|
Welcome to Savannah, America's Most Beautiful City
|
|
|
|
Check it out! |
To see more Earthtalk Columns go to the archives
Dear EarthTalk: I need to replace my old TV. Can you tell me which of the latest models is the greenest? I was told that the flat-screen/plasmas are real energy hogs. What do you recommend?-- Angela Montague, via e-mailAccording to The Wall Street Journal’s Rebecca Smith, a 42-inch plasma TV set can draw more power than a large refrigerator, even if the TV is only used a few hours a day. This is partly because many newer models don’t turn off but go into “standby” mode so they can start up fast later with no warm-up period. “Powering a fancy TV and full-on entertainment system—with set-top boxes, game consoles, speakers, DVDs and digital video recorders—can add nearly $200 to a family's annual energy bill,” she adds.
Smith recommends green consumers consider the Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) models, which typically uses less energy than comparable plasma sets. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a 28-inch conventional cathode-ray tube (CRT) set uses about 100 watts of electricity. A 42-inch LCD set might consume twice that amount, while plasma could use five times as much, depending on the model and the programming. For the largest screen sizes (60 inches and up), projection TVs are the most energy efficient, clocking in at 150-200 watts—significantly less than the energy a plasma set would use.
“What scares us is that prices for plasma sets are dropping so fast that people are saying, why get a 42-inch plasma set when you can get a 60-inch or 64-inch one,” says Tom Reddoch of the non-profit Electric Power Research Institute. “They have no idea how much electricity these things consume.”
For its part, the industry is taking some steps to make its products more efficient, and to improve disclosure of energy usage. In June 2008 Sony pronounced its new 32-inch Bravia KDL-32JE1 LCD model “the world’s most energy efficient television.” Slated for sale in Japan in August 2008 for around $1,400, the new set utilizes fluorescent tubes to create higher levels of brightness with less energy consumption, but still delivers large resolution, a high contrast ratio and a wide viewing angle.
Beginning in November 2008, forward-thinking manufacturers will get a little boost from the U.S. government, which will start awarding the most energy efficient new TV sets “Energy Star” labels to help consumers identify greener choices. TVs bearing the Energy Star label must operate at least 30 percent more efficiently than standard models in both stand-by and active modes. Consumers can see which models qualify by visiting the televisions section of the EnergyStar.gov home electronics page. According to the EPA, if all TVs sold in the U.S. met Energy Star requirements, yearly energy savings would top $1 billion and greenhouse gas emissions would drop by the equivalent of taking a million cars off the road.
Of course, the greenest option of all (aside from getting out from in front of that tube and spending more time outdoors) is to keep or repair your existing CRT unit (a digital-to-analog converter will be needed after February 2009 when new signal specifications go into effect). Most CRT sets use less energy than any of the LCD or plasma models, and if it ain’t broke, why fix it? Buying a new TV, even a greener one, only generates more pollution in production and transport, and creates waste in junking the old model.
CONTACTS: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov; Energy Star, www.energystar.gov; Electric Power Research Institute, www.epri.com; Sony Corp., www.sony.com.
Dear EarthTalk: I heard that children are reaching puberty at earlier ages now and that it may have to do with environmental toxins and even their TV viewing habits. Can you enlighten? -- Mark Abbot, via e-mail
To say that kids are growing up faster than ever these days may be more than just cliché. Recent studies have shown that children are reaching puberty at younger and younger ages, and researchers are starting to see links between this trend and other societal ills such as ubiquitous pollution and sedentary lifestyles.
In a 2007 report for the Breast Cancer Fund entitled “The Falling Age of Puberty in U.S. Girls: What We Know, What We Need to Know,” ecologist Sandra Steingraber argues that unfettered access to computers and TVs over the last 30 years has led to an increasingly sedentary lifestyle among kids in the U.S. and beyond. Active kids produce more melatonin, a natural hormone that serves as the body’s internal clock and calendar. This could explain why sedentary kids are likely to go through puberty sooner: Their bodies think their decreased melatonin production is a trigger to move into puberty. “[Melatonin is] an inhibitory signal for puberty,” says Steingraber. “The more melatonin you have, the later you go into puberty.”
Of course, sedentary lifestyles are also linked to childhood obesity, a condition that often continues—along with the many health problems that can accompany it—into adulthood. A recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found that, between 2001 and 2004, 17.5 percent of children ages six to 11 were overweight—an effective doubling of obesity rates three decades ago. A study by the non-profit Obesity Society came up with a slightly higher figure—20 percent—with the percentages higher for Hispanic, African-American and Native American children.
Obesity is certainly one factor in the surge in so-called “precocious” adolescence, but chemicals are also thought to play a role. According to Erin Barnes, writing in E – The Environmental Magazine, a study comparing the body mass index of Danish and American girls found that the former group hit puberty a full year later than the latter even though their weights were in the same range. Another study found that wealthy girls in South Africa reach puberty a full year after their African-American counterparts. “Many researchers,” writes Barnes, “are studying the relationship between chemical pollutants like PCBs (polychlorinated bphenyls) and phthalates (commonly used plasticizers) and premature development.”
Some researchers believe that the preponderance of synthetic chemicals in more developed societies are interfering with human endocrine development and essentially “tricking” kids’ bodies into going through puberty prematurely. Also, precocious puberty in girls has been linked to breast cancer, as well as higher rates of drug abuse, violence, unintended pregnancies, problems in school and mental health issues.
“Shortening childhood means a shortening of the time before the brain’s complete re-sculpting occurs,” says Steingraber. “Once that happens, the brain doesn’t allow for complex learning.” She adds that the brain can only build the connections used to learn a language, play a musical instrument or ride a bike before it gets flooded with the sex hormones that come with the onset of puberty.
CONTACTS: Breast Cancer Fund, www.breastcancerfund.org; National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm; Obesity Society, www.obesity.org.
Dear EarthTalk: What green-friendly lawn and garden pesticides are available today? I’m particularly interested in options that won’t harm my cats. -- Nancy Blanchard, via e-mail
Pesticides have greatly boosted agricultural yields over the last half century, so it is no wonder, given the commercial availability of many of these synthetic chemicals, that American homeowners apply 100 million pounds of the stuff each year to make their own gardens grow bigger and faster, too.
But the downside of using such chemicals is that they can poison people and pets as well as backyard wildlife: “Common insecticide ingredients such as 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), atrazine and dicamba have been shown to harm mouse embryos at times equivalent to the first week after conception in humans,” says Erica Glasener of The Green Guide. Due to such revelations, home gardeners are fast discovering the benefits of avoiding chemicals in favor of natural, less toxic alternatives.
But before thinking about applying pesticides, gardeners can design (or re-design) their gardens to make the most of native plants that have evolved over eons to thrive in local conditions without synthetic aid or lots of water. Choosing native plants appropriate to your elevation, soil type, drainage and sun exposure will naturally repel many common pests and also reduce the propagation of invasive exotic species.
Similarly, embedding your plants in healthy soil replete with beneficial insects and worms can also help reduce the need for pesticides. Laura Moran of Mainstreet.com suggests that home gardeners compost their vegetable food waste—which is chock full of nutrients that plants love—and mix it into existing soil to give the garden a healthy boost. “Aside from stimulating healthy root development,” she writes, “the addition of rich compost also improves soil texture, aeration and water retention.” It also provides a nice home, she says, for the beneficial bugs that are destroyed along with the bad ones by chemical pesticides.
If pesticides are necessary, there are a handful of organic varieties available. Bacillus thuringiensis (“Bt”) is a naturally occurring bacterium that is lethal to most leaf-eating caterpillars on trees, shrubs, flowers and vegetables. According to gardening writer Jeff Ball, it is harmless to all other insects, animals and humans. It comes in a powder form for use as a dust, or, when diluted with water, as a spray. Organic chemists have formulated varieties of Bt to kill mosquitoes or potato beetles as well.
To control slugs in an environmentally friendly manner, The Green Guide’s Glasener suggests recycling the black cell packs that vegetables and annuals are sold in, and placing them (empty) upside down near the base of plants. “Each morning, check the containers for pests, and if you find any, simply throw the container away with the pests inside,” she says. Another easy slug control method is to use hollowed out grapefruit rinds in a similar manner around the base of plants, disposing of them if they turn up any slugs.
Pet owners may already be familiar with insecticidal soaps used to control fleas. Some of these soaps can also be used in the garden to repel insects. For more information, consult a local nursery specializing in organic methods and native plants. Find one near you via the free online Native Plants Nursery Directory.
CONTACTS: The Green Guide, www.thegreenguide.com; MainStreet.com, www.mainstreet.com; Native Plants Nursery Directory, www.plantnative.org/national_nursery_dir_main.htm.
Dear EarthTalk: What’s going on with all the cases of autism cropping up and no one seems to know why? It stands to reason it must be something (or some things) environmental, yet every study allegedly turns up no conclusion? What are the possible causes? -- Jessica W., Austin, TX
No doubt about it, autism rates have skyrocketed in the U.S. and beyond in recent years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the disease affects one in every 150 children born today in the U.S., up from one in 500 as recently as just 10 years ago. It’s become the fastest-growing developmental disability—more prevalent than childhood cancer, juvenile diabetes and pediatric AIDS combined—and it continues to grow at a rate of 10 to 17 percent per year.
While researchers think there is a genetic component to autism, they also believe environmental factors are playing a role in its recent increase. Environmental mercury and other heavy metal exposure, contaminated water, pesticides, a greater reliance on antibiotics—and even extensive television viewing by very young children—may be factors in mounting autism rates. Researchers at the American Academy of Pediatrics and other institutes have also identified flame retardants as possible culprits.
Vaccines containing the mercury preservative thimerosal (now mostly removed from the market) have long been blamed for causing autism, but scientific links are inconclusive. In lieu of a smoking gun, a more complex picture of autism’s environmental causes is now emerging.
Some researchers are focusing on the role of food in a young child’s development. Many autistic children suffer from digestive diseases or have genetic dispositions rendering them unable to naturally rid their bodies of toxins. As such, exposure to heavy metals, pesticides, contaminated water and even processed food could have a devastating cumulative effect, some researchers think. According to Brian MacFabe, a researcher at the University of Western Ontario who has studied autism triggers in rats, simple changes such as removing wheat and dairy from the diet could potentially bring about improvements.
Groups such as the nonprofit Healthy Child Healthy World say it’s about time researchers are looking at environmental factors. “Whatever triggered this current autism epidemic...autistic kids clearly need extra protection from further environmental assault,” the group writes on its blog. They advise parents to be vigilant about the industrial cleaners used in school buildings and the pesticides sprayed on playing fields, where kids spend 25 to 30 hours per week. They and other groups are also looking at the role of untested chemicals in common cleaning products: phthalates, glycol ethers and other known toxins.
Others wonder if a collective “nature deficit disorder” among children plays a factor in rising autism rates. Outdoor exposure has long been associated with healthier cognitive functioning in children, with reduction in Attention Deficit Disorder symptoms and greater emotional capacity. But new findings suggest it could impact autism, too. Last year, Cornell University researchers found higher rates of autism in counties where more households subscribed to cable and children under the age of three regularly watched TV. The Amish, with almost no exposure to TV, have little evidence of autism, notes the study.
CONTACTS: CDC Autism Information Center, www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism; Healthy Child Healthy World, www.healthychild.org.
Dear EarthTalk: Recent NASA photos showed the opening of the Northwest Passage and that a third of the Arctic’s sea ice has melted in recent. Are sea levels already starting to rise accordingly, and if so what effects is this having? -- Dudley Robinson, Ireland
Researchers were astounded when, in the fall of 2007, they discovered that the year-round ice pack in the Arctic Ocean had lost some 20 percent of its mass in just two years, setting a new record low since satellite imagery began documenting the terrain in 1978. Without action to stave off climate change, some scientists believe that, at that rate, all of the year-round ice in the Arctic could be gone by as early as 2030.
This massive reduction has allowed an ice-free shipping lane to open through the fabled Northwest Passage along northern Canada, Alaska and Greenland. While the shipping industry—which now has easy northern access between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans—may be cheering this “natural” development, scientists worry about the impact of the resulting rise in sea levels around the world.
With about a third of the world’s population—and 25 percent of Americans—living within 300 feet of an ocean coastline, sea level rise is a big deal. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of leading climate scientists, sea levels have risen some 3.1 millimeters per year since 1993.
The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) reports that low-lying island nations, especially in equatorial regions, have been hardest hit by this phenomenon, and some are threatened with total disappearance. Rising seas have already swallowed up two uninhabited islands in the Central Pacific. On Samoa, thousands of residents have moved to higher ground as shorelines have retreated by as much as 160 feet. And islanders on Tuvalu are scrambling to find new homes as salt water intrusion has made their groundwater undrinkable while increasingly strong hurricanes and ocean swells have devastated shoreline structures.
WWF says that rising seas throughout tropical and sub-tropical regions of the world have inundated coastal ecosystems, decimating local plant and wildlife populations. In Bangladesh and Thailand, coastal mangrove forests—important buffers against storms and tidal waves—are giving way to ocean water.
Unfortunately, even if we curb global warming emissions today, these problems are likely to get worse before they get better. According to marine geophysicist Robin Bell of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, sea levels rise by about 1/16” for every 150 cubic miles of ice that melts off one of the poles.
“That may not sound like a lot, but consider the volume of ice now locked up in the planet’s three greatest ice sheets,” she writes in a recent issue of Scientific American. “If the West Antarctic ice sheet were to disappear, sea level would rise almost 19 feet; the ice in the Greenland ice sheet could add 24 feet to that; and the East Antarctic ice sheet could add yet another 170 feet to the level of the world’s oceans: more than 213 feet in all.” Bell underscores the severity of the situation by pointing out that the 150-foot tall Statue of Liberty could be completely submerged within a matter of decades.
CONTACTS: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), www.ipcc.ch; WWF, www.panda.org; Earth Institute at Columbia University, www.earth.columbia.edu.
Dear EarthTalk: What’s available now in lawnmowers that are easier on the environment? My yard is too big for one of those “reel” mowers, and I’m no longer a spring chicken, so I have to buy something that runs on more than human power. What’s out there? -- Joel Klein, Albany, NY
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), traditional gas-powered lawnmowers are a public nuisance to say the least. Using one of them for an hour generates as many volatile organic compounds—dangerous airborne pollutants known to exacerbate human respiratory and cardiovascular problems—as driving a typical car for 350 miles. The EPA estimates that, with some 54 million Americans mowing their lawns on a weekly basis, gas lawnmower emissions account for as much as five percent of the nation’s total air pollution. Beyond that, homeowners spill some 17 million gallons of gasoline every year just refueling their lawnmowers.
So what’s a green-minded property owner to do about keeping the grass down? Go electric, of course!
Electric mowers, which either plug into a wall outlet via a long cord or run on batteries charged up from the grid, create no exhaust emissions and run much cleaner than their gas-powered counterparts. They also need less maintenance, with no spark plugs or belts to worry about, and are easier to use, as they tend to be smaller and come with push-button starters. The icing on the cake might be the fact that electric mowers are cheaper to run, using about as much electricity as an ordinary toaster. Most electric mower owners spend about $5 a year on electricity to keep their grass trimmed just right. The non-profit Electric Power Research Institute reports that replacing half of the 1.3 million or so gas mowers in the U.S. with electric models would save the equivalent amount of emissions of taking two million cars off the road.
But going electric has some minor trade-offs. Electric mowers tend to cost up to $150 more than their gas-powered counterparts, and the plug-in varieties can only go 100 feet from the closest outlet without an extension cord. And the cordless models last only 30-60 minutes on a charge, depending on battery size and type, though that’s plenty sufficient for the average lawn (just remember to re-charge it in time for the next mow).
And, of course, just because electric mowers don’t consume fossil fuels or spew emissions directly doesn’t mean they are totally green-friendly. Most people derive their household electricity from coal-fired power plants, the dirtiest of all energy sources. Of course, running an electric mower on electricity generated from clean and renewable sources (solar, wind or hydro power) would be the greenest of all possibilities, and those days may be upon us soon.
For those ready to take the electric mower plunge, the Greener Choices website, a project of Consumer Reports, gives high marks to Black & Decker’s corded ($230) and cordless ($400) models for their efficiency, reliability and ease-of-use. Corded models from Worx and Homelite (both around $200) also fared well, along with cordless offerings from Craftsman, Homelite, Remington and Neuton ($300-450).
CONTACTS: Black & Decker, www.blackanddecker.com; Remington, www.remingtonpowertools.com; Homelite, www.homelite.com; Worx, www.worxpowertools.com; Neuton, www.neutonpower.com; Greener Choices, www.greenerchoices.org.
Dear EarthTalk: I really want to eat healthy and organic but am constantly traveling and on the go. How can I eat fast food without having to always end up at McDonalds and Burger King? -- Dylan Baker, Seattle, Washington
The latest trend in fast food is healthy and organic, and luckily for conscious consumers, several chains offering just such fare are taking root in different parts of the U.S. One of the leaders of this small but scrappy pack of fast food upstarts is O’Naturals. The small chain currently runs two stores of its own in Maine (Falmouth and Portland) and one in Acton, Massachusetts, and franchises out additional locations in Kansas and Florida. O’Naturals’ menu contains lots of vegetarian-friendly items, including “build-your-own” flatbread sandwiches, salads, noodle stir-frys and soups. The meat the restaurant does serve is grass-fed and hormone-free, while the chickens are free-range and the Alaskan salmon is wild.
Another healthy option is EVOS, which currently runs five “quick-casual” restaurants in Florida and is planning a major expansion into the western U.S. Vegetarians can rejoice in the chain’s wide selection of vegetarian and vegan items. While its hormone- and antibiotic-free burgers are still only about as healthy as red meat gets, their soy burger satisfies without the guilt or the cholesterol. Also, EVOS uses organic field greens in its wraps and salads, organic milk in its milkshakes, and fresh fruit in its smoothies. Additionally, the restaurant air-bakes its fries and other typically deep-fried items to keep the fat content as much as 70 percent lower than the same kinds of foods found elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Seattle-based Organics-To-Go, with five locations in Washington and California, lays out a wide array of “grab-and-go” organic and natural foods so customers can make up their own meals out of a cornucopia of healthy choices. Other fast food alternatives offering lots of health (as well as vegetarian and vegan) options include Au Bon Pain, Bruegger’s Bagels, Noah’s Bagels, and World Wraps, while Subway and Quizno’s alike can be good options for those willing to study the menu carefully.
Even though many alternatives exist, it is hard to beat the reach of the major fast food chains, several of which are making small steps toward healthier menus and will undoubtedly continue to do so if consumers bite. McDonald’s, KFC, Burger King and Wendy’s have reduced or eliminated trans-fats. Burger King now offers a veggie burger, and McDonald’s is testing one in California. Taco Bell offers many non-meat options, including a bean and cheese burrito, a veggie fajita wrap, and a 7-layer burrito, which can be had without the cheese and sour cream. Carl’s Jr. also has many tasty and healthy vegetarian options despite an otherwise standard fast-food menu. Vegetarians and vegans looking for more ideas about what to eat when time is of the essence should consult any number of websites with pages devoted to the topic, including Vegetarian-Restaurants.net, VegCooking, FitWise and Vegetarian Resource Group.
And remember, nothing beats seeking out local restaurants when you’re on the road, to soak up some of the local culture. And with trends as they are it shouldn’t be too difficult to find many that do serve healthy menus—just not quite as fast as “fast food” but probably fast enough.
CONTACTS: O’Naturals, www.onaturals.com; EVOS, www.evos.com; Vegetarian-Restaurants.net, www.vegetarian-restaurants.net; VegCooking, www.vegcooking.com; FitWise, www.fitwise.com; Vegetarian Resource Group, www.vrg.org.
Dear EarthTalk: Are sunscreens safe? Which ones do you recommend that will protect my skin from the sun and not cause other issues? -- Bettina E., New York, NY
Getting a little sunshine is important for helping our bodies generate Vitamin D, an important supplement for strong bones, and f or regulating our levels of serotonin and tryptamine, neurotransmitters that keep our moods and sleep/wake cycles in order. Like anything, though, too much sun can cause health issues, from sunburns to skin cancer. For those of us spend more time in the sun than doctors recommend—they say to stay indoors between 11 AM and 3 PM on sunny days to be safe—sunscreens can be lifesavers.
Getting too much sun is bad because of ultraviolet radiation, 90 percent of which comes in the form of Ultraviolet A (UVA) rays that are not absorbed by the ozone layer and penetrate deep into our skin. Ultraviolet B (UVB) rays make up the rest. These rays are partially absorbed by the ozone layer (which makes preserving the ozone layer crucial for our health), and because they don’t penetrate our skin as deeply, can cause those lobster-red sunburns. Both types of UV rays are thought to cause skin cancer.
Yet while most sunscreens block out at least some UVB radiation, many don’t screen UVA rays at all, making their use risky. According to the non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG), by far most of the commercially available sunscreens do not provide adequate protection against the sun’s harmful UV radiation and may also contain chemicals with questionable safety records.
In all, 84 percent of the 831 sunscreens EWG tested did not pass health and environmental muster. Many contained potentially harmful chemicals like Benzophenone, homosalate and octyl methoxycinnamate (also called octinoxate), which are known to mimic naturally occurring bodily hormones and can thus throw the body’s systems out of whack. Some also contained Padimate-0 and parsol 1789 (also known as avobenzone), which are suspected of causing DNA damage when exposed to sunlight. Furthermore, EWG found that more than half the sunscreens on the market make questionable product claims about longevity, water resistance and UV protection.
As a result, EWG has called on the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to establish standards for labeling so consumers have a better idea of what they may be buying. In the meantime, consumers looking to find out how their preferred brand stacks up can check out EWG’s online Skin Deep database, which compares thousands of health and beauty products against environmental and human health standards.
The good news is that many companies are now introducing safer sunscreens crafted from plant- and mineral-based ingredients and without chemical additives. Some of the best, according to Skin Deep, are Alba Botanica Sun’s Fragrance-Free Mineral Sunscreen, Avalon Baby’s Sunscreen SPF 18, Badger’s SPF 30 Sunscreen, Burt’s Bees’ Chemical-Free Sunscreen SPF 15, California Baby’s SPF 30, Juice Beauty’s Green Apple SPF 15 Moisturizer, and Kabana’s Green Screen SPF 15. Natural foods markets stock many of these, or they can be found online at websites like Sun Protection Center and Drugstore.com.
CONTACTS: Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org; Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database, www.cosmeticsdatabase.com; Sun Protection Center, www.sunprotectioncenter.com, Drugstore.com, www.drugstore.com.
Dear EarthTalk: What initiatives are taking place on college campuses to reduce the footprints of these large users of energy and other resources? -- Shawna Smith, Hamilton, NY
Microcosms of the world at large, college campuses are great test beds for environmental change, and many students are working hard to get their administrations to take positive action. The initiatives that are emerging are models for the larger society, and the students pushing for them will be taking these lessons with them, too, as they enter the work force after graduation.
Foremost on the minds of green-leaning students today is global warming, and many are joining hands to persuade their schools to update policies and streamline operations so that their campuses can become part of the solution. Largely a result of student efforts, for example, nearly 500 U.S. colleges and universities have signed the American College and University Presidents (ACUP) Climate Commitment.
This agreement requires schools to put together a comprehensive plan to go “carbon neutral” in two years of signing. (Carbon neutral means contributing no net greenhouse gases to the atmosphere either by not generating them in the first place or by offsetting them somehow, such as through tree-planting or by buying “offsets” from companies that fund alternative energy projects.)
ACUP also commits schools to implementing two or more tangible (and easily implemented) policies right away, such as improving waste minimization and recycling programs, reducing energy usage, providing or encouraging public transportation to and from campus (and switching campus buses over to bio-diesel fuel), constructing bicycle lanes, and implementing green building guidelines for any new construction.
Signatory schools also pledge that they will integrate sustainability into their curricula, making it part of the educational experience.
One place where students are forcing green changes on campus is the dining hall. According to the Sustainable Endowments Institute’s 2007 report card, which looks at environmental initiatives at the 200 colleges and universities with the largest endowment assets in the U.S. and Canada, 70 percent of such schools now “devote at least a portion of food budgets to buying from local farms and/or producers,” while 29 percent earned an “A” in the “food and recycling” category. Yale University even has organic gardens that are student-run and that supply an on-campus farmer’s market for use by campus food services, the local community and students alike.
Another area where college campuses are leading the way is in water conservation. Colleges consume huge quantities of water in dormitories, cafeterias, at athletic facilities and in maintaining their rolling green grounds. According to Niles Barnes of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), most of the 3,800 institutions of higher education in the U.S. have engaged in some sort of water-saving program. Low-water-volume toilets and urinals, as well as low-flow showerheads and faucets, are “pretty much standard practice across U.S. colleges today,” says Barnes.
CONTACTS: ACUP, www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org; Sustainable Endowments Institute, www.endowmentinstitute.org; AASHE, www.aashe.org.
Dear EarthTalk: What is the status of wetlands in North America? Years ago I remember that wetlands loss, due to development and sprawl, was accelerating fast, but I haven’t heard much on the topic of late.-- John Mossbarger, La Jolla, CA
Wetlands serve as primary habitat for thousands of wildlife species—from ducks to beavers to insects—and form an important ecosystem link between land and water. They also play a key role in maintaining water quality, as they filter out agricultural nutrients and absorb sediments so that municipal water supplies don’t have to. On and near shorelines, wetlands provide a natural buffer against storm surges and rising floodwaters, helping to disperse and absorb excess water before it can damage life and property.
The eradication of wetlands in the so-called New World began when white settlers, intent on taming the land, started developing homesteads and town sites throughout what was to become the United States and Canada. Researchers estimate that at the time of European settlement in the early 1600s, the land that was to become the lower 48 U.S. states had 221 million acres of wetlands. By the mid-1980s, following another great period of loss after World War II when army engineers drained huge swaths of formerly impenetrable marshes and swamps, the continental U.S. had only 103 million wetland acres remaining.
Across the U.S. and Canada, the vast majority of wetlands—about 85 percent—have been destroyed in the name of agricultural expansion. Other major factors include road building, residential development, and the building of large facilities like shopping malls, factories, airports and, ironically, reservoirs.
But growing awareness about the importance of wetlands has led to new regulations aimed at protecting those that remain. A variety of state and federal programs, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wetland Reserve Program (whereby landowners voluntarily protect, restore and enhance wetlands on their own private property), have been effective in stemming the tide of wetlands loss. During the 1990s the rate of wetlands loss in the U.S. declined by some 80 percent over previous decades. But the nation is still losing upwards of 50,000 wetland acres per year, according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.
The issue is of even greater concern in Canada, which harbors a quarter of the world’s remaining wetlands in its northern boreal forests. According to Natural Resources Canada, fully 14 percent of Canada’s total land mass is in the form of wetlands. Researchers believe that about 50 million acres of wetlands have been lost in Canada since European settlement. Underscoring the correlation between urbanization and wetlands loss, less than .2 percent of Canada’s wetlands lie within 25 miles of major urban centers today.
On the global level, 158 governments are signatories to the 1971 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, an international treaty that provides a framework for international cooperation in the conservation and wise use of wetlands. Some 1,743 wetland sites—totaling almost 400 million acres—have been protected as “Wetlands of International Importance” under the terms of the treaty. Although the Ramsar treaty can do little to stop illegal or legal draining of wetlands, its very existence highlights how seriously the majority of the world’s countries take protecting land formerly thought of as God-forsaken and useless.
CONTACTS: Wetlands Reserve Program, www.nrcs.usda.gov/Programs/WRP/; Natural Resources Canada, www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca; Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, www.ramsar.org.
Dear EarthTalk: My old computer finally bit the dust and I am in the market for a replacement. Are there any particularly “green” computers for sale these days? -- Brian Smith, Nashua, NH
Thanks in part to pressure from non-profits like Greenpeace International—which has published quarterly versions of its landmark “Guide to Greener Electronics” since 2006—computer makers now understand that consumers care about the environmental footprints of the products they use.
The latest version of Greenpeace’s guide gives high marks to Toshiba, Lenovo, Sony and Dell for increasing the recyclability of their computers and reducing toxic components and so-called “e-waste” (refuse from discarded electronic devices and components). The group also credits Apple, HP and Fujitsu for making strides toward greener products and manufacturing processes, but emphasizes that even such top ranked companies have lots of room for improvement when it comes to the environment.
PC Magazine, the leading computer publication for consumer and business users, recently assessed dozens of personal computers according to environmental standards it developed in-house based on energy efficiency, recyclability and the toxicity of components. The publication also factored in various “green” certification schemes such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s EnergyStar program, the European Union’s Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive, Taiwan’s Greenmark and the computer industry’s own Electronic Products Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT).
The top choices for green desktop computers, according to PC, are Apple’s Mac Mini, Zonbu’s Desktop Mini, HP Compaq’s 2710p and dc7800, Lenovo’s ThinkCentre a61e, and Dell’s OptiPlex 755. As for laptops, the greenest current models include Dell’s Latitude D630, the Everex Zonbu, Fujitsu’s LifeBook S6510, and Toshiba’s Tecra A9-S9013.
Perhaps more important than the green-ness of your new computer is what you do with the old one. Stuffing it into the trash or setting it out for curbside pick-up may be the worst thing you can do with an outdated computer, as heavy metals and other toxins inevitably get free and get into surrounding soils and water. If the machine still works, donate it to a local school that can put it to use, or to Goodwill or the Salvation Army, either of which can re-sell it to help fund their programs. Another option is to donate it to the National Cristina Foundation, which places outdated technology with needy non-profits.
Once you’ve gotten rid of an old computer and outfitted yourself with a spiffy new green one, you might just want to score a few green accessories. Brooklyn, New York’s Verdant Computing, which bills itself as a purveyor of “the greenest computer products on the web,” sells remanufactured ink and toner cartridges, laptop cases made from recycled plastic, GreenDisk CDs packaged in recycled plastic jewel cases, solar-powered MP3 accessories, energy-saving printers and even a software program, GreenPrint, which modifies the print programs on your computer to economize on paper and ink/toner use. Verdant also has most products shipped to consumers directly from the manufacturers to save re-shipping.
CONTACTS: Greenpeace International, www.greenpeace.org; PC Magazine, www.pcmag.com; National Cristina Foundation, www.cristina.org; Verdant Computing, www.verdantcomputing.com.
Dear EarthTalk: Are there any efforts underway to green the air travel industry? It seems to me that it must be one dirty business from a pollution standpoint. -- Elias Corey, Seattle, WA
Environmental battles over the siting and expansion of airports are as old as the air travel industry itself, but only in recent years have the airlines themselves been under pressure to go green.
And there’s no time like the present for the industry to take some action: Air pollution from commercial jets is a growing concern among scientists, as is air travel’s role in climate change because of the more acute warming effect of emissions when they are disbursed so much closer to the upper atmosphere.
According to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, an independent group of scientists that advises the British government, emissions from aircraft will likely be one of the major contributors to global warming by the year 2050. According to USA Today, on a flight from New York to Denver, a commercial jet generates between “840 to 1,660 pounds of carbon dioxide per passenger. That’s about what an SUV generates in a month.”
Despite still gloomy times for the industry post-9/11, a few are actually responding to the call. Virgin is blazing new trails as part of a $3 billion investment in energy efficiency. The company is experimenting with biodiesel and ethanol—fuels derived from crops—and has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in ethanol-related businesses. But don’t expect to ride on a biofuel-powered jet anytime soon.
Airplane makers are getting in on the act, too. Boeing successfully flew the world’s first hydrogen-powered, fuel cell airplane in April 2008. A company spokesperson called the plane—a small one-seater—“full of promises for a greener future.” Boeing is working to develop a commercial version, but uncertainties about hydrogen production and distribution put this advancement well into the future, too.
So what can consumers do to fly greener today? Sharon Beaulaurier of GreenLight magazine suggests choosing airlines with newer, more fuel-efficient fleets such as JetBlue, Singapore Airlines or Virgin. She adds that direct flights are better than those with stopovers, as frequent take-offs and landings use more fuel than when the planes are cruising. She also recommends avoiding airlines and airports with bad track records for delays, which leave planes idling and spewing greenhouse gases for hours unnecessarily.
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) runs AvoidDelays.com, which helps fliers choose airlines and airports based on on-time departures. Airlines with poor records include American, Atlantic Southeast, ExpressJet, Mesa and United, according to NATCA, which also calls Chicago’s O’Hare, New York’s LaGuardia, Newark, Philadelphia and San Francisco the worst airports for catching on-time flights.
Meanwhile, the European Union wants to require airlines touching down in Europe to participate in continent-wide carbon reduction programs already in place. Backers hope it will cut Europe’s exponential growth in airline emissions in half by 2020. Some carriers oppose the plan and are fighting it in court.
CONTACTS: Virgin Group, www.virgin.com; Boeing, www.boeing.com; AvoidDelays.com, www.avoiddelays.com.
Dear EarthTalk: How can I find out which seafood to avoid if I am concerned about lessening my impact on the environment and avoiding consuming unhealthy pollutants? -- Pat Kelly, Seattle, WA
Several decades ago a fish-centric diet was considered to be not only healthy but also environmentally friendly. But today those of us who eat a lot of fish may not be doing ourselves or the environment any favor. The two major concerns are overfishing and pollution.
Demand for low-calorie, protein-rich fish has grown tremendously alongside increases in world population. At the same time, the technologies employed for catching seafood have improved to the point that the commercial fishing industry has essentially stripped the ocean of its once teeming fish populations. One recent analysis concluded that only 10 percent of the large predatory fish that once roamed the world’s oceans are left, due to overzealous sport and commercial fishing. Another study concluded that three-quarters of the world’s fisheries are either fully fished or overfished.
Pollution from industrial, agricultural and other everyday activities like electricity generation and automobile driving has also taken a serious toll on the health of the remaining fish species. Scientists routinely find unsafe levels of mercury, PCBs, dioxins, pesticides and other harsh toxins in the fat, internal organs and even muscle tissue of many different kinds of fish. These contaminants are then passed on up the food chain to our dinner plates.
According to Seafood Watch, a project of the Monterey Bay Aquarium that works to educate the public about the seafood crisis, consumers can make a difference by getting educated so as to make smart choices about what seafood to avoid. Consumers can download and print out free Seafood Watch pocket guides to the “best choices” across six different regions of the U.S.—after all, what’s abundant and sustainably harvested in your area may not be the same for someone across the country.
Another convenient way to get the low-down on the fish you may be contemplating buying at the grocer or a restaurant is to text “30644” with the message “FISH,” followed by the name of the specific fish in question. In a few seconds, an automated response will come back from the non-profit Blue Ocean Network’s FishPhone service with information on the status of the fish in question—and alternatives, should Blue Ocean consider the fish an undesirable choice.
The basic skinny on fish consumption is that if you like it, you should eat it, but responsibly—that means in moderation and armed with the proper knowledge of which types of fish to buy and which to avoid.
For those looking to cut down on or eliminate seafood from their diets but still gain the health benefits of eating fish, plenty of alternatives exist. As most vegetarians know, beans, tofu and many nuts can be significant alternative sources of protein. And walnuts, flaxseed and hemp oil/seeds are all rich in the Omega-3 fatty acids common in many fish and thought to help ward off heart disease, cancer, macular degeneration (age-related blindness), arthritis and inflammatory disorders.
CONTACTS: Seafood Watch, www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp; FishPhone, www.fishphone.org.
Dear EarthTalk: What makes those so-called “new urbanism” housing developments popping up around the U.S. more environmentally friendly than regular old suburban neighborhoods? -- Rusty Spinoza, Galveston, TX
The husband-and-wife team of town planners Andrés Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk are typically credited as the founders of new urbanism, a style of community design that embraces mixed use (commercial and residential) development in pedestrian-friendly and green space-rich neighborhoods—much like the old neighborhoods many baby-boomers remember before suburban sprawl made us all slaves to our cars.
Duany and Plater-Zyberk formulated their new urbanism principles while living in one of the Victorian neighborhoods of New Haven, Connecticut while they attended graduate school in architecture at Yale. Their neighborhood included corner shops, front porches and a variety of attractive and well-designed housing and commercial structures—planting the seed of an idea that has now swept the U.S. and beyond.
The prototypical new urbanist community is Florida’s Seaside, which Duany and Plater-Zyberk began designing in 1979 for the 80-acre coastal parcel’s developer, Robert S. Davis. Their plan took the best elements of a handful of graceful southern cities like Key West, Charleston and Savannah to create a community based on the tried-and-true concept of walkable, self-contained neighborhoods. Besides 300 homes, Seaside contains a school, a town hall, an open-air market, a tennis club, a tented amphitheater and a post office—everything anyone could ever need in a town, and all within a five minute walk.
According to the non-profit Smart Communities Network, Seaside works as a community because of its design: “Mandatory porches are set close enough to walkways to enable porch sitters and passersby to communicate without raising their voices…. The streets are all interconnected; creating a network that eliminates ‘collector’ routes and reduces congestion. Walkways crisscross the development to encourage walking and biking, while narrow streets serve to reduce traffic speed.” Building fronts are a uniform distance from the curb and all streets are tree-lined to further the community’s “sense of place.”
Other examples of new urbanist communities include: Stapleton on the outskirts of Denver, Colorado; Seabrook on the southern coast of Washington State; Melrose Arch in Johannesburg, South Africa; Alta de Lisboa near Lisbon, Portugal; and Jakriborg in southern Sweden. Meanwhile, the idea has caught on in New Orleans, where developers are styling new communities in the wake of Hurricane Katrina based in part on the principles of new urbanism.
According to the website NewUrbanism.org, being green is central to the concept of new urbanism, where houses tend to be compact and on small lots. And many developers are incorporating green building design and alternative energy generation into their plans for these communities. Furthermore, proponents say that building densely settled, walkable communities instead of road-intensive suburban developments cuts down on the need to drive, thus further reducing the carbon footprint.
CONTACTS: Seaside, www.seasidefl.com; Smart Communities Network, www.smartcommunities.ncat.org; NewUrbanism.org, www.newurbanism.org.
Dear EarthTalk: How safe are the fire retardants that are used to quell forest fires across the American West? -- Barbara, Minneapolis, MN
So-called long-term fire retardants—those usually dropped from airplanes over forest fires—are comprised of water mixed with a slurry of chemicals, thickeners and corrosion inhibitors designed to prevent plants on the ground from igniting, keep the ingredients from separating and dispersing during targeted drops, and ensure that the harsh chemicals on board the plane don’t endanger the flight’s safety.
Firefighters sometimes add iron oxide to make the fire retardant turn red when applied so they can see where they have already covered. Ammonium phosphate and ammonium sulfate, known for their use as agricultural fertilizers, are also often added to provide nutrients to help the forest regenerate after a burn.
In recent years, where global warming and droughts have exacerbated forest fires across the American West, federal and state firefighting agencies have upped their cumulative annual use of long-term fire retardants to some 20+ million gallons a year spread across tens of thousands of individual fly-overs.
While such chemicals have been valuable in minimizing the damage of forest fires, their use comes with a price. The nitrogen in ammonium phosphate and ammonium sulfate can wreak terrible havoc on aquatic ecosystems, creating algae blooms that kill fish by choking out their oxygen. A 1998 study by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, found long-term fire retardants to be “very toxic to aquatic organisms including algae, aquatic invertebrates and fish.” The study also said that fire-fighting chemicals “could cause substantial fish kills depending on the stream size and flow rate.”
These chemicals have also been shown to affect some plants’ reproductive capacities. One study found that spraying fire retardants in some cases decreased plant species diversity, as weedier species better adapted to make use of excess nitrogen in the soil tended to thrive while native species were not able to compete.
In 2000 the U.S. Forest Service issued guidelines for use of fire retardants by aerial fire fighting crews. While the focus of the document was fire control and safety, it encouraged pilots to avoid applying retardant within 300 feet of waterways or other sensitive areas. The Forest Service acknowledges the risk of using retardants, but believes that their use in moderation is a net gain; as fewer “ground troops” need to be sent in to risky situations while more property can be saved from the ravages of a fast-moving fire.
Fires are actually an essential part of forest ecology and many species of trees and plants thrive in part because of the natural occurrence of fires (sequoia trees, for example, depend upon the high temperatures of forest fires to pry open their cones so new seeds can spring forth and take root). The main reason that such catastrophic, news making fires occur in the first place is that humans have sprawled too closely to the forest edge. This has lead to forest management policies that suppress natural fires, causing large build-ups of tinder-like woody debris that eventually ignites and burns out of control.
CONTACTS: USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, www.npwrc.usgs.gov; U.S. Forest Service Guidelines for Aerial Application of Retardants and Foams in Aquatic Environments, www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/retardants/current/gen/appguide.htm.
Dear EarthTalk: There are so many energy drinks on the market, but they all seem very high in sugar, coloring and preservatives. Are there any natural versions that offer a healthier kick-start? -- John Hwang, Cambridge, MA
Energy drinks constitute one of the fastest growing sectors of the soft drink market across the U.S. and around the world, with some 500 new varieties introduced in recent years. But it’s true that most are far from healthy. Besides containing excessive amounts of sugar and caffeine, which alone can be dangerous to those with diabetes or heart conditions, many also feature a battery of supposedly beneficial herbal supplements (taurine, guarana and ginseng) that are not proven to increase energy and may actually sap energy, being detrimental to bodies overloaded with new and unfamiliar stimuli.
“Most of the energy drinks contain high-tech-sounding ingredients that are not controlled substances, of no value, and potentially harmful” in large amounts, says sports nutritionist Cynthia Sass. “The amount of the stimulants is not always listed on the label, and even when the information is listed, it is hard for consumers to interpret because we are not familiar with these ingredients.”
Sass recommends good old fashioned water as the best alternative to energy drinks. Re-hydrating is a great way to stay alert and to move other nutrients through the body. Other tried and true ways to increase energy include maintaining a healthy diet, regular physical activity and, of course, a good night’s sleep.
But what about those times when you really need a boost? Yerba mate tea, which is derived from yerba mate plants that naturally contain caffeine as well as other natural stimulants, is a popular choice. Perhaps part of the reason some people swear by it is that its brewed leaves contain theobromine—also found in cocoa—an alkaloid known to help elevate the mood. Boosters of the drink say it also helps strengthen the immune system, relieve allergies and aid in weight loss.
Not a straight tea drinker? Brewed yerba mate, which has an earthy flavor that some call an acquired taste, is sold commercially not just as tea but also blended in lattes, coffees and energy drinks. Guayaki (available at Safeway, Wegmans, 7-Eleven and elsewhere) is one of a handful of companies paving the way for yerba mate in the U.S. The company sells flavored versions with a hint of cane juice to sweeten it up for otherwise sugar-addicted American consumers.
Another take on healthy energy drinks comes from a handful of companies selling products with vitamins and nutrients instead of caffeine to give drinkers a kick. Zipfizz is a powder that can be mixed in with water and contains a combination of vitamins and minerals that provide the body with electrolytes, antioxidants and vitamin B-12, among other natural, immune-strengthening nutrients. Eniva Vibe, also packed with vitamins and minerals, is another popular new entry into the healthy energy drink market.
As with anything you consume, mileage may vary, so to speak, so experts advise going slow at first to make sure it agrees with you. And if all else fails, remember you can always just go take a nap.
CONTACTS: Cynthia Sass, www.cynthiasass.com; Guayaki, www.guayaki.com; Eniva Vibe, www.enivamembers.com/vibe_index.aspx; Zipfizz, www.zipfizz.com.
Dear EarthTalk: How or where can I recycle clothes that are too old or worn out for Goodwill? -- Tim Cheplick, Perrineville, NJ
Just because that old shirt you used to love is too threadbare to wear anymore doesn’t mean it has to end up in a landfill. “Consumers don’t understand that there’s a place for their old clothing even if something is missing a button or torn,” says Jana Hawley, a professor of textile and apparel management at the University of Missouri-Columbia. “Ninety-nine percent of used textiles are recyclable.”
Non-profits like Goodwill and the Salvation Army play a crucial role in keeping old clothes out of the waste stream. When they get donations of clothes that are too threadbare to re-sell in one of their shops, they send them to “rag sorters” that specialize in recycling pieces of fabric large and small. Says Hawley, these textile recyclers sell about half the clothing they get back overseas in developing countries, while unusable garments, especially cotton t-shirts, are turned into wiping and polishing clothes used by a variety of industries and sold to consumers. She adds that other textiles are shredded into fibers used to make new products, such as sound-deadening materials for the automotive industry, archival-quality paper, blankets and even plastic fencing.
Outdoor clothing and gear maker Patagonia, which plies a strong environmental mandate in key aspects of its operations (from sourcing of raw materials to managing waste to making grants to environmental nonprofits), in 2005 launched its innovative Common Threads Garment Recycling program. The program was originally begun so customers could return their worn out Capilene long undies for recycling, but has expanded to taking back Patagonia fleece and cotton t-shirts as well as Polartec fleece from other manufacturers. Consumers wanting to unload items that meet the program’s criteria can do so at any Patagonia retail store or by mailing them into the company’s Reno, Nevada service center.
Of course, do-it-yourselfers handy with needle-and-thread or sewing machines can turn their old clothes into new creations such as quilts, handbags and smaller items. The website Expert Village, which claims to have the largest online collection of “how-to” videos, offers a free series called “How to Recycle Old Clothes into New Fashions.” Short step-by-step videos in the series cover such topics as transforming old garments into works of art; sewing patches, buttons and beads onto old clothes; deconstructing a wedding dress; ironing graphics onto old garments, and much more. Another good use for threadbare clothes (as well as sheets and towels) is pet bedding, whether in your own home or donated to a local animal shelter.
According to the non-profit Institute for Local Self-Reliance, textiles make up about four percent of the weight and eight percent of the volume of all municipal solid waste in the U.S. The commercial recycling company U’SAgain—which runs private for-profit recycling services in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Minneapolis, Seattle, St. Louis and elsewhere—finds that some 85 percent of the 70 pounds of textiles the average American purchases each year ends up landfilled. That means the typical U.S. city with 50,000 residents has to pay (with local tax dollars) for the handling and disposal of some 3,000 tons of textiles every year. The shame of such waste is that textiles are so easy to recycle or otherwise find new uses for.
CONTACTS: Goodwill, www.goodwill.org; Salvation Army, www.salvationarmy.org; Patagonia, www.patagonia.com; Expert Village, www.expertvillage.com; U’SAgain, www.usagain.com.
Dear EarthTalk: What are the conservation implications of all the wild colonies of escaped pet parrots that have turned up in and around some major U.S. cities? -- Mike Gifford, Kirkland, WA
At least three dozen different parrot species are now considered threatened or endangered in their quickly shrinking native tropical and sub-tropical habitats (mostly in South America). As such, the health of wild flocks in the U.S. and other developed countries around the world may well be key to preserving these birds that could otherwise go extinct.
Today wild parrot flocks thrive in urban and suburban areas of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Texas, Washington State and elsewhere. San Francisco and Brooklyn each host particularly large flocks, especially considering their relative lack of green space. Wild parrot flocks are also reportedly thriving in cities across much of Western Europe. Most of these parrots, of course, are not former pets themselves, but the descendents of birds that long ago may have escaped during transport from their jungle homes to pet stores generations ago.
Parrots are among the most intelligent and adaptable birds, so it is no surprise that they’ve done so well in North America and other regions, despite colder temperatures. Indeed it is not uncommon in the Northeast to see large groups of parrots perched in winter on deck railings piled with several inches of snow. The regions they inhabit, despite the cold weather, provide enough food and shelter to meet their relatively modest needs. And once the parrots were able to establish themselves in their new habitats, they got on with the business of breeding. Therefore, their offspring, though born in the city, are wild birds nonetheless, carrying on lifestyles not unlike those of their ancestors back in the jungles of South America (though their predators are different).
Conservationists are optimistic that the parrots’ successful adaptation to more northerly urban environments bodes well for their future, despite the loss of much of their ancestral rainforest habitat. According to Roelant Jonker of the non-profit City Parrots, encouraging the formation of wild flocks of urban parrots promises to be a much more effective conservation tactic than trying to raise more birds in captivity where they would not so readily pass on their genes or learn the survival, adaptation and social skills necessary to survive. To Jonker, the proof is in the pudding: Some 2,500 wild red-crowned Amazon parrots (a quarter of the world’s total) are thriving in and around California’s biggest urban areas at the same time their population numbers are plummeting back in their native rainforest habitat.
The 2006 Judy Irving documentary, The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill, shadows wild parrot crusader Mark Bittner and his efforts to care for a wild flock of Red-headed Conyers living in San Francisco. Bittner feeds birdseed to the Conyers and gets to know each individual bird and its idiosyncrasies. The film’s shots of parrots interacting with one another and with Bittner really drive the point home how much we have in common with the wild kingdom of animals all around us, whether we live in the city or the country.
CONTACTS: City Parrots, www.cityparrots.org; The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill, www.wildparrotsfilm.com.
Dear EarthTalk: What are the environmental consequences of leather? Are there any good alternatives? -- Brianna Jacobs, Somerville, MA
Leather is everywhere—from shoes and belts, to purses, wallets, jackets, furniture and car seats. Most probably assume that the leather that finds its way into our wardrobes and living spaces is a byproduct of the meat industry. But while cows are certainly the most popular animals to use for leather goods, in truth most of our leather is sourced from overseas, from countries like China and India, where a host of animals may be raw material for our bags and belts, including horses, deer, sheep and, in more exotic cases, alligators or snakes. All of which may make an animal-lover or vegetarian queasy.
But environmentalists have reason to forgo leather, too. Processing leather requires copious amounts of energy and a toxic stew of chemicals including formaldehyde, coal tar, and some cyanide containing finishes. The tanning process is just as pollutant-laced, and can leave chemicals in the water supply (as described in the best-selling book and popular movie, A Civil Action) and on the hands (and in the lungs) of developing world workers.
Tanneries are top polluters on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) “Superfund” list, which identifies the most critical industrial sites in need of environmental cleanup. Due to their toxicity, reports organicleather.com, “many old tannery sites can’t be used for agriculture, or built on, or even sold.” That website is the home of Mill Valley, California, retailer Organic Leather, which offers a return to the tanning practices of old—using animals that are organically fed and humanely raised and a tanning process that uses plant tannins, vegetable tannins or smoke to cure the leather with zero toxicity in the process.
But with the wealth of fashionable faux leather alternatives, there’s no need to ever wear animal skins. So-called “cruelty-free” fashions have advanced in leaps and bounds, with variations on every style of handbag, wallet, belt and boot. Online “vegan boutique”Alternative Outfitters even has a version of the ubiquitous Ugg boot made with microsuede “shearling” on the outside and synthetic wool inside, while Iowa-based Heartland Products sells western-style non-leather boots and non-leather Birkenstock sandals. Science has come up with plenty of comfortable, durable alternatives to materials made with animal products. These include vegan microfiber, which claims to match leather in strength and durability, and Pleather, Durabuck and NuSuede.
Products made with these synthetic materials tend to be less expensive than their leather counterparts and are being produced by major manufacturers like Nike, whose Durabuck athletic and hiking shoes “will stretch around the foot with the same ‘give’ as leather... and are machine washable,” according to company sources. And you won’t need to adjust your style, either. Vegetarianshoesandbags.com offers everything from purple faux snakeskin peep-toe pumps for hitting the clubs to hemp sneakers with recycled outsoles that look skate park-ready, to distinctive Pleather bags and versatile woven belts.
CONTACTS: Alternative Outfitters, www.alternativeoutfitters.com; Heartland Products, www.trvnet.net/~hrtlndp; Organic Leather, www.organicleather.com; Vegetarian Shoes and Bags, www.vegetarianshoesandbags.com.
Dear EarthTalk: My pediatrician swears by those gel hand sanitizers for lowering the risk of my family getting sick during cold and flu season. But I’ve also heard that these products can be dangerous to kids if ingested. Are there any safer alternatives that work just as well? -- Jason Blalock, Oakland, CA
A 2005 study by the Children’s Hospital in Boston compared illness rates across a study group of 292 families—half of them got hand sanitizers while the other half were given literature advising them of the benefits of frequent hand washing. The findings revealed that those families who used hand sanitizers experienced a 59 percent reduction in gastrointestinal illnesses and that the increased use of sanitizers correlated to a decreased spread of contagions in general.
Another study conducted at Colorado State University yielded similar conclusions, that 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, concluded 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 down side of the gel/alcohol products is their danger as poison, especially for young children who may ingest the gel by licking it off their hands or eating it directly out of dispensers. Purell and Germ-X, two of the leading brands, each contain 62 percent ethyl alcohol. While this alcohol is what gives the products their germ-busting power, it also puts kids at risk of alcohol poisoning. A few squirts of the hand sanitizer—which is equivalent to124 proof booze—is enough to make a kid’s blood alcohol level .10, which is the equivalent of being legally drunk in most states.
So what’s a concerned parent to do? Unfortunately, the so-called greener alternatives out there aren’t safe to swallow either. EO Hand Sanitizer, for example, though it uses organic lavender oil also contains alcohol to sanitize the skin surface, and would also be considered poison if a large enough amount was ingested. Similarly greener (but still not safe to eat) products are available from Avant and All Terrain.
For now, soap and warm water—and constant nagging of your kids to wash their hands—may be the safest way to sanitize. Also, make sure that any hand sanitizer dispensers you may still use are kept out of the reach of little hands.
But who knows how we’ll be sanitizing our hands in the future. Researchers at Arizona State University have found that certain types of natural clays pulled right from the ground are highly effective at killing bacteria. One type of green clay has been shown to do a number on E. coli, salmonella, staph and other bacteria known to make people sick. But the research is still in its infancy, so don’t expect to see moms pulling jars of clay out of their purses anytime soon.
CONTACTS: EO Products, www.eoproducts.com; OrganicBeautySource.com, www.organicbeautysource.com; MotherNature.com, www.mothernature.com.
Dear EarthTalk: I notice occasional solar panels on roadsides, powering individual streetlamps or signs. Is any research being done to expand on this idea and implant solar collectors in roads, parking lots or sidewalks to generate power in a similar but bigger way? -- Emily Eidenier, via e-mail
The concept of using road surfaces to generate clean solar power is actually already moving beyond the idea stage. Roads absorb heat from the sun every day and are usually free of sightline obstructions that could otherwise block the transmission of light rays. And if the roads built for cars and driving are partly to blame for global warming, why not make them part of the solution too?
Idaho-based company Solar Roadways is one of the trailblazers. Electrical engineer Scott Brusaw was inspired to start the company when he heard Caltech solar energy expert Nate Lewis suggest that covering just 1.7 percent of continental U.S. land surface with photovoltaic solar collectors could produce enough power to meet the nation’s total energy demand.
Brusaw put two and two together when he realized that the interstate highway system already covers about that much of the nation’s land surface, so he got to work designing a system that combines a durable and translucent glass road surface with photovoltaic solar collectors that could be wired directly into the electricity grid. Brusaw’s innovative design would also heat the roads in winter, thus providing a important safety benefit.
With improvements in the efficiency of solar collectors in recent years, Brusaw believes his system, if implemented from coast-to-coast in place of the tarmac on existing highways, could produce enough energy to meet the entire world’s electricity needs.
But skeptics wonder whether such an expensive high-tech road surface can stand up to the rigors of everyday use—from overloaded 18-wheelers putting extra stress on the highway to oil spills seeping into expensive electronic circuitry—without having to be replaced or repaired often. Brusaw acknowledges that his system still needs fine-tuning, but in the meantime is developing a working prototype along a 45-mile stretch of road between the Idaho cities of Coeur D’Alene and Sandpoint.
Europeans are also pioneering ways to use the sun’s rays to work as they beat down on roadways. The British firm Astucia has developed a road stud that contains small solar panels and emits LED light to illuminate dark roadways. On the 120 U.K. roads where the new studs have been installed, night-time accidents are down some 70 percent.
And the Dutch firm Ooms Avenhorn Holding BV has developed a way to siphon solar heat from asphalt road surfaces and use it to de-ice roads and help power nearby buildings. A latticework of pipes under the road surface allows water to heat up during warm weather. The water is then pumped deep under ground where it maintains its higher temperatures and can be retrieved months later to keep road surfaces ice-free during winter months. Apartment buildings, industrial parks and an air force base have benefited from the innovation, and the firm is working on exporting its system to other countries in the coming years.
CONTACTS: Solar Roadways, www.solarroadways.com; Astucia, www.astucia.co.uk; Ooms Avenhorn Holding BV, www.ooms.nl/english.
Dear EarthTalk: I just read an article that said air fresheners contain chemicals that can cause health problems when inhaled. Are scented candles any better? -- Leanne Chacksfield, Cincinnati, OH
Like most air fresheners, many scented candles contain and release phthalates, potentially harmful chemicals that have been linked to the disruption of hormonal systems and other health problems in people exposed to them. Burning candles can also emit small amounts of acetaldehyde, formaldehyde and naphthalene, organic chemicals that are also potentially harmful and that can leave nasty black soot deposits on floors and other surfaces.
According to Pamela Lundquist of the nonprofit Children’s Health Environmental Coalition (CHEC), this black soot deposit “is primarily made up of elemental carbon, but may also contain phthalates and volatile organic compounds like benzene and toluene, which can cause cancer and neurological damage.”
Children can easily ingest these chemicals if their hands have been wandering and end up in their mouths. The chemicals can lodge deep in the lungs, disrupting the lower respiratory tract, exacerbating existing problems like asthma, and potentially causing other longer term breathing problems.
Despite laws against it, many candlewicks still contain lead, long linked to impaired learning and brain damage in children. Lead dispersed from burning candles can be breathed in and also constitute part of the dreaded black soot deposit. Candles with lead-containing wicks are on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ban/recall list now (thanks to efforts by nonprofits like U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), but many are still out there on store shelves. Consumers can avoid them by sticking to candles with soft cotton wicks, not stiff, metal ones.
Eco-conscious candle burners should also avoid paraffin-based candles, which are made from waxes derived in the process of refining crude oil and literally consist of fossil-fuel generating hydrocarbons. Unfortunately, the vast majority of commercially available candles are made from paraffin, though many alternatives are now available.
Soy-based candles are a popular choice, as they are made from plant waste and emit less soot than the paraffin variety. Beeswax candles are another nice alternative, as well, especially if you can pick them up at a local farmers’ market. For scented or aromatherapy candles, look for varieties that use only pure plant essential oils instead of synthetic chemicals with unintelligible names. Some leader makers of Earth- and people-friendly candles include Blue Corn Naturals, Honeyflow Farm, Vermont Soy Candles and Aveda.
CONTACTS: Children’s Health Environmental Coalition (CHEC), www.checnet.org; Blue Corn Naturals, www.bluecornnaturals.com; Honeyflow Farm, www.honeyflowfarm.com; Vermont Soy Candles, www.vermontsoycandles.com; Aveda, www.aveda.com.
Dear EarthTalk: As an online gamer, I spend a lot of time in front of my computer. What’s the environmental impact? And are “greener” PCs available? -- Bob Grant, Burlington, VT
Online gamers and other heavy computer users are definitely leaving an environmental mark. Depending on when it was made and how it was designed, a standard desktop PC can use anywhere from 60-300 watts when in use, while an inefficient gaming PC with powerful graphics card, multiple hard drives and optical drives, flash memory reader and a 30-inch LCD might consume as much as 750 watts, or about as much as a typical refrigerator. Until July of 2007, government Energy Star requirements only measured a computer’s energy use while in standby mode, which allowed the majority of brands to carry the label.
New stricter efficiency requirements have brought greener models. You’ll find the largest selection from companies like Dell and Hewlett Packard. Many businesses use the Electronic Products Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) to assist in the purchase of greener computing systems, and the evaluations can be useful to consumers, too. EPEAT evaluates and rates computing equipment on 28 efficiency and sustainability criteria, awarding them bronze, silver or gold for overall performance.
Technology company VIA is well regarded as an industry leader in low-wattage processors (central processing units or CPUs), with some barely sipping only a dozen or so watts from the power supply. Some typical VIA designs can outperform competitors using only 23 watts, or less than half the power called for by Energy Star specifications. Of course graphics cards used by PC gamers are serious energy hogs. Your top-end ATI or nVidia card will render great graphics, but use 300 watts or more. Newer cards are better, but much depends on their use. The best advice is to buy only the graphics power you need.
One of the easiest ways to save on computer power is to use technology that automatically rests when you do, and to shut your computer down when you’re not using it. Windows XP allows users to configure power management settings, and Vista Ultimate lets you configure power-saving options in even more ways. Vista can actually throttle its power consumption for some tasks and power down at other times. If you’re just typing a Microsoft Word document, performance will back down, whereas if you are editing video in a powerful program like Adobe Premier Pro, Vista will use all the processing power available.
Bear in mind that screen savers are not energy savers. In fact, power-down features may not work if you have a screen saver activated. Happily, LCD color monitors do not need screen savers. In terms of shutting down, while PCs use a small amount of energy when they start up, it’s considerably less than the energy used when they are on for long periods of time. Consider turning off the monitor if you aren’t going to use your PC for more than 20 minutes, and both the CPU and monitor if you’re not going to use your PC for more than two hours.
If you’re concerned about the “wear and tear” of turning PCs on and off, don’t be. Most PCs reach the end of their “useful” life due to advances in technology long before the effects of being switched on and off multiple times can have a negative impact on their service life.
CONTACTS: Energy Star, www.energystar.gov; EPEAT, http://epeat.net; Recycling an old monitor, www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/recycle/ecycling/donate.htm; VIA, www.via.com.
Dear EarthTalk: Vegetarians and vegans are so self-righteous about not eating meat and how meat eating is so bad for the environment. How true are these claims? -- Frank Doolittle, Sudbury, MA
There has never been a better time to go vegetarian. Mounting evidence suggests that meat-based diets are not only unhealthy, but that just about every aspect of meat production—from grazing-related loss of cropland, to the inefficiencies of feeding vast quantities of water and grain to cattle, to pollution from “factory farms”—is an environmental disaster with wide and sometimes catastrophic consequences.
There are 20 billion head of livestock on Earth, more than triple the number of people. According to the Worldwatch Institute, global livestock population has increased 60 percent since 1961, and the number of fowl being raised for food has nearly quadrupled in the same time period, from 4.2 billion to 15.7 billion.
The 4.8 pounds of grain fed to cattle to make one pound of beef represents a colossal waste of resources in a world teeming with hungry and malnourished people. According to Vegfam, a 10-acre farm can support 60 people growing soy, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people growing corn—but only two raising cattle.
Food First’s Frances Moore Lappé says to imagine sitting down to an eight-ounce steak. “Then imagine the room filled with 45 to 50 people with empty bowls... For the feed cost of your steak, each of their bowls could be filled with a full cup of cooked cereal grains.” Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer says that reducing U.S. meat production 10 percent would free grain to feed 60 million people.
U.S. animal farms generate billion of tons of animal waste every year, which the Environmental Protection Agency says pollute our waterways more than all other industrial sources combined. The infamous 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill dumped 11 million gallons of oil into Prudoe Bay, but the relatively unknown 1995 New River hog waste spill in North Carolina poured 25 million gallons of excrement into the water, killing 14 million fish and closing 364,000 acres of shell fishing beds. Hog waste spills have caused the rapid spread of Pfiesteria piscicida, which has killed a billion fish in North Carolina alone.
Other than polluting water, beef production alone uses more water than is used in growing our entire fruit and vegetable crop. And over a third of all raw materials and fossil fuels consumed in the U.S. are used in animal production. Meat also increases our carbon footprints. According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, livestock around the world contribute more greenhouse gases (mostly methane) to the atmosphere—18 percent of our total output—than emissions from all the world’s cars and trucks.
“There is no question that the choice to become a vegetarian or lower meat consumption is one of the most positive lifestyle changes a person could make in terms of reducing one’s personal impact on the environment,” says Christopher Flavin of the Worldwatch Institute. “The resource requirements and environmental degradation associated with a meat-based diet are very substantial.”
CONTACTS: Food First, www.foodfirst.org; UN Food and Agriculture Organization, www.fao.org; Worldwatch Institute, www.worldwatch.org.
Dear EarthTalk: Everybody says stop using plastic bags, but what about all the plastic, cellophane, cardboard and other materials used for packaging the food itself? What can we do to reduce how much of this unnecessary stuff comes wrapped around our food? -- Sunil Sreedharan, Mumbai, India
Yes, food packaging is a big problem in North America as well as elsewhere around the world, with landfills filling up and recyclers facing a glut of materials to process. It’s hard to say just how much of the 130 million tons of paper, plastic and metals that get tossed or sorted for recycling in major U.S. cities is from food packaging, but the percentage is no doubt sizable. The main problem is in the psychology of marketing: Manufacturers know that products in big flashy-looking packages attract more buyers.
A 1994 European Union directive requires companies operating in its 27 member nations to take back and recycle (or otherwise deal with, taking the burden off of local communities) at least 60 percent of their packaging waste, including that used for food items. But no such “producer pays” laws, which provide incentive for manufacturers to cut back on waste to begin with, exist in the United States or Canada. As such, it falls to consumers to patronize stores and manufacturers that minimize packaging.
One way to take a bite out of packaging is to buy as much in bulk as your family can keep up with. It may take longer to get through that gigantic box of cereal you got at Costco, but think of all the cardboard and plastic your bulk purchase saved over buying several small boxes. Similarly, instead of sending the kids off to school every day with a new juice box in the lunch bag, how about a safe metal or plastic reusable, washable container that you can refill each morning from the gallon jug you keep in the fridge?
Another way to forego packaging is to reduce time spent in large supermarkets, where wasteful product packaging rules. Most natural foods stores have large bulk-buying sections so you can haul away in large paper or plastic bags the equivalent of many containers of beans, pastas, rice or other staples. Frequenting local farmers’ markets—armed with your reusable shopping tote, of course—is another way to keep food packaging out of your home. The website Local Harvest offers a free searchable database of farms across the U.S. that run Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs and participate in farmers’ markets.
It’s worth noting that we tend to toss way too much food packaging where a quick rinse would make the same cans, jars and jugs useful storage containers or quality recycling fodder. Soup cans, for example, can easily be recycled into new steel and are collected universally by municipal recycling programs. And while you’re buying soup, opt for the family size cans and save leftovers instead of buying single-serving containers. Even when packaging material is recyclable, there’s no reason to waste it, as even recycling uses resources and costs money.
Beyond shopping and sorting more responsibly, individuals also have the power of their voices to pressure food makers to cut back on packaging. You can also try to persuade your elected officials to look into the feasibility of enacting “producer pays” laws in your community, city or state. And you can talk to co-workers, friends, relatives and others about the importance of buying in bulk and reducing waste.
CONTACTS: European Union Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, http://europa.eu/scadplus/leg/en/lvb/l21207.htm; Local Harvest, www.localharvest.org.
Dear EarthTalk: As I understand it, coal that is used to fuel power plants and other industrial activity is a key culprit in pollution and climate change. So what is “clean coal” and is it really? -- Matthew Oliver, Minneapolis, MN
The term “clean coal” describes various processes that remove pollutants from coal, our cheapest, most abundant—and dirtiest—energy source. By reducing coal’s environmental footprint through technological wizardry, the coal mining industry and the Bush administration hope to keep coal, which currently produces more than half of all U.S. electricity, a big part of our energy picture for many years to come.
Clean coal proponents also want to liquefy coal to turn it into a form of automotive fuel that, according to the industry-sponsored Coal-to-Liquids Coalition, costs less and burns cleaner in some ways than the traditional diesel fuel it could replace. Several members of Congress from coal states are keen on having the government subsidize the production of so-called liquid coal—which can be used anywhere diesel fuel currently goes—as a “homegrown” alternative to foreign oil. Industry analysts say there is enough coal in America to last hundreds of years, saving us untold expense and trouble obtaining regular petroleum from unfriendly foreign governments.
But major environmental groups, from the Sierra Club to the Natural Resources Defense Council, say that “clean coal” is anything but. The process involves heating coal to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit and mixing it with water to produce a gas, then converting the gas into diesel fuel. Although the Coal-to-Liquids Coalition says that carbon dioxide emissions from the entire production cycle of liquid coal are “equal to, or slightly below, those of conventional petroleum-derived fuels,” its claims are based on a single federal study, now six years old, that environmental leaders disagree with profoundly.
Jim Presswood, federal energy advocate of the Natural Resources Defense Council says, “Liquid CO2 emissions are twice as much as emissions from conventional petroleum-derived fuels.” He says that even if CO2 emissions were captured as part of the process, at best liquid coal would be 12 percent worse than the gasoline equivalent. As some environmentalists have put it, liquid coal can turn any hybrid Prius into a Hummer.
The Washington Post editorialized, “To wean the U.S. off of just one million barrels of the 21 million barrels of crude oil consumed daily, an estimated 120 million tons of coal would need to be mined each year. The process requires vast amounts of water, particularly a concern in the parched West. And the price of a plant is estimated at $4 billion.” Also, in recent years, particularly in Appalachia, mining companies have gone from simple excavation to blasting off the tops of mountains in an ecologically devastating process known as “mountain top removal.”
For their part, greens acknowledge the importance of cleaning up coal and other dirty energy sources, but would rather see more funding devoted to researching, developing and implementing alternative and renewable energy sources that don’t come with so much environmental baggage.
CONTACTS: Coal-to-Liquids Coalition, www.futurecoalfuels.org; Sierra Club’s “Stopping the Coal Rush,” www.sierraclub.org/environmentallaw/coal.
Dear EarthTalk: What’s a “land trust” and how does it help the environment? -- Sam Stout, Darien, CT
A land trust is an organization that works with landowners to conserve their land, either by buying it from them or obtaining it as a donation. Legal agreements between the trust, the landowner and the local government are then created in order to permanently limit development of the land. Land trusts are usually nonprofit, and their purpose is to provide long-term stewardship of not just land, but sometimes areas of historical or archeological significance.
The need for land trusts arose out of public concern for the loss of open space, wildlife habitat and scenic beauty in the face of rampant development on private land during the latter half of the 20th century. More than 1,600 land trusts have since sprung up in a variety of communities across the U.S. Together they have protected some 37 million acres of land, according to the Land Trust Alliance, a Washington, DC-based umbrella group formed in 1981 to help land trusts share information and work more effectively.
When a land trust acquires land, it may retain ownership in perpetuity in order to protect the parcel from development. When landowners donate parcels to a land trust outright, they can take advantage of state and federal income tax deductions—similar to any tax-deductible, non-profit donation—while saving considerable money on property and estate taxes moving forward.
Whether a land trust buys a parcel or gets it donated, it can either hold onto the property or, depending on the arrangement with the former owner, sell it to a third party—often a local or state government that commits to turning it into a protected area. Land trusts also sell land to private buyers, usually with strict restrictions on future development. The benefit to keeping the land under private ownership is that it can then stay on local property tax rolls and thus continue to provide revenue for the local government.
Another way land trusts work is through “conservation easements,” whereby individuals can protect their land but still retain ownership and the option of selling or passing it along to heirs. Future owners of the land are also bound by the easement’s terms, which restrict development and use and are often monitored by a land trust. Conservation easements usually lower the financial value of their land (by limiting development potential), but landowners benefit because their property taxes go down accordingly. Likewise, if and when heirs inherit the land, the conservation easement lessens their estate tax burden.
Every conservation easement is different, but most include provisions limiting or forbidding construction or resource extraction. Often they protect especially sensitive lands such as wetlands. Some easements allow specific parcels to be used for agriculture, ranching or logging. Many allow hiking, camping, bird watching or even hunting (though some specifically ban hunting and are created for that purpose).
Another nonprofit group, the American Land Conservancy (ALC), functions like a national land trust working nationwide to ensure that large or exceptional pieces of property stay out of the hands of developers. Some of ALC’s work has led to the creation or expansion of national parks in Colorado, Hawaii and elsewhere.
CONTACTS: Land Trust Alliance, www.lta.org; American Land Conservancy, www.alcnet.org.
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 upward