Dear EarthTalk: Do insulating paints actually insulate and save energy? If they do, are they environmentally friendly to use? – Bob Dibrindisi, Easthampton, MA

Paint additives that claim insulating qualities have been marketed since the late 1990s, but energy research organizations have not confirmed their insulating value. For its part, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not recommend using paints or coatings in place of traditional bulk insulation. “We haven’t seen any independent studies that can verify their insulating qualities” the agency reports. The federal government does rate roofing paint for its energy efficiency, but such findings only take into account a substance’s ability to reflect heat off the roof”"not its insulating properties per se”"to keep the building cooler.

According to the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the use of so-called insulated paints is in most cases “difficult to justify on the basis of savings in energy costs alone.” Meanwhile, the non-profit EnergyIdeas Clearinghouse, a partnership between Washington State University and the nonprofit Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, found that under ideal circumstances insulating paints can achieve a “reduction in heat gain” of around 20 percent on freshly-painted sun-exposed walls, but notes that such walls will only face direct sunlight for a limited part of even the clearest summer day. Also, the clearinghouse reports that “heat gain reductions”¦are significant only for sun-bathed surfaces” and that the “reflectivity of the painted surface generally declines considerably with time.”

Alex Wilson of the website BuildingGreen.com is not a fan of insulating paints: “To say that there is a lot of hype about insulating paints”¦is an understatement” he tells the website Treehugger.com. “The Internet is rife with claims of paints that dramatically reduce heat transfer”"usually based on some technological magic spun off from NASA. While these products may have some relevance in the extreme conditions of outer space, manufacturers of paints containing [insulating additives] are making claims that defy the laws of physics”¦when they claim they can save significant energy in buildings.”

Nevertheless, for certain applications, especially in concert with traditional forms of insulation underneath, insulating paint can help reduce energy expenditures and air conditioning bills accordingly. For those who want to forge ahead with insulating paint despite the limited benefits, some of the leading brands to look for include Insuladd, Hy-Tech, Therma-Guard and Eagle Coatings’ SuperTherm.

Adding insulating paint should merely be the icing on the cake of an otherwise well-conceived plan to cut heating and cooling costs. Installing a traditional form of insulation would be the first defense. A reflective, radiant barrier on the roof structure in the attic also could offer significant help, according to the Florida Solar Energy Center. Thermal-pane windows and energy-conscious practices will contribute to the effort. Finally, consider trees and other landscape shading, which the U.S. Department of Energy recommends as an effective way of passively cooling your home. For more ideas, visit the “do-it-yourself energy audit tool” on the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory’s Home Energy Saver website.

CONTACTS: U.S. EPA, www.epa.gov; EnergyIdeas Clearinghouse, www.energyideas.org; Insuladd, www.insuladd.com, Hy-Tech, www.hytechsales.com; Eagle Coatings, www.eaglecoatings.net; Therma-Guard, www.befreetech.com/thermaguard.htm; Home Energy Saver, www.hes.lbl.gov.

Dear EarthTalk: As I understand it, “clean” coal really isn’t”"yet the Bush Administration gushed strongly for it. What is Obama’s take on it? – John Zippert, Eutaw, AL

Barack Obama and George W. Bush differ in many ways, but both have embraced so-called “clean coal” for providing an ongoing supply of cheap and readily available energy for electricity generation.

The term “clean coal” is loosely defined as coal that is washed or processed to remove pollutants, so as to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the leading greenhouse gas, when the coal is burned. Coal-burning plants emit 40 percent of U.S. CO2 pollution”"half of our electricity comes from coal”"so reducing the industry’s carbon footprint in any way possible would be a big win for the environment.

Luckily for clean coal advocates, the White House has been and continues to push for its development. George W. Bush’s support for clean coal dates back to his first term in office, when he stated that such technologies should be encouraged as a means of reducing dependence on foreign oil. And since taking office, the Obama administration has committed $3.4 billion in stimulus dollars to clean coal projects.

But green groups continue to question the wisdom of relying on coal at all. Coal wreaks environmental havoc, from the coal mines that pollute rivers and streams, to the premature deaths of coal miners from accidents and lung diseases, to the release of greenhouse gases, mercury and other toxins at power plants.

According to Greenpeace, burning coal emits 29 percent more CO2 than does burning oil or natural gas. And coal-fired power plants are the world’s largest sources of atmospheric mercury, a known neurotoxin that disperses quickly throughout the environment and into the food chain. Greenpeace says that clean coal technologies will not address this problem, and that there are “no commercially available technologies to prevent mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.” Also, the group says, clean coal will do nothing to mitigate coal mining’s damage to wildlife habitat and drinking water sources.

“There is no such thing as “Ëœclean coal’ and there never will be” Dan Becker of the Sierra Club told the Grist.org website. “It’s an oxymoron.” The Reality Coalition, a group of nonprofits that includes the Sierra Club, has been running TV ads seeking to debunk industry claims that coal can be clean. Green groups also worry that pushing clean coal will only delay the transition to a truly cleaner and greener energy infrastructure based on solar, wind and other emissions-free renewable energy sources.

In April of 2009, environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. questioned the motivations of Obama and other politicians who back clean coal. “The coal industry and the carbon industry in general are the largest contributors to the political process” Kennedy told ABC News. “You don’t have politicians representing the American public, but rather the people who finance their campaigns.”

Of course, Obama’s support for clean coal doesn’t negate the fact that he has proposed spending much more on further development of alternative energy sources. He has called for getting 10 percent of U.S. electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025, and has committed upwards of $32 billion of stimulus dollars to the cause, according to an analysis by the nonprofit Environment America.

CONTACTS: Greenpeace, www.greenpeace.org; Reality Coalition, www.thisisreality.org.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.

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, Sierra Club’s “Stopping the Coal Rush.”

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, Local Harvest.

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