts that against a predicted 300,000 for Hummers—meaning that, though Hummers burn more gas and emit more pollutants, they will last much longer. Additionally, Spinella factors in the added production costs of including two separate engines in the Prius—one that runs on gas and the other on electricity.
Most environmentalists challenge Spinella’s conclusions. Jim Kliesch, research analyst with the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), which publishes a yearly rating of the “Greenest and Meanest” cars, says the CNW study contradicts many other studies, including those conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Carnegie Mellon, Argonne National Labs, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others that place the green-friendliness of the Prius and other hybrids head and shoulders above many other vehicles and certainly the Hummer.
Spinella is “way off the mark,” says Kliesch, and scolds CNW for not having “Dust to Dust” peer-reviewed for accuracy. “If you do some back-of-the-envelope calculations on their claims,” he says, “you’ll find that it takes about $286,500 in energy to produce and assemble a Prius, [which is] absurd.”
Toyota itself also disputes CNW’s findings. In a short rebuttal published in the Washington Post, Toyota vice-president Irv Miller said that the increased energy requirement to build a hybrid with two engines under the hood “is overwhelmingly made up for in the driving stage.”
CONTACTS: “Dust to Dust,” cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/; ACEEE, www.aceee.org.

Dear EarthTalk: What tax or other government incentives are there out there for buying green—for individuals as well as businesses? -- Sarah Rafferty, New York, NY
There has never been a better time than now to tap into a laundry list of tax rebates and other financial incentives designed to encourage individuals and businesses to go the greener mile. At the federal level in the U.S., individuals can reap the rewards of no less than eight different financial incentives ranging from tax credits and home loans for replacing windows and installing insulation around the house to tax rebates for purchasing a hybrid car or hooking up a solar hot water heater.
Besides these federal incentives, nearly every U.S. state has additional state or local incentives available. Many require utilities to rebate consumers who save electricity. Some utilities even offer “net metering,” whereby consumers who generate some of their power through rooftop solar panels or other technologies can sell electricity back to the utility, thus reducing or zeroing out their electric bill—even earning money.
Many financial incentives are in place for businesses, as well. At the federal level, examples include an energy-efficient commercial buildings tax deduction, a business energy reduction tax credit, an energy-efficient appliance tax credit for manufacturers, and a new energy-efficient tax credit for green-savvy builders.
At the state level, many are eager to attract renewable energy companies to their region, and offer tax breaks to get them there. Washington State, for example, charges no sales tax on renewable energy equipment produced or sold there. And some forward-thinking cities are beginning to offer “density bonuses” and green building incentives to developers and builders to encourage sustainable land use.
The best place to look for what’s available is to steer your web browser to the free online Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE), a comprehensive source of information on state, local, utility and federal incentives that promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. DSIRE is a federally funded project of the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, whose membership includes state and local government agencies, national laboratories, renewable energy companies and advocacy groups.
In Canada, the Office of Energy Efficiency at Natural Resources Canada offers a slate of federal grants and incentives under its ecoENERGY Retrofit program to homeowners, businesses, large industries and public institutions to help them invest in energy- and pollution-saving upgrades. The agency also administers the High Efficiency Home Heating System Cost Relief program, which will contribute up to $300 to homeowners who upgrade their old oil or gas furnace or boiler to a new high-efficiency model. And low-income households might qualify for additional federal financial assistance for energy retrofits. Another Canadian program, the Vehicle Efficiency Incentive (VEI) rewards those who buy fuel-efficient cars or trucks with rebates of up to $2,000 each. Beyond these federal programs, selected provincial and municipal entities across Canada also offer incentives to those looking to save energy and the environment.
CONTACTS: Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE), www.dsireusa.org; Natural Resources Canada ecoEnergy Retrofit Program, www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/incentives.cfm.

Dear EarthTalk: Aside from the obvious benefits to mankind of reducing poverty, how would promoting more economic equality around the world benefit the environment? --Steele Shapiro, Seattle, WA
Research has shown that in countries with a wide disparity between rich and poor, environmental protection tends to be a lower priority. The inverse is also true: Countries with greater economic equality assign higher priority to safeguarding their environment.
The main determining factor seems to be that lower income people tend to vote against spending tax dollars on what are deemed costly or discretionary environmental projects. In countries with less disparity between rich and poor, such as throughout Scandinavia, environmental protection is assigned a higher priority and governments have enacted more stringent regulations and policies accordingly.
University of Rochester researchers Laura Marsiliani and Thomas Renstrom reviewed hundreds of academic studies of linkages between economic equality and environmental protection and found plenty of evidence to suggest that “poorer individuals tend to prefer less stringent environmental policy.” Previous research also supports their hypothesis that greater income inequality causes lower environmental taxes, regulation and spending around the world.
On a related front, a team of McGill University researchers uncovered a connection between growing economic inequality and an increase in the number of plant and animal species threatened with extinction. Dr. Greg Mikkelson of McGill’s School of Environment led the study, which looked at income inequality and biodiversity loss on two different scales: among 45 countries worldwide; and among 45 U.S. states. The researchers found that the same general trend is evident in both cases: Societies with more unequal distribution of income experience greater losses of biodiversity.
While there is often a trade-off between economic growth and environmental quality, says Mikkelson, his study suggests that there is also synergy between removing or reducing poverty and greater conservation of biological diversity. If the U.S. were to achieve levels of income parity comparable, say, to Sweden, some 44 percent fewer plant and animal species in the U.S. would be in danger of extinction. “Our study,” adds Mikkelson, “suggests that if we can learn to share economic resources more fairly with fellow members of our own species, it may help us to share ecological resources more fairly with other species.”
One group working to help the environment by bridging the economic equality gap is the Poverty Reduction and Environmental Management (PREM) program at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Holland’s Vrije Universiteit. Formulated by Dr. Pieter van Beukering and Kim van der Leeuw, the program has lined up researchers in 16 developing nations to develop case studies showing how sustainability-oriented natural resource management can lead to economic development for poorer people. The researchers hope that their work in the field will help show policymakers the way toward enlightened regulatory practices that encourage both economic equality and environmental protection.
CONTACTS: “Inequality, Environmental Protection and Growth,” Laura Marsiliani and Thomas Renstrom, http://ideas.repec.org/p/roc/wallis/wp35.html; “More Inequality Means Less Biodiversity,” McGill Reporter, www.mcgill.ca/reporter/39/17/inequality/; PREM Program, www.prem-online.org.

Dear EarthTalk: How do I find a Styrofoam recycler in my area? My company receives huge sheets of the stuff on a regular basis and it just gets thrown straight into the trash. What can a business do to get this stuff recycled economically and efficiently? -- S.R.M., Mesa, AZ
Known within the packaging industry as expanded polystyrene (EPS) and usually bearing the “#6” recycling symbol, Styrofoam (which is actually the trademark name for Dow Chemical’s product) has long been an environmental bugaboo, as it is contains chemicals known to cause central nervous system damage and other health problems for workers regularly exposed to it. And since it is difficult and expensive to recycle, EPS tends to clog landfills already teeming with toxic garbage.
But EPS has proven to be one of the lightest and least costly forms of packaging material, so the industry has worked hard to make recycling it more cost-effective and convenient. More than 80 packaging manufacturers, polystyrene suppliers and equipment makers joined together in 1991 to form the Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers (AFPR). The Maryland-based industry association works to facilitate recycling between EPS manufacturers and the companies that buy from them. It currently boasts of overseeing the recycling of 10-12 percent of the post-consumer EPS packaging produced every year.
Member companies, which provide drop-off services at their facilities, reprocess up to 60 percent of the EPS foam collected and incorporate it directly into new packaging. Some of the material is reformulated and used in a wide variety of durable plastic products. Currently, more than 110 plant locations serve as collection centers which together receive upwards of 50 million pounds of post-consumer EPS packaging each year. AFPR provides a comprehensive list of EPS drop-off locations from coast-to-coast on its website. While companies sending the EPS in for recycling must bear the shipping or drop-off costs, they may save money over paying for disposal fees at the landfill.
One caveat: AFPR does not get involved in the recycling of the foam “peanuts” so often used as packaging filler. Most “pack-and-ship” shops (like UPS stores) will accept used but otherwise clean foam peanuts to reuse in their own shipments. Otherwise, the Plastic Loose Fill Council, another trade group, runs a free web-based database where users can find a local drop-off center by simply punching in their zip code.
Also, food service managers should bear in mind that recycling of soiled food-grade EPS is more difficult and expensive due to issues of bacterial contamination. Most EPS packaging recycling centers will not accept such tainted foam. Many food service companies have followed the lead of McDonald’s and phased-out their use of EPS containers for disposable dishware and to-go orders.
Companies that don’t find it convenient to recycle or otherwise dispose of large amounts of EPS (food-grade or otherwise) might want to consider purchasing one or more StyroMelt machines from UK-based Purex. The technology uses a thermal compaction process to reduce the volume of EPS by up to 95 percent. The resulting solid EPS “briquettes” are dense enough to make for good recycling fodder, and also take up much less room than the foam they started out as if they end up in the landfill.
CONTACTS: Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers, www.epspackaging.org; Plastic Loose Fill Council, www.loosefillpackaging.com; Purex Styromelt, www.styromelt.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Artificial turf has been popular on sports fields for decades for a variety of reasons, but is it also a good environmentally friendly option for residential lawns? -- Sharon Chinchilla, Ft. Lauderdale, FL
The use of artificial turf for residential lawns is a growing trend across America, notably in regions where water supplies have a tough time keeping up with demand. Advocates of artificial turf point out, for example, that a whopping 56,000 gallons of water are applied each year to the average residential lawn.
Statistics also show that the mowing, watering and fertilizing of natural grass contribute as much as two percent to U.S. overall fossil fuel consumption. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, lawn care activities also account for about 10 percent of hazardous air pollution coast-to-coast. And studies on Long Island in New York State have shown that up to 60 percent of the synthetic nitrogen applied to lawns there ends up contaminating local ground water supplies.
But given the choice between real or artificial turf, most environmental advocates still prefer real grass. Besides helping to create the oxygen we breathe through photosynthesis, plants (including grass) are an integral part of any living ecosystem. They filter water and sunlight down into the soil where worms, insects and moisture work in concert to hold the soil firm. And they prevent flooding while providing habitat and nourishment for birds, bees and other wildlife.
In contrast, synthetic turf is made out of petroleum-derived plastic. In cases where fake turf is installed improperly, chemicals from the plastic can seep into the ground below and potentially contaminate groundwater. Some formulations of synthetic turf require infill such as silicon sand or granulated rubber, either of which may contain potentially toxic heavy metals that can leach into the water table below. The granules have also been known to produce a distinctly unpleasant odor at times. And consumers trying to reduce their carbon footprints should keep in mind that manufacturing and shipping artificial turf, like any synthetic product, generates large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.
Nonetheless, because of concerns about water usage, some municipalities are trying to encourage homeowners to switch to synthetic turf. Back in 2002 city managers in drought-ridden Las Vegas began offering homeowners rebates of $1 per square foot to replace their thirsty natural grass lawns with synthetic turf. And in July 2007 board members of southern California’s Metropolitan Water District, which serves 18 million people across six counties, initiated a similar program to try to make a dent in outdoor water use in the region, 50 to 70 percent of which is devoted to the watering of residential lawns.
Of course, installing artificial turf isn’t the only way to minimize the environmental impact of one’s yard. Converting grass lawns over to less resource intensive landscaping—known as “xeriscaping”—is also catching on. Drought-tolerant native shrubs, plants and ornamental grasses don’t require large amounts of water, fertilizer or pesticides to survive. Many groundcover plants naturally hold back weeds and contribute to the health of the soil. Even rock gardens are attractive and essentially maintenance-free. Given all the natural alternatives, homeowners need not convert their back yards over to fake turf.
CONTACTS: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s BeWaterWise, www.bewaterwise.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I am considering buying Honda’s natural gas Civic. What exactly comes out of a natural gas vehicle’s tailpipe, and how harmful to the environment is natural gas extraction and refinement? Which is greener, a hybrid or natural gas car? -- Alex Neal, San Diego CA
Honda’s natural gas Civic GX, which debuted in 2006 in California but is now becoming available in other parts of the country, just may be the cleanest mainstream car on the road. At least the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) thinks so. The nonprofit group publishes an annual Green Book listing the greenest (and meanest) cars of the year, and put the Civic GX at the top of its 2007 environmentally friendly car list, edging out Toyota’s hybrid Prius.
Although neither car is a slouch when it comes to fuel economy and reduced emissions, the natural gas-fueled Civic scored slightly better than the Prius on both counts in ACEEE’s battery of tests. It also scored better in terms of the pollution generated in the manufacturing processes.
Natural gas is the cleanest burning of all fossil fuels. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the burning of natural gas emits 117,000 pounds per billion (ppb) BTUs of carbon dioxide as compared to gasoline’s 164,000. Its 92 ppb of nitrogen oxide emissions are considerably lower than gasoline’s 448, and its mere one ppb of sulfur dioxide emissions is dwarfed by gasoline’s 1,122. Natural gas also emits just seven ppb of particulates compared to 84 for gasoline, and it emits no mercury whatsoever against the trace amounts emitted by gasoline-burning engines. Natural gas combustion does generate slightly more carbon monoxide than gasoline, at 40 ppb versus 33, but the difference is negligible.
The big trade-off for Civic GX owners is the car’s limited 220-mile range between fuelings. The gasoline-powered Civic can go 350 miles on a tank; the Prius, even with just an 11-gallon tank, can go considerably further operating at as much as 55 miles per gallon in highway driving. While a few dozen natural gas refueling stations have popped up around the U.S., they are few and far between. For those who need to make longer trips but still value a greener ride, a hybrid may be the best bet, as it will produce only marginally worse emissions while taking advantage of the ubiquity of gas stations out on the road.
Those who already use natural gas for home heating can pay $5,000 for a car fueling system installed in their garage or driveway. While that cost may seem high, owners can save about $1 per gallon over gasoline and can also get a federal $1,000 tax rebate. (Also, like the Prius, the purchase of the Civic GX itself qualifies for a federal tax break of $2,000 as well as up to another $2,000 in state and local incentives where applicable.) Some Honda dealers lease home systems for between $34 and $79 monthly. Honda pegs the fuel cost at 3.75 cents/mile, compared to 8.8 cents/mile for the gasoline-powered Civic.
Regarding the extraction and distribution of natural gas, the fuel is often sourced along with or near oil reserves, and involves similarly invasive drilling methods. Accidents do happen from time to time and, though natural gas does not spill like oil and cause ground and sea-level ecosystem disturbances, it rises into the atmosphere where it contributes directly to global warming.
CONTACTS: Database for State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, www.dsireusa.org; ACEEE’s Green Book, www.greenercars.com; Honda Civic GX, http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx.

Dear EarthTalk: What alternatives are there to traditional fertilizers and other chemicals typically used on golf courses? What other actions can be taken to make golf courses kinder to the environment? --Kathy McGuire, PGA National Resort, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
Although golf courses are large areas of open space, certainly more desirable ecologically than equivalent amounts of paved highway or polluting industrial operations, they are less “green” than they appear. Golf maintenance operations use significant amounts of synthetic fertilizer and pesticides (more, acre-for-acre than farms in some cases), which can contaminate nearby lakes and streams as well as local groundwater.
A typical golf course uses about a half ton of chemical pesticides each year, at least some of which runs off into nearby groundwater sources. With nearly 20,000 courses now in operation across the United States and Canada, such problems affect just about every community from coast-to-coast. Luckily several institutions and organizations have been working to minimize the environmental impacts of golf courses.
According to researchers at New York’s Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), there are many ways to create and maintain golf courses that remain attractive to golfers without excessive use of toxic chemicals. Examples include: selecting turf grasses that match local environmental conditions so as to reduce susceptibility to pests; mowing less often as longer grass increases natural pest resistance; using slow-release and natural organic fertilizers; taking into account pest forecasts to be better prepared for potential infestations; and introducing the natural enemies of problem pests and natural bacteria-based fungicides.
More information and tips are available for free via the website of the Environmental Institute for Golf, which publishes an informative series of best management practices for golf course managers looking to improve their facilities’ eco-footprint. Some tips include: planting vegetative buffers around golf course water bodies to prevent the transmission of fertilizers and pesticides into the water; leaving grass clippings and leaves on the ground where possible to serve as natural compost in low-maintenance areas; and timing the application of fertilizer to minimize loss from rainfall and maximize uptake by grasses.
One of the nation’s leaders in green golf course management is San Francisco’s Harding Park, where course managers eschew conventional pesticides and fertilizers in favor of microbes to kill pests and soap to get rid of weeds. They also hand-pluck weeds, flush out moles with hoses, use traps to catch harmful insects, and choose native plants wherever possible. Beneficial insects such as ground beetles, ladybugs, fireflies, praying mantis, spiders and wasps help keep harmful insects at bay and also pollinate plants and decompose organic matter that serves as natural fertilizer. These and other alternative management methods make the course one of the greenest stops on the Professional Golfers Association (PGA) tour.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also taking steps. EPA’s Wetlands Division consulted with several leading nonprofits and golf institutions on the creation of a booklet, “The Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States,” outlining the environmental responsibilities of golf courses. It is posted at the website of the United States Golf Association (USGA).
CONTACTS: Environmental Institute for Golf, www.eifg.org; Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States, www.usga.org/turf/articles/environment/general/environmental_principles.html.

Dear EarthTalk: Bottled water companies would have us all believe that tap water is unsafe to drink. But I’ve heard that most tap water is actually pretty safe. Is this true? -- Sam Tsiryulnikov, Los Angeles, CA
Tap water is not without its problems. The nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) in 2005 tested municipal water in 42 states and detected some 260 contaminants in public water supplies, 140 of which were unregulated chemicals, that is, chemicals for which public health officials have no safety standards for, much less methods for removing them.
EWG did find over 90 percent compliance on the part of water utilities in applying and enforcing standards that exist, but faults the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to establish standards on so many of the contaminants—from industry, agriculture and urban runoff—that do end up in our water.
Despite these seemingly alarming stats, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which has also conducted extensive municipal as well as bottled water tests, says: “In the short term, if you are an adult with no special health conditions, and you are not pregnant, then you can drink most cities’ tap water without having to worry.” This is because most of the contaminants in public water supplies exist at such small concentrations that very large quantities would need to be ingested for health problems to occur.
NRDC does caution, however, that pregnant women, young children, the elderly, people with chronic illnesses and those with weakened immune systems can be especially vulnerable to the risks posed by contaminated water.” The group suggests that anyone at risk obtain a copy of their city’s annual water quality report (they are mandated by law) and review it with their physician.
As for bottled water, it is first important to know that 25 to 30 percent of it comes straight from municipal tap water systems, despite the pretty nature scenes on the bottles that imply otherwise. Some of that water goes through additional filtering, but some does not. NRDC has researched bottled water extensively and has found that it is “subject to less rigorous testing and purity standards than those which apply to city tap water.” Bottled water is required to be tested less frequently than tap water for bacteria and chemical contaminants, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration bottled water rules allow for some contamination by E. coli or fecal coliform, contrary to EPA tap water rules which prohibit any such contamination.
Similarly, NRDC found that there are no requirements for bottled water to be disinfected or tested for parasites such as cryptosporidium or giardia, unlike more stringent EPA rules regulating tap water. This leaves open the possibility, says NRDC, that some bottled water may present similar health threats to those with weakened immune systems, the elderly and others they caution about drinking tap water.
The bottom line is that we have invested considerably in highly-efficient municipal water delivery systems that bring this precious liquid straight to our kitchen faucets anytime we need it. Instead of taking that for granted and relying on bottled water instead, we need to make sure our tap water is clean and safe for all.
CONTACTS: Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org/tapwater/findings.php; EPA Local Drinking Water Information, www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.htm; NRDC, www.nrdc.org/water.

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that there is a lot of waste associated with tampons and sanitary pads and their packaging? Are there any environmentally friendly alternatives out there? -- C. Howard, Victoria, BC
Women of ancient cultures couldn’t buy feminine hygiene products at the supermarket or drugstore chain, so they improvised, fashioning them instead out of various natural and biodegradable materials—from papyrus and wool to grasses and vegetable fibers. Modern women, however, have relied on a variety of disposable products that create significant after-use waste and can also be dangerous to their health.
A typical American woman will use—and discard—as many as 16,000 tampons and their applicators over the course of her lifetime. The numbers for disposable sanitary pads run about twice as high. A 1998 study conducted by waste consultant Franklin Associates concluded that 6.5 billion tampons and 13.5 billion sanitary pads, plus their packaging, were ending up in U.S. landfills or sewer systems each year. Meanwhile, volunteers from the non-profit Ocean Conservancy collected more than 170,000 tampon applicators along American coastlines during a study conducted over a two-year period in 1998 and 1999.
On the health front, the sterile look of feminine hygiene products does not betray the fact that the chlorine dioxide used to whiten them can “theoretically generate dioxins at extremely low levels,” according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Although the chlorine bleaching of tampons and pads has become considerably safer since the early 1990s, prior to which the process released some 250 different organochlorines into the environment and delivered a product laden with dioxin, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says that no safe level for dioxin exposure exists.
Dioxin is 10 times more likely to cause cancer than was believed in 1994, says the EPA, and a lifetime of exposure to tampons, in particular, can mean a significant accumulation of toxins in a woman’s body and many non-cancer effects, including birth defects and child developmental delays. Additionally, tampons, because they interrupt the natural flow of blood, can facilitate bacteria growth and cause infection.
To address both the health and environmental issues associated with feminine products, a number of innovative companies offer alternatives. Gladrags, Natracare, Lunapads, Many Moons and Pandora Pads all make a wide range of cotton pads and other re-usable products free of toxic substances. And Jade and Pearl shapes natural sea sponges to fit a woman’s body, absorbing flow and likewise steering customers away from throwaway products made of bleached synthetic fibers.
Meanwhile, “The Keeper” is a reusable rubber cup designed to catch menstrual flow; its maker also sells a silicone version called the “Moon Cup” for those with sensitivities to rubber. Such products can last for up to 10 years before needing replacement and are approved by the U.S. FDA and Health Canada. Many of these healthier and environmentally friendly (and less costly) alternative products are available online as well as on the shelves of natural foods markets across North America.
CONTACTS: GladRags, www.gladrags.com; Natracare, www.natracare.com; Lunapads, www.lunapads.com; Many Moons Alternatives, www.manymoonsalternatives.com; Pandora Pads, www.pandorapads.com; The Keeper, www.keeper.com; Jade and Pearl, www.jadeandpearl.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I visited New York City recently and could not believe the number of taxicabs on the streets. Are there any efforts to “green up” these vehicles? They must be real gas-guzzlers, considering all the idling and stop-and-go traffic they face. -- Justin Grant, Berkeley, CA
Just this past May, as part of a larger effort to make New York the “greenest major metropolis on the planet,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced an ambitious plan to switch over the city’s 13,000-vehicle taxi cab fleet from gas guzzling traditional cars to (comparatively) fuel-sipping gasoline-electric hybrids.
So far, 375 New York City cabs are hybrids, but Bloomberg wants that to rise to 1,000 by the end of 2008, with an additional 20 percent of the cab fleet going hybrid each year thereafter. The reason taxis are an ideal fit for hybrid technology is that they spend much time idling in traffic and while waiting to load passengers. Hybrid cars, which pair a conventional gas engine with an electric motor, essentially shut down when they are idling, minimizing emissions significantly. New York’s plan, once fully realized, is expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions of the city’s taxi fleet by over 215,000 tons yearly.
And even though cabbies will have to pay a premium to replace their existing vehicles with hybrids, most are behind the move, as it will save them about $10,000 yearly in fuel costs alone. According to The New York Times, 90 percent of the city’s cab fleet is now made up of Ford Crown Victorias, which get only 10-15 miles per gallon (mpg) in city traffic. Ford’s own Escape hybrid would improve that to 34 mpg.
“I have been wanting to drive a hybrid taxi for years now,” says Kwame Corsi, a cabbie from the Bronx. “Once this law allows us to drive hybrids, our gas mileage will skyrocket and our expenses will plummet. We pollute less and make more money—who can argue against that?” New York cabbies now ready to take the plunge can choose from any one of six different hybrid models, including the Ford Escape, Toyota’s Prius and Highlander, the Lexus RX 400H, and Honda’s Accord and Civic.
New York is not the first to go hybrid with its cab fleet. San Francisco took the plunge in 2005 when 40 Ford Escape hybrid taxis hit the streets there. San Francisco is also home to 140 Ford Crown Victoria cabs retrofitted to run on cleaner-burning compressed natural gas (CNG), which has been shown to reduce ozone-forming emissions by 80 percent as compared to traditional gasoline. The city’s goal is to have half its taxi fleet—some 600 vehicles—powered by cleaner-energy sources (either hybrids or CNG) by 2008.
And Chicago’s Carriage Cab Company just welcomed its first hybrid, also a Ford Escape. It is joined in the city by just one other hybrid, that of an independent operator who began taking fares in June in his Toyota Prius. Chicago has ordered taxi firms with over 50 cabs to add at least one hybrid to their fleets. The cities of Denver, Colorado and Boston, Massachusetts are also looking to make the transition.
And while hybrid taxis may be all the rage in San Francisco and New York now, such vehicles have been plying the streets of Vancouver, British Columbia since 2000, when cabbie Andrew Grant first started offering taxi rides in his Toyota Prius there. Today about a third of all the taxis in Vancouver are hybrids and local lawmakers recently announced that the city would approve only eco-friendly vehicles when handling applications for new taxi companies or additions to existing fleets.
CONTACTS: Andrew Grant’s “Hybrid Taxi Driver” Blog, http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/taxi; New York City’s Taxi & Limousine Commission, www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/home/home.shtml.

Dear EarthTalk: How do I learn how to build an all-around “eco-home?” My wife and I have some land in Delaware and would like to build a state-of-the-art green home on the site. -- Zachary Jahnigen, Frankford, DE
There are many ideas as to what constitutes an “eco-home,” depending upon how pure one wants to be. But certain common elements—such as energy efficiency, responsible materials sourcing and minimal landscape disruption—must be in place to meet most environmentalists’ criteria. And with technologies improving and prices coming down, eco-homes are no longer the domain of the wealthy, as even a modest building can incorporate green features.
According to the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), a non-profit network of practitioners of environmentally friendly construction, a green home “uses less energy, water and natural resources; creates less waste; and is healthier and more comfortable for the occupants.” The organization is continuously updating its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) guidelines, which help realtors, developers, architects and builders create high performance green buildings of every stripe.
USGBC recently launched a special set of benchmarks—LEED for Homes—devoted specifically to the design and construction of residential buildings. Builders or owners can evaluate every step of the home design and construction process according to standards set forth under these guidelines, which aim for sustainably sourced materials, lower energy and water usage, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and less exposure to mold and other indoor toxins. USGBC research indicates that the net cost of owning a LEED home is comparable to that of owning a conventional home. Since LEED for Homes was launched in 2005, more than 375 builders representing 6,000 homes across the U.S. have built according to its standards.
Other organizations also weigh-in on what constitutes an “eco-home.” Juliet Cuming, of the Vermont-based nonprofit Earth Sweet Home Institute, lays out several criteria that anyone can use when planning the design and construction of an environmentally-friendly home: Does the home plan reduce energy and resources? Does it re-use existing resources? Are materials used recyclable or biodegradable once no longer usable? Is the home healthy to producers and occupants and also to the installers of the materials? Is the plan affordable and available? Will the resulting home be durable?
“The ideal eco-home would be built in a place where it will have as little negative impact as possible on the plants, wildlife and humans in the area,” says Cuming. “The home will be sited and designed to take advantage of shade in the summer and sun in the winter.” She adds that a true eco-home should be crafted out of materials derived from local sources.
Those looking to learn more about eco-homes have lots of information to wade through online and in print. A good place to start is Environmental Building News, a monthly newsletter on green design and construction published by Building Green, Inc. It features comprehensive, practical information on a wide range of topics—from renewable energy and recycled materials to land-use planning and indoor air quality.
CONTACTS: LEED for Homes, www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=147; Earth Sweet Home Institute, www.earthsweethome.com; Environmental Building News; www.buildinggreen.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I’m moving in eight weeks and am trying to find some “green guidance” for making my relocation as eco-friendly as possible. Any tips? -- Holly, Elizabethtown, PA
Moving may be inherently unfriendly to the environment given that carting stuff around means expending lots of fuel and emitting a lot of pollutants, but there are ways to “relocate responsibly.” For starters, the less stuff we accumulate in the first place the less we have to pick up and move elsewhere—so fighting the pack-rat urge and minimizing trips to shopping malls in the first place are good prerequisites.
Beyond what may already be too late to undo, though, one can lessen their environmental footprint when moving by first giving away or selling any non-essential items. Neighborhood yard sales and giveaways are one way to go, while websites like Ebay, Craig’s List and Freecycle provide virtual ways to unload unwanted stuff. Books can be donated to local libraries, and most schools will be happy to make use of old computers. And Goodwill and other charities will gladly take old clothes for resale in thrift outlets.
While all that’s going on, the environmentally-conscious mover would also want to be hoarding bubble wrap, cardboard boxes, padded envelopes and other packing materials instead of going out and buying them new. Many liquor, grocery, hardware and other retail stores are happy to give away large cardboard boxes they no longer need and would have to otherwise discard or recycle. Calling around first will save the headache and the emissions of driving around to individual stores one-by-one to ask them.
As to the move itself, if you’re fortunate enough to be relocating within Orange County, Los Angeles one green option is to rent “RecoPack” moving boxes from Earth Friendly Moving. The company, which has plans to expand nationwide over the next five years, provides five different stackable sizes of durable moving cartons made from recycled plastic bottles. The rental cost is just a dollar per box per week—and the company’s biodiesel-powered trucks will drop-off and pick-up the boxes before and after the move.
Not in southern California? Rent-a-Crate, which has 13 U.S. locations coast to coast, also rents re-usable (though not recycled) plastic moving crates that they’ll deliver to and pick up from any location. The company works extensively in the office relocation business, too, and rents other reusable accessories such as dollies for rolling heavy crates and crates for delicate items like computers and even medical x-ray films.
And remember, there is more to moving green than just moving. Use only eco-friendly cleaning products when scrubbing down the old place. If you live in the Washington, DC or Baltimore, MD area, a crew from Green Clean will send a professional crew that uses only nontoxic, biodegradable cleaners. Otherwise, health food stores all carry green cleaners that you can use yourself or instruct the hired help to use.
A tip from the Care2 “Green Moving Guide”: File a temporary change of address with your post office rather than a permanent one to cut down on junk mail at the new place. The U.S. Postal Service sells lists of permanent address changes to direct marketers, but doesn’t bother doing so with temporary addresses.
CONTACTS: Rent-a-Crate, www.rentacrate.com, 800-427-2832; Earth Friendly Moving, www.earthfriendlymoving.com/recopack.php; Green Clean, www.greencleanUSA.org; Care2 Green Moving Guide, www.care2.com/greenliving/green-moving-guide.html.

Dear EarthTalk: How much pollution do motorcycles generate? Are there efforts to make them more eco-friendly? -- Matt Lackore, Rochester, MN
Motorcycles typically get about double the gas mileage of even the most fuel-efficient cars—but that doesn’t mean they are green. Despite getting 60-70 miles per gallon, motorcycles are not subject to the same rigorous emissions standards as cars and light duty trucks, even though they spew up to 15 times more pollution per mile, mostly in the form of smog-causing hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
Increasingly stringent regulations in Europe and the U.S. have forced automakers to make their engines cleaner, but motorcycle manufacturers have not been held to such high standards and have therefore been slow to implement similar advances. According to the European Commission, motorcycles—despite only accounting for about three percent of total traffic volume in Europe—are expected to generate as much as 14 percent of that continent’s total hydrocarbon emissions by 2010.
But there is light at the end of the tunnel, thanks in large part to the state of California, which in 2004 passed legislation to green up motorcycles sold and ridden in that state. California’s new standards dictate that hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions from motorcycles top out at only 0.8 grams per kilometer (g/km), down from 1975-set standards of between 5.0 and 14.0 g/km (depending on engine size).
And in 2005, the United Nations’ World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, which works internationally to set vehicle emissions standards, issued a new set of motorcycle emissions testing guidelines that will make it easier for manufacturers to design more green-friendly motorcycles.
In the wake of these developments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established new federal rules that require motorcycle makers to reduce their products’ emissions by 50 percent. In place since the beginning of the 2006 model year, these new rules are expected to cut combined hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions from motorcycles by about 54,000 tons a year, while also saving approximately 12 million gallons of fuel annually by preventing it from escaping from fuel hoses and fuel tanks.
Many manufacturers are rising to the challenge. Honda, already a world leader in the development of greener cars, is putting the finishing touches on its new “idling stop system” that cuts fuel consumption and exhaust emissions by turning off the engine instead of idling at stop lights and in traffic jams. And Intelligent Energy, a British company, is developing an Emissions Neutral Vehicle (ENV), a motorcycle powered by a detachable hydrogen-powered fuel cell. The vehicle can reach speeds topping 50 miles per hour while making virtually no noise, and can run for up to four hours without refueling. Bigger, faster and longer running versions of the ENV are currently in the works, and should become widely available in Europe, the U.S. and elsewhere within a few years.
CONTACTS: California’s “New Standards for On-Road Motorcycles,” www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/motcycle/onrdmc.htm; EPA’s Motorcycle Emissions Info, www.epa.gov/otaq/roadbike.htm; Honda Motorcycles, http://powersports.honda.com/the_story/environment; Intelligent Energy, www.intelligent-energy.com.

Dear EarthTalk: What is the status of Sea Turtle protection efforts? Don’t many of them die in fishnets and, as a result, are threatened with extinction? --Matthew Lieberman, Wellesley, MA
Given their tenuous existence, sea turtles are considered by many environmentalists as ambassadors for the world’s troubled oceans. They have graced the seas for more than 200 million years and survived whatever catastrophe befell the dinosaurs. But they are now facing a sharp decline in numbers around the world due mainly to human threats such as the alteration of beach nesting habitat, the harvesting of eggs for food, entanglement in fishing nets and pollution of ocean waters.
Found in all the warm ocean waters of the Earth, sea turtles generally remain at sea, returning to the surface for air and only coming ashore to lay eggs and nest. The five species of sea turtles found in and around North America are the leatherback, green turtle, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead.
Sea turtles are protected in and around U.S. waters under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which lists the hawksbill, leatherback, Kemp’s ridley and green turtle as “endangered,” while the loggerhead is listed as “threatened.” (A species is considered endangered when it is on the brink of extinction; if it is experiencing serious threats that may eventually lead to its extinction, but the situation is not yet critical, it is classified as threatened.) Harming, harassing, killing, importing, selling or transporting any sea turtle, hatchling or eggs is considered a violation of federal law punishable by a stiff fine and jail time.
Outside the U.S., many other countries have similar laws designed to protect the world’s remaining and beloved sea turtles. And the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), an international agreement signed by 169 countries and designed to prevent the trade in endangered wild animals and their parts, also protects sea turtles. But such measures often look much better on paper; enforcement efforts are often inadequate and as a result sea turtle populations continue to plummet.
According to the Florida-based Caribbean Conservation Corporation (also known as the Sea Turtle Survival League), present goals for protecting sea turtles include: cracking down on the illegal international trade in turtles and turtle products; forcing fishing boats to use “turtle excluder devices” in their nets to decrease turtle deaths; establishing more coastal refuges to keep development from encroaching on turtle nesting beaches; decreasing artificial light near nesting beaches (light scares turtles away); enforcing laws to minimize the dumping of pollutants and solid waste into the ocean and near-shore waters; and stepping up turtle monitoring activities so conservation efforts can stay focused where they are most needed.
Individuals can do their part by steering clear of sea turtles when they are laying eggs on beaches, making sure to never remove or handle a turtle egg in any way, and keeping house lights (and even flashlights and camera flashes) off at night on or near nesting beaches. Concerned persons can also help by joining and supporting organizations working to protect sea turtles, such as the Caribbean Conservation Corporation, the Sea Turtle Restoration Project and the National Save the Sea Turtle Foundation.
CONTACTS: Caribbean Conservation Corporation’s “Information on Sea Turtles and Threats to Their Survival,” www.cccturtle.org/sea-turtle-information.php; Sea Turtle Restoration Project, www.seaturtles.org; National Save the Sea Turtle Foundation, www.savetheseaturtle.org.

Dear EarthTalk: Why do some people complain about fluoride in drinking water and toothpaste? I thought it was beneficial for dental health? -- Becky Johnston, Shoreline, WA
Communities began adding fluoride to water supplies in the early 1940s after decades of studies into why some Colorado residents were exhibiting a discoloration or “mottling” of the teeth but at the same time very low rates of actual decay. The culprit turned out to be high concentrations of a naturally-occurring fluoride that was running off into the water from Pike’s Peak after rainfalls. Research later concluded that adding small, controlled amounts of fluoride into public water supplies would act as a form of community-wide cavity prevention without causing the undesirable mottling known at the time as “Colorado stain.”
Today, supporters of fluoridation cite research from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control showing that the very inexpensive fluoridation of drinking water has since correlated to significant reductions in incidences of tooth decay (15-40 percent) in communities across the country. But skeptics worry we may be getting too much of a good thing. While small amounts of fluoride will prevent tooth decay, excessive amounts can lead not only to irreversible tooth discoloration (today called “fluorosis”) but also to other health issues, including an increased risk of bone breakage and osteoporosis.
The problem, says Fluoride Action Network (FAN), which is opposed to fluoridation, is that the very water supplies that are treated for dental purposes are also used in the making of many common food products—from baby formula and cereal to juices, sodas, wines, beers and even fresh produce. And with most toothpastes also adding fluoride, many people are ingesting far more fluoride than they should.
The main concern for most people is the discoloration of children’s second teeth once the baby teeth are gone. Besides being embarrassing, there is no cure. And some doctors worry that excessive fluoride may actually be promoting tooth decay rather than preventing it—and harming kids in other ways, particularly as they get older. FAN cites studies showing how low-to-moderate doses of fluoride can lead to eczema, reduced thyroid activity, hyperactivity, IQ deficits, premature puberty and even bone cancer.
On the other side of the debate, concerns have risen that our increased reliance on non-fluoridated bottled water instead of tap water may be leading to increases in tooth decay (some bottled waters have added fluoride). However, speaking in a May 2002 UPI Science News article, John W. Stamm, dean of the School of Dentistry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a spokesperson for the American Dental Association, said, “It’s very important to realize that there are many sources for body fluids…The fact that one may be consuming variable amounts of bottled water seems to me to be insufficient reason to be concerned about a fluoride deficient diet.”
Avoiding fluoride is difficult for those whose local water is fluoridated. And the only filters that can strain fluoride out of water are expensive ones that employ reverse osmosis, activated alumina or distillation. Switching to unfluoridated toothpaste—many varieties are available from natural health retailers—is one way to cut down on fluoride intake, especially for those who swallow toothpaste when they are brushing.
CONTACTS: Centers for Disease Control, www.cdc.gov/oralhealth; Fluoride Action Network, www.fluoridealert.org.

Dear EarthTalk: Are mothballs safe to use? If not, are there any environmentally friendly alternatives? -- Anna Wiener, Dearborn, Michigan
Even though they are not as popular as they once were, mothballs are still used by many people to keep stored clothes, furniture and carpets free of hungry pests like moths. But the very ingredients that make mothballs so effective as household pesticides—namely naphthalene or paradichlorobenzene (PDB)—also make them dangerous to any person or animal who breathes the fumes or ingests them directly. Such chemicals are often listed as primary offenders when household air is tested for indoor air pollution.
Exposure to naphthalene or PDB can induce relatively minor human health problems such as nausea, vomiting, headache, coughing, burning eyes and shortness of breath. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer considers both naphthalene and PDB to be hazardous carcinogens as well. These chemicals, which are also found in some dry cleaning agents as well as household air fresheners and solid toilet-bowl deodorizers, have been found to nearly double the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma—a cancer of the blood—for those who come into frequent contact with them.
So what’s a conscientious homemaker to do? For starters, removing all mothballs and their flakes from the home is a good first step. Experts suggest donning gloves and even perhaps a mask before manually removing intact mothballs. Affected clothing can be machine-washed and dried several times, preferably on high heat settings. If the smell of mothballs continues to linger, any such clothes can be ironed—also with high heat settings, which tend to break down the active chemicals quicker. Sunlight also breaks down naphthalene and PDB, so leaving any affected items outside on hot sunny days may also help.
Carpets and upholstery co-mingled with mothballs should be vacuumed thoroughly, with vacuum cleaner bags containing mothball traces emptied immediately outdoors. If the mothball smell lingers after vacuuming, a professional cleaning might do the trick, although such services can introduce other harmful chemicals, such as the carcinogen perchloroethylene, into the household as well. (ChemDry and Zoots both offer in-home carpet and upholstery cleaning services that do not rely on harmful chemicals.) After any kind of mothball removal effort, the cleaned house or closet should be aired out, ideally with one or more fans blowing as much fresh outdoor air through as possible.
As to alternatives for keeping moths and other critters away from clothes and other valuable fabrics, Care2.com’s green home guru and author Annie Berthold-Bond suggests using home-made sachet pillows filled with a dried herb mixture combining two parts each of rosemary and mint, one part each of thyme and ginseng, and eight parts whole cloves. The herbs can be mixed and combined in the center of a bandana or handkerchief that is then tied with a ribbon and placed among the stored items. Also, Richards Housewares makes “Moth-Away Herbal Moth Repellant,” a pre-packaged product that makes use of a similar formula. It’s available from planetnatural.com and other online environmental product websites.
CONTACTS: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Napthalene page, www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/naphthal.html; PlanetNatural Moth-Away page, www.planetnatural.com/site/moth-away.html.

Dear EarthTalk: What is the population status of Africa’s large mammals, such as elephants, lions, rhinos, and hippos? Are they all headed for extinction? --Elias Corey, Seattle, WA
Overall, the variety and abundance of wildlife in Africa, as elsewhere around the world, is shrinking fast as human population grows and encroaches ever more on once wild and pristine landscapes. While illegal hunting (known in Africa as “poaching”) still runs rampant despite government crackdowns, the spread of logging and agriculture contributes even more to the decline of many species of large mammals.
The population of the continent’s biggest mammal, the African elephant, has declined by more than 99 percent since the 1930s, when as many as 10 million of the great creatures roamed free there. At last count, biologists estimated that only about 600,000 elephants are left in all of Africa.
Elephant populations are thriving in areas of southern Africa, thanks to massive government conservation efforts, including a ban on the ivory trade as part of the 144-nation strong Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which limits trade in wild animals and their parts and accords varying degrees of protection to more than 33,000 species of plants and wildlife.
Africa’s hippopotamus population is also suffering, partly because of the very ban on ivory. Bullied out of the ivory trade, many African poachers have turned to hippo teeth, which measure as long as 24 inches and have become a valuable substitute for ivory. A 2003 census of the hippos of Virunga National Park in the African Republic of Congo, for example, found only 1,300 animals, down from an estimated 29,000 in a previous count three decades earlier. In neighboring Burundi, another recent census found that two thirds of that country’s hippo population—some 200 animals—had disappeared in just a five-year period.
As for rhinos, only 10,000 individuals exist around the world, down 85 percent since just 1970. Poaching has been the main culprit in the decimation of these animals, with a single pair of black rhino horns—coveted by Arabs in oil-rich Yemen who collect them as symbols of wealth and status—fetching as much as $50,000 on the black market. Of the two rhino species in Africa, the white rhino is faring slightly better and has rebounded from near extinction but isn’t quite in the clear yet. The black rhino, down to only about 2,500 animals, is still considered critically endangered, however. Where it once roamed across the entire African continent, the black rhino is barely hanging on in just a few East African countries.
Lions may be faring a little better, but not much. The nonprofit African Wildlife Foundation reports that the continent’s lion population has fallen off by half since the early 1950s when an estimated 40,000 “kings of the jungle” ruled. Besides contending with habitat loss to ever expanding human settlement, Africa’s lions have also had to deal with hunting and poisoning by livestock ranchers.
Although limited conservation efforts within Africa and internationally are helping some of these species remain barely viable, fighting extinction is an uphill battle, especially when expanding human population and sputtering economies force people to occupy previously wild lands and generate income by any means necessary. Individuals can help by donating money and time to organizations committed to saving these magnificent animals. With the extinction clock ticking fast, there’s no time to waste.
CONTACTS: African Wildlife Foundation, www.awf.org; Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), www.cites.org

Dear EarthTalk: Is there any proof linking human breast cancer to exposure to chemicals in the environment? Or do researchers think most cases of breast cancers are genetically inherited? -- Bettine Carroll, New York, NY
A groundbreaking research study coordinated by the non-profit Silent Spring Institute and recently published by the American Cancer Society found that synthetic chemicals have likely played a large role in the rising incidence of breast cancer throughout the world over the last half-century. The study identified 216 man-made chemicals—including those found in everyday products like pesticides, cosmetics, dyes, drugs and gasoline (and diesel exhaust)—that have been shown to cause breast cancer in animals. Researchers believe these substances, many of which “mimic” naturally occurring hormones once inside the body, are also to blame for the increasing prevalence of human breast cancer.
According to epidemiologist Devra Lee Davis of the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health and one of the lead researchers on the new study, the more hormones cycling through a woman’s body during her lifetime, the more likely she is to develop breast cancer. Synthetic chemicals that mimic hormones magnify the risk, as the body doesn’t know the difference between its own real hormones and other introduced chemicals. Only one in 10 women who develop breast cancer inherits a defective gene from their parents, Davis adds, meaning that in 90 percent of breast cancer cases studied, external non-genetic agents (e.g. synthetic chemicals) contributed to the development of the cancer.
Another telling clue is the fact that the breast cancer risk of adopted children parallels the risk of the family they grew up in, not that of their biological family, as proven by analyzing medical records from Scandinavian countries that keep detailed registries following people from birth to death. “What we understand is that if cancer runs in your family it could be because your family had similar eating patterns, similar lifestyle patterns as well as lived in the same area,” says Davis. “It’s really important that we take another look at…the kinds of chemicals that we are using everyday,” she adds. “We think that there are alternatives that can be used.”
The U.S. government has been reluctant to institute new restrictions on the production of highly profitable synthetic chemicals, but European regulators are taking the issue very seriously. The European Commission’s new Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Program calls on chemical manufacturers selling anywhere in Europe to re-register and re-evaluate the potential health hazards—including cancer risks—of their products. Environmental and public health advocates hope that American chemical companies will follow that lead with chemicals sold here.
In the meantime, consumers can help prevent cancer by buying and eating organic foods, avoiding pesticides and other synthetic chemicals whenever possible, using non-plastic containers to reheat and store foods (some plastics are thoughts to leach cancer-causing chemicals into food when heated), and supporting government regulation and more research on synthetic chemicals and their effects.
CONTACTS: Silent Spring Institute, www.silentspring.org; European Commission’s REACH Program, ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm.

Dear EarthTalk: I heard a reference to “The Magazine Paper Project.” What are they trying to accomplish?-- Phil Z., Stamford, CT
A project of the nonprofit consumer group Co-Op America, the Printing Alternatives Promoting Environmental Responsibility (PAPER) Project educates magazine publishers about the benefits of recycled papers and helps them make the switch from less green paper choices. By participating in the project, publications can both reduce their industry’s impact on the environment and, by promoting their involvement in the organization, look good in the eyes of readers.
Thus far the project has helped more than 100 magazines find sources for recycled paper or increase the environmental friendliness of the paper stocks they choose. This includes papers that avoid the use of chlorine-based brighteners, which are now widely acknowledged to be introducing highly toxic and cancer-causing dioxins into the environment.
The PAPER project was launched in 2001 by Co-Op America in conjunction with two other nonprofits, the Independent Press Association, a consortium of primarily small, independent magazine publishers, and Conservatree, a former paper distributor that turned to advocacy and consulting in order to help stem the tide of deforestation by the paper industry.
According to the Worldwatch Institute, 42 percent of the global industrial wood harvest goes to making paper. Nearly half of all trees harvested in North America go to making some kind of paper product, and the pulp and paper industry is also the largest consumer of water used in industrial activities in developed countries, and the third largest contributor of industrial greenhouse gases that cause global warming.
Some 12 billion magazines are printed each year, and only five percent contain recycled paper content. Further exacerbating the magazine industry’s impact on the environment is the fact that roughly half of all magazines placed for sale on newsstands and in bookstores do not get sold and are either discarded or recycled. (And, of course, even magazines that do sell are ultimately discarded or recycled.)
In 2004, the PAPER project conducted a workshop and produced a guide for publishers as part of an annual magazine industry conference hosted by Folio: magazine. Several magazines reportedly switched to recycled paper stock as a result. The following year, project coordinators worked in conjunction with Folio: and natural cosmetics company Aveda in pioneering the first environmental award recognizing magazine publishers for their environmental commitments. Nine different publications, including large circulation titles like Natural Health, Mother Jones, Shape and Mother Earth News have been recognized by the award since its inception two years ago.
Magazine consumers can do their part by asking the publishers of their favorite titles to consider switching over to recycled and/or chlorine-free paper stock and taking a look at the resources offered by the PAPER project to ease the transition if they haven’t already done so.
CONTACTS: Magazine PAPER Project, www.coopamerica.org/programs/woodwise/publishers; Conservatree, www.conservatree.com; Independent Press Association, www.indypress.org.

Dear EarthTalk: How is it that the Bush Administration is said to have “censored” climate scientists? -- Anna Edelman, Seattle, WA
Word of the White House censoring federal climate scientists on global warming began leaking out to the press early in George W. Bush’s first term in office, but only in the last few years have a few federal employees themselves been willing to go on record with such accusations.
A report released last January by two leading nonprofits, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Government Accountability Project (GAP), found that nearly half of 279 federal climate scientists who responded to a survey reported being pressured to delete references to “global warming” or “climate change” from scientific papers or reports, while many said they were prevented from talking to the media or had their work on the topic edited.
“The new evidence shows that political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic,” says UCS’s Francesca Grifo. “Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies.”
The issue first bubbled to the surface when Rick Piltz, who worked for a decade coordinating federal research on global warming as part of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program—first under President Clinton and then Bush—quit in mid-2005 alleging that his superiors were misusing and abusing the scientific information he was providing.
Piltz told reporters that Phil Cooney, an official with the President’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) who worked for an oil industry trade group before coming to the White House, had been editing and altering documents published by the program. “The changes created a greater sense of scientific uncertainty about observed climate change and potential climate change,” said Piltz. Soon after Piltz’s accusations became known, Cooney left CEQ to work for ExxonMobil, which has itself been accused of publicly misrepresenting the science of global warming.
Just when the brouhaha stirred up by Piltz appeared to be dying down, National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) climate scientist James Hansen, who has been sounding alarms about global warming since the 1980s, rekindled the debate by telling reporters that NASA public affairs staff, under pressure from the Bush administration, were trying to censor his lectures, papers and website postings and keep him away from journalists. In response, NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin vowed to support “scientific openness” on climate and other topics.
But openness is only a first step. Says Piltz: “Even if we succeed in lifting this heavy hand of censorship, there is still the problem of getting the political leadership to embrace the findings put forward by the scientists.”
CONTACTS: “Investigation Reveals Widespread Suppression of Federal Climate Research,” Union of Concerned Scientists, www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/investigation-reveals-0007.html; U.S. Climate Change Science Program, www.climatescience.gov.

Dear EarthTalk: Are my kids breathing in dangerous exhaust fumes by riding the school bus? -- Molly Schink, Winnetka, IL
Over 24 million children ride the bus to school every day and as a result are regularly exposed to harmful diesel exhaust emissions. Major components of diesel exhaust include carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, formaldehyde and tiny soot particles that carry substances called polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies diesel emissions as a “likely carcinogen.” Diesel emissions are estimated to be responsible for 70 percent of the cancer risk arising from air pollution, according to the California Air Resources Board. Dangers from diesel exhaust can range from respiratory illnesses including asthma and bronchitis to lung cancer and heart disease.
Children are more vulnerable to the effects of diesel exhaust than adults because they breathe more quickly and take more air into their developing lungs. And on average, school children who ride the bus spend an average of 90 minutes each weekday in transit.
The EPA estimates that approximately 390,000 diesel school buses are on the road in the U.S. today. A third of these were made before 1990 when stricter emissions guidelines were first enforced. According to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a child riding inside a school bus may be exposed to as much as four times the amount of toxic diesel fumes as someone riding in a car directly ahead of it.
Recently, the EPA pledged more than $1 million to a partnership called the Northeast Diesel Collaborative, which is comprised of eight different public and private entities working together to improve emissions on thousands of school buses throughout the northeastern U.S. Recipient groups are using the money primarily to reduce emissions on older buses by installing advanced pollution controls.
Retrofitting old buses with such controls involves installing emissions reducing filters. Diesel particulate filters, which cost around $700 each, can cut tailpipe emissions by a whopping 85 percent. And “closed crankcase filtration systems,” which are installed under the hood and filter the discharges that come directly from the engine’s crankcase vent, can cut engine soot by nearly 90 percent at a cost of around $7,500 each. Buses can be retrofitted with one or both filters.
Nationwide a number of school bus emission-reduction programs are underway with the help of the EPA’s Clean School Bus USA program. In addition to retrofit projects the program seeks to replace older buses with new less polluting buses and encourage unnecessary school bus idling.
Concerned parents can help reduce their children’s expose to diesel emissions from school buses by advocating at town and boards of education meetings for the use of new or retrofitted school buses. Also, bus windows should remain open when weather allows, and children are safer sitting nearer the front of the bus, as exhaust tends to accumulate in the back.
CONTACTS: EPA Clean School Bus USA, www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus; Northeast Diesel Collaborative, www.northeastdiesel.org; NRDC, www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/qbus.asp.

Dear EarthTalk: What is “light pollution?” Is it really a factor in breast cancer? -- Gudrun Smythe, Madison, Wisconsin
The glow of city lights blotting out stars in the night sky has frustrated many a stargazer, but recent studies have shown that “light pollution”--defined as excess or obtrusive light at night--can actually have serious health effects. Researchers have found that exposure to bright nocturnal light can decrease the human body’s production of melatonin, a hormone secreted at night that regulates our sleep-wake cycles. And decreased melatonin production has in turn been linked to higher rates of breast cancer in women.
“Light at night is now clearly a risk factor for breast cancer,” says David Blask, a researcher at the Cooperstown, New York-based Mary Imogene Bassett Research Institute. “Breast tumors are awake during the day, and melatonin puts them to sleep at night,” he adds.
Epidemiologist Richard Stevens of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory first discovered the link between breast cancer and light pollution in the late 1980s. Stevens found that breast cancer rates were significantly higher in industrialized countries, where nighttime lighting is prevalent, than in developing regions.
Lending credence to Stevens’ research are the findings of another researcher, William Hrushesky of the South Carolina-based Dorn Veterans Affairs Medical Center, who discovered that female night shift workers have a 50 percent greater risk of developing breast cancer than other working women. He also found that blind women have high melatonin concentrations and unusually low rates of breast cancer.
To reduce breast cancer risks from light pollution, Prevention magazine recommends nine hours of sleep nightly in a dark room devoid of both interior (computer screens) and exterior (street lamps) light sources. A study of 12,000 Finnish women found that those who slept nine hours nightly had less than one-third the risk of developing a breast tumor than those who slept only seven or eight hours. Even bright light from a trip to the bathroom can have an affect, so dim nightlights are recommended for night lighting.
Light pollution causes other problems besides increased cancer risks. According to the Sierra Club, birds and animals can be confused by artificial lighting, leading them away from familiar foraging areas and disrupting their breeding cycles. And the photosynthetic cycles of deciduous trees (those that shed their leaves in the fall) have been shown to be disrupted due to the preponderance of artificial nighttime lights.
Another environmental impact of excessive use of artificial light is, of course, energy waste. The International Dark-Sky Association computes that unnecessary nighttime lighting wastes upwards of $1.5 billion in electricity costs around the world each year while accounting for the release of more than 12 million tons of carbon dioxide, the leading greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere. Individuals can do their part by keeping lights dim or off at home at night—and convincing their employers and local government offices to do the same.
CONTACTS: International Dark-Sky Association, www.darksky.org; Sierra Club, http://newyork.sierraclub.org/longisland/lightpollution.html.

Dear EarthTalk: I know of issues associated with the Earth’s ozone layer, but what is “ground level ozone” and why is that a problem? -- D. Goetz, Palm Beach, FL
Ozone (O3) is a colorless gas formed when three atoms of oxygen bond together. About 90 percent of the Earth’s ozone forms naturally in the stratosphere, dozens of miles above ground. It forms the protective layer that shields us from overexposure to the sun’s radiation, and is therefore considered “good” ozone.
The rest of the ozone found on Earth occurs at ground level, and forms when nitrous oxides and various “volatile organic compounds’ (VOCs)—originating with car exhaust, industrial emissions, chemicals and gasoline vapors, as well as some natural sources—bond together in the presence of sunlight.
Ground level ozone, or “bad” ozone, is a key component of smog, which wreaks havoc on human health and the environment, especially in urban areas. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that exposure to even relatively low concentrations of ground-level ozone for extended periods (several hours) can significantly reduce lung function and cause respiratory inflammation in normal, healthy people. Symptoms can include chest pain, coughing, nausea and congestion. For people with asthma and other respiratory illnesses, exercising in ozone-rich air can be deadly. Repeated exposure to high levels of ozone for several months or more can produce permanent structural damage in the lungs.
Beyond its effects on our health, the EPA estimates that pollution from ground-level ozone is responsible for nearly $2 billion in agricultural crop yield losses in the U.S. alone each year. The pervasive gas has also been shown to damage forests in California and the eastern U.S. and to contribute to global warming.
Under the mandate of the Clean Air Act, the EPA is charged with monitoring and limiting the amount of ground-level ozone in urban areas, and issuing warnings when smog levels are above its standard of 0.12 parts per million. But new studies indicate that ground-level ozone causes adverse health effects at even lower concentrations. And, according to the EPA, even rural areas suffer increased ozone levels, because wind carries ozone and the pollutants that form it hundreds of miles away from their original sources. As a result, the EPA is reviewing whether revisions to ozone standards and policies are warranted.
High concentrations of ground-level ozone are not as common in Canada, but three urban regions—British Columbia’s Lower Fraser Valley, the Windsor-Québec City Corridor and the Southern Atlantic Region that includes New Brunswick and Nova Scotia—do suffer several “bad air days” each year. The Canadian government, through its own Clean Air Act, has even stricter standards for exposure to ground-level ozone than in the U.S., though enforcement is not as big a priority given the smaller scope of the problem there.
To help minimize ground-level ozone, avoid car trips and the use of power lawn equipment during especially hot or windless days. Paints and solvents, most which off-gas VOCs that create ozone and form smog, are also best to steer clear of with hot summer temperatures coming on strong. Those concerned about their respiratory health should follow local weather sources, most which post smog alerts.
CONTACTS: U.S. EPA Ground-Level Ozone Information, www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution; Canada’s Clean Air Act, www.ec.gc.ca/cleanair-airpur/Home-WS8C3F7D55-1_En.htm.

Dear EarthTalk: Are there organizations that specifically address the environmental challenges faced by poor and minority communities? -- Bill Macomber, Ann Arbor, MI
When sociologist Robert Bullard began uncovering the proximity of hazardous waste sites to minority neighborhoods across the American South during the course of his graduate research in the 1980s, the “environmental justice” movement was born. In the intervening two decades, environmental and human rights advocates around the U.S. and the world have launched thousands of nonprofit community groups to battle so-called “environmental racism”—whereby otherwise distressed and poor minority communities are disproportionately exposed to the brunt of industrial pollution in their own backyards.
Environmental justice is fundamentally a local issue, but several national groups have devoted considerable resources to righting wrongs and helping communities defend their rights to clean air and water. Perhaps the best known is the Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ), founded by Lois Gibbs, the mom-turned-activist who in the early 1980s got authorities to shut down and remediate the Love Canal district of Niagara, New York, where buried industrial waste was causing serious health problems. CHEJ has since fought alongside thousands of communities to get toxic sites cleaned up and obtain restitution.
In other ongoing efforts, Environmental Defense’s “Living Cities” program pairs teams of scientists, lawyers and economists with local groups working to resolve environmental health issues in minority population centers. And the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) conducts studies, produces reports and policy analyses and mounts campaigns and lawsuits on various environmental justice issues, with a recent focus on helping the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Another big player is the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit public interest law firm that has championed several high-profile environmental justice cases since it began as the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund in 1971. Protecting farm worker communities from dangerous pesticides is a current focus area.
Those with environmental justice issues needing attention can contact one of these groups or a regional one that can help size up potential toxic threats and provide assistance on what to do. The Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, the New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, the Environmental Law and Policy Center of the Midwest and the San Francisco Urban Institute are all great resources, as are Robert Bullard’s Environmental Justice Resource Center, based at Clark Atlanta University, and the Environmental Research Foundation, located in New Jersey.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has also begun to take these issues seriously and in 1992 created its Office of Environmental Justice to integrate environmental justice into EPA policies and programs. Community groups can apply for EPA grants, and an EPA internship program places students directly into communities to assist local groups in addressing local environmental and public health issues.
CONTACTS: CHEJ, www.chej.org; Earthjustice, www.earthjustice.org; Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice, www.sneej.org; San Francisco Urban Institute, www.sfsu.edu/~urbins/; Environmental Law and Policy Center, www.elpc.org; New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, www.cobbmedia.com/garden; Environmental Justice Resource Center, www.ejrc.cau.edu; Environmental Research Foundation, www.rachel.org.

Dear EarthTalk: Are we making progress in cleaning up America’s rivers? -- Maria B., via e-mail
When the Cuyahoga River caught fire in downtown Cleveland in June of 1969, a nation already becoming more aware of environmental problems took note. Across the country, people were fed up with bans on swimming and fishing due to growing pollution levels. And rampant logging was clogging many a remote river system with soil and debris, making them uninhabitable by the fish that had evolved there for eons.
In 1972, in response to such concerns, Congress passed the landmark Clean Water Act, which regulates the discharge of pollution into America’s waterways. This important law has worked well to curtail pollution and keep development in check, but it does little to restore already damaged river ecosystems.
Luckily, a large array of local governments, nonprofit organizations and ad hoc citizen groups has risen to the challenge, making the United States the world’s nexus for river restoration work. The National River Restoration Science Synthesis Project, a 2005 survey conducted by leading river scientists, identified 37,000 different river restoration projects either completed or underway across the U.S.
According to the survey, American taxpayers and foundations have invested nearly $15 billion in U.S. river restoration projects—or about $1 billion yearly—since 1990. Projects include: reforesting riverbanks to curb erosion; recreating natural river channels to reduce downstream flooding; removing dams to allow fish to migrate more freely; and restoring wetlands to better do their jobs at naturally filtering pollution.
Some specific high profile examples include Native Americans and farmers working together to bring wild salmon back to Oregon’s Umatilla River, and the creation of natural habitat and buffer zones along Texas’ San Antonio River. And General Electric finally complied with state and federal mandates to begin removal of the PCBs they had dumped in New York’s Hudson River for years.
“It’s no mystery why river restoration is booming,” says Andrew Fahlund of the nonprofit American Rivers, a leading rivers advocacy group. “Rivers in good condition more readily meet the needs of the surrounding community than polluted and degraded rivers.”
A new House budget resolution calls for increased spending on programs to reduce the amount of raw sewage going into American streams and to better manage the nation’s 168 designated “wild and scenic” rivers. The resolution also calls for allocating funds for removing obsolete dams that could rupture and threaten nearby communities with potentially catastrophic flash floods.
Despite the positive trends, not all rivers are doing well. American Rivers’ annual list of “America’s Most Endangered Rivers” highlights river ecosystems across the U.S. that are still in disrepair or under threat. Those on the 2007 list include New Mexico’s Santa Fe, New York’s Upper Delaware, Washington’s White Salmon, Texas’s Neches, Wisconsin’s Kinnickinnic, North Carolina’s Neuse, Alaska’s Chuitna, Iowa’s namesake Iowa River, Arkansas and Oklahoma’s Lee Creek, and California’s San Mateo Creek.
CONTACTS: The National River Restoration Science Synthesis Project, nrrss.nbii.gov; American Rivers, www.americanrivers.org.

Dear EarthTalk: Did Exxon/Mobil really pay scientists and economists to write articles trying to de-bunk global warming? -- Rosemary R., via e-mail
A February 2007 report in the British newspaper, The Guardian, fell like a ton of bricks on efforts by ExxonMobil, the world’s largest and most profitable oil company, to repair its damaged environmental reputation. According to the report, the Exxon-financed American Enterprise Institute (AEI), a conservative Washington, D.C. “think tank,” offered scientists and economists $10,000 each, plus expenses, to write articles undercutting the dire findings of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about the extent and impacts of human-caused global warming.
The ties between ExxonMobil, AEI and the highest levels of government go way back. AEI has received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil over the years, and more than 20 of its staffers have worked as consultants for the Bush administration. Former Exxon head Lee Raymond is still an AEI board member.
A month before the Guardian report, the Boston-based Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released its own report documenting ExxonMobil’s $16 million in donations since 1998 to 43 organizations working to discredit the science of human-induced climate change. UCS joins a growing chorus of voices asking the company to turn the corner on global warming and start embracing a transition away from fossil fuels.
“ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer,” says Alden Meyer, UCS’s Director of Strategy & Policy. “A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years.”
In September 2006, Britain’s leading scientific academy, the Royal Society, asked the company to stop supporting groups that “misrepresented the science of climate change.” In response, ExxonMobil said that it funded groups that research “significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company” but that such groups do not speak for the company.
No doubt feeling some heat, ExxonMobil issued a statement recently in response to an IPCC update: “There is increasing evidence that the Earth’s climate has warmed on average about 0.6 C in the last century. Many global ecosystems, especially the polar areas, are showing signs of warming. CO2 emissions have increased during this same time period—and emissions from fossil fuels and land use changes are one source of these emissions.” The statement also acknowledged that “the risks to society and ecosystems could prove to be significant…it is prudent now to develop and implement strategies that address the risks…”
Whether the company is really ready to aggressively develop alternative energy sources—like its competitors Shell and BP—is yet to be seen. But environmental leaders share a guarded optimism that the tide is turning in their favor and that ExxonMobil will back up its words with action—eventually.
CONTACTS: The Guardian, www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html; UCS Report, www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html; ExxonMobil, www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/Citizenship/Corp_citizenship_enviro_policy.asp.

Dear EarthTalk: What’s the deal with rBGH, the hormone given to cows that makes them produce more milk? Why do some groups want it banned? -- David Gray, via e-mail
Cows naturally produce bovine somatotropin (BST) in their pituitary glands, and traces are secreted by the animals when they are milked. More popularly known as BGH, or bovine growth hormone, BST interacts with other hormones in cows’ bodies to control the amount of milk they produce.
In order to increase milk production, scientists working for Monsanto spent years in the lab developing a genetically-engineered synthetic version of the hormone called rBGH, or recombinant bovine growth hormone. Monsanto obtained approval to market rBGH (known by the trade name Posilac) from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993 and began offering it to interested farmers. Today, about a third of American dairy cows are injected with rBGH, which boosts milk production by about 10 percent.
But the use of rBGH is controversial, due to potential health hazards to both cows and humans. According to the Center for Food Safety (and supported by a 2003 study published in the Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research), cows treated with rBGH suffer a 50 percent greater incidence of lameness (leg and hoof problems), 25 percent more udder infections (mastitis), and serious reproductive problems including infertility, cystic ovaries, fetal loss and birth defects.
Such animal health issues can sometimes translate into human ones, as antibiotics used to fight infection can find their way into milk, affecting our disease-resistance. Also, animals given rBGH produce more insulin growth factor-1 (IGF-1). Studies, says the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), have linked high levels of IGF-1 in humans who consume rBGH milk with breast, prostate, colon and other cancers. This suggests that our natural defenses against early cancerous cells may be blocked by IGF-1.
Controversy also surrounds the fact that there are no labeling requirements in the U.S. for rBGH. In February 2007, OCA, along with the Cancer Prevention Coalition and the Family Farm Defenders, filed a joint petition asking the FDA to require cancer risk warning labels on all U.S. milk produced with rBGH. They also asked the FDA to suspend rBGH approval due to “imminent hazard.” Analysts doubt the FDA will take the request seriously, despite not knowing what problems with rBGH might arise down the road.
Monsanto maintains that humans digest so little of the hormone that it has no direct effect on our health. The World Health Organization, the FDA and numerous medical associations concur that milk from rBGH treated cows is safe for human consumption. However, many remain wary and, as a result, several nations have banned rBGH, including all 25 European Union nations, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
In the U.S., despite lack of federal concern, consumer pressure has led many companies to discontinue the use of rBGH. In January 2007 Safeway announced it would go rBGH-free at both its Portland (OR) and Seattle plants. Others following suit include Starbucks, Ben and Jerry’s and Chipotle Mexican Grills.
CONTACTS: Center for Food Safety, www.centerforfoodsafety.org; Cancer Prevention Coalition, www.preventcancer.com; Organic Consumers Association, www.organicconsumers.org; Family Farm Defenders, www.familyfarmdefenders.org.

Dear EarthTalk: Are there any major efforts underway to interest and involve high school and college students in environmental issues? -- Beth Marin, via e-mail
When a handful of concerned undergrads at the University of North Carolina advertised in the Greenpeace newsletter in 1988 for other student environmentalists to connect with, they weren’t sure what kind of response to expect. But within weeks they were deluged with mail, and so they decided to launch the first national network of green college and high school students, the Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC).
Today SEAC is made up of over 1,000 student groups at colleges, high schools and middle schools throughout the U.S. and Canada. And since its founding, the group has tallied a number of success stories, including: helping prevent construction of the Hydro Quebec II dam in Canada that would have flooded and destroyed the indigenous Cree Nation’s homeland; starting recycling programs at 200 colleges and high schools; persuading office supply giant Staples to phase out virgin papers and to offer more recycled options; and supporting a successful ballot initiative that helped clean up Florida’s pig farming business.
Another big player on the student green scene is the Sierra Student Coalition (SSC), the young arm of the Sierra Club. SSC conducts national campaigns in which each chapter participates, supported by a small staff at the Sierra Club’s Washington, D.C. office. SSC’s network of 250 high school and college groups also undertakes local efforts to educate both students and the larger public about the issues. And they provide seminars that teach students how to organize campaigns and lobby Congress. SSC’s major effort right now is the Campus Climate Challenge, taking place at more than 530 colleges where students are pressing campuses to be “models of sustainability” in their transportation, building and energy policies.
There are also organizations that emphasize direct service. The Student Conservation Association (SCA) boasts some 3,000 current members (and 50,000 alumni) in four countries. Calling itself “conservation in action,” SCA gets students’ hands dirty on a variety of restoration projects that connect participants to the land and provide valuable lessons in the process, hoping that students will be inspired to go on and protect the environment throughout their lives. Founded in 1957, SCA is celebrating its 50th anniversary in 2007.
Another approach to student environmental activism is provided by Youth for Environmental Sanity (YES!). Since its founding in 1990 by two teens, YES! leaders have traveled the world conducting week-long student gatherings called “Jams,” in which groups of about 30 convene to discuss environmental problems and ways to get involved. YES! Jams have involved some 650,000 students in 65 countries, and YES! says that its alumni have gone on to start more than 400 nonprofits working for positive change.
Student Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGS) are also a growing entity on campuses. Each focuses on environmental concerns as well as on other issues such as world hunger and increasing voter turnout among 18-24 year-olds. They give students resources and tools including guides on leadership, media and campaign organizing. PIRGs focus on giving students experience and education in democratic citizenship by giving them skills that allow them to voice their opinions in an effective manner.
CONTACTS: SSC, www.ssc.org; SEAC, www.seac.org; SCA, www.thesca.org; YES! www.yesworld.org; Student PIRGs, www.studentpirgs.org.

Dear EarthTalk: I see so much waste in packaging every day--from water in self-serve bottles to all the foil and cardboard you have to break through to get to a new print cartridge. What is being done to make packaging more “green friendly,” including cutting out as much of it as possible? -- Jeanne L., Canton, CT
Thanks to forward-thinking action by the European Union (EU), people around the world are beginning to recognize that wasteful packaging puts unnecessary stress on the environment. In 1994 the EU issued a “Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste,” putting the responsibility of waste reduction and reclamation on manufacturers instead of on retailers, consumers and local governments.
The program, popularly known as “Producer Pays” or “Extended Producer Responsibility,” requires product makers to either take back their packaging (consumers can leave it behind in the store or send it back in the mail at the producers’ expense), or pay a fee to an organization called “Green Dot” that will handle it for them. “Green Dot” is now the standard take-back program in two-dozen European countries.
According to Bette Fishbein of INFORM, Inc., a nonprofit environmental research organization based in the U.S., the concept has “spread like wildfire” and has been adopted by many industrialized nations—including Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Japan, Korea and Taiwan—but not yet by the United States, which could certainly benefit. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) annual generation of municipal solid waste in the U.S. increased from 88 million tons in 1960 to 229 million tons in 2001, with containers and packaging making up almost a third of the weight.
Maine has followed the European model and initiated its own “Producer Pays” program; the first in the U.S. Maine requires electronics makers to fund consolidation centers where used TV and computer monitors are sent. According to the state’s Department of Environmental Protection, “Maine’s electronic waste recycling law…is a national model, as it protects our environment, saves taxpayers money and puts costs where they belong to encourage safe design and recycling of electronic wastes.”
Some U.S. companies are also taking initiative. Microsoft worked with Packaging 2.0, a packaging solutions company that recycles used materials into new packaging, to develop an environmentally responsible and reusable package for its line of GPS consumer electronics products. And a number of other companies, including Unilever, Johnson & Johnson, Kraft Foods, Microsoft and Nike, have come together under the umbrella of the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, a project of the non-profit GreenBlue, and released a guide for designers and developers to assist them in designing sustainable packaging.
In February 2008 Wal-Mart will implement a “packaging scorecard” to measure and evaluate its entire supply chain. Goals include using less packaging and using more sustainable materials in packaging. According to Wal-Mart, the company is already beginning to make headway. “By reducing the packaging on one of our patio sets,” says the company website, “we were able to use 400 fewer shipping containers to deliver them. We created less trash, and saved our customers a bundle while doing it.”
CONTACTS: Green Dot, www.packaging-waste.com; INFORM, www.informinc.org; Sustainable Packaging Coalition, www.sustainablepackaging.org.

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve seen those images of polar bears stranded on small islands of ice and heard that some are now dying by drowning. How are other wildlife populations affected by global warming? -- Jessie Walters, via e-mail
Most researchers agree that even small changes in temperature are enough to send hundreds if not thousands of already struggling species into extinction unless we can stem the tide of global warming. And time may be of the essence: A 2003 study published in the journal Nature concluded that 80 percent of some 1,500 wildlife species sampled are already showing signs of stress from climate change.
The key impact of global warming on wildlife is habitat displacement, whereby ecosystems that animals have spent millions of years adapting to shift quickly. Ice giving way to water in polar bear habitat is just one example of this. Another, according to The Washington Post, is the possibility that warmer spring temperatures could dry up critical breeding habitat for waterfowl in the prairie pothole region, a stretch of land between northern Iowa and central Alberta.
Affected wildlife populations can sometimes move into new spaces and continue to thrive. But concurrent human population growth means that many land areas that might be suitable for such “refugee wildlife” are already taken and cluttered with residential and industrial development. A recent report by the Pew Center for Global Climate Change suggests creating “transitional habitats” or “corridors” that help migrating species by linking natural areas that are otherwise separated by human settlement.
Beyond habitat displacement, many scientists agree that global warming is causing a shift in the timing of various natural cyclical events in the lives of animals. Many birds have altered the timing of long-held migratory and reproductive routines to better sync up with a warming climate. And some hibernating animals are ending their slumbers earlier each year, perhaps due to warmer spring temperatures. To make matters worse, recent research contradicts the long-held hypothesis that different species coexisting in a particular ecosystem respond to global warming as a single entity. Instead, different species sharing like habitat are responding in dissimilar ways, tearing apart ecological communities millennia in the making.
And as wildlife species go their separate ways, humans can also feel the impact. A World Wildlife Fund study found that a northern exodus from the United States to Canada by some types of warblers led to a spread of mountain pine beetles that destroy economically productive balsam fir trees. Similarly, a northward migration of caterpillars in the Netherlands has eroded some forests there.
According to Defenders of Wildlife, some of the wildlife species hardest hit so far by global warming include caribou (reindeer), arctic foxes, toads, polar bears, penguins, gray wolves, tree swallows, painted turtles and salmon. The group fears that unless we take decisive steps to reverse global warming, more and more species will join the list of wildlife populations pushed to the brink of extinction by a changing climate.
CONTACTS: Pew Center for Global Climate Change, www.pewclimate.org; Defenders of Wildlife, www.defenders.org.

Dear EarthTalk: How can ordinary people convince corporations to behave more responsibly toward the environment? -- James B., Bridgeport, CT
Beyond the simple exercising of one’s own purchasing power, there are many actions consumers can take—and organizations and resources available to help—to pressure companies to green up their ways.
A good first step is to research the environmental records of companies involved in the industries that matter to you. The websites buyblue.org and alonovo.com evaluate companies according to various “green” criteria. And Co-Op America makes available online its Guide to Researching Corporations, which points to information on everything from corporate product safety records to animal testing policies to activities that impact everything from rainforests to the air quality in minority neighborhoods.
Co-Op America also works at the cutting edge of consumer activism, pushing companies into “doing well by doing good.” Its “Adopt-A-Supermarket” campaign uses the power of individuals to pressure grocery stores into carrying more “Fair Trade” items, products including coffee and chocolate made by companies that commit to sustainable environmental practices and guarantee workers fair wages. At Co-Op America’s website you can download a campaign guide that provides background on the issue and tips on how to form an “adoption team” of concerned citizens that makes regular visits to educate store managers.
Another effort, “Be Safe PVC,” conducted in partnership with the Center for Health, Environment and Justice, encourages major companies to phase out their use of the highly toxic plastic, polyvinyl chloride (PVC). They’ve already convinced Microsoft, Johnson & Johnson, Victoria’s Secret, and Bath and Body Works to phase out PVC in their packaging. Other Co-Op America successes include persuading Sempra Energy, the parent company of Southern California Gas and San Diego Gas & Electric, to abandon plans to build coal-fired power plants in Nevada and Idaho, and convincing the U.S. Postal Service to withdraw a proposal to deliver all residential mail in blue plastic bags, similar to those used for newspapers.
Another group, Ecopledge, recruits consumers to sign “pledges,” which demand specific improvements to companies’ environmental behavior and promise to cease doing business with the firms in question if they do not make efforts to green their practices. Armed with such pledges, Ecopledge has succeeded in convincing Dell and Apple to reduce the amount of e-waste they generate, getting ConocoPhilips and BP to drop out of Arctic Power (a lobbying entity pushing to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling), and working with Staples and Office Depot to craft green-friendly paper sourcing policies.
Ecopledge is currently working on a campaign to pressure major rental car companies, including Enterprise, Hertz, Cendant and Vanguard, to buy and rent cleaner cars, an effort, they say, that would save 500 million gallons of gasoline, reduce CO2 emissions by 14 billions of pounds, and save American drivers some two billion dollars in gasoline expenses every year. They are also pressuring major meat producers, including Premium Standard Farms, Smithfield and Tyson, to clean up hog and other animal waste that is causing widespread damage to the environment and human health in their areas of operation.
CONTACTS: Buy Blue, www.buyblue.org; Alonovo, www.alonovo.com; Co-Op America, www.coopamerica.org; Be Safe PVC, www.besafenet.com/pvc; EcoPledge, www.ecopledge.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Every time I visit my local print shop, I am overwhelmed by the smell of chemicals, and wonder if the health of the workers there is affected. Is exposure to such chemicals known to cause human health problems, and what can be done to clean up the printing process?-- Bill W., Norwalk, OH
That smell in your printer’s production facility no doubt comes from the cocktail of hazardous chemicals typically used in the printing process: inks, cleaning solvents, waste water and sludge that “off-gas” volatile organic compounds associated with eye and lung irritation, dizziness, headaches and even cancer.
But just because your printer uses such chemicals does not mean that all do. According to the Printer’s National Environmental Assistance Center, printers can take several steps to clean up their acts, such as avoiding alcohol-based solvents, abandoning mineral oil based inks in favor of vegetable-based inks and substituting chlorinated glues with water-based alternatives. Along with using fewer chemicals and more eco-friendly products, printers can go even greener by using recycled materials and renewable energy.
Despite a printer’s good intentions, though, it can be a daunting task to become more environmentally friendly. Most print shops are small businesses and may not be able to afford to upgrade their equipment or pay a premium for cleaner alternatives to some of the chemicals and supplies they have been using for years. Also, navigating the labyrinth of air, hazardous waste and industrial wastewater treatment regulations may be more work than a small company struggling to make payroll can undertake.
A few programs have arisen to address these issues. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s PrintSTEP (Printers’ Simplified Total Environmental Partnership) program, in pilot phase in Missouri and New Hampshire, aims to make environmental and worker health and safety regulations clearer and simpler. The program is designed to help individual states streamline the regulatory process so that printers can spend time greening their operations instead of wading through thousands of pages of arcane regulatory gibberish just to see if their current practices meet the letter of the law.
Another pilot program, the Great Printer Environmental Initiative, is underway in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. This joint initiative of Environmental Defense’s Pollution Prevention Alliance, the Printing Industries of America and the Council of Great Lakes Governors encourages printers to minimize their impact on human health and the environment beyond what is required by government regulatory agencies in environmental, health and safety compliance. And in doing so, they can use their membership as a marketing tool to attract customers interested in cleaner, greener printing.
Print buyers can do their part by choosing firms that have implemented environmentally friendly practices. Ask your printer about their health and safety programs that go beyond the minimum requirements. And work with your printer to develop your printed materials in ways that minimize environmental impact, such as by using recycled paper and soy-based inks. If you are located in one of the pilot states for the Great Printer Environmental Initiative, be sure to choose a company that participates.
CONTACTS: Printer’s National Environmental Assistance Center, www.pneac.org; PrintSTEP, www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/sectors/printstep.html.

Dear EarthTalk: I have heard that wind power turbines kill a lot of birds, including migrating flocks, and that some people oppose wind power for that reason. If this is true, to what degree do they harm birds and what is being done about it? -- Ken Lassman, Lawrence, KS
It is ironic that non-polluting, renewable wind energy, long touted as a potential savior in the fight to stop global warming, is getting a bad rap for killing wildlife. High profile examples such as at California’s Altamont Pass--where outdated, oversized wind turbines kill some 1,000 birds of prey each year--plague the growing wind power industry; even though more modern, better-sited wind farms kill far fewer birds.
According to a 2002 study of anthropogenic (human-caused) bird mortality conducted by researcher Wallace Erickson, birds face daily threats far more lethal than wind turbines. Erickson’s study found that between 500 million and one billion birds are killed annually in the United States alone from collisions with man-made structures including communications towers, buildings and windows, and contact with power lines. Hunting, cat predation, pesticides, commercial fishing operations, oils spills and cars and trucks also take a heavy toll. All this is important to realize, say wind power advocates, in putting the relative impact of windmills on bird populations in perspective: Contact with wind turbines represented less that one percent of the total number of human-caused bird deaths in Erickson’s study.
There are, however, steps that can be taken when constructing wind power turbines to minimize their impact on birds. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) advises that lighting on turbines should be minimized, tension wires and lattice supports should be avoided, and wind turbine power lines should be placed underground whenever possible. Also, already more modern wind towers are being designed in ways that prevent birds from perching on them (solving one of the problems with the Altamont Pass towers)--and the turbine blades rotate much more slowly than earlier designs.
In addition, says ABC, careful reviews of potential wind turbine sites should be conducted. Known bird migration pathways, areas where birds are highly concentrated, and landscapes known for their popularity with birds should be avoided “unless mortality risk has been analyzed and the likelihood of significant mortality has been ruled out.” Wind farms should be situated on already disturbed land, such as in agricultural areas, so as not to displace existing bird habitat or travel corridors. Sites should also be reviewed for use by birds listed under the Endangered Species Act.
Ever-growing concerns about global warming and pollution from fossil fuel use demand that we move as quickly as possible toward clean, renewable energy sources, even if they are as yet imperfect. “When you look at a wind turbine,” says John Flicker, president of the National Audubon Society, the world’s pre-eminent bird advocacy organization, “you can find the bird carcasses and count them. With a coal-fired power plant, you can’t count the carcasses, but it’s going to kill a lot more birds.” Indeed, according to Erickson, for every 10,000 birds killed by human activities, less than one death is caused by a wind turbine. And if greenhouse gases are not reduced significantly in the next decade, we could bear witness to a large number of plant and animal extinctions in the coming years.
CONTACTS: American Bird Conservancy, www.abcbirds.org; American Wind Energy Association www.awea.org; National Audubon Society, www.audubon.org.

Dear EarthTalk: What kinds of cat litters are kinder to the environment: traditional clay litters (so-called clumping litters) or other varieties? What about some of the new alternatives, such as those made out of wheat and corn? --Stef Gandolfi, Oakland, CA
Traditional clay-based clumping cat litters are the most common and widely sold in supermarkets and pet supply stores. Clay litters do not biodegrade and instead pile up in landfills, producing chemicals that can potentially harm human health. According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, clay litters also produce dusts that contain silicon particles, which are known human carcinogens. In addition, the clay used for litter is obtained through strip-mining, a practice that causing adverse environmental effects on surrounding soil, water and air.
Some pet owners have reported respiratory and other health problems in their cats due to both the inhalation and ingestion of clumping clay litters. Once inside the lungs or digestive tracts, the litter can expand from moisture and cause irritation and blockages. In the lungs this can lead to infection, and in the intestines dehydration and a decrease in nutrient absorption can result. Scientific studies and documented cases of such incidents seem to be in short supply, however, and such claims seem to only be anecdotal.
To be safe, however, there are a number of environmentally friendly alternatives that are deemed safer for people and cats alike. Recycled newspaper, for one, can be used to create cat litter in pellet form. It is biodegradable, flushable, burnable and 99 percent dust-free. It also has the advantage of not getting tracked around the house, unlike clay litters. Fibre Cycle, a company with the primary mission of finding innovative and environmentally friendly uses for recycled paper, sells such paper-based cat litter and claims it to be highly absorbent, biodegradable, long lasting, lightweight and virtually dust-free.
Plant-based litters are made from materials such as corn, corncobs, cornhusks, wheat by-products, wheat grass and beet pulp. According to Worldwise, a leading manufacturer of environmentally responsible pet products, plain ground corncobs are a good choice because they are made of natural, flushable biodegradable materials, have no odor, are very absorbent and don’t produce the same kind or volume of dust as clay litters.
Litters made from pine and cedar saw dusts offer yet another clay-based alternative. As with the plant-based offerings, they are made from natural scrap materials that biodegrade. They also eliminate odor naturally—due to the innate ability of both pine and cedar to absorb and neutralize ammonia—rather than cover up odors with chemicals and perfumes. Feline Pine, from Florida-based Nature’s Earth Products, is a wood litter made from 100 percent natural pine that has been heated and pressurized to remove any harmful wood oils. When ready for changing, the biodegradable litter—available in both clumping and pellet varieties—can be simply emptied into the backyard compost or mulching pile. One caution about pine, though: Some cats have a sensitivity to pine aroma and as a result could shun the litter box altogether.
CONTACTS: Fibre Cycle, www.fibrecycle.com.au; Feline Pine, www.naturesearth.com; Worldwise, www.worldwise.com/index.html.

Dear EarthTalk: I saw warnings on bags of charcoal that said carcinogens are released when the briquettes are burned. Is it safe to breathe in the smell of a charcoal grill? -- Joe Sliwa, via e-mail
Barbecue grills can be problematic for two reasons. First, both charcoal and wood burn “dirty,” producing not only hydrocarbons but also tiny soot particles that pollute the air and can aggravate heart and lung problems. Secondly, the grilling of meat can form two kinds of potentially carcinogenic compounds: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and heterocyclic amines (HCAs).
According to the American Cancer Society, PAHs form when fat from meat drips onto the charcoal. They then rise with the smoke and can get deposited on the food. They can also form directly on the food as it is charred. The hotter the temperature and the longer the meat cooks, the more HCAs are formed.
HCAs can also form on broiled and pan-fried beef, pork, foul and fish, not just on grilled meats. In fact, National Cancer Institute researchers have identified 17 different HCAs that result from cooking “muscle meats” and that may pose human cancer risks. Studies have also shown increased risk of colorectal, pancreatic and breast cancers associated with high intakes of well done, fried or barbequed meats.
According to the Texas Commission on Environmental Air Quality, Texans who like to say that they “live and breathe barbecue” may be doing just that to the detriment of their health. A 2003 study by scientists from Rice University found that microscopic bits of polyunsaturated fatty acids released into the atmosphere from cooking meat on backyard barbecues were helping to pollute the air in Houston. The city at times registers air quality levels that rank it one of the more polluted U.S. urban areas, though emissions from barbecues are certainly dwarfed by those generated by motor vehicles and industry.
Both briquettes and lump charcoal create air pollution. Lump charcoal, made from charred wood to add flavor, also contributes to deforestation and adds to the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Charcoal briquettes do have the benefit of being made partly from sawdust (a good use of waste wood), but popular brands may also contain coal dust, starch, sodium nitrate, limestone and borax.
In Canada, charcoal is now a restricted product under the Hazardous Products Act. According to the Canadian Department of Justice, charcoal briquettes in bags that are advertised, imported or sold in Canada must display a label warning of the potential hazards of the product. No such requirements presently exist in the United States.
Consumers can avoid exposure to these potentially harmful additives by sticking with so-called natural charcoal brands. Noram de Mexico’s Sierra Madre 100 percent oak hardwood charcoal contains no coal, oil, limestone, starch, sawdust or petroleum products and, to boot, is certified by the Rainforest Alliance’s SmartWood program as sustainably harvested. The product is available at select Sam’s Clubs across the U.S. Other manufacturers of all natural charcoal include Greenlink and Lazzari, both of which can be found at natural food outlets across North America.
CONTACTS: Rainforest Alliance SmartWood Program, www.rainforest-alliance.org/programs/forestry/smartwood; Greenlink Charcoal, www.greenlinkcharcoal.com; Lazzari, www.lazzari.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Which countries that signed onto the Kyoto Protocol, which set goals for reducing global warming emissions, are fulfilling or surpassing their commitments? Which are falling short and why? -- Dan S., via e-mail
As of the end of 2006, 169 countries had signed onto the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement forged in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 calling on the world’s industrialized nations to reduce emissions of so-called “greenhouse gases” thought to be contributing to global warming. The agreement called for a 5.2 percent reduction overall in the release of six pollutants—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs)—by 2012 in relation to 1990 levels.
Although the agreement was hammered out 10 years ago, its emissions reduction standards did not take effect until two years ago, in February 2005. As such, signatory countries have only barely begun to make changes, and no one has yet conducted a comprehensive study of progress toward reaching targets. United Nations research does show, however, that a majority of the 36 European countries that signed onto the Kyoto Protocol are currently not on track to meet their goals by 2012.
However, the 27-member-nation European Union (EU), which as a block is one of the largest global warming polluters, is likely to meet its collective goal. This is due in large part to Eastern European states having shut down or modernized heavy polluting Soviet-era industries during the 1990s. Also helping the EU effort is the United Kingdom, which is on track to meet its goals, thanks mostly to a switch from coal-fired power plants to cleaner burning natural gas. Germany and France also hope to meet their Kyoto commitments, largely through a program of subsidies for the development of non-polluting energy sources. And Sweden expects to overachieve on its Kyoto targets thanks to the imposition of a hefty carbon tax on polluting industries and big investments in alternative energy sources.
Topping the list of Kyoto slackers is Canada, which last year became the first signatory country to announce that it would not meet its Kyoto target of a six percent emissions cut by 2012. New oil production in the tar sands of Alberta has instead forced Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions up significantly, as the government has chosen to pursue economic growth as a priority over meeting its Kyoto commitments. Japan is also lagging behind. If no additional measures are taken, the United Nations forecasts that Japan’s emissions will instead grow six percent by 2012. But Japan’s environment ministry says that implementation of some market-based incentives in 2008 should help Japan meet its goal.
Regrettably, the United States and Australia don’t have to worry about meeting any commitments, as neither country agreed to sign the Kyoto agreement, even though together the two major industrial powers account for 30 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. U.S. President George W. Bush does not support mandatory caps on emissions, arguing that such a move would cause irreparable harm to the U.S. economy. He also complains that developing nations are not being held up to the same standards as the rest of the world. Unfortunately, with the U.S. on the sidelines, the good faith efforts of dozens of other nations could end up being quite immaterial in the fight to stave off global warming.
CONTACTS: Kyoto Protocol, http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/items/2878.php; United Nations Climate Change Page, http://climatechange.unep.net.

Dear EarthTalk: Where can I find non-polluting alternatives to those foam “packaging peanuts” used for shipping fragile merchandise? --Brian Smith, Lynwood, WA
Those little white polystyrene-foam packaging peanuts are nearly ubiquitous in our pack-and-ship culture, but they are no good for the environment, let alone human health. The basic building block of polystyrene is the non-recyclable chemical compound styrene. Chronic exposure to styrene is associated with central nervous system damage as well as skin, eye and respiratory irritation, depression, fatigue and compromised kidney function. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the International Agency for Research on Cancer both consider styrene a possible human carcinogen.
Consumers who occasionally deal with foam packing peanuts shouldn’t worry too much over such intermittent exposure, but should be alarmed at the health effects on the workers making the material and on the quality of the soil and groundwater near landfills where most of it ends up. Some locales—including Portland, Oregon and Orange County, California—have even banned the use of polystyrene foam in homes and businesses.
So what’s a conscientious shipper to do? Luckily alternatives abound. For starters, old newspapers, which are inherently recyclable and biodegradable, make for great padding when scrunched up and used liberally inside boxes. Another smart choice is PaperNuts, an alternative to foam peanuts made from recyclable, biodegradable post-consumer corrugated cartons and post-industrial paper processing production waste.
And starch-based peanuts, such as those available from Starch Tech’s Clean Green Packing, protect and pad fragile items during shipping but can be dissolved in water and washed right down the kitchen sink. Or, like their chemical counterparts they can be re-used in the next outgoing package. Some other manufacturers of biodegradable packing materials include Minnesota’s NatureWorks, Italy’s Novamont Spa and the German industrial behemoth BASF.
But sometimes it’s not up to you what kind of padding is protecting the products you mail-ordered and had sent to your home or business. If the box contains polystyrene foam peanuts, you can call the company that sent it and ask that they switch to a more environmentally friendly alternative. With more and more companies looking for ways to “go green” these days, they might just take heed.
Regardless, the best way to prevent such peanuts from contaminating the environment is to reuse them in an outgoing package, and include a note asking the recipient to do the same. If you have no use for them, many businesses that do shipping will take them if they are in good condition. And most managers at UPS, Mailboxes Etc. and other pack-and-ship shops will gladly save a little money and accept a donation. And if no local businesses will take your foam peanuts, those staffing the phones at the Plastic Loose Fill Council’s Peanut Hotline (see contact info below) will be happy to help find one that will.
CONTACTS: PaperNuts, www.papernuts.com; Starch Tech, www.starchtech.com/cgp/cleangreen.html; Plastic Loose Fill Council Peanut Hotline, (800) 828-2214, www.loosefillpackaging.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Do buildings with various “green” features cost more to build and operate than traditional buildings? -- Chris Wiedemann, New York, NY
It is difficult to do an apples-to-apples cost comparison of a “green” structure against one that is not due to differences in design, materials and other factors, including the location. But the general consensus is that a green building might well cost slightly more up front, but it will very likely reap the rewards of lower operating costs going forward.
The U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program is the standard-bearer used today in evaluating the relative green-friendliness of building projects. A 2004 nationwide study conducted by Greg Kats of the research and consulting firm Capital E found that structures that qualified for the lowest LEED rating (“LEED Certified”) cost builders less than one percent more up-front than equivalent non-green buildings. For projects with more ambitious green features that qualified for higher LEED ratings (silver, gold and the highest, platinum), the cost premiums went up from between 1.9 percent and 6.8 percent, still surprisingly low.
What surprised Kats even more, though, was the value of the payback. Overall, Kats found that the average cost premium for building green was about $4-5 per square foot, while the financial benefits derived over 20 years from incorporating sustainability features—such as lower energy and water bills—was in the range of $49-65 per square foot, or about 10 times the value of the initial investment. Another 2004 study by Lisa Matthiessen of the consulting firm Davis Langdon came to similar conclusions. According to Matthiessen, incorporating sustainability elements in a project’s design from the get-go—not layering them on later in the process—is essential to keeping the costs down.
Despite these financial benefits, Kats points out that there is unfortunately a “consistent disconnect” in peoples’ minds between the higher up-front costs of building green and the ensuing savings in operating costs. He says that overcoming this is fundamental to understanding the value of green building.
And, of course, money is not the only issue. Transitioning to a greener built environment is important for the conservation of natural resources as well as for reducing pollution. According to statistics gathered by the U.S. Green Building Council, the 76 million residential and five million commercial buildings in the U.S. collectively consume 65 percent of America’s electricity, 37 percent of its energy, 25 percent of its water supplies and 30 percent of its wood and materials. Likewise, buildings account for 35 percent of the nation’s solid waste, 36 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, 46 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 19 percent of nitrous oxide emissions and 10 percent of fine particulate emissions.
Sustainable buildings, such as those that qualify for LEED certification, consume fewer resources, generate less waste, cost less to operate and provide healthier living and working environments for everyone—both indoors and out.
CONTACTS: U.S. Green Building Council, www.usgbc.org; Capital E’s “Green Building Costs and Financial Benefits,” www.cap-e.com/ewebeditpro/items/O59F3481.pdf.

Dear EarthTalk: My local recycler won’t take my old phonebooks. What should I do with them? -- Jake, Westport, CT
Many recyclers won’t accept telephone books because the fibers used to make the books’ lightweight pages are too short to be reformulated into new paper. In fact, mixing old phonebooks in with other waste paper can even contaminate the batch, hindering the recyclability of the other paper fibers.
Nonetheless, phonebook papers are 100 percent recyclable and are used primarily to—you guessed it—make new phonebooks! In fact, most phonebooks distributed today are made from re-fabricated old phonebook pages mixed with some scrap wood to strengthen the fibers for re-use. Old phonebooks are also sometimes recycled into insulation materials, ceiling tiles and roofing surfaces, as well as paper towels, grocery bags, cereal boxes and office papers. In fact, in a gesture both symbolic and practical, Pacific Bell/SBC now includes payment envelopes in its bills created from old Smart Yellow Pages phonebooks.
According to Los Gatos, California’s Green Valley Recycling, if all Americans recycled their phonebooks for a year, we would save 650,000 tons of paper and free up two million cubic yards of landfill space. Modesto, California’s Parks, Recreation & Neighborhoods Department, which lets city residents include phonebooks with their regular curbside pickup, says that for each 500 books recycled, we save 7,000 gallons of water, 3.3 cubic yards of landfill space, 17 to 31 trees and 4,100 kilowatts of electricity, enough to power an average home for six months.
Consumers trying to do the right thing should find out when and how their town or phone company will accept phonebooks for recycling. Some will only take phonebooks back at certain times of year, often when new books are being distributed. Some schools, echoing the “newspaper drives” of bygone days, run contests in which students bring old phonebooks to school where they are then collected and sent off to recyclers.
But those whose towns won’t accept phonebooks at all and who can’t find anywhere else to drop them need not fret. Old phonebooks have many practical uses. Their pages make excellent fire starters in a wood-burning fireplace or outdoor fire pit. Balled up or shredded phonebook pages also make nice packaging filler in place of problematic polystyrene “peanuts.”
Phonebook pages can also be shredded and used as mulch to keep weeds down in your garden. The paper is biodegradable and will eventually return back to the soil. Those with an artistic bent can use old phonebooks to make flipbook style animated drawings, as described by animator Robert Truscio on his “Drawings That Move” instructional website.
There are also a number of telephone book collectors; some who make money selling their stock to those with a historical interest or who are researching family genealogies. Lifelong collector Gwillim Law sells old phonebooks from all 50 U.S. states as well as from most Canadian and Australian provinces.
CONTACTS: Drawings That Move, http://home.att.net/~RTRUSCIO/DRAWMOVE.htm; Gwillim Law’s Old Telephone Books website, www.oldtelephonebooks.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I’m “pro-solar” all the way for the sake of the environment, but solar power has not historically been very cost-effective. What innovations are coming down the pike that will bring costs down to make solar competitive with other energy sources? -- Will Proctor, Richmond, VA
The prospect of generating pollution-free power from the sun’s rays is appealing, but to-date the low price of oil combined with the high costs of developing new technology have prevented the widespread adoption of solar power in the U.S. and beyond. At a current cost of 25 to 50 cents per kilowatt-hour, solar power costs as much as five times more than conventional fossil fuel based electricity. And dwindling supplies of polysilicon, the element found in traditional photovoltaic cells, are not helping.
According to Gary Gerber of the Berkeley, California-based Sun Light & Power, not long after Ronald Reagan moved into the White House in 1980 and removed the solar collectors from the roof that Jimmy Carter had installed, tax credits for solar development disappeared and the industry plunged “over a cliff.”
Federal spending on solar energy picked up under the Clinton administration, but trailed off again once George W. Bush took office. But growing climate change worries and high oil prices have forced the Bush administration to reconsider its stance on alternatives like solar, and the White House has proposed $148 million for solar energy development in 2007, up almost 80 percent from what it invested in 2006.
In the realm of research and development, enterprising engineers are working hard to get solar power’s costs down, and expect it to be price-competitive with fossil fuels within 20 years. One technological innovator is California-based Nanosolar, which replaces the silicon used to absorb sunlight and convert it into electricity with a thin film of copper, indium, gallium and selenium (CIGS). Says Nanosolar’s Martin Roscheisen, CIGS-based cells are flexible and more durable, making them easier to install in a wide range of applications. Roscheisen expects he will be able to build a 400-megawatt electricity plant for about a tenth of the price of a comparable silicon-based plant. Other companies making waves with CIGS-based solar cells include New York’s DayStar Technologies and California’s Miasolé.
Another recent innovation in solar power is the co-called “spray-on” cell, such as those made by Massachusetts’ Konarka. Like paint, the composite can be sprayed on to other materials, where it can harness the sun’s infrared rays to power cell phones and other portable or wireless devices. Some analysts think spray-on cells could become five times more efficient than the current photovoltaic standard.
Environmentalists and mechanical engineers aren’t the only ones bullish on solar these days. According to the Cleantech Venture Network, a forum of investors interested in clean renewable energy, venture capitalists poured some $100 million into solar start-ups of all sizes in 2006 alone, and expect to commit even more money in 2007. Given the venture capital community’s interest in relatively short-term returns, it’s a good bet that some of today’s promising solar start-ups will be tomorrow’s energy behemoths.
CONTACTS: Sun Light & Power, www.sunlightandpower.com; Nanosolar, www.nanosolar.com; DayStar Technologies, www.daystartech.com; Miasolé, www.miasole.com; PowerFilm, www.powerfilmsolar.com; Konarka, www.konarka.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I'm familiar with the hybrid cars now widely available, but what ever happened to the purely electric cars that were around 10 years ago? -- Peter Zilly, Bellingham, WA
The main problem with the electric cars that reared their heads briefly a decade ago was their ability to only go so far on battery power. Charges lasted just 50 miles or so, so you were in trouble if you needed to go farther or ran out of juice somewhere in-between electric outlets.
Hybrids, on the other hand, which have side-by-side electric and gas motors, never need to be plugged in and instead use the motions of their gas-powered engines (as well as those of the car's wheels and brakes) to keep their batteries charged at all times. And with a huge infrastructure of gas stations, refueling is always as easy as pulling over to fill up.
Electric car advocates have long touted their alternative vehicles as primarily short-distance commuter cars. At a 50-mile range, most electric cars could make such short trips without the need for recharging. One need only plug their vehicle into an electric outlet in the garage overnight to charge up the battery for the morning commute, and if needed then plug it in at the office for the return trip later.
But most people want more from their cars than just the daily commute--and gassing up takes minutes whereas re-charging takes hours--so sufficient demand never materialized. Hybrids, though they do use gasoline, are as versatile as conventional cars--and the coming "plug-in hybrids" (covered previously in this column) promise to substantially increase efficiency, to perhaps 100 miles per gallon or more, by using the electric motor exclusively for short runs and commutes and the gas engine only for long trips.
Even though all-electric vehicles are not currently in vogue, innovative engineers are busy working to improve them. Technological advances in battery life and engine efficiency mean that electric vehicles may be able to roam farther than ever before. According to EVWorld.com, drivers looking to go electric will soon have a few options:
California-based Tesla Motors will soon be accepting deposits on orders for its Tesla Roadster, and plans its first deliveries for 2007. Tesla claims its car can go 250 miles on a charge, which can even be extended further through its "regenerative braking" technology, similar to that which is employed in the hybrids.
And Spokane, Washington's Commuter Car Corporation is taking orders for its Tango 600 (a kit you have to assemble) and its Tango 100 and 200 models (fully assembled), with plans to deliver by 2007. Actor George Clooney was Commuter Car's first customer. The Tango can only go 60-80 miles on a charge, but boasts of its ability to go zero to 60 in four seconds and attain a top speed of 150 miles per hour.
Elsewhere, California-based AC Propulsion is working with Toyota on a Scion electric conversion, and Cleanova, based in France, is developing an electric Renault Kangoo, a popular European car.
One consideration to keep in mind about electric vehicles is that, if your utility is a dirty coal-fired plant, tapping that power could mean creating more pollution than driving a gasoline powered car. But progress in renewable energies may well solve that problem and help usher in a new era for electric vehicles.
CONTACTS: EVWorld, www.evworld.com; Tesla Motors, www.teslamotors.com; Commuter Car Corporation, www.commutercars.com.
Dear EarthTalk: Are there any Amway-like multi-level marketing companies that focus on environmentally friendly products? -- Dave Miller, Fresno, CA
Back in the 1950s, Amway and a handful of other consumer products companies first pioneered the concept of "multi-level marketing" (MLM). In this business model, individuals act as distributors, selling the company's products from home while also recruiting others to do the same. In doing so, they earn commissions on both their own sales and on the sales of those they recruit. In recent years, a number of MLM companies have sprouted up with environmentally friendly products as their focus.
The most well known of the crop is Shaklee, which has been selling green-friendly nutrition, personal care and household products since 1956, when research chemist Dr. Forrest Shaklee started the company. Since then, perhaps in an effort to live up to Dr. Shaklee's personal motto ("Follow the laws of nature and you'll never go wrong"), the company has wracked up a long list of eco-accomplishments. Back in 1960 it introduced the first mass marketed biodegradable cleaning product, Basic-H, an all-natural formula that has since been adopted as an official Earth Day product. More recently, Shaklee became the first independently verified "climate neutral" company in the world, offsetting its carbon dioxide emissions with investments in various renewable energy projects. And just this year, Shaklee embarked upon an ambitious campaign to plant a million trees with the help of thousands of its independent distributors.
Another big player in the green MLM field is Idaho-based Melaleuca, which has been selling natural health care, personal care and household products since 1985. The name Melaleuca is borrowed from a plant that produces organic essential oils found in many of the company's products.
Meanwhile, Amazon Herb Company offers opportunities to sell herbal remedies derived from rainforest plants. "Amazon John" Easterling, who first discovered the healing power of herbs when Shipibo Indians used them to treat him when he fell ill during a visit to the Amazon rainforest, founded the company in 1990. Another up-and-coming player is Krystal Planet, which sells compact fluorescent light bulbs, solar heaters, fuel additives and other energy saving products for home, car and office.
If you're looking to work with an MLM company, keep in mind that just because a company has good green intentions does not mean it is a good deal for you. According to Robert FitzPatrick, who runs the Pyramid Scheme Alert newsletter, less than one in a thousand MLM distributors makes a profit. The bottom line is: Do your homework. As in any business, there are reputable companies and there are bad apples. The perceived opportunity of working independently may seem too good to pass up, so get a solid idea about the work required and the actual return likely before you quit your day job.
CONTACTS: Shaklee, www.shaklee.com; Amazon Herb, www.amazonherb.com; Krystal Planet, www.krystal-planet.com; Melaleuca, www.melaleuca.com; Pyramid Scheme Alert, www.pyramidschemealert.org.

Dear EarthTalk: Can you explain what “hormone disrupting” chemicals are, how they affect our health and what they have to do with environmental problems? -- Tom Rose, Oakland, CA
Many of the human body’s process, including reproduction, mental processing and metabolism, are controlled and regulated by hormones, chemical “messengers” produced by the endocrine glands. In the embryo and fetus, hormones guide the development of the brain, the nervous and immune systems, the sexual organs, and the liver, blood and kidneys, among other organs and tissue.
Hormones work by attaching to “receptors,” molecules on cell surfaces that carry information into the cells, triggering certain actions. In recent years, scientists have found that certain man-made chemicals disrupt this process by blocking it altogether, throwing off the timing--or by actually mimicking natural hormones and binding with the cells themselves. Such chemicals have been dubbed “hormone disruptors.”
Since the 1940s thousands of chemicals have been released into our air, water and food. Chemicals now contaminate virtually every corner of the globe, and the average person has over 100 chemicals in his or her body. In one study of pregnant women, the average woman had 286 chemicals in her fetal blood.
Many of the worst chemicals have been banned or phased out, but they continue to linger in the environment and will no doubt do so for centuries to come. Among the worst culprits in hormone disruption are: PCBs, used heavily in the electrical industries until banned in 1978; phthalates, still widely used in the plastics industry; and dioxin, one of the most hazardous of all chemicals, a byproduct of paper-bleaching, waste incineration and coal-burning, among other industrial activities.
The effects of this growing “chemical soup” were first noticed in wildlife. Alligators in Florida’s Lake Apopka, for example, have been unable to reproduce in recent years due to underdevelopment in young males. North Sea seals exposed to synthetic chemicals have also developed reproductive problems as well as suppressed immune systems. And gull colonies in California and elsewhere suffered significant population losses after exposure to chemicals interfered with their reproductive capabilities.
According to Our Stolen Future, co-authored by Dr. Theo Colburn of the World Wildlife Fund, former Boston Globe reporter Dianne Dumanoski and Dr. J.P. Myers, now Senior Advisor to the United Nations Foundation, numerous human health problems also owe their origin to hormone disrupting chemicals. They include low sperm count and increased testicular and prostate cancers among men, and increased rates of breast cancer, endometriosis and tubal pregnancies in women. “What we’re talking about is an overall low-dose exposure and a cumulative effect,” says Holly Lucille, author of Creating and Maintaining Balance: A Woman’s Guide to Safe, Natural Hormone Health.
With so many chemicals permeating our environment, it is almost impossible to attribute specific health problems to specific substances. Individuals can hedge their bets by eating organic and choosing personal care and household products that avoid chemicals. They can also pressure their elected representatives as well as business leaders to work to reduce the amount of pervasive chemicals in the environment.
CONTACT: Our Stolen Future, www.ourstolenfuture.org.
Dear EarthTalk: Is bamboo really an environmentally friendly alternative to wood for making paper? If so, why are we still cutting down trees to keep our copiers and printers humming? -- Ali Forte, via e-mail
Bamboo is a fast-growing and renewable resource, and it has long been used throughout Asia as a raw material for many goods, including paper. With North America’s supply of forests now dwindling, bamboo is starting to look like a viable alternative to wood pulp to make paper for Western consumption. It has a similar consistency to wood pulp, and most existing paper mills can adapt to it with existing infrastructure.
On the other hand, clearing forests to establish bamboo plantations across the globe hardly makes environmental sense. Aaron Lehmer of ReThink Paper, a project of Earth Island Institute, calls the rapid expansion of bamboo plantations in Southeast Asia “alarming,” and says that it is “setting up a status quo whereby natural forests are increasingly being developed” for bamboo cultivation for paper.
Most of this bamboo is feeding paper mills in China and India, says Lehmer, but increasing demand from North America and Europe could deplete existing supplies and force Southeast Asian producers to push deeper into the forests. This would deplete primary habitat for hundreds of threatened species of birds, pandas, reptiles and amphibians. “Since there are no international standards or certification mechanisms in place for bamboo, neither paper producers nor consumers have any way of knowing whether the bamboo they purchase is coming from endangered ecosystems,” he adds.
According to the World Bamboo Organization, a trade group, 12 million acres of bamboo reserves exist across Asia today. If demand for bamboo were to increase, Lehmer says, surely the environment in these areas would suffer. Indeed, environmentalists in India are already crying foul over government-subsidized bamboo extraction from that country’s supposedly protected forests, including the world-renowned Nagarjunasagar Tiger Reserve, one of the last suitable habitats in the world for the big endangered cats.
ReThink Paper would rather see North American paper producers convert existing mills to process locally generated agricultural waste, such as wheat or rice straw. These are usually plentiful and inexpensive, and paper companies could reap significant financial benefit getting raw material from local farmers eager to offload otherwise unmarketable “biomass” waste. This makes eminent environmental sense, too, says Lehmer, compared to importing bamboo chips from far away on planes, trains, ships and trucks that emit tons of climate-altering carbon dioxide en route.
The debate over papermaking reminds us that modern society has yet to go “paperless” as many predicted we would. But our inability to achieve that goal as yet doesn't make efforts to cut back worthless. Everyone can do their part at home, school and office to reduce paper usage, even if only one sheet at a time.
CONTACTS: ReThink Paper, www.rethinkpaper.org; World Bamboo Organization, www.world-bamboo.org.
EARTH TALK - From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
Dear EarthTalk: What are the health and environmental issues associated with the noise and air pollution at airports? -- John Cermak
Researchers have known for years that exposure to excessively-loud noise can cause changes in blood pressure as well as changes in sleep and digestive patterns -- all signs of stress on the human body. The very word “noise” itself derives from the Latin word “noxia,” which means injury or hurt.
On a 1997 questionnaire distributed to two groups -- one living near a major airport, and the other in a quiet neighborhood -- two-thirds of those living near the airport indicated they were bothered by aircraft noise, and most said that it interfered with their daily activities. The same two-thirds complained more than the other group of sleep difficulties, and also perceived themselves as being in poorer health.
Perhaps even more alarming, the European Commission, which governs the European Union (E.U.), considers living near an airport to be a risk factor for coronary heart disease and stroke, as increased blood pressure from noise pollution can trigger these more serious maladies. The E.U. estimates that 20 percent of Europe’s population--or about 80 million people--are exposed to airport noise levels it considers unhealthy and unacceptable.
Airport noise can also have negative effects on children’s health and development. A 1980 study examining the impact of airport noise on children’s health found higher blood pressure in kids living near Los Angeles’ LAX airport than in those living farther away. A 1995 German study found a link between chronic noise exposure at Munich’s International Airport and elevated nervous system activity and cardiovascular levels in children living nearby. And a 2005 study published in the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet, found that kids living near airports in Britain, Holland and Spain lagged behind their classmates in reading by two months for every five decibel increase above average noise levels in their surroundings. The study also associated aircraft noise with lowered reading comprehension, even after socio-economic differences were considered.
Living near an airport also means facing significant exposure to air pollution. Jack Saporito of the U.S. Citizens Aviation Watch Association (CAW), a coalition of concerned municipalities and advocacy groups, cites several studies linking pollutants common around airports--such as diesel exhaust, carbon monoxide and leaked chemicals--to cancer, asthma, liver damage, lung disease, lymphoma, myeloid leukemia, and even depression. CAW is lobbying for the clean up of jet engine exhaust as well as the scrapping or modification of airport expansion plans across the country.
Another group working on this issue is Chicago’s Alliance of Residents Concerning O’Hare, which lobbies and conducts extensive public education campaigns in an effort to cut noise and pollution and rein in expansion plans at the world’s busiest airport. According to the group, five million area residents may be suffering adverse health effects as a result of O’Hare, only one of four major airports in the region.
CONTACTS: Alliance of Residents Concerning O’Hare, www.areco.org; U.S. Citizens Aviation Watch Association, www.us-caw.org.
Dear EarthTalk: What is better for the environment, cork wine stoppers, or plastic or screw tops? -- Susan Wolniakowski
Though you might be surprised, natural cork wine stoppers are the best choice, primarily because harvesting the real stuff is an age-old practice that keeps the world’s relatively small population of cork oak trees, which can live for hundreds of years, alive. These scattered pockets of cork oaks, mostly in Portugal and Spain, thrive in the hot, arid conditions of the southern Mediterranean, sheltering a wide array of biodiversity and helping to protect the soil from drying out.
In addition, some wildlife depends upon cork oak forests for their survival, including the Iberian lynx and the Barbary deer, as well as rare birds such as the Imperial Iberian eagle, the black stork and the Egyptian mongoose. As wine producers switch to other types of wine stoppers, the cork oak forests could be abandoned and the trees and the myriad plants and animals that depend on them could die out.
While 70 percent of wine bottles still contain natural cork stoppers, plastic and glass alternatives have been coming on strong in recent years. Indeed, more and more winemakers around the world are switching to alternatives, citing benefits including the avoidance of cork mold that can taint wine and the ability to more easily re-close opened bottles. In Australia and New Zealand--both promising upstarts on the global wine scene--the majority of wine producers use screw caps, mainly because they can make them cheaply instead of paying the relatively high price of importing the natural cork.
But the increasing popularity around the world of screw caps and plastic stoppers has cork producers and environmentalists alike worried. In a recent report, “Cork Screwed,” the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) predicts that, at the current rate of adoption by wine producers, screw caps and other synthetic non-cork wine stoppers will dominate the market by 2015, calling into question the future of Mediterranean cork forests. In order to stem the tide, the organization is supporting efforts by Portuguese cork producers to certify their practices as sustainable by the non-profit Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), which promotes sustainable, economically-viable forestry practices around the world.
“Cork oak forests rank among the top biodiversity hotspots in the Mediterranean and in Europe. At the same time, they are the backbone of an entire economy,” says Nora Berrahmouni, coordinator of WWF's Cork Oak Landscapes program. “FSC certification will reinforce the already environmentally friendly characteristics of the cork economy, leading to new opportunities in cork markets,” she adds.
Public opinion will undoubtedly be what calls the day, and producers of plastic stoppers and metal screw caps are working hard to overcome the stigma associated with using their products, as most consumers still associate non-cork stoppers with cheap wine. For now, the world’s premiere winemakers in Europe are still bullish on the cork reserves in their own backyards. And wine enthusiasts everywhere can do their part to help the environment by choosing wines with natural cork stoppers.
CONTACTS: Forest Stewardship Council, www.fsc.org/en/whats_new/news/news_notes/23; “Cork Screwed,” http://assets.panda.org/downloads/cork_rev12_print.pdf.
Dear EarthTalk: Do houseplants really help to clean indoor air? -- Jackson Schlemmer
One positive result of the 1970s energy crisis was the development and widespread adoption of improved insulation materials to maintain indoor energy efficiency. Unfortunately, however, many of these materials have compromised indoor air quality due to their tendency to “off-gas” various airborne toxins, including formaldehyde, trichloroethylene (TCE), benzene and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Much of the synthetic carpeting, upholstery and paint used indoors also contain sometimes noxious gases that get trapped inside air-tight homes and offices and which can build up gradually over time. And most synthetic air fresheners only make matters worse, adding even more harmful VOCs to the indoor air. With most people spending upwards of 90 percent of their time indoors, it may be no coincidence that cases of asthma and other respiratory diseases have been on the rise in recent years.
The unlikely hero in this scenario may in fact be the humble houseplant. In a landmark 1984 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) study, initially commissioned to find ways to clean air in space bases and vehicles, researcher Bill Wolverton found that some common houseplants actually cleaned polluted indoor air. He found that philodendrons and golden pothos excelled at stripping formaldehyde from the air, gerbera daisies and chrysanthemums wiped out excessive amounts of indoor benzene, and pot mums and peace lilies absorbed a toxic degreasing solvent known as TCE.
A later NASA study, also conducted by Wolverton, saw houseplants removing up to 87 percent of toxic indoor air within 24 hours. And a 1994 German study reported that one spider plant could cleanse a small room of formaldehyde in just six hours. Further, English ivy, bamboo palm and snake plants have been shown to be effective in removing cigarette smoke as well as noxious odors from carpeting and chemical-laden household cleaners.
Just how can a houseplant be so good at cleansing the air? The reason lies in its basic ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the air while releasing oxygen as part of the photosynthetic process. Houseplants are essentially doing indoors what other plants and trees ordinarily do outdoors.
To maximize the benefits of houseplants in cleaning indoor air, it is generally recommended to use one plant for every 100 square feet of indoor space. Besides those plants mentioned above, other good indoor air cleaners include palms, ferns, dracaenas, corn plants, weeping figs, dumb canes, orchids, arrowheads, dwarf bananas and Chinese evergreens.
For its part, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends opening the windows and letting in some good old-fashioned fresh air as the best antidote to breathing in off-gassed airborne toxins in both homes and offices. But many modern buildings do not permit such exchanges between indoor and outdoor air, and it is in just these situations where houseplants can really make the difference.
CONTACT: Plant-Care.com; www.plant-care.com/indoor-plants-clean-air-1.html.
Dear EarthTalk: Why do modern bacteria “resist” antibiotics, confounding medical treatment? -- Hugo Mestres
Antibiotics have played a profoundly important role in staving off bacterial infections since Alexander Fleming first discovered them in 1927. But the effectiveness of these so-called miracle drugs has waned in recent years as some of the very bacteria they are meant to control have been mutating into new forms that don't respond to treatment. Many medical experts blame this phenomenon on both the misuse and overuse of antibiotics in recent years in both human medicine and in agriculture.
Doctors first noticed antibiotic resistance more than a decade ago when children with middle ear infections stopped responding to them. Penicillin as a treatment for strep has also become increasingly less effective. And a recently-discovered strain of staph bacteria does not respond to antibiotic treatments at all, leading medical analysts to worry that certain “super bugs” could emerge that are resistant to even the most potent drugs, rendering some infections incurable. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) calls antibiotic resistance one of its “top concerns” and “one of the world’s most pressing health problems.”
One large part of the problem, according to the CDC, is the tendency for people to take antibiotics to fight viruses, which they cannot do. Antibiotics fight bacteria, not viruses, and will not fight colds, flu, bronchitis, runny noses, or sore throats not due to strep. Nonetheless, says CDC, “more than 10 million courses of antibiotics are prescribed each year for viral conditions that do not benefit from antibiotics.” To address this, a growing number of doctors, including Dr. Randel Cardott, an internist with Iowa’s Genesis Convenient Care, are advocating a “wait-and-see” approach to prescribing antibiotics, especially in cases like middle ear infections that sometimes prove to be viral and not bacterial in origin. Cardott says that European physicians have taken this approach for years with no adverse effects.
Scaling back on antibiotics for human maladies won't address the whole problem. Farmers and ranchers use antibiotics heavily, too. In North America, industrial beef, pig and poultry farming is a big unsanitary business, and antibiotics are used extensively to ward off diseases and also for non-medical reasons, such as to promote growth. In fact, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a non-profit research and advocacy group, estimates that some 70 percent of all antibiotics are used as additives in the feed given to healthy pigs, poultry and cattle. These drugs leave the animals’ bodies as waste and work their way into local water supplies, as well as right into the food chain. “Nonetheless,” says UCS, “agribusiness and the pharmaceutical industry are fighting hard to thwart restrictions on the use of antibiotics in agriculture.”
Keep Antibiotics Working, a non-profit dedicated to reducing antibiotics overuse in agriculture, advocates phasing out unnecessary antibiotics in healthy livestock and poultry. In lieu of Congressional action along these lines, the group is encouraging meat wholesalers and retailers to voluntarily stop buying or selling meat that has been produced using antibiotics for purposes other than treating sick animals. Consumers looking to avoid antibiotics in meat should seek out organic offerings at natural foods markets.
CONTACTS: UCS, www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/antibiotics_and_food/; Keep Antibiotics Working, www.keepantibioticsworking.com.
Dear EarthTalk: Can old tires be recycled? If so, where, and what is the recycled material used for? -- George, Rockville, MD
Old tires can indeed be recycled, and thanks to concerted efforts by state and provincial governments from coast-to-coast, as many as 80 percent of them are these days across North America. While some of these old tires are remanufactured into new tires, others are used in a wide variety of applications including railroad ties, rubber-modified asphalt, athletic surfaces, insulation, plastic/rubber blends used in a variety of products, even fuel.
The world's first tires were made entirely out of natural rubber, but the Southeast Asian forests where the plants grew could only produce so much. By World War II most tires were composed primarily of synthetic rubber made from petroleum products. Up until the 1960s, tires were routinely recycled and broken down for use in making new tires. But when imported oil got cheaper, demand for recycled synthetic rubber fell, and caches of old tires with nowhere to go -- most landfills won't accept them -- began to sully landscapes across North America. These old tire stockpiles became havens for pests and mosquitoes, and would even occasionally burst into flames and belch noxious chemicals into the air.
Beginning in the mid-1990s, state and provincial governments in the U.S. and Canada led the charge in mandating and funding tire recycling efforts. In doing so they helped spur the markets for reprocessed synthetic rubber that exist today. Now thousands of companies across North America specialize in turning recycled synthetic rubber into useful new products.
American consumers looking to off load old tires should take a gander at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) "Management of Scrap Tires" website to find tire recycling centers near them. Canadians can turn to the website of the Canadian Association of Tire Recycling Agencies (CATRA) to find out where to take used tires in any province, including even the remote Yukon Territory.
The EPA also offers free Business Planning Guides for those who might be looking to start a tire recycling or re-manufacturing business. The website Scrap Tire News also provides a wealth of knowledge on different ways to get started.
Despite this encouraging progress, North America still faces a backlog of hundreds of millions of old tires, quickly piling up outside filling stations and in backyards near you. The EPA estimates that 290 million scrap tires are generated annually, representing two percent of all solid waste, and that some 265 million are sitting in stockpiles right now. At the very least, we could all take the advice of Participating in Nature: Thomas J. Elpel's Field Guide to Primitive Living Skills and turn our old tires into "sandals with a 50,000 mile warranty!"
CONTACTS: EPA Scrap Tires Page, www.epa.gov/garbage/tires/index.htm; CATRA, www.catraonline.ca; Scrap Tire News, www.scraptirenews.com/youask.html; Tire Sandals, www.hollowtop.com/sandals.htm.

Dear EarthTalk: Can you explain the Zero Waste movement in Europe, Australia and elsewhere that goes beyond recycling to reduce waste? How can we make it happen here in the U.S.?-- Neil Weiss, Methuen, MA
In essence, "Zero Waste" is a design principle writ large, whereby products are conceived, produced, packaged, distributed and retired with their long-term environmental impacts in mind. According to the non-profit GrassRoots Recycling Network (GRRN), "Zero waste maximizes recycling, minimizes waste, reduces consumption and ensures that products are made to be reused, repaired or recycled back into nature or the marketplace." GRRN is calling on companies to take responsibility for the entire life cycle of their products and packaging, and on governments to not subsidize non-recyclable waste processing.
"Waste is the result of bad design," says Eric Lombardi of EcoCycle, a recycler in Boulder, Colorado. "The concept of zero waste leads upstream to the designer's desk, where waste needs to be designed out." Lombardi, a leading light in the fledgling U.S. zero waste movement, lays out four basic principles for achieving zero waste: (1) Make producers responsible for the waste their products create; (2) invest in infrastructure rather than in more landfills and incinerators; (3) end taxpayer subsidies for wasteful and polluting industries; (4) and create jobs and new businesses around the re-use of discards.
While the concept has been slow to catch on here, it has been standard practice in parts of Europe and elsewhere for over a decade. In fact, some 25 countries require companies to take back their packaging, and some have gone so far as to mandate "Extended Producer Responsibility" laws, whereby companies must pay for the waste generated in the production, packaging and distribution of their products.
In Germany, a 1991 ordinance seeking to address packaging waste was a huge success. By 2000, the agencies charged with collecting and recycling such materials were recovering over 90 percent of the plastics and glass used in German packaging. (In the U.S. we reclaim 5.3 and 26 percent respectively.)
Another success story comes from Australia, where its capital city, Canberra, embarked on a "No Waste by 2010" campaign in 1996. By 2001 the city had reduced waste sent to landfills by 40 percentand more than doubled the garbage it captured for reuse. The city also began fueling two of its power stations with re-captured methane gas from its landfills, which is plentiful enough to power 3,000 homes for 30 years.
In the U.S., industry has continually put up roadblocks to any serious consideration of adopting such initiatives at the federal level. But, according to the Zero Waste International Alliance, at least 18 local communities have taken it upon themselves to adopt their own strategies for achieving zero waste. These include a dozen California cities and towns; Boulder and Summit counties in Colorado; Carrboro, North Carolina; the Central Vermont Waste Management District; and the cities of Seattle and New York.
"Zero waste is about challenging the ruling paradigm that says we can manage waste safely in landfills and incinerators," says GRRN's national coordinator, Bill Sheehan. GRRN helps coordinate efforts to implement zero waste campaigns in the U.S., and offers a wealth of free resources on its website.
CONTACTS: GrassRoots Recycling Network, www.grrn.org; EcoCycle, www.ecocycle.org; Zero Waste International Alliance, www.zwia.org.
Dear EarthTalk: How could there ever be a "water scarcity?" Isn't water the most plentiful thing on Earth? --Chris Carroll, Austin, TX
Ocean water may cover more than 70 percent of the Earth's surface, but thirsty humans rely on finite supplies of freshwater to stay alive. And with exploding human population growth, especially in poor countries, these finite supplies get quickly spoken for. Further, in places without proper sanitation, water can become tainted with any number of diseases and parasites.
According to the World Bank, as many as two billion people lack adequate sanitation facilities to protect them from water-borne disease, while a billion lack access to clean water altogether. According to the United Nations, which has declared 2005-2015 the "Water for Life" decade, 95 percent of the world's cities still dump raw sewage into their water supplies. Thus it should come as no surprise to know that 80 percent of all the health maladies in developing countries can be traced back to unsanitary water.
Sandra Postel, author of the 1998 book, Last Oasis: Facing Water Scarcity, predicts big water availability problems as populations of so-called "water-stressed" countries jump perhaps six fold over the next 30 years. "It raises tons of issues about water and agriculture, growing enough food, providing for all the material needs that people demand as incomes increase, and providing drinking water," says Postel.
Developed countries aren't immune to freshwater problems either. Researchers found a six-fold increase in water use for only a two-fold increase in population size in the United States since 1900. Such a trend reflects the connection between higher living standards and increased water usage, and underscores the need for more sustainable management and use of water supplies even in more developed societies.
With world population expected to pass nine billion by mid-century, solutions to water scarcity problems are not going to come easy. Some have suggested that technology--such as large-scale saltwater desalination plants--could generate more freshwater for the world to use. But environmentalists argue that depleting ocean water is no answer and will only create other big problems. In any case, research and development into improving desalination technologies is ongoing, especially in Saudi Arabia, Israel and Japan. And already an estimated 11,000 desalination plants exist in some 120 countries around the world.
Others believe that applying market principles to water would facilitate a more efficient distribution of supply everywhere. Analysts at the Harvard Middle East Water Project, for example, advocate assigning a monetary value to freshwater, rather than considering it a free natural commodity. They say such an approach could help mitigate the political and security tensions caused by water scarcity.
As individuals, we can all reign in our own water use to help conserve what is becoming an ever more precious resource. We can hold off on watering our lawns in times of drought. And when it does rain, we can gather gutter water in barrels to feed garden hoses and sprinklers. We can turn off the faucet while we brush our teeth or shave, and take shorter showers. As Sandra Postel concludes, "Doing more with less is the first and easiest step along the path toward water security."
CONTACT: United Nations Water For Life Decade, www.un.org/waterforlifedecade.
Dear EarthTalk: How is it that African-Americans are said to suffer the most in the U.S. from pollution and other environmental ills? -- Jon Stein, Novato, CA
While conducting research upon completion of his sociology Ph.D. in Houston in 1979, Dr. Robert Bullard noticed that all the city's garbage dumps were located in and around neighborhoods inhabited primarily by African-Americans, even though blacks only accounted for a quarter of the city's population. Bullard hypothesized that such discriminatory siting was no coincidence, especially since Houston had no zoning laws to regulate land use. At the time, his findings helped a middle class African American community in the city prevent the building of a new dump facility in their neighborhood.
Fearful that the Houston situation was no anomaly, Bullard cast his net wider to find more examples of what he called "environmental racism." Indeed, he found not only dumps, but also polluting factories and other industrial blemishes throughout the American Southeast--from West Virginia to Alabama to Texas to Louisiana to Florida--located where poor and sometimes middle class African Americans lived. While discriminatory decision-making was no doubt a factor, Bullard also theorized that such communities' lack of political experience also contributed to their predicament. Such realizations gave birth to an entire new political movement, and today thousands of activists in the U.S. and elsewhere monitor policy making, lobby for new laws and fight City Hall in the struggle for "environmental justice."
In his seminal 1990 book, Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class, and Environmental Quality, Dr. Bullard emphasizes that the kinds of problems he uncovered in black communities in the Southeast are not limited to a particular region or ethnicity. "People of color in all regions of the country bear a disproportionate share of the nation's environmental problems," he said. The book, now in its third edition, highlights some of the cases Bullard considered over two decades, and makes a compelling case for taking into account issues of fairness when it comes to the siting and remediation of hazardous facilities of any type.
Bullard's pioneering work also helped shatter the myth that minority communities didn't care about the environment. With financial help from the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Bullard convened the first National People of Color Environmental Summit held in October 1991, and a year later published the first version of the People of Color Environmental Groups Directory with listings for more than 300 different groups in the U.S. alone. An expanded version of the directory released in 2000 is available free online from the website of Bullard's Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University.
These days Bullard is marshalling all the resources he can to monitor the "mother of all clean-ups" in post-Katrina New Orleans, and has been highly critical of the slow pace of federal and state efforts. Acknowledging that funds are limited, Bullard wonders, "which neighborhoods will get cleaned up and which ones will be left contaminated." No doubt, though, residents are glad to have Dr. Bullard and the thousands of environmental justice activists he inspired on their side this time around.
CONTACTS: Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University, www.ejrc.cau.edu; People of Color Environmental Groups Directory, www.ejrc.cau.edu/poc2000.htm.
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.

Dear EarthTalk: President Bush recently replaced Interior Secretary Gale Norton, who resigned, with Idaho governor Dirk Kempthorne. What was Norton’s environmental legacy and what can we expect from her successor? -- Kiernan Romano, Ronkonkoma, NY
The U.S. Department of Interior is one of 20 individuals and departments, including the vice-president and the Departments of Defense, Justice, Education, Labor, the recently created Department of Homeland Security and others, that make up the president’s Cabinet. The Interior Department is charged with protecting and conserving--in the interest of the American public--our land, water, energy and mineral resources, as well as the nation’s fish and wildlife.
According to the White House, Gale Norton, the first woman to ever lead the Interior Department, was a rousing success in the influential position she held for six years. Upon accepting her resignation in March, President Bush praised her for an initiative to protect communities from catastrophic wildfires. He also told reporters that she helped lead efforts to restore offshore energy production after Hurricane Katrina, lauding her as “a strong advocate for the wise use and protection of our nation’s natural resources.”
But Norton’s legacy does not look so rosy to most eco-advocates. For one, she spearheaded (as-yet unsuccessful) efforts to open up Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, an action green leaders say would yield little oil in relation to the large profits that already bloated oil companies would gain. She also opened more federal land across the American West to oil drilling and mining than any other Interior Secretary before her. Critics also say that her wildfire protection efforts, through the thinning of forested areas, were a veiled effort to hand over otherwise untouchable forestlands to the logging industry.
The New York Times called Norton “a key player in the Bush administration’s efforts to exploit natural resources on federal lands.” The League of Conservation Voters (LCV), in issuing a statement about her resignation, said, “Gale Norton’s decision to leave the Interior Department provides the opportunity for President Bush to appoint an individual who believes that…America truly does have an addiction to oil and who will create policies to help wean America off that addiction. The new Secretary needs to understand our national treasures are to be protected, not exploited for profit…that America’s public lands are not intended to be sold to the highest bidder.”
But to those happy to see Norton go, Dirk Kempthorne is cold comfort. “As Idaho governor, Kempthorne led the charge to strip protection from 60 million acres of America’s last wild forests and he’s consistently fought against protection for wildlife like grizzly bears and salmon in his home state,” said Todd True of the non-profit group Earthjustice. And Chuck Clusen, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called Kempthorne, “Gale Norton in pants,” saying: “President Bush could not have made a more anti-environmental choice for his new secretary of the Interior. Dirk Kempthorne surely will continue this administration’s ‘drill first, ask questions later’ approach to public land stewardship.”
Kempthorne racked up a dismal environmental record during his six years in the Senate in the 1990s, scoring a “0” on LCV’s legislative scorecards in every year except one in which he scored “6” out of 100.
CONTACTS: Earthjustice, www.earthjustice.org; U.S. Department of Interior, www.doi.gov;
Dear EarthTalk: Are there any environmentally friendly alternatives to using chemical weed killers like RoundUp? -- Wyatt Walley, Needham, MA
The active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, glyphosate, is a known toxin. This is, of course, why it is so successful in eradicating pesky weeds. In fact, glyphosate is the most commonly used pesticide in the United States, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that over five million pounds of it are used in American yards and gardens annually.
According to Caroline Cox, staff scientist at the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP), gardeners wouldn't use Roundup if they knew about all of the problems attributed to its use. For instance, ingesting about three-fourths of a cup can be lethal. And symptoms of just casual contact can include eye and skin irritation, lung congestion and erosion of the intestinal tract. Monsanto’s Roundup has also been linked to cancer, miscarriages and genetic damage in humans, so it’s no wonder that NCAP and other organizations are pushing for safer alternatives. Environmentally, the product is thought to be implicated in immune system damage in fish and reproductive disruption in amphibians.
Over a recent eight-year study period in California, glyphosate was the third most frequently reported cause of illness related to agricultural pesticide use. And scientists from the National Cancer Institute and three prominent medical centers have shown the use of glyphosate herbicides by midwestern farmers to be associated with many cases of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Roundup also contains other non-active ingredients, contact with which can cause nausea, diarrhea, chemical pneumonia, laryngitis and severe headaches.
Luckily, reports Cox, “There are effective pesticide-free solutions to the weed problems in our yards and gardens.” For instance, mulches made from wood chips, straw, grass clippings or shredded bark can be used to keep weed seeds from germinating. Quite simply, by keeping light from reaching weeds, a thick mulch layer naturally inhibits the growth of the chlorophyll that is the lifeblood of fast-growing weeds.
Cox also says that maintaining healthy, well-aerated soil is essential to a program of chemical-free weed control, and suggests using organic fertilizer where needed. Longer grass, between two and three inches tall, also helps keep weeds in check without chemicals. When weeds do appear anyway, Cox recommends non-chemical weeding tools such as hoes, string trimmers, weed pullers, flame weeders or radiant heat weeders. Local organic nurseries can help you determine which techniques will work best in your area.
One added benefit of giving up the Roundup habit might be the blossoming of beneficial plants, fungi and creepy crawlies in your yard. Since Roundup is toxic to a wide range of important ecological builders like ladybugs, beetles, earthworms and fungi, going without can help bring these species back to work aerating your soil and keeping virulent pests in check naturally.
CONTACT: Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) Healthier Homes and Gardens Program, www.pesticide.org/HHG.html.
Dear EarthTalk: I’ve heard some environmental advocates claim that organic farming could produce enough food to feed the world. Is this true? --Gabe Morello, Lynnwood, WA
Advocates of modern agriculture reliant on pesticides and widespread single crop plantings (known as “monoculture”) have bragged for decades about the increased productivity their high-tech methods can yield. Indeed, several studies in the U.S., Britain and Australia have shown that such methods produce as much as 40 percent more than the more benign methods that served mankind well for thousands of years.
As a result, seed growers and pesticide makers are now working in poor countries to promote the same “green revolution” there, capable, they say, of growing enough food to feed the desperately hungry.
But a spate of new research has shown that organic farming actually yields better results than modern techniques when evaluated more holistically. A series of peer-reviewed papers published by the international journal, Nature, showed that organic methods for growing rice, corn and wheat all produced significantly higher yields--and at less the cost--than monoculture farms. And research at England’s Essex University has shown that farmers in India, Kenya, Brazil, Guatemala and Honduras have doubled or tripled their yields by switching to organic agriculture. Cuban farmers, who cannot access fertilizers and pesticides due to the U.S. embargo, have also realized greater yields by taking up organic farming.
According to Dr. Christos Vasilikiotis of the University of California, Berkeley, a vocal advocate of organic farming, chemically intensive farming is highly undesirable due to the toll it takes on the land and the pollution it generates. “Organic…farming methods continually increase soil fertility and prevent loss of topsoil to erosion, while conventional methods have the opposite effect,” he says. He further maintains that “only a conversion to organic farming will allow us to maintain and even increase current crop yields.”
Dr. Liz Stockdale of Britain’s Institute of Arable Crops Research agrees, and points out that even when organic yields are less than conventional ones, organic farmers make up the financial difference by not having to buy costly pesticides and fertilizers. She adds that improved growing techniques and new natural pest controls could eventually level the playing field, giving organic farmers the economic advantage.
According to the trade group, Organic Consumers Association, only slightly more than two percent of all farms in the U.S. are currently organic. But with sales of domestic organic food growing about 20 percent annually, the organization expects that figure to rise exponentially in years to come.
Still, though, feeding the world is a tall order, and everyone from organic farmers to environmental leaders to human rights workers agrees that ending hunger is dependent more upon political will than agricultural prowess. “Until governments tackle the social and political factors involved in poverty and food distribution, millions of people will continue to go hungry,” concludes Stockdale.
CONTACTS: Organic Consumers Association, www.organicconsumers.org; U.S. Department of Agriculture National Organic Program, www.ams.usda.gov/nop.
Dear EarthTalk: How do solar swimming pool heaters work? Are they efficient? How do they compare in cost to conventional pool heaters? -- Bob Whelan, Providence, RI
While more efficient swimming pool heaters exist, solar heaters offer the most cost effective option, given that the fuel source, sunshine, is free. According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Consumer’s Guide to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, solar pool heating systems cost more than other common options such as gas heaters or heat pumps, but will usually provide payback within two to seven years of purchase (depending upon local fuel costs) due to fuel savings. Owners are guaranteed to make back their initial outlay, too, as solar heaters are not dependent upon motorized moving parts, and thus last twice as long as other types of heaters and don't rack-up significant maintenance costs. Of course, solar pool heaters are also the most environmentally benign option, as no fossil fuels need to be burned to maintain the right amount of warmth.
Most solar pool heating systems come with four key interacting components: a flow control valve takes pool water and sends it through a collector; a filter removes debris before the water reaches the collector; the collector itself heats the water that passes through it; and a pump sends that water back into the pool. In warmer climates, the system can be used to cool the pool in summer months by operating only at night.
But such solar technology need not be restricted to warm climates. As long as the sun is shining, it can provide solar energynot to be confused with the sun’s heateven when it is cold outside. Indeed, the DOE reports that solar pool heaters are sold in every climatic region of the continental U.S., meaning that solar is a smart choice even for pools in more northern latitudes like Maine or Minnesota.
While solar pool heaters excel at maintaining steady water temperatures over long time periods, they are not nearly as fast as gas heaters for quick last-minute heat-ups. As such, many pool owners install hybrid systems combining the best elements of gas and solar systems. Also, using a pool cover will reduce heat, water and chlorine loss while maintaining efficiency and preventing debris from sullying the water, regardless of which type of heater system is in place. Even better, “solar blankets” are high-tech covers that use thousands of sealed air pouches to facilitate heat transfer from the sun’s ray to the pool water below.
If you are thinking of installing a solar pool heating system, the online version of the DOE’s Consumer’s Guide provides tips on determining if your pool’s location is adequate enough (i.e. does it get enough sunlight?) and on how to choose the system that best suits your needs. The handy website will also show you how to compare competing systems and investigate relevant local pertinent regulations.
Some of the leading manufacturers of solar pool heating system include EZ Heat, Hi-Deluxe, Sungrabber and Suntrek. As always, unless you’re familiar with the intricacies of your pool’s inner workings, it’s best to get a certified installer to work with you to make sure installation goes swimmingly.
CONTACT: Consumer’s Guide to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/; EZ Heat, www.harterindustries.com/ezheat.htm; Hi-Deluxe, www.cetsolar.com/hideluxe.htm; Sungrabber, www.sungrabber.net; Suntrek, www.suntreksolar.com .
Dear EarthTalk: With the recent hubbub over the chemicals used to make Teflon linked to health problems, what is the safest cookware to use in preparing meals for my family? -- Wyatt Walley, Needham, MA
When the health risks associated with making Teflon first came to light last year, many cooks trashed their non-stick cookware and went back to using their old stainless steel pots and pans. But what many people didn't realize was that even stainless steel is not immune to controversy regarding health impacts.
In fact, stainless steel is really a mixture of several different metals, including nickel, chromium and molybdenum, all of which can trickle into foods. However, unless your stainless steel cookware is dinged and pitted, the amount of metals likely to get into your food is negligible.
These days, many health conscious cooks are turning to anodized aluminum cookware as a safer alternative. The electro-chemical anodizing process locks in the cookware’s base metal, aluminum, so that it can't get into food, and makes for what many cooks consider an ideal non-stick and scratch-resistant cooking surface. Calphalon is the leading manufacturer of anodized aluminum cookware, but newer offerings from All Clad (endorsed by celebrity chef Emeril Lagasse) and others are coming on strong.
Another good choice is that old standby, cast iron, which is known for its durability and even heat distribution. Cast iron cookware can also help ensure that eaters in your house get enough iron--which the body needs to produce red blood cells--as it seeps off the cookware into food in small amounts. Unlike the metals that can come off of some other types of pots and pans, iron is considered a healthy food additive by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Consumers should beware, though, that most cast iron cookware needs to be seasoned after each use and as such is not as worry-free as other alternatives. Lodge Manufacturing is the leading American producer of cast iron cookware.
For those who like the feel and heat distribution properties of cast iron but dread the seasoning process, ceramic enameled cookware from Le Creuset, World Cuisine and others is a good choice. The smooth and colorful enamel is dishwasher-friendly and somewhat non-stick, and covers the entire surface of such cookware to minimize clean-up headaches. One other surface favored by chefs for sauces and sautés is copper, which excels at quick warm-ups and even heat distribution. Since copper can leak into food in large amounts when heated, the cooking surfaces are usually lined with tin or stainless steel.
But if you’re concerned about the build-up of solid waste in our landfills, don't trash your non-stick cookware just yet. According to DuPont, the finished product of Teflon does not contain any of the production-process chemicals linked to health problems in factory workers. And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that ingesting small particles of Teflon flaked off into food is not known to cause any health maladies. With proper use and care, such pots and pan--which constitute more than half of all cookware sales in the U.S.--should be safe to use for years to come.
CONTACTS: Calphalon, www.calphalon.com; All-Clad, www.allclad.com, Lodge Manufacturing, www.lodgemfg.com; Le Creuset, www.lecreuset.com; World Cuisine, www.world-cuisine.com.
Dear EarthTalk: I’ve heard that gas-powered lawn mowers, despite their small engine size, actually pollute as much as cars. If this is true, is there a greener way to cut my grass? -- Jon Haufe, Seattle, WA
Reports about those noxious fumes emitted from gasoline lawn mowers are indeed true. A Swedish study conducted in 2001 concluded, “Air pollution from cutting grass for an hour with a gasoline powered lawn mower is about the same as that from a 100 mile automobile ride.” Meanwhile, the 54 million Americans mowing their lawns each weekend with gas-powered mowers may be contributing as much as five percent of the nation’s air pollution, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The problem is that small engines emit disproportionately large amounts of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides that contribute to smog. The human health effects of smog-laden air are well known, and include inflammation and damage to lungs, increased risk of asthma attacks, and lowered levels of oxygen in the bloodstream, which can aggravate heart conditions.
Fortunately, the EPA is now phasing in new emissions standards for gas mower engines that will result in a 32 percent smog reduction for all models made starting in 2007. And with even more stringent standards slated to go into effect soon in California, environmental leaders are hoping that the old adage for automobile trends (“as goes California, so goes the nation”) will soon apply to lawn mowers too.
But even with such progress, gas power is not the only option. Eco-conscious consumers looking for a new mower should consider, among other options, any of the electric models now available. The easy part is the price, as many models cost less than $200. The trade-off is that they only work for small lawns and must be tethered to a power outlet during use. Also, going electric is not necessarily a way to reduce pollution overall. According to Consumer Reports, “Achieving a net environmental savings from switching to electric mowers depends on the efficiency of the power plant” from where the electricity originates.
If money is not an issue, the $2,500 solar-powered “auto mower” from Husqvarna can't be beat for both eco-friendliness and convenience. It wanders unattended around any level lawn, its collision sensors carefully avoiding contact with anything but the grass itself. While it is currently not available directly in the U.S., some Husqvarna dealers are willing to special order it from Sweden where it is manufactured.
Another green option, and a much more affordable one, is the Solar Powered Mulching Mower from Gaiam, which is in essence a cordless electric Black & Decker mower modified with a small solar array to turn sunlight into power. The battery on the $795 mower can also be charged by simply plugging it in.
Of course, the greenest choice of all is the mower than runs on three square meals a day and a good exercise regimen: the venerable human-powered reel mower. The most popular choices are from American Lawn Mower, which makes nine models including a child-size. They can be found at retailers like Ace Hardware and Target (and at local hardware stores) and in catalogs like Real Goods and Smith & Hawken.
CONTACTS: Husqvarna, www.husqvarna.com; Gaiam, www.gaiam.com; American Lawn Mower, www.reelin.com.
Dear EarthTalk: I'm looking for projects for my son’s elementary school to do for Earth Day this year. Do you know of any that can teach children about taking care of our environment? -- Meryl Greenfield, Williston Park, NY
Earth Day is April 22 this year and there’s no time like the present to start preparing activities that will teach young people about the importance of protecting the planet. The Seattle-based Earth Day Network, founded by the organizers of the first Earth Day in 1970, offers a wide range of resources to help parents and teachers plan events and direct appropriate discussions on current topics. This year, the organization is focusing efforts on raising awareness about environmental problems associated with global warming.
Parents and teachers can register with Earth Day Network and receive free materials including lesson plans, information on how to get students engaged in local environmental activities, suggestions for hands-on and outdoor activities--even an environmentally-themed “Jeopardy” game.
Some other free resources offered by Earth Day Network include: an “Ecological Footprint Quiz,” whereby kids can find out how much impact they personally have on the environment as determined by how they eat, live and travel; a series of informative fact sheets on climate change and alternative energy sources; and links on their website to other reputable information sources online. And if you’re looking for Earth Day events to attend in your area, Earth Day Network’s website allows you to simply type in your locale and get a continuously updated calendar of events local to you.
Meanwhile, Kaboose.com, an educational website for kids and families, features Earth Day pages with green-themed online games, suggestions for recycling everyday items into Earth-friendly crafts, and kid-oriented eco-discussion topics. And Education World offers lesson plans and activities covering a wide range of topics including here-and-now issues like in-school recycling and minimizing lunchroom wastes.
Another interesting way to educate kids and the public alike is the Earth Day Groceries Project: Parents or teachers borrow grocery bags from local supermarkets to be decorated with environmental messages and artwork by students. The bags are then returned to the store and used for bagging groceries on April 22.
For those looking to get real local, the Heartland All Species Project offers a free, web-based “Earth Day in Your Neighborhood” guide outlining ways kids can bring neighbors together to celebrate the Earth and commit to greener living. The concise and illustrated guide details ways to get composting, tree planting, energy efficiency and recycling projects going on a street-by-street basis.
For additional ideas, consider perusing the posts on the Earth Day/Ecology Projects Chatboard on Teachers.net. Several teachers have posted ideas for Earth Day projects and activities, from putting on a play based on Dr. Seuss' Lorax, to raising money for school by recycling inkjet cartridges.
CONTACTS: Earth Day Network, www.earthday.net; Kaboose.com, www.kidsdomain.com/holiday/earthday; Earth Day Groceries Project, www.earthdaybags.org; Heartland All Species Project, www.allspecies.org/neigh/blocka.htm; Education World, www.education-world.com/holidays/archives/earthday.shtml; Teachers.net, www.teachers.net/projects/earthday.
Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that some foods we buy contain genetically engineered ingredients known to cause health problems? -- George Kaye, New York, NY
First made available in the U.S. during the mid-1990s, genetically modified (GM) foods have become staples of American agriculture, though most consumers are unaware of this. According to the non-profit Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, the majority of corn, soy and cotton grown by American farmers today are from seeds genetically engineered to repel pests without the need for spraying pesticides or herbicides. GM versions of canola, squash and papaya are also coming on strong in the U.S.
As is the case with so many scientific controversies, the jury is still out regarding the potential health effects of GM food products. But while conclusive results have been hard to come by, some of the few studies conducted on animals fed diets consisting of GM foods have generated some disturbing results.
In one study, potatoes engineered to contain an insect-repelling gene to improve agricultural yield caused intestinal damage in the test subjects--some lab mice. While the mice did not die from eating the altered food, lesions that formed in their digestive tracts gave researchers pause enough to recommend more thorough testing of the “transgenic potatoes” before marketing them to humans.
In another study, mice were fed so-called “Flavr Savr” Tomatoes--tomatoes developed in the early 90s by Calgene that were “optimized for flavor retention.” Similar lesions arose in the intestines of the mice, causing reviewers from the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to conclude that “the data fall short of ‘a demonstration of safety’,” adding, “unresolved questions still remain.” Yet later, yielding to the pressure of industry lobbyists, the FDA not only approved the Flavr Savr for mass human consumption, but also claimed that all safety issues had been satisfactorily resolved.
According to Belinda Martineau, a Calgene researcher who later published the tell-all book, First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Foods, when the Flavr Savr hit store shelves consumers were not particularly impressed with its taste. Also, farmers were coping with disease problems and low yields, the very problems the technology sought to address in the first place. Eventually the FlavrSavr--or “Franken tomato,” as some cynics dubbed it--was abandoned altogether.
Its legacy lives on, however. Many environmental advocates feel that the FDA’s nod on the Flavr Savr set the bar particularly low for approval of other GM foods that may or may not cause health problems. Further, it remains to be seen what effects these hybridized species might have on the environment at large, reason enough to delay the mass release of GM foods into the market until more is known.
Meanwhile, European countries have remained steadfast against allowing GM crops to be grown on their own farms for fear of widespread environmental contamination. And whether or not to allow GM food imports into Europe is a matter of great debate right now within the European Union.
CONTACTS: Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, www.pewagbiotech.org; First Fruit, www.books.mcgraw-hill.com/getbook.php?isbn=0071360565
Dear EarthTalk: Is it feasible to put up my own wind turbine to provide electricity to my home? -- Erin McGowan, Seattle, WA
Putting up your own wind turbine to provide electricity is technically feasible, but the costs for permitting, purchasing, installing and maintaining the technology remain prohibitive for all but the wealthiest, especially given the low costs of traditional power from the electricity grid across the United States.
Sadly, a Gloucester, Massachusetts resident recently spent $30,000 to erect a 10,000-watt, 125-foot-tall wind turbine in her tiny backyard in order to generate her own pollution-free electricity. The turbine worked well initially, generating most of the power for her house, but then it broke and the $10,000 part required to make it run again was too expensive, so the equipment has remained dormant ever since.
But the hard economic facts of backyard wind power are not enough to deter some idealists from working to build both supply and demand for what many view as the world’s cleanest form of renewable energy. For one, the non-profit Northwest Sustainable Energy for Economic Development (NWSEED) has launched a program called “Our Wind Cooperative” to promote customer-owned wind power among farmers and other rural landowners in the Pacific Northwest.
NWSEED put together a package of federal and private funding options for those willing to put small turbines for personal and public use on their land. The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Systems Laboratory (NREL) gave the project a $300,000 grant, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture kicked in $50,000. Also, the non-profit Bonneville Environmental Foundation extended a low-interest loan, and pledged to buy and help generate further demand for some of the power generated.
By the end of 2003, NWSEED had enough money to install small turbines on 10 rural sites in Montana and Washington. So far, five are running and a sixth is due to go online soon. Though each turbine costs $40,000, grants have kept participant costs to under $10,000. Without the subsidy, the program would not be cost-effective in the short run but, like all new technologies, costs will come down as demand grows. And as a pilot program to showcase wind’s potential, the project is considered to be a rousing success.
Elsewhere, in Silicon Valley, a slew of alternative energy firms, including many focusing on small-scale wind power, are being born. Among them are AeroVironment and Aerotecture, both specializing in backyard windmills that power lights, appliances, and heating and cooling systems without polluting.
More new wind power facilities were installed in the U.S. last year than anywhere else in the world. According to the Global Wind Energy Council, the U.S. installed 2,400 megawatts--equivalent to the energy produced by five large coal-fired power plants in a year--in 2005 alone. These were mainly large wind farms, but the industry’s growth is nevertheless encouraging to those of us who dream about putting that howling wind outside our windows to good use.
CONTACTS: NWSEED, www.nwseed.org; National Wind Technology Center, www.nrel.gov/wind.
Dear EarthTalk: What are some green-friendly hardwood floor waxes I can use in my home that aren't as toxic as conventional brands? -- Pat Montgomery, Phoenix, AZ
Most of us spend about 90 percent of our time indoors, so minimizing the use of harmful chemicals in our homes, offices and schools is important to keep the air we breathe healthy and the constructed surfaces we live on free of irritants and toxins.
But there are trade-offs, as proper maintenance of most types of flooring requires that occasional waxing to protect the finish beneath our feet. Among the worst offenders commonly found in mainstream floor waxes is cresol, which can cause liver and kidney damage if inhaled over extended periods of time. Formaldehyde, which has been linked to everything from asthma to reproductive problems to cancer, is also a key floor wax ingredient that should be avoided whenever possible. Some other hazardous ingredients in traditional floor waxes are nitrobenzene, perchloroethylene, phenol, toluene and xylene.
Luckily for the eco-conscious homemaker, a number of forward-thinking companies have risen to the green challenge by manufacturing floor waxes that help maintain a more healthy and pure indoor environment. Seattle’s Environmental Home Center, one of the country’s foremost green building product retailers, recommends and sells BioShield's all-natural Furniture and Floor Hardwax for wood floors. The beeswax, carnauba wax and natural resin paste that make up the basis of BioShield's formula produce a dirt- and dust-resistant final coat to protect floors without compromising your health or indoor air quality.
Eco-House Inc., based in New Brunswick, Canada, manufactures a similar formulation for wood floors called #300 Carnauba Floor Wax. It contains beeswax, carnauba wax, refined linseed oil, rosemary oil, a mild citrus-based thinner, and natural resins. It can be ordered directly from the company or through various green-building retailers across North America.
Meanwhile, Sensitive Design, a green architectural firm based in British Columbia, Canada, recommends that its clients maintain their wood, cork or open-pored stone floors with BILO floor wax. Made by the German company, Livos, which manufactures home care products that contain only biologically and environmentally responsible ingredients grown without pesticides, BILO is available online from the Green Home Environmental Store.
For the do-it-yourself crowd, the free online Guide to Less Toxic Products (from the Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia) recommends concocting your own all-natural wood floor wax by warming up a combination of olive oil, vodka, beeswax and carnauba wax in a tin can or glass jar in simmering water. Once the concoction has been mixed and allowed to harden, it can be rubbed directly into wood floors with rags. For more detailed instructions, visit the association’s website (listed below).
CONTACTS: Environmental Home Center, www.environmentalhomecenter.com; BioShield, www.bioshieldpaint.com; Sensitive Design, www.sensitivedesign.com; Green Home Environmental Store, www.greenhome.com; Guide to Less Toxic Products, www.lesstoxicguide.ca
Dear EarthTalk: As I understand it, “hybrid” cars make use of an electric motor that never needs to be plugged in. But what’s up with the proposed “plug-in” hybrids I've been hearing about? -- Jen Seminara, Omaha, NE
The mass-market gasoline-electric hybrids made by Toyota, Honda and others make use of an electric engine right under the hood next to the gas engine. That electric motor creates fuel economy by kicking into use during idling, backing up, slow traffic, and to maintain speed after the gas engine has been employed for acceleration. The car doesn't need to be plugged in because the on-board electric battery is constantly being charged by the gas engine and by the motion of the wheels and the brakes.
The so-called “plug-in hybrids,” now in prototype stages of development, take this technology a step further. By adding the ability to charge up from a standard household outlet, typically overnight, such cars relegate the gas engine to back-up status and instead let the electric motor do most of the work.
Proponents claim that such “gas-optional” cars--if you don't take long trips you can rely entirely on the electric motor--can be twice as fuel efficient as hybrids, which already get double the gas mileage of traditional vehicles. Additionally, they say, powering up plug-in hybrids with wall sockets results in far less pollution (from the power plants providing the electricity) than an equivalent gasoline-powered car spews out its tailpipe. Meanwhile, plug-in hybrids recharged from rooftop solar power systems might approach being the world’s first mass-market “zero emission” vehicles, requiring no power from the grid at all.
Convincing a skeptical American public that plug-in hybrids are the way of the future is the challenge of a loose network of advocacy groups led by the California Cars Initiative (CalCars). Indeed, the experimental electric vehicles of a decade ago and older required re-charging every 25-50 miles, rendering them useless for anything but short trips. The new breed of plug-in hybrids solves this problem by employing much more sophisticated battery technology while still keeping the insurance of gasoline (and a gas engine) on-board.
“It’s like having a second small fuel tank that you always use first--only you fill this tank at home with electricity at an equivalent cost of under $1/gallon,” reports the CalCars website. The organization goes on to explain that with gas prices at $3/gallon, traditional cars cost eight to 20 cents per mile, while plug-in hybrids used for all-electric local travel and commuting would cost only two to four cents per mile.
CalCars is lobbying the world’s major automakers to introduce plug-in options on future hybrid models, and has built showcase examples themselves that achieve 100 miles per gallon using Toyota’s Prius. Meanwhile, a growing list of state and local governments say they would seriously consider converting their fleets to plug-in hybrids if such vehicles became available.
The website HybridCars.com reports that DaimlerChrysler has built a handful of prototypes based on its 15-passenger Mercedes-Benz Sprinter van. And analysts believe Toyota already has the technology in place but may be waiting to gauge consumer demand before making any production commitments. Only time--with a little guidance from the price of gasoline--will tell.
CONTACT: California Cars Initiative (CalCars), www.calcars.org.
Dear EarthTalk: Is it economical and environmentally friendly for me to recycle my empty inkjet printer cartridges instead of buying new ones? --Matt Hoffman, Seattle, WA
Analysts estimate that more than 300 million inkjet printer cartridges find their way into American landfills every year. Each of those new cartridges requires about three quarts of oil and other raw materials to produce, and also contributes its fair share of greenhouse gases during manufacturing. And as anyone who has ever bought one knows, they come packaged in such excessive amounts of cardboard and plastic that it often takes several minutes and a pair of strong scissors to break through to even get to the ink cartridge!
Thus any effort to reuse or recycle these items is a big win for the environment. And given the exorbitant prices of new inkjet cartridges--the real profit center for printer manufacturers--it makes economic sense, too, for consumers who just want to save money.
The good news is that Americans are already recycling more than 40,000 tons of inkjet cartridges each year. Hundreds of companies out there are eager to pay for your used cartridges so they can re-ink them and resell them at prices much lower than for new ones.
We Buy Empties, InkjetCartridge.com and the eCycle Group, among others, take back major brand inkjet printer cartridges and pay for the privilege, even reimbursing shipping costs. These companies usually only accept large quantities (like 100 or more) of spent cartridges, paying between 10 cents and $5 each, depending on the cartridge type. Meanwhile, Staples, Office Depot and Office Max each give customers about $3 in store credit, or in some cases a ream of office paper, for each empty cartridge that is returned.
Meanwhile, most of the major inkjet printer manufacturers, including Hewlett-Packard, Epson, Canon and Lexmark, will gladly take back empty cartridges shipped directly to them in their original boxes. Hewlett-Packard even puts pre-paid return shipping labels inside their boxes to facilitate customer recycling of their used inkjet cartridges.
Several such companies offer special buy-back rates for schools, churches and other non-profits, which can solicit and collect used cartridges from members and businesses to raise money. Interested organizations can contact companies like iRethink and Funding Factory, which both have special programs to facilitate collection and reimbursement for spent inkjet cartridges.
Those who don't mind getting their hands a little messy can re-ink their empty cartridges themselves. Squeeze bottle ink refills are the most cost effective and environmentally friendly way to keep on printing. Inkjetman, which sells its own refilled inkjet cartridges, also sells inkjet refill kits, which will last through thousands of pages, for about the price of a single new cartridge. FillJet sells similar kits, and estimates the cost of a refilled cartridge to be about $2 in ink, which represents a savings of at least 80 percent over buying refilled recycled cartridges from them.
CONTACTS: iRethink, www.irethink.com, Funding Factory, www.fundingfactory.com, We Buy Empties, www.webuyempties.com, InkjetCartridge.com, www.inkjetcartridge.com, The eCycle Group, www.ecyclegroup.com, Inkjetman, www.inkjetman.com, FillJet, www.inkjetrefilloutlet.com.
Dear EarthTalk: As warm weather approaches I know we’re going to have a problem again with ticks near our home. Are there any eco-safe applications we could use to get rid of them? -- Thomas Cohn, Bedford Corners, NY
“Tick season” will be upon us sooner than we know it, as early as April if post-winter weather warms up fast. And ticks can pass on more diseases to humans than any other creepy crawly except the mosquito.
Small bugs with big bites, ticks are of course associated most with Lyme Disease, symptoms of which include fever, headache, fatigue, and a distinctive circular skin rash. Left untreated, infection can spread to joints and the nervous system and, according to the Centers for Disease Control, to the heart as well.
Modern science has devised many ways to keep ticks at bay, most involving harsh chemicals with dubious safety records. Indeed, according to a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the majority of tick products on the market today contain toxins, known collectively as organophosphate insecticides (OPs), which not only kill insects but can also damage the nervous systems of pets and people.
Studies have shown that children exposed to OPs may face increased risk of health problems later in life, including cancer and Parkinson’s disease. One recent study showed that people with any history of in-home exposure to insecticides containing OPs faced twice the risk of Parkinson’s as the rest of the population. In addition, four OPs used in pet products increase cancers in lab animals, and as such may cause cancer in humans. One study showed children of pregnant women exposed to products containing OPs to be 250 percent more likely than those in a control group to develop brain cancer before the age of five. According to NRDC, pesticides that contain the OPs chlorpyrifos, dichlorvos, phosmet, tetrachlorvinphos, naled, diazinon and Malathion should be avoided, and regulated much more stringently by government.
While there is no environmentally safe and effective way to spray buildings or backyards to fight ticks, the Bio-Integral Resource Center urges an approach that manages the habitat in and around your home to make it less hospitable to ticks. Ticks are attracted to humidity, so deep and infrequent watering of your lawn will let it dry out between applications. Vegetation should be cut below ankle height, the brush along paths and roadways removed, and trees pruned to let the light through. This will also make your property less appealing to animal hosts such as rabbits, rodents, possum, raccoons and deer. Further steps include placing soap, hair, garlic, lilac, jasmine or holly--all having deer-repelling qualities--around your property.
Because pets are frequent carriers, their sleeping quarters should be vacuumed frequently. NRDC also recommends that pet owners ask their veterinarian about dog and cat collars containing fipronil, a chemical which blocks nerve transmission in insects but has little if any effect on people or pets.
The best advice when exploring the outdoors during tick season is to always cover yourself from head to toe, and to wear light-colored clothing so you can spot ticks more easily if they do get on you. Search yourself thoroughly, particularly at the base of your skull, and wash clothes immediately afterwards.
CONTACTS: Centers for Disease Control, www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/lyme/index.htm; NRDC, www.nrdc.org/health/effects/pets/execsum.asp; Bio-Integral Resource Center, www.birc.org.
Dear EarthTalk: Did the car companies really conspire to kill the trolleys and streetcars of bygone days to force us to become dependent on automobiles instead? -- Taylor Howe, San Francisco, CA
Indeed, in the 1920s automaker General Motors (GM) began a covert campaign to undermine the popular rail-based public transit systems that were ubiquitous in and around the country’s bustling urban areas. At the time, only one in 10 Americans owned cars and most people traveled by trolley and streetcar.
Within three decades, GM, with help from Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, Mack Truck and Phillips Petroleum, succeeded in decimating the nation’s trolley systems, while seeing to the creation of the federal highway system and the ensuing dominance of the automobile as America’s preferred mode of transport.
GM began by funding a company called National City Lines (NCL), which by 1946 controlled streetcar operations in 80 American cities. “Despite public opinion polls that showed 88 percent of the public favoring expansion of the rail lines after World War II, NCL systematically closed its streetcars down until, by 1955, only a few remained,” writes author Jim Motavalli in his 2001 book, Forward Drive.
GM first replaced trolleys with free-roaming buses, eliminating the need for tracks embedded in the street and clearing the way for cars. As dramatized in a 1996 PBS docudrama, Taken for a Ride, Alfred P. Sloan, GM’s president at the time, said, “We've got 90 percent of the market out there that we can…turn into automobile users. If we can eliminate the rail alternatives, we will create a new market for our cars.” And they did just that, with the help of GM subsidiaries Yellow Coach and Greyhound Bus. Sloan predicted that the jolting rides of buses would soon lead people to not want them and to buy GM’s cars instead.
GM was later instrumental in the creation of the National Highway Users Conference, which became the most powerful lobby in Washington. Highway lobbyists worked directly with lawmakers to craft highway-friendly legislation, and GM’s promotional films were showcasing America’s burgeoning interstate highway system as the realization of the so-called “American dream of freedom on wheels.” When GM President Charles Wilson became Secretary of Defense in 1953, he worked with Congress to craft the $25 billion Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Referred to at the time as the “greatest public works project in the history of the world,” the federally funded race to build roads from coast-to-coast was on.
Meanwhile, many eco-advocates and urban planners alike yearn for a rebirth of public transit. In the face of nightmarish traffic tie-ups nationwide, widespread urban sprawl, loss of open space, and the global warming we owe largely to automobiles, will we ever see a return to mass transit as the dominant mode for moving people? According to the Public Transportation Partnership for Tomorrow (PT2), mass transit ridership has grown 21 percent since 1995--faster than both vehicle and airline passenger miles logged over the same period. “Public transportation is a…means of helping our environment and conserving energy,” says the PT2 website. “If one in ten Americans used public transportation regularly, U.S. reliance on foreign oil could be cut by more than 40 percent--the amount we import from Saudi Arabia each year.”
CONTACTS: American Streetcar Scandal, www.njtpa.org/public_affairs/intrans/scandal.html; Transportation Partnership for Tomorrow, www.publictransportation.org/pt2/.
Dear EarthTalk: Do government “Energy Star” ratings for major appliances take into account their “cradle-to-grave” impacts, or are they just concerned with energy efficiency? -- Fred von Mechow, via e-mail
The Energy Star program, set up back in 1992, is designed to help consumers determine the energy efficiency of various appliances, home electronics, office equipment and lighting. All such items for sale in the U.S. come with an EnergyGuide label, which indicates how much energy they will consume over the course of a typical year, and how much that energy will cost, detailing how it compares to similar models.
Those units that are especially energy-efficient--based on standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Energy (DoE)--receive an Energy Star, signifying them as preferred environmental choices. Clearly the program is designed as an incentive for competing brands to lower their products’ energy consumption and costs over time.
The program is very helpful to consumers who want to do the right thing environmentally while also saving on energy bills, but it is not a “cradle-to-grave” assessment. “Cradle-to-grave,” as the term implies, measures an appliance’s environmental impact over the course of its entire life, and it counts other factors besides energy use and costs.
German and Scandinavian manufacturers, for example, thanks to stringent “Extended Producer Responsibility” (EPR) laws in place there, must do more than maximize the energy efficiency of their products. They must also eliminate hazardous materials from both the appliances’ components and their manufacturing processes (i.e. “cradle”), and make them in such a way that maximizes their recyclability and reusability so as to keep them out of landfills (“grave”). In fact, European EPR laws even require companies to take back some of their products at the end of their useful life, removing the burden from the consumer as well as from local community waste handling systems.
And with passage last year of “Directive 2005/32/EC” by the European Union (EU), similar laws will apply for any manufacturer--domestic or otherwise--that wants to sell appliances to Europe’s 400-million-strong consumer market. The goal is to encourage manufacturers to assess the full lifecycle impacts of their products, which would ideally also lead to the elimination of unnecessary parts and of wasteful, extraneous packaging. The directive becomes law across the continent in 2007.
Meanwhile, strong industry lobbies have thus far prevented similar legislation from taking hold in the U.S., though some state and local governments have expressed interest in European-style take-back laws. A few forward-thinking computer makers, including IBM and Hewlett-Packard, have started take-back programs voluntarily in order to salvage some components for re-use while looking good to environmentally-conscious consumers. But for the most part the trend has not caught on for American manufacturers and there are no laws in place to force them to abandon that age-old and not-so-green-friendly principle of “planned obsolescence.”
CONTACTS: Energy Star, www.energystar.gov; European Union Directive 2005/32/EC, http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/eco_design/
Dear EarthTalk: What are “El Niño” and “La Niña” and what relationship do they have with global climate change? -- Ralph Carpio, Delray Beach, FL
Simply put, El Niño and La Niña are different stages in a cyclical pattern of climate turbulence otherwise known by meteorologists as the Southern Oscillation. First noticed by 16th century fishermen on the Pacific coast of South America, these phenomena were not scientifically documented until the 1920s when scientists noticed periodic occurrences every three to seven years in the eastern Pacific. Since the 1970s, though, El Niño and La Niña have been occurring with more frequency and intensity.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the El Niño part of the cycle involves warmer-than-usual sea temperatures, great amounts of rainfall (in the northern hemisphere) and low atmospheric pressure. The most extreme results of an El Niño event have included flooding from Ecuador to the Gulf of Mexico, massive marine life die-offs in the Pacific, hurricanes in Tahiti and Hawaii, and concurrent droughts in many other parts of the world from Southern India to Australia to Central America.
In contrast, cooler sea temperatures, high atmospheric pressure and drier air characterize the La Niña phase of the Southern Oscillation. During La Niña, currents bring nutrients up from the deep water, providing feast, rather than famine, for marine organisms. And accompanying strong winds blow moisture away, making for cloudless skies and dry conditions in equatorial countries from the International Date Line east to South America.
Some scientists believe that the increased intensity and frequency--now every two to three years--of El Niño and La Niña events in recent decades is due to warmer ocean temperatures resulting from global warming. In a 1998 report, scientists from NOAA explained that higher global temperatures might be increasing evaporation from land and adding moisture to the air, thus intensifying the storms and floods associated with El Niño.
Another take on what’s happening is from Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the Colorado-based National Center for Atmospheric Research. Trenberth believes that the Southern Oscillation may be functioning like a pressure release valve for the tropics. With global warming driving temperatures higher, ocean currents and weather systems might not be able to release all the extra heat getting pumped into the tropical seas; as such an El Niño occurs to help expel the excess heat.
CONTACTS: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, www.noaa.gov; National Center for Atmospheric Research, www.ucar.edu/communications/factsheets/elnino/
Dear EarthTalk: Can you explain the tax credits I might be entitled to if I buy a hybrid car? Also, is it true that single-rider hybrids can now use HOV lanes in recognition of their fuel efficiency? -- Mark Timken, Greenwich, CT
If you've been wanting a hybrid gasoline-electric vehicle but have been reticent to shell out the extra bucks, 2006 just might be your year. Beginning this past January, in accordance with the new Energy Policy Act, the federal government began awarding unprecedented tax credits to consumers who go hybrid.
Hybrids are more expensive than conventional vehicles because of their costly batteries and because there are two separate engines under each vehicle’s hood. But the new tax credits go a long way toward closing that cost differential. Individuals who purchase any of the new gas-electric hybrids available in the U.S. between 2006-2007 are eligible for up to $3,400 in federal tax credits. The credits are limited to the first 60,000 hybrid vehicles sold by each automaker, though, limiting the savings to those who act early.
According to an analysis by the non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists, which runs the website HybridCenter.org, Toyota’s popular Prius model would typically qualify its buyer for a tax credit topping $3,100, while Honda’s Civic Hybrid would garner about $2,100. Buyers of the new hybrid SUVs from Ford, Toyota and Lexus could expect more than $2,000 in tax credits. The amounts of the credits are based on fuel economy improvements over conventional models of the same class of car or truck, so the hybrids offering the biggest boost in fuel efficiency will generate the largest tax credits for their owners.
And, yes, another component of the Energy Policy Act is the Federal Hybrid HOV Waiver, which allows states to open their high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to hybrids that get at least 50 percent better fuel efficiency in the city and 25 percent better in combined city-highway miles over conventional models, regardless of how many passengers. So far 12 states are participating and many others are sure to follow.
Beyond these new federal incentives, 36 states offer some kind of rebate, incentive or benefit to encourage consumers and businesses to go hybrid. New York Governor George Pataki recently unveiled a comprehensive energy reduction plan that includes a $2,000 hybrid state tax credit, discounted highway tolls for hybrid drivers, and HOV-lane access for hybrids. If the state legislature approves Pataki's plan, New York taxpayers who buy hybrids could save more than $5,400.
Even some businesses are voluntarily getting in on the act. Search engine giant Google is offering $5,000 to each employee toward the purchase of a new hybrid. And Travelers Insurance announced last month that it would start giving its auto insurance customers who drive hybrids a 10 percent discount.
Demand for hybrids is surging. Combined sales of the first hybrids in 1999 topped out at just a few hundred vehicles. In 2005, American car dealers sold more than 205,000 hybrid cars and SUVs. With all these new incentives in place, and a public more concerned than ever about the price of gas at the pump, automakers are planning to unveil many more hybrid models over the next few years. Whether or not they can keep up with demand is going to be anybody’s guess.
CONTACT: HybridCenter.org, www.hybridcenter.org.
Dear EarthTalk: Some people argue that recycling uses more energy than it saves, and thus it is not worth the effort. Is this true? -- Tigger Fox, Millinocket, Maine
Controversy over the benefits of recycling bubbled up in 1996 when columnist John Tierney posited in a New York Times Magazine article that “recycling is garbage.” “Mandatory recycling programs,” he wrote. “…offer mainly short-term benefits to a few groups--politicians, public relations consultants, environmental organizations and waste handling corporations--while diverting money from genuine social and environmental problems. Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America…”
Environmental groups were quick to dispute Tierney, especially on assertions that recycling was doubling energy consumption and pollution while costing taxpayers more money than disposing of plain old garbage. The Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense, two of the nation’s most influential environmental organizations, each issued reports detailing how municipal recycling programs reduce pollution and the use of virgin resources while decreasing the sheer amount of garbage and the need for landfill space--all for less, not more, than the cost of regular garbage pick-up and disposal.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Solid Waste director, Michael Shapiro, also weighed in: “A well-run curbside recycling program can cost anywhere from $50 to more than $150 per ton…trash collection and disposal programs, on the other hand, cost anywhere from $70 to more than $200 per ton. This demonstrates that, while there’s still room for improvements, recycling can be cost-effective.”
But in 2002, New York City, an early municipal recycling pioneer, found that its much-lauded program was losing money, so it eliminated glass and plastic recycling. According to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, recycling plastic and glass was costing twice as much as disposal. Meanwhile, low demand for the materials meant that much of it was ending up in landfills anyway, despite best intentions.
Other major cities watched closely to see how New York was faring with its scaled back program (the city never discontinued paper recycling), ready to perhaps jump on the bandwagon. But in the meantime, New York City closed its last landfill, and private out-of-state landfills raised prices due to the increased workload of hauling away and disposing of New York’s trash. As a result, glass and plastic recycling became economically viable for the city again, and New York reinstated the program accordingly, with a more efficient system and with more reputable service providers than it had used previously.
According to Chicago Reader columnist Cecil Adams, the lessons learned by New York are applicable everywhere. “Some early curbside recycling programs…waste resources due to bureaucratic overhead and duplicate trash pickups (for garbage and then again for recyclables). But the situation has improved as cities have gained experience.” Adams also says that, if managed correctly, recycling programs should cost cities (and taxpayers) less than garbage disposal for any given equivalent amount of material.
Even though the benefits of recycling over disposal are manifold, individuals should keep in mind that it better serves the environment to “reduce and reuse” before recycling even becomes an option.
CONTACT: Natural Resources Defense Council, www.nrdc.org/cities/recycling/gnyc.asp Dear EarthTalk: Other than calculators, what are some other accessories and gadgets that are now available solar-powered? -- Frank Rogers, Concord, NH
While solar-powered calculators have been readily available and inexpensive for two decades, only recently has such technology been applied to other tools, accessories and small appliances.
Perhaps the most widespread use of energy from the sun today is for charging up small electronic devices like flashlights, watches, palm pilots and cell phones. Solar cells are also being put to use around the home increasingly to power garden, pool and security lighting as well as automatic watering and lawn-feeding devices. And as photovoltaic technology improves, people are using small solar cells to power up bigger devices like radios, cameras and even laptop computers. A good assortment of such items can be ordered from online stores such as Brunton, Sundance Solar, Real Goods, Global Merchants and Energy Federation (EFI).
Well beyond the realm of gadgetry, EFI sells a solar-powered oven, made by Sun Ovens International, which is working to protect the environment and raise the standard of living for the poor worldwide by developing solar cooking technologies that reduces the developing world's reliance on scarcer and scarcer wood products. The interior of the oven is heated by passive solar energy when the oven's reflectors are opened up and pointed toward the sun. According to the EFI website, "even though it is called an oven, food can be baked, boiled, and steamed at cooking temperatures of 360° F to 400° F." Here in the developed world, the Sun Oven can save resources and keep the air cleaner when used for backyard cooking or on camping outings.
According to Wired Magazine, climber Sean Burch used solar cells to charge his laptop and phone during his solo ascent of Mt. Everest in 2003. "The sun was so bright at 18,000 feet that it wasn't a problem at all," said Burch, who didn't have the manpower to bring along the hundred-pound batteries used by bigger climbing crews to power communications devices. "It was nice because I had my computer, solar panels and phone and I could communicate as well as anyone," he said. Indeed, by strapping small photovoltaic cells onto their backpacks, panniers and kayaks, adventurers heading out into the wilds can stay in touch with loved ones--and rescue crews if needed--more reliably and for less money than ever.
Despite the profusion of solar-powered devices, environmentally-conscious consumers know that it is greener not to buy something that they don't need. According to the website GreenChoices.org, people should only buy gadgets that are "genuinely useful additions to a green household, things that actually save energy or water, or make living green easier."
CONTACTS: Brunton, www.brunton.com; Sundance Solar, www.sundancesolar.com; Real Goods, www.realgoods.com; Global Merchants, www.global-merchants.com; Energy Federation (EFI), www.efi/org; Green Choices, www.greenchoices.org.
Dear EarthTalk: Where can I find green-friendly office products and back-to-school supplies?--Taylor Howe, San Francisco, CA
Environmentally-friendly school and office products have been available for decades from specialty suppliers, but in recent years many recycled kinds of papers, pens, pencils, ink toner cartridges, binders, folders and desk accessories have become ubiquitous in mainstream office supply stores.
Paper use continues to be the largest source of waste generated by office workers and students, and several paper manufacturers have risen to the challenge of providing recycled and even "tree-free" papers at competitive prices. New Leaf Everest, Badger Envirographic and Eureka! 100 are some of the leaders in recycled paper, while Dolphin Blue makes tree-free paper from recycled scraps of denim, old money, and the plants hemp and kenaf. Buyers can order these papers from online vendors including GreenLine Paper and Treecycle, although office supply retail stores also now carry a wide array of 100 percent post-consumer waste recycled papers.
Meanwhile, materials such as biodegradable cornstarch and recycled plastic and cardboard are starting to replace virgin plastic and vinyl in pens, binders, notebooks, and in desk accessories like rulers, pencil cases and staplers. Also, pencil manufacturers such as Pentel, Autopoint and ForestChoice have gotten serious about crafting their products from sustainably harvested timber and other green materials, including old currency. Online vendors like Green Earth Office Supply, the Recycled Office Products Company, Real Earth Environmental Company and Mama's Earth stock these products. Meanwhile, Discount Inkjet Printer Ink Cartridges sells a wide range of recycled inkjet toner cartridges and ink refills compatible with all major brands of copiers and computer printers.
Many of these companies offer special price breaks for non-profits, local government agencies, schools and universities and donate a portion of proceeds to environmental non-profits. Consumers shopping at these stores can rest assured that they are minimizing their impact on the Earth while supporting small, innovative companies. But those in need of a quick green fix might be surprised at how good the selection is these days at places like Office Depot, Staples and Office Max, too.
While individuals often feel powerless to help solve the world's environmental ills, they can make a difference through their consumer choices. And buying only environmentally friendly office and school supplies is a great place to start.
CONTACTS: Green Earth Office Supply, store.yahoo.com/greenearthofficesupply; Discount Inkjet Printer Ink Cartridges, www.discount-inks.com; GreenLine Paper, www.greenlinepaper.com; Treecycle, www.treecycle.com; Recycled Office Products Company, www.recycledofficeproducts.com; The Real Earth Inc., www.treeco.com; Mama's Earth, www.mamasearth.com.
Dear EarthTalk: What makes a city a "mega-city" and what are the environmental implications? --Eva Locke, Seattle, WA
Demographers define "mega-cities" as sprawling, crowded urban centers with populations topping 10 million. In 1995, 14 cities qualified as mega-cities; analysts predict that by 2015 there will be 21. The world's first mega-cities were in Latin America: Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro, São Paulo and Buenos Aires. But in recent years Asian countries--Japan, South Korea, China and India--have grown the fastest. Today the five largest cities are Tokyo, Mexico City, São Paulo, Mumbai (Bombay) and New York City.
The rapid population growth of these cities is due primarily to intra-country migrations as the rural poor move from the countryside to urban areas in search of better lives. The result, unfortunately, is often the proliferation of urban slums, increased crime, high rates of unemployment--and profound environmental degradation accompanied by serious health challenges for the majority of residents.
"By 2050, two-thirds of the world's population will live in urban areas, imposing even more pressure on the space infrastructure and resources of cities, leading to social disintegration and horrific urban poverty," says Werner Fornos, president of the Washington-based Population Institute. The rise of mega-cities, agrees The Washington Post, "poses formidable challenges in health care and the environment.the urban poor in developing countries live in squalor unlike anything they left behind."
According to the World Resources Institute, "Millions of children living in the world's largest cities.are exposed to life-threatening air pollution two to eight times above the maximum tolerable level [as established by World Health Organization guidelines]. Indeed, more than 80 percent of all deaths in developing countries attributable to air pollution-induced lung infections are among children under five."
Worldwide, over a billion people live without regular access to clean water. Mega-city residents, crowded into unsanitary slums, also fall victim to serious diseases. Lima, Peru (with population estimated at 9.4 million by 2015) suffered a cholera outbreak in the early 1990s partly because, as The New York Times reported, "Rural people new to Lima.live in houses without running water and use the outhouses that dot the hillsides above." Consumption of unsafe food and water subjects these people to regular and life-threatening diarrhea and dehydration. "All the demographic data point to the 21st century emerging as the urban century," says Deane Neubauer of the Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. "But evidence also indicates that a vast portion of the new 'megacities'.will be infested by 19th-century-style poverty."
One organization addressing the issue is the non-profit Mega-Cities Project, based at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut. The organization has brought together a diverse international group of community, government and business leaders to share ideas on ways to make mega-cities more ecologically sustainable and economically vital. Indeed, the fate of many of the world's poor rests with such efforts to smooth the transition to a planet where 60 percent of all people crowd into a few dozen sprawling metropolises.
CONTACTS: Yale Center for the Study of Globalization, www.ycsg.yale.edu; Mega-Cities Project, www.megacitiesproject.org.
Dear EarthTalk: What's the big environmental controversy over feral cats? -- Johanna Berg, Brooklyn, NY
According to the U.S. Census, Americans own more than 60 million domestic cats. But analysts estimate that another 40-60 million formerly pet cats and their offspring roam free. These so-called wild or "feral" cats are blamed for wreaking havoc on already stressed populations of songbirds and other small animals.
While roaming domestic cats also hunt birds and small mammals, their feral cousins--since they are beyond the control of human owners--take the brunt of the blame for the decimation of threatened species such as Least Terns, Piping Plovers and Loggerhead Shrikes.
Cat advocates, however, say the real problem is not feline but human. "Cats are not the primary culprit in dwindling bird populations," says Becky Robinson, co-founder of the Washington, DC-based Alley Cat Allies (ACA). "The Worldwatch Institute and other environmental research groups verify that the decline in bird and other wildlife populations is directly linked to the loss of natural habitat," she says. "Urban sprawl, deforestation, shopping malls, roads and golf courses, and increases in pesticide use and pollution are to blame. We need to put constraints on our own behavior, not the normal processes of nature."
ACA cites a number of scientific studies on feral cat diets which indicate that their impacts on bird populations are negligible. These studies conclude that cats are rodent specialists. Birds comprise only a small portion of their diets, and cats can prey on birds on large land masses without destroying their populations. Cats are opportunistic feeders, and live mainly by scavenging and on handouts from humans.
Feral cats are also blamed for transmitting new diseases to wild animals, and this is probably a legitimate charge. Cats have spread feline leukemia to mountain lions and may have recently infected the endangered Florida Panther with feline panleukopenia (feline distemper) as well as an immune deficiency disease. Some cats also carry diseases that can transmit to humans, including toxoplasmosis and rabies.
Despite these issues, ACA endorses sterilization and long-term management of feral cat colonies, as opposed to removal and extermination programs which they deem ineffective, costly to taxpayers and wasteful of scarce animal protection resources.
Regardless of one's personal beliefs about feral cats, individuals can play an important role in keeping cats off the "most-wanted" list. Most veterinarians recommend neutering pet cats, and keeping them well fed and indoors as much as possible to limit unwanted reproduction, predation and the spread of disease.
Perhaps most important, people shouldn't release unwanted cats into the wild. According to the Colorado-based Cat Care Society, this practice enlarges feral cat populations and is inhumane. Cats suffer in unfamiliar settings, even if they are good hunters. Contact local animal adoption organizations and agencies for help if you need to give up a pet cat.
CONTACTS: Alley Cat Allies, www.alleycat.org; Cat Care Society, www.catcaresociety.org.
Dear EarthTalk: I've been told that automobile air conditioners are bad for the environment. Exactly why and what part of the air conditioner is bad? --Susan Vogel, Somerville, NJ
The harmful effects of automobile air conditioners can be directly attributed to leaking of CFC R-12, one of a number of cooling ingredients patented by DuPont and popularly known as Freon. In December 1995, the U.S. banned the manufacture of this ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) in order to adhere to standards set by the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty phasing out the production of such chemicals. But existing stockpiles of the gas--and pre-1994 autos that still use it--could keep its toxic legacy around for years.
The cooling ingredient HFC134A, also known as tetrafluoroethane, has since replaced CFC R-12 as the main cooling ingredient in car air conditioners. But while HFC134A does not contribute to ozone depletion and is a more eco-friendly choice than R-12, it is a gas that contributes to global warming. In fact, because of this, the European Union has slated a phase-out of HFC134A to begin in 2011 and be completed by 2017, despite the fact that alternatives are still only in experimental phases of development.
Owners of pre-1994 automobiles can spend a few hundred dollars to modify their air conditioners to use HFC134A, though the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cautions that not all systems designed for R-12 work as well using HFC134A and recommends such conversions only on cars made after 1980.
When air conditioners in cars that use CFC R-12 are being refilled or repaired, federal regulations require that the service shops recycle the refrigerant instead of releasing it into the air. Regulations also require that the refrigerant be removed from vehicles that are scrapped or have been abandoned. The refrigerant is then filtered so that it can be reused.
If the refrigerant in your vehicle's air conditioning system needs to be replenished, always have a professional do it. You can damage your system if you improperly change it yourself, and only certified mechanics can legally purchase refill cans of CFC R-12. Additionally, if your air conditioning system is leaking refrigerant, have it repaired--don't just refill it. This will both protect the environment and save you money in the long run.
There are other environmental considerations with auto air-conditioners, such as energy use. In an attempt to reduce the amount of energy car air conditioners use, Toyota has created a lightweight compressor--the heart of the air-conditioner--that consumes 60 percent less fuel.
Of course, the most environmentally sound and cheapest way to cool your car is to open your windows and let in the fresh air. According to the National Safety Council's Safety and Health Policy Center, driving without using the car's air conditioning increases fuel efficiency by about 2.5 miles per gallon.
CONTACTS: EPA Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning, www.epa.gov/ozone/title6/609/; Toyota Air Conditioning Compressor, www.toyota-industries.com/environment/product/compressor.html; National Safety Council's Safety and Health Policy Center, www.nsc.org/ehc.htm.
Dear EarthTalk: Are there environmentally friendly car waxes, washes and bug removers? -- Graham Berg, Portland, Oregon
Conventional car waxes, bug removers and other auto detailing formulas are good at their jobs because they contain strong chemicals. Unfortunately these synthetic substances--including glycol monobutyl ether, a registered pesticide, and the petroleum derivatives naptha and cosmoline--can irritate skin, cause other more serious health problems, and get into our groundwater once they are rinsed away.
Luckily consumers have many alternatives to choose from. A handful of forward-thinking companies have risen to the challenge of developing car care products that won't harm our bodies or the environment. Many car wax manufacturers have discovered that wax naturally-extracted from the Carnauba palm of Brazil does a great job of protecting auto paint and clear coat from bird poop, dead bugs and other nasties. Optimum Car Wax, for example, can protect your car's finish without abrasive chemicals and instead combines Carnauba wax with lanolins (obtained from sheep's wool) like those found in gentle hand lotions.
For washing your vehicle, Simple Green Car Wash Cleaner handles automotive dirt, grime, grease, bug stains and everything in-between without polluting. The concentrated formula contains none of the toxic volatile organic compounds (VOCs) found in most such cleaners. It can be used safely to clean paint, clear coat, windows, chrome, rubber, canvas and vinyl. Another environmentally sensitive way to clean off caked-on bug guts and other gooey debris without resorting to noxious chemicals is by dissolving baking soda in warm water, then gently rubbing the mixture into the car with a soft cloth.
Detailer's Pride Gel Wheel Cleaner, available online at driveit.com, among other retailers, is an environmentally sensitive choice for removing caked on brake dust on wheels and grime off trunk lids and engine compartments. It also gets stains off of vinyl and convertible tops, cleans greasy door jams, and is ideal for loosening and removing bug and white wax residues. It is water based, and contains no harmful solvents or chemicals.
For keeping your vehicle's moving parts at optimal performance, Balchip Corporation, based in Toronto, Ontario, offers a wide range of environmentally friendly engine treatments and fuel additives that serve to dissolve corrosive build-ups and keep parts working together smoothly. Based on the pioneering research of Canadian biochemist Paul Deogrades, all Balchip products are derived from plants and trees and as such are completely biodegradable and non-toxic.
CONTACTS: Simple Green, http://consumer.simplegreen.com; driveit.com/Detailer's Pride Gel Wheel Cleaner, www.driveit.com/tirewheelcare.html; Balchip Corporation, www.greencarcare.com; Optimum Car Wax, www.optimumcarcare.com
Dear EarthTalk: What are the health and environmental consequences of some of the methods used to control mosquitoes, ticks and other insects? -- Hunter White, Lafayette, IN
By far the most popular form of insect repellent available to consumers in the U.S. is diethyl-meta-toluamide, known popularly as "DEET." According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), each year approximately one-third of the U.S. population uses insect repellents containing DEET, which is the active ingredient in more than 230 products, including sprays, lotions, liquids and wristbands.
But recent laboratory animal studies have found that frequent and prolonged exposure to DEET can cause neurons to die in regions of the brain that control muscle movement, learning, memory and concentration. Other studies using humans have found adverse effects ranging from skin irritation and blisters to memory loss, even seizures. Very high exposures, such as those that occur if the repellent is swallowed, have caused neurological damage in at least 18 children, three of whom died as a result. Yet despite these threats, the EPA insists that DEET products are safe as long as consumers follow the directions carefully.
Meanwhile, bug zappers--which emit ultraviolet light to draw pests--kill few if any mosquitoes, which are attracted not to light but to our body heat and the carbon dioxide we exhale. Some four million zappers are at work in the U.S., toasting nearly 71 billion insects--mostly non-target bugs--each month. The most common bugs killed are beetles, moths, flies, bees, ants and wasps, many that are themselves beneficial for insect control as well as pollination.
But while there are issues with many localized forms of pest control, most troublesome are the potential public health effects of the widespread application of "organophosphate" pesticides, such as Malathion, intended to wipe out large mosquito populations for miles around. In recent years, cities and states looking to stave off mosquito-borne maladies like West Nile Virus have undertaken large-scale mosquito control projects--often involving the use of Malathion. According to Pesticide Action Network, Malathion is chemically related to the nerve gases used in World War II. It kills by disrupting nervous system processes, and has been linked to cancer, nervous system disorders and a wide range of other maladies in humans.
One environmentally friendly alternative mosquito control method is Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (BTI), a bacterium that can be applied to mosquito breeding grounds, usually in places where standing water collects. BTI is a naturally occurring organism that targets only the larvae of insects, and as a result poses no health threat to humans or wildlife. Some hardware stores stock BTI-infused mosquito "dunks" which are activated when wet. Another somewhat more costly option is the Mosquito Magnet, a trap that attracts mosquitoes by emitting an irresistible combination of carbon dioxide, heat and moisture. But perhaps the safest way to avoid bug bites is to don the always-dapper combination of a long-sleeved shirt, long pants, ankle socks and a wide-brimmed hat.
CONTACTS: U.S. EPA DEET Page, www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/chemicals/deet.htm; Pesticide Action Network, (415) 981-1771, www.panna.org; Arbico Organics' Mosquito Control with BTI, http://store.arbico-organics.com/organic-pest-control-most-requested-mosquito-control.html.
Dear EarthTalk: What exactly are PZEV cars? Someone told me they were very clean, and on the market now. -- Thomas Lyons, Jamaica Plain, MA
Thanks to rigorous auto emissions standards in California--where regulators are trying to clean up the worst air in the country--no less than a dozen car companies now offer Partial Zero Emission Vehicle (PZEV) cars for sale in the U.S. While these cars run on gasoline and don't necessarily get better mileage than their traditional counterparts, they do produce much cleaner emissions by controlling exhaust gases with sophisticated engine controls and advanced catalytic converters.
Most auto pollution is released while a car is warming up and the catalytic converter is still cold. But PZEVs, through the use of lightweight steel and aluminum components, computerized valve timing and other advanced engineering technologies, heat the catalytic converter quickly, which reduces emissions significantly. These reduced emissions qualify the cars as "low-emission vehicles" (LEVs) in the "clean car states" of California, New York, Massachusetts, Vermont and Maine, each which requires automakers to sell a certain percentage of "green" cars.
Environmentalists are optimistic that the fast-growing fleet of PZEVs on America's roads will have a much larger and more positive impact on environmental quality than the even cleaner running gasoline-electric hybrids, which are still niche vehicles. In fact, already for every hybrid Prius sold by Toyota since it was introduced in 2000, Ford has sold three PZEV Focuses.
Indeed, what's perhaps most striking about the push by automakers to produce PZEVs is the lack of hype surrounding the vehicles, especially in light of all the attention being paid to the hybrids and to the coming hydrogen fuel cell cars. All new versions of Ford's popular Focus model, for example, meet PZEV standards, but consumers wouldn't know it unless they were to ask. Compared to a similar size traditional car, the PZEV Focus produces 97 percent fewer hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions, and 76 percent less carbon monoxide.
According to California's DriveClean website, car buyers looking to jump on the PZEV bandwagon will have to shell out a few hundred dollars extra for the greener technology, but have several models to choose from, including BMW's 325i, Dodge's Stratus and Sebring, Honda's Accord, Hyundai's Elantra, Mitsubishi's Galant, Nissan's Sentra, Subaru's Legacy, Toyota's Camry, Volkswagen's Jetta, Volvo's S60 sedan and V70 wagon, and of course, Ford's Focus. Consumers in the five "clean car states" should be able to order any of the PZEV models at local auto dealers. Only the Ford Focus is readily available in all 50 states but, according to the magazine Green Car Journal, "it's just a matter of time until the rest of the country catches up and we can all breathe a bit easier."
CONTACT: Ford Focus, www.fordvehicles.com/cars/focus; California's DriveClean Website, www.driveclean.ca.gov; Green Car Journal, www.greencar.com. Dear EarthTalk: The organization American Rivers names 10 "endangered rivers" every year. Which ones are they for 2005 - and are there any success stories pertaining to past nominees? -- Carolyn Cacciotti, Bridgeport, CT
For 20 years now, the organization American Rivers, in its annual "Most Endangered Rivers" report, has highlighted rivers around the U.S. that have the worst chronic problems in need of attention. This year the organization took a new approach and focused on those "facing the most uncertain futures."
American Rivers' "10 Most Endangered Rivers for 2005" are: the Susquehanna River flowing through New York, Pennsylvania and Maryland; McCrystal Creek in New Mexico; Colorado's Fraser River; the Skykomish in Washington state; Tennessee's Roan Creek; the Santee River in South Carolina; Ohio's Little Miami River; Utah's Price River; and the Tuolumne and Santa Clara rivers, both in California.
These rivers face a variety of threats, mostly involving pollution due to runaway real estate development and poor sewage treatment, and water diversions from dam projects and from excessive near-shore development. McCrystal Creek faces the possibility of methane drilling in its coal bed, which will pollute the creek. And in Tennessee, Roan Creek is neighbor to a large dairy farm that plans to build animal waste "lagoons" near its shores that could eventually send waves of liquid manure downriver.
The Susquehanna is the most endangered on the list. Throughout the river's watershed, aging sewer systems discharge enormous volumes of raw or poorly treated sewage that eventually flows into the Chesapeake Bay. "Unless lawmakers invest in prevention and cleanup, the Susquehanna will remain among the nation's dirtiest rivers," reports American Rivers. Happily, on the day American Rivers released its report, the state of Maryland backed away from plans to weaken water quality standards for the river.
Other success stories abound as well. Six months after the Tennessee River appeared on the 2004 list, the Knoxville Utility Board committed to eliminating sanitary sewer overflows into the Tennessee River within 10 years. After Massachusetts' Ipswich River appeared on the 2003 list, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection issued new regulations to limit the amount of water that municipalities can draw out during low flow periods. And following American Rivers' inclusion of New York's Hudson River on its 2001 list, then-EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman ordered General Electric to foot the bill to clean up tons of PCBs that were contaminating the river bed.
Besides issuing its annual report and lobbying for better clean water legislation and enforcement, American Rivers works directly to remediate watershed problems across the country. Working with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for example, the group is removing barriers to salmon, striped bass and other species that migrate between fresh and salt water in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic and California. So far, they've removed 13 unwanted dams, and created fish bypasses for six others.
CONTACTS: American Rivers, www.americanrivers.org; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), www.noaa.gov.
Dear EarthTalk: What exactly constitutes "Eco-Travel" or "Eco-Tourism"? -- Jeannette Peclet, Norwalk, CT
While tour operators and travel agents around the world may tout their trips as "eco-tours," environmentally conscious travelers take a variety of considerations into account when determining whether or not any given excursion qualifies as such. The International Ecotourism Society (TIES) defines eco-tourism as "travel to natural destinations that minimizes impact, builds environmental awareness, helps fund conservation, and respects and sustains local cultures while supporting human rights and democracy."
According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), eco-tourism is defined as travel focused on "the observation and appreciation of nature as well as the traditional cultures prevailing in natural areas." UNEP emphasizes that eco-tours must contain educational features, be organized for small groups by locally-owned businesses, minimize negative impacts "upon the natural and socio-cultural environment," and support the protection of natural areas by generating income for the host communities to use in conserving and sustaining their natural and cultural resources.
Recent studies indicate that as much as seven percent of all tourism worldwide operates under some sort of "eco" label. One recent survey concluded that eight million U.S. travelers have taken at least one "eco-tourist" holiday, while another concluded that three-quarters of all Americans have taken a trip involving nature and the outdoors. In the Asia-Pacific region, ecotourism accounts for 20 percent of all travel. Meanwhile, in Africa, where most visitors travel to nature reserves and game parks, the figures are even higher. The Kenya Wildlife Service, for instance, estimates that 80 percent of visitors come to see wildlife.
But the debate over what types of travel constitute eco-tourism has meant that a wide range of dining, lodging and transportation vendors advertise themselves as "green" regardless of whether their operations meet the criteria defined by TIES and other groups. As Jim Motavalli writes in E/The Environmental Magazine, "A beachfront hotel tower built of imported materials with absentee owners and no local employees is not an eco-resort, even if it does offer its guests the option of not washing their towels."
And travelers should keep in mind that "adventure" travel or "nature-based" tourism trips are not necessarily environmentally friendly. In fact, tour operators offering access to remote scenic and wild locations need to take extra care so that their trips do not endanger the very flora, fauna and geological features they are offering to showcase. Sad stories of so-called "ecotourism" run amokwhere over-visitation has led to trampled landscapes and damaged wildlife habitatabound from the Galapagos Islands and Mexico's Chiapas region to the coastal caves of Thailand, the reefs of Hawaii and beyond.
The moral of the story then, is buyer beware. Consumers should do their homework and ask travel vendors a lot of questions about how they operate in order to discern whether they are harming or helping local environments and cultures.
CONTACTS: The International Ecotourism Society, www.ecotourism.org; United Nations Environment Programme, www.unep.org.
Dear EarthTalk: How are coral reefs faring around the world? -- Debby Greco, Canton, CT
Not so well, unfortunately. Research experts from the World Resources Institute, a Washington, DC-based organization of scientists, economists and policy experts, report that coral reefs around the world are dying or disappearing at an alarming rate.
Lining 60,000 miles of shoreline along 109 countries, reefs and their related fisheries, marshlands and lagoons are home to more than a quarter of all fish species on Earth. An estimated 25 percent of coral reefs have already disappeared and an estimated 67 percent of all remaining coral reefs are endangered today. In Southeast Asia, 88 percent of the reefs are at risk. In the U.S. Florida Keys, more than 90 percent of the reefs have lost their living coral cover since 1975.
According to the Planetary Coral Reef Foundation, which monitors the health of coral reefs worldwide and coordinates an international "Save the Reefs Campaign," the greatest threat to coral reefs thus far has been the coastal development resulting from human population expansion. Over the last 30 years, this trend has profoundly increased the amount of freshwater "runoff" into costal areas. Known collectively as "non-point source pollution," this runoff has carried with it large amounts of sediment, sewage and chemicals from land-clearing areas, agricultural areas and septic systems into the reefs. The resulting pollution of the water thus decreases the amount of light reaching the corals, choking the life out of these fragile structures.
Meanwhile, increases in both commercial and sport fishing, enhanced by ever-improving technologies, have also taken a toll on reef health by removing so many of the large fish, which when healthy and plentiful keep fragile reef ecosystems in balance.
Moving forward, scientists studying coral health are most concerned about the impacts of a somewhat newer threat: climate change. Indeed, global warming is changing the surface temperatures of ocean waters faster than corals can adapt. "Coral reefs are so sensitive to temperature change that it seems inevitable that many will die as a result of global warming as well as all the other terrible things that are happening to them," says Rod Fujita, a marine biologist with Environmental Defense, a non-profit advocacy group. Furthermore, coral reefs' very sensitivity to environmental changes makes them a "canary in a coal mine" early warning system with regard to the overall declining health of the world's oceans.
Meanwhile, the non-profit Coral Reef Alliance is working toward the establishment of a comprehensive global map of living coral reefs to serve as a baseline for learning how fast we are losing them and how we can stem the decline. Also, a new program by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is monitoring coral reefs by satellite to try to put some of the puzzle pieces together.
CONTACTS: World Resources Institute, www.wri.org; Planetary Coral Reef Foundation, www.pcrf.org; Environmental Defense, www.environmentaldefense.org; Coral Reef Alliance, www.coralreefalliance.org; National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), www.nasa.gov.
Dear EarthTalk: Which spray insulation products are safest to use? -- Malcolm Greeley, Evanston, IL
Spray insulation is commonly used to fill spaces in unfinished walls, attics and floors. Most of it is made from polyurethane and "closed foam cells," which means it forms a nearly impenetrable barrier. The material is widely recognized as a highly efficient insulator, effectively reducing heat transfer.
Despite the practical benefits, however, there are some environmental and health drawbacks. Although chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were phased out by the insulation industry because of the damage they were shown to inflict on the Earth's ozone layer, spray insulation is today typically blown into place with hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs), CFC alternatives that are still not completely ozone-friendly (they, too, are set to be phased out completely by 2030). Also, polyurethane can "off-gas" formaldehyde and other irritants once installed, potentially jeopardizing indoor air quality and causing discomfort to those with chemical sensitivities.
Meanwhile, open-cell insulation such as Icynene requires no ozone-depleting chemicals in its manufacture, and is usually blown into place with water. Also, it emits no harmful or irritating chemicals, yet provides a thermal barrier said to be more than 30 times as effective as traditional fiberglass insulation. In Canada, where the product originates, Icynene is endorsed by the Envirodesic Certification Program, which certifies eco-friendly construction materials and is endorsed by Canada's Lung Association. The downside of open-cell foam is that it is derived from petroleum products and, as such, requires the extraction of finite fossil fuels.
While newer and less well known, Air Krete is a thermally efficient and non-toxic spray insulation that is easily foamed into open or closed cavities in walls, roofs and ceilings. The product's basic raw material components are air, water and cement which, when combined, create a cost-effective, safe and high performance product. The National Audubon Society installed Air Krete in its New York City headquarters as part of an overhaul designed to "green up" that organization's entire operation.
Beyond sprays, there are many other forms of healthy and environmentally responsible insulation, such as cellulose, cotton, radiant metal barriers, and plastic PET batting. Some such products can be found on the shelves of local building supply stores, or at Home Depot. But for the widest selection, green building specialty stores such as the Environmental Home Center in Seattle, which sells online, are a good bet. Others can be found by searching for local retailers, by product desired, at greenerbuilding.org, a service of the non-profit Center for ReSource Conservation, based in Boulder, Colorado.
CONTACT: Icynene, www.icynene.com; Envirodesic Certification Program, www.envirodesic.com; Air Krete, www.airkrete.com; National Audubon Society, (212) 979-3000, www.audubon.org ; Environmental Home Center, (800) 281-9785, www.environmentalhomecenter.com. Greenerbuilding.org, (303) 441.3278, www.greenerbuilding.org.
Dear EarthTalk: What are the implications for Montana's Glacier National Park if the glaciers there keep melting? -- Oliver Ryan, New York, NY
Indeed, the glaciers for which Glacier National Park is named are melting away due to increasing global temperatures in recent decades, attributable most likely to global warming. A century ago, Grinnell Glacier, once the park's largest, covered almost 440 acres. Today it has shrunk to just a quarter of that size. Many of the glaciers are gone altogether: According to the Sierra Club, the number of glaciers in the park has dropped from around 150 in 1850 to approximately 35 today.
Most of the glacier loss in the park has occurred since the late 1960s when global warming trends began to intensify. Park scientists are now worried that, if nothing is done to curb global warming, by the year 2030 there may not be a single glacier left in Glacier National Park.
Glaciers form when huge ice sheets build up under snow that has slowly accumulated over time. As the snow cover mounts, the intense weight compresses the delicate snowflakes beneath the surface, gradually changing them into the ice grains that make up glaciers. During the last Ice Age some glaciers were a mile thick, covering huge swaths of the Earth, and carving out much of the topography we know today through their slow and grinding movements.
The warming of the Earth that occurred at the end of the last Ice Age--and which melted glacial ice from pole to pole--was a natural phenomenon, and took place over thousands of years. Today, the carbon dioxide emissions generated over just the last half-century from industrial and automotive sources could, say scientists, lead to an equivalent amount of glacial melting within just decades, not millennia.
This process could put plants and animals, which have adapted to certain living conditions over time, in deep trouble as their habitat characteristics shift right under their feet, fins and roots. And Glacier National Park will be no exception. For example, the lack of glaciers and snow pack there could eliminate avalanches, which perform a valuable ecosystem function by knocking down forested stands to make way for new growth in meadows. The berries that are prevalent in these meadows are a major nutrition source for the grizzly bears that call the park home. Without avalanches and the meadows they create, the park's already stressed grizzly population could suffer drastic declines.
Beyond such ecological implications, no one knows how a glacier-less Glacier National Park might play to tourists doing their grand western tours. If visitation to the park and therefore the region were to drop significantly, the local economy--now dependent upon tourism revenue--could suffer debilitating losses. After all, who would visit a place called Glacier if there were no glaciers to see?
CONTACTS: Sierra Club, www.sierraclub.org/globalwarming/articles/glacier.asp; Glacier National Park, www.nps.gov/glac/.
Dear EarthTalk: I've heard that aluminum is toxic. At the same time aluminum frames are said to be the healthiest choice for replacement windows, especially for those who are chemically sensitive. Are aluminum windows safe? -- F. Lane, San Diego, CA
Aluminum can be toxic if ingested in large amounts, but there is no evidence that it causes health problems through the kinds of minor skin or airborne exposure one might receive from a window frame. As such, aluminum window frames are certainly healthy alternatives to fiberglass or vinyl, each of which are problematic because they can "off-gas" chemicals like formaldehyde into the indoor environment of your home, which could in turn aggravate chemical sensitivities.
Homeowners should be sure that any aluminum windows they install feature "thermal breaks," a design that involves fusing two separate frames together so as not to conduct the heat that precipitates mold growth. Millions of people are allergic to mold, which can spread from window frames to the wood structure of a house and cause widespread rot.
On the downside, environmentally conscious consumers should know that the manufacture of aluminum is energy intensive and requires the burning of significant quantities of fossil fuels. Recycling your beer and soda cans can help reduce this problem because it takes far less energy to re-process aluminum than it does to produce it from scratch. Fortunately, a high percentage of aluminum is already being recycled today.
Also, John Bower, founder of the Healthy House Institute and author of several books on eco-friendly design and building, recommends putting triple glazed "low-emission" ("low-E") coated window glass in aluminum frames to preserve indoor air quality and maximize energy efficiency. "Over their lifetime, houses [with these windows] should save more energy than was consumed to process the aluminum frames in the first place," he says.
Wood window frames, as long as they are not "pressure-treated" with arsenic-laden pesticides or harvested from endangered "old-growth" forests, are also an attractive, healthy and green-friendly alternative to fiberglass or vinyl frames. But aluminum still provides more bang for the cost-conscious consumer's buck, often costing less than half of what wood frames would set you back.
CONTACTS: The Healthy House Institute, www.hhinst.com; Energy Star Anatomy of an Energy Efficient Window, www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=windows_doors.pr_anat_window.
Dear EarthTalk: What environmental and health issues, if any, are associated with cut flowers? -- Olivia Clark, Seattle, WA
More than half of all cut flowers sold in the United States at florists and supermarket chains are imported. Holland is the largest source and several Latin American countries, including Columbia and Ecuador, vie for second place. Because flowers are not food, the U.S. Department of Agriculture doesn't regulate them or inspect them for pesticide residues. Nonetheless, U.S. Customs will reject a whole shipment of flowers if they contain a single insect, and consumers for the most part will reject any bunch that is less than perfect.
It is no surprise, then, that cut flowers are one of the world's most pesticide-intensive crops. Flower workers, of which there are roughly 200,000 worldwide, pay the heaviest price. In Ecuador, the second-largest exporter to the U.S., 60 percent of workers suffer from headaches, nausea, blurred vision or fatigue, according to a 1999 study by the International Labor Organization. Doctors in Cayambe, the rose capital of Ecuador, confirm these findings and add birth defects, sterility and miscarriages to the list.
Flower exporters use a variety of fertilizers, insecticides and fumigants, including the highly toxic methyl bromide, which is also known to harm the Earth's protective ozone layer. Even in the U.S. flowers are grown with large amounts of pesticides in closed greenhouse environments, resulting in compromised worker health and flowers laden with pesticide residues. California roses, for example, in a 1997 Environmental Working Group study, were found to have 1,000 times the level of cancer-causing pesticides as comparable food products.
In 2001, Gerald Prolman, who founded Made in Nature, the first distributor of organic produce to supermarket chains, launched Organic Bouquet with the idea of selling organic flowers over the Internet. Now Organic Bouquet flowers are available at Whole Foods, Wild Oats, Trader Joe's and other natural foods chains, as well as on the company's website.
Organic Bouquet uses organic flower growers primarily in the western United States, but also in Ecuador and Colombia where Prolman discovered that, because of the prohibitive cost of pesticides and artificial fertilizers, a few growers had developed natural alternatives and were still producing perfect flowers. "They were using organic techniques without even knowing it," he recalls.
Two other online purveyors of organic flowers include Manic Organics of Lawrenceville, Georgia, which specializes in roses, and Seabreeze Organic Farm in San Diego. But one need not take to the Internet and wait for UPS to deliver in order to "say it with organic flowers." Organic, pesticide-free flowers can be bought in season from your local farmer's market. If you can't find one, the website of Local Harvest maintains a nationwide directory. You can buy from the company's online store, which helps small farms find markets for their products beyond their local areas, but their search engine can help you establish direct contact with small farms in your local area.
CONTACTS: Organic Bouquet, (877) 899-2468, www.organicbouquet.com; Manic Organics Flowers, (678) 377-8258, www.manicorganicsflowers.com; SeaBreeze Organic Farm, (858) 481-0209, www.seabreezed.com; Local Harvest, (831) 475-8150, www.localharvest.org/organic-flowers.jsp.
Dear EarthTalk: Nuclear power seems like such a clean and cost-effective alternative to burning fossil fuels. Why are so many environmentalists against it? -- Paul Franklin, Missoula, MT
Unlike fossil fuels, nuclear power spares us the carbon dioxide that promotes global warming and the airborne pollutants that cause respiratory harm. But the technology does have a serious downside: It generates radiation that can cause a host of genetic abnormalities, notably cancer. The lymphatic system, bone marrow, intestinal tract, thyroid and the female breast are most vulnerable to the effects of radiation, especially in children and adolescents.
When most people think of the dangers of nuclear energy they think of the highly publicized accidents that occurred at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and Chernobyl in the Ukraine in 1986. Studies have turned up very little environmental damage from the Three Mile Island accident, which was quite minor, compared to Chernobyl. Although casualty figures are in dispute, Ukranian officials blame that accident for at least 4,300 deaths beyond the 30 that occurred during the meltdown and immediately afterwards. And there is little disagreement that the accident caused as much as a 100-fold increase in thyroid cancers among children in the Ukraine and in nearby Russia and Belarus. According to the Ukrainian Ministry of Health, in the Ukraine alone more than 2.32 million people, including 452,000 children, have been treated for radiation-linked illnesses, including thyroid cancers and blood cancers like leukemia.
A nuclear accident, however, does not have to occur for radiation to escape and pose a health threat. The waste from power plant operations is also radioactive, and already the U.S. nuclear industry has left behind a legacy of nearly 100,000 tons of it. Scientists have not yet found a way to store nuclear waste--which stays radioactive for thousands of years--such that they can guarantee it won't harm people, even when it is buried miles below ground. The nuclear industry and the Bush administration are proposing that Yucca Mountain in Nevada be a central repository for the nation's nuclear waste, but transporting the waste there from its widely dispersed locations poses even greater concerns for the health of citizens in the areas through which the transporting trucks and barges would pass.
Meanwhile, some environmentalists are advocating for more nuclear energy, but primarily as a stopgap measure to stave off global warming. Among them is noted scientist and author James Lovelock, considered by many to be one of the ideological leaders of the modern environmental movement. Lovelock argues that global warming is happening too fast and that renewable sources of energy like wind and solar are not developing fast enough to reverse that trend. "I don't see nuclear as the ultimate solution," he said. "I see it as a kind of medicine, which is an unpleasant medicine in some ways that we have to take while we're curing ourselves of fossil fuels."
CONTACTS: Nuclear Information and Resource Service, www.nirs.org. Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, www.ecolo.org; International Chernobyl Research Information Network, www.chernobyl.info.
GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; or submit your question at: www.emagazine.com, or e-mail us at: earthtalk@emagazine.com.

HOME