There’s activity on the construction side as well, with green stadiums opening in each of the last two years, and another one on the way for 2010. Citi Field, the new home of the New York Mets, just opened in April. Last season brought Nationals Park in Washington, the first Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)-certified Major League stadium (it reached the silver level), and next season promises a new park in Minnesota seeking LEED gold.

Building from the ground up gives new parks environmental opportunities that existing parks don’t have. Both Nationals Park and Citi Field have energy-efficient field lighting and waterless and low-flow plumbing fixtures, for example, and both designs incorporate green (vegetative) roofs and white (reflective) roofs to battle the heat-island effect. Additionally, both projects emphasized using recycled steel and concrete, and minimized construction waste sent to landfills.

But it’s not only new stadiums that are getting a green makeover. The previous Red Sox owners were loudly on record as wanting to relocate to the city’s waterfront, where, if they’d wanted to, they could have achieved all sorts of green firsts ­ not to mention considerable new revenue streams. But the owners decided to update the current ballpark instead, preserving not only its historical allure but all its embodied energy, a fact acknowledged by the city last year when it named Fenway one of its 12 greenest buildings.

It is likely that the vast majority of green construction work over the next several decades will also be renovation, not new construction.  MLB is at the end of an epic building boom, and most parks are far nearer their beginnings their ends.

Stadiums “don’t simply get built and then remain intact for 30-40 years,” says John McHale, MLB’s executive vice president for administration. “There’s a lot of rearranging and re-purposing of space, probably at the 8-10 year mark, and then again at 20­about every decade. I expect the renovation work is going to be done with a much higher consciousness to LEED certification than has ever been the case.”

Expanding the Field

And the promotional opportunities are evident to more than just the National Resources Defense Council­which has partnered with MLB­and the teams. All four of the solar installations at MLB parks­at the homes of the Colorado Rockies, the San Francisco Giants, the Boston Red Sox and the Cleveland Indians­were funded in part by local utilities or nonprofits.

In Cleveland, the club was approached by the nonprofit group Green Energy Ohio, the host of the 2007 National Solar Conference, “because they wanted a show piece for the attendees to come see,” says Brad Mohr, assistant director of ballpark operations. The result was a 42-panel, 8.4-kilowatt array.

Mohr, a passionate proponent of renewable energy who now is investigating wind turbines for the club, thinks the panels will not only influence “the average person used to coal burning,” but could also yield an even broader benefit: “What I’m hoping for is that a startup will see that photovoltaics work at this latitude, recognize that Northeast Ohio has an incredibly skilled labor force from the car manufacturing plants that have closed,” and open a plant, he says.

How the Yankees Dropped the Ball

To environmentalists and residents in surrounding New York neighborhoods, a Bronx cheer seems the most appropriate response to the new Yankee Stadium project. They and some of the stadium’s Bronx neighbors are furious at the Yankees and the city for building over 22 acres of public parkland and cutting down 377 mature trees, 70% of the local tree population in a poor area that already had a sky-high asthma rate.

While the stadium accommodates fewer spectators (52,325, including standing room), it boasts more concessionaires, restrooms and nearly double the retail space of the old haunts. There are also more luxury suites: 56 instead of 19, plus 410 “party suites.”  Front-row seats sell for a Ruthian $2,500 each.

But don’t expect to see parks advocates lining up for them at the turnstiles.  “Kids were crying while they chopped down these trees with no warning whatsoever,” says Geoffrey Croft, president of New York City Park Advocates and outspoken opponent of the stadium project.

Critics cite among their grievances the secretive nature of the city’s deal to allow the Yankees to pave over popular Macombs Dam and John Mullaly parks, which was negotiated and signed before the public was informed, they say. Protests and legal actions against the project were unsuccessful.

“Everybody just loves the Yankees so much that they wouldn’t even consider what the people had to say,” says Karen Argenti, a board member of the Bronx Council for Environmental Quality, which also opposed the new stadium. “There were no elected officials who would stand up for the community. It was impossible to get a fair hearing on this.”

E – The Environmental Magazine distributes 50,000 copies six times per year to subscribers and bookstores. Its website, www.emagazine.com, enjoys 100,000 monthly visitors. E also publishes EarthTalk, a nationally syndicated environmental Q&A column distributed free to 1,750 newspapers, magazines and websites throughout the U.S. and Canada ( www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek). Single copies of E’s May/June 2009 issue are available for $5 postpaid from: E Magazine, P.O. Box 469111, Escondido, CA 92046. Subscriptions are $29.95 per year, available at the same address.

The March/April 2009 issue of E – The Environmental Magazine (now posted at www.emagazine.com) looks at many of the most pressing environmental concerns facing the new administration. These include protecting public forests, setting strict emissions standards, preserving clean water and reforming the Army Corps of Engineers, the federal agency responsible for maintaining many of our nation’s water and related environmental resources. Across the board, environmental groups hope for a reversal of many of the most damaging Bush regulations, and, so far, they’ve been rewarded. On March 3, 2009, President Obama stopped a Bush-era rule that would have weakened Endangered Species Act protections for animals and plants, and he’s set in motion the ability for states to set their own emissions standards.

The push to present Obama with a shared green vision began in November 2008, shortly after the election, when 29 of the nation’s leading environmental and conservation groups asked the new administration to return to something they say was sorely lacking under President Bush: science-based decision-making. “A core piece of the vision is for science to get back into the argument,” said Margie Alt, executive director of Environment America (the environmental arm of U.S. Public Interest Research Group/PIRG). That led to the document, “Transition to Green,” a 396-page tome with agency-by-agency instructions on positions to create, rules to write and countries to target for global partnerships.

The president was asked not to think about the economy without thinking about the environment, with the message that cutting greenhouse gas emissions and relying on low-carbon renewable energy sources would create millions of jobs and give the economy a jump-start with staying power. Obama should encourage Congress to “use an economic revitalization plan to protect our planet,” said Gene Karpinski, president of the League of Conservation Voters.

But with a major financial crisis facing the nation, will environmental concerns be put on the back burner? At the very least, say environmentalists, Obama can begin the quick work of reversing damaging Bush-era environmental policies.

Protecting Forests

Number one on the agenda for many groups is restoring Clinton-era rules that banned road building on nearly 60 million acres of national forests. Reinstatement of the so-called “roadless rule” is one of the highlights of “Transition to Green.” Other recommendations for public forests include cancelling logging plans for Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, scrapping Bush’s forest-management plans, and throwing out rule changes to the Endangered Species Act and other landmark laws made in the waning days of the Bush Administration.

Fighting Auto Emissions

Obama has already acted swiftly with regard to automobile emissions. Shortly after his inauguration, he signed an executive order directing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reconsider its refusal to allow California to regulate its own auto emissions. The EPA could approve the waiver by April, setting a precedent for states across the nation that follow California’s lead, and ushering in a new era of fuel-efficient vehicles.

Frank O’Donnell of Clean Air Watch called the reversal “one of the biggest and most concrete things the Obama administration can do in its early days. It sends a strong signal, and it has national implications.”

Saving Waterways

As to clean water regulation, the 111th Congress faces a critical issue: returning regulating authority to the Clean Water Act (CWA) with new legislation called the Clean Water Restoration Act. The nation’s waters are in peril. The U.S. has lost more than half of its wetlands since the nation’s founding, and countless miles of rivers and streams are polluted or otherwise impaired. But federal hands are tied. An internal EPA memo from March 2008 found that the agency failed to pursue 304 cases of CWA violations between July 2006 and March 2008 because of “jurisdictional uncertainty” caused by critical Supreme Court decisions under the Bush administration, and that a total of 500 CWA cases have been negatively affected by the rulings.

This special issue of E dives into recommendations for the Obama administration from the nation’s leading environmental groups — the National Resources Defense Council, Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Defense Fund and Ocean Conservancy among them — and takes a serious look at what can be, and needs to be, accomplished in the immediate years ahead. In addition, E talks to two groups that are pushing to put an organic garden on the White House lawn, and to officials at Sidwell Friends School — one of the greenest in the nation — where first daughters Sasha and Malia go to school.

————————————–

E – The Environmental Magazine distributes 50,000 copies six times per year to subscribers and bookstores. Its website, www.emagazine.com, enjoys 60,000 monthly visitors. E also publishes EarthTalk, a nationally syndicated environmental Q&A column distributed free to 1,750 newspapers, magazines and websites throughout the U.S. and Canada ( www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek). Single copies of E’s March/April 2009 issue are available for $5 postpaid from: E Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881. Subscriptions are $29.95 per year, available at the same address.

In 2007, 35% of all the new electricity generation installed in the U.S. -­ over 5,200 megawatts (MW) ­- was wind. Its growth is second only to natural gas. Then in September 2008, the U.S. surpassed Germany to lead the world in wind energy production. With rising oil costs, improvements in turbine technology and a more stable public energy policy, U.S. wind energy production has doubled in just two years.

Today’s turbines provide more than 20,000 MW of generating capacity, enough to serve 5.3 million homes or to power one million plug-in hybrid vehicles. By the time 2008 tallies are completed, the industry will likely have added 7,000 to 7,500 more MW. And now that industry incentives have been extended with the recent passage of a new energy bill, wind power is on track to reach the 30,000-MW milestone sometime in 2009.

Big Possibilities

There are many reasons why wind power should be promoted as a major energy supplier. It has a huge environmental advantage over dirty fossil fuels. Estimates by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) show that wind currently generates as much electricity as nearly 30 million tons of coal or 90 million barrels of oil. In 2008, wind displaced about 34 million tons of carbon dioxide, equivalent to taking 5.8 million vehicles off the road. In 20 years, if we reach the industry goal of supplying 20% of our national energy from wind, it will be the equivalent of taking 140 million vehicles off the road.

And wind resources in the United States are huge. “There’s something like 600 gigawatts of wind that can be developed in the U.S.,” says Jim Walker of Enxco, a company that develops wind farms in North America. That’s about 60% of our current electricity consumption, according to The Energy Information Administration. The cost, too, is already competitive with gas. Says Walker, “Wind energy can be developed for under 10 cents per kilowatt hour, about the same as gas.” This assumes the continuation of production tax credits that contribute about two cents for each kilowatt-hour produced.

Then there are the job possibilities. The U.S. Department of Energy says that achieving the goal of drawing 20% of our national energy needs from wind by 2030 will create about 500,000 jobs in the U.S. and contribute more than $1.5 billion to local communities annually.

Finding New Wind

Beyond the large-scale wind farms, there’s a lot of quality wind to be tapped over the water. Although the U.S. has no offshore wind installations yet, they are in the works. BluewaterWind, for example, is working with four states in the Northeast to build offshore wind parks. Its Delaware project is expected to provide electricity for 100,000 homes. The turbines will be 11 miles offshore and difficult to see from shore even on a clear day. Wind energy experts expect offshore wind to contribute about 50 of the 300 GWs of capacity the industry aims to install by 2030.

Community, or mid-sized wind, also has a role to play. This is wind power for smaller investors, such as farmers, ranchers, consumer-owned utilities, school districts and colleges. The beauty of community wind, in addition to being able to take advantage of smaller sites, is that it contributes to a less centralized­and a more secure­model for our energy needs.

And small wind, too, will be an important part of a new energy picture. Defined as wind produced by turbines that are rated at 100 kilowatts or less, most are owned by individual homeowners, farmers and business owners. Small wind currently contributes 55 to 60 MW of capacity in the U.S. Although that’s a small fraction of what’s coming online from utility-scale projects, small wind is an attractive option for anyone who wants to fix their energy costs. “Think of it as prepaying for your electrical costs for 25 or 30 years,” says Ron Stimmel, AWEA’s small-wind advocate.

E – The Environmental Magazine distributes 50,000 copies six times per year to subscribers and bookstores. Its website, www.emagazine.com, enjoys 60,000 monthly visitors. E also publishes EarthTalk, a nationally syndicated environmental Q&A column distributed free to 1,700 newspapers, magazines and websites throughout the U.S. and Canada ( www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek). Single copies of E’s January/February 2009 issue are available for $5 postpaid from: E Magazine, P.O. Box 50032, Boulder, CO 80322. Subscriptions are $29.95 per year, available at the same address.

A recent Yale study confirmed what the marketers have long known: Even Americans who describe their financial situation as “poor” say they are ready to pay more for environmentally friendly products. And for the richest consumers, adding solar panels to the pool house or a luxury hybrid SUV to the garage is a sacrifice-free guilt reducer.

E examines the far reaches of high-end green design — from eco-mansions and eco-fashions to luxury hybrid SUVs and pampering holistic spas. Much of it, E notes, is an expensive distraction from the real solutions that are needed to reduce emissions and get the planet back on track. Says Editor Brita Belli in the package’s introduction: “Reducing consumption, eliminating waste, saving energy and driving smaller, fuel-efficient vehicles does not a sexy story make, but it’s the only path to healing the planet.”

The idea of shopping our way out of climate catastrophe may feel good, but it’s only making minor improvements when complete overhauls are called for. In homes, for example, the biggest energy savings come not from expensive renewable retrofits, but from reducing home size. Next is proper insulation and sealing, with solar and wind as the green icing on top. Starting out with a 10,000-square-foot home, we’re going at it backwards, with or without the PV panels.

And scaling down is the real solution for greening our automobiles, too (along with car-sharing, using public transportation and biking or walking more). Instead, the major car companies keep producing oversized hybrid SUVs, many of them aimed at a luxury market. Not only are they prohibitively expensive for most, they actually accomplish little in the way of real fuel efficiency thanks to their big size and weight. The Lexus RX-400h hybrid SUV or hybrid Cadillac Escalade may look cool and come with all the perks like climate control and a Bose sounds system, but they can’t even compete with the average compact car in terms of fuel efficiency. When it comes to vehicles, writes green car expert Jim Motavalli, “There’s nothing magical about hybrid technology. SUVs are heavy and have poor aerodynamics, so when they’re hybridized poor fuel economy just gets a little bit better.”

On the other hand green fashion expert Starre Vartan, founder of eco-chick.com and author of The Eco Chick Guide to Life, argues that eco-fashion has been a positive force for change in the fashion industry. The luxury sustainable brands­often worn by green-minded celebrities­have created a shift in the marketplace, and now organic, responsibly made clothes are available in both Wal-Mart and Saks.

Finally, E looks at the question of carbon offsets, the idea of buying back your emissions from plane and other travel, and whether they are just a luxury only the Al Gore’s and Arnold Schwartzenegger’s among us can afford. And E picks its top 10 eco-celebs (including Leonardo DiCaprio and Lost’s Dominic Monaghan) and highlights some of the most over-the-top green products­ including $5,169 “ethical cufflinks!”

E – The Environmental Magazine distributes 50,000 copies six times per year to subscribers and bookstores. Its website, www.emagazine.com, enjoys 60,000 monthly visitors. E also publishes EarthTalk, a nationally syndicated environmental Q&A column distributed free to 1,700 newspapers, magazines and websites throughout the U.S. and Canada ( www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek). Single copies of E’s November/December 2008 issue are available for $5 postpaid from: E Magazine, P.O. Box 50032, Boulder, CO 80322. Subscriptions are $29.95 per year, available at the same address.

Today fully one-sixth of the world’s human population lacks access to clean drinking water, and more than two million people-mostly kids-die each year from water-borne diseases. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), an independent organization that provides economic, development and humanitarian assistance around the world in support of the foreign policy goals of the United States, predicts that by 2025, one-third of all humans will face severe and chronic water shortages. 

Needless to say, water is of primary importance to our survival, and protecting access to and the quality of fresh water supplies will likely become more and more of a challenge in the coming years. According to the non-profit World Water Council, the 20th century saw a tripling of the world’s population while freshwater use grew by a factor of six. With world population expected to increase as much as 50 percent over the next half century, analysts are indeed worried that increasing demand for water, coupled with industrialization and urbanization, will have serious consequences both for human health and the environment. Access to freshwater is also likely to cause conflicts between governments as well as within national borders around the world. 

According to USAID, the world’s “water crisis” is not so much an issue of scarcity as it is of poor management and inequitable distribution. The hardest hit regions have been countries in the Middle East, North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. Worldwide demand for water is presently doubling every 21 years. 

Water-related problems are not the sole purview of the developing world though. We here in North America have polluted and diverted our fresh water supplies far beyond nature’s capacity to restore the flows, notably in the West where sprawling, thirsty metropolises have grown up in deserts where the only way water can be provided is to siphon it from other regions. 

So how do we fix the world’s water woes? The key lies in using water more efficiently-especially in agriculture and industry, which together account for over 90 percent of the world’s total freshwater use. But changing the practices of millions of farmers and businesses around the world is a Herculean task. 

Irena Salina, director of the award-winning documentary film, FLOW, about the world’s dwindling water supplies, thinks it can be done if world leaders, international banks, the United Nations and other governmental organizations establish cooperative agreements for the use of bodies of water, including groundwater, and economic mechanisms to make sure those who need access to water can get it. 

As for the developed world-where we use 10 times the water as do developing countries-Salina remains pessimistic. “If our own leaders were serious about solving problems, we would not allow corporations to discharge pollutants into our water sources,” she says. “Instead of spending billions on technologies that clean up pollution, we would be using resources to prevent water pollution in the first place.” 

CONTACTS: World Water Council, www.worldwatercouncil.org; USAID, www.usaid.gov; Flow the Film, www.flowthefilm.com. 

Dear EarthTalk: There has been a lot of news about lead-tainted children’s toys being recalled. Where are these toys ending up and are they creating pollution problems there? – Michael O’Laughlin, Tigard, OR 

The biggest problem with the recall of millions of lead-tainted toys over the last few years has been getting shops and consumers to comply. According to Mattel-which has issued dozens of recalls in recent years, including some 2.2 million Chinese-made toys contaminated with lead paint-historically only about six percent of recalled toys are returned. For those that do come home to roost, Mattel sells or reuses the zinc and some of the resins they contain, and then recycles as many of the other components as possible, off-loading the lead to companies that specialize in the safe disposal of hazardous materials. 

But what becomes of the 94 percent or so of the recalled lead-tainted toys that don’t make it back to Mattel? Many of them no doubt have found a comfortable home with a child somewhere long before word of the recall-ignored or missed by parents-got out. Of the remaining toys, some of those that were recalled in the summer of 2007 ended up on auction website like eBay and business-to-business sites like Made-in-China.com-and then eventually into the hands of unwitting consumers, many of them overseas.  

Unfortunately, there is still no federal law or regulation against reselling recalled toys, although some members of Congress are trying to change that. For its part, eBay has agreed to try to keep recalled products off its auction website, but enforcement can be a challenge. 

The fact that these toys got out there for sale in the first place is the real shame, as research has shown that kids who have been exposed regularly to lead or lead paint have lower IQs and may experience learning disabilities as well as behavioral problems. 

The good news might be that recalls are getting more exposure than ever, with better results. Illinois-based RC2 Corporation has already gotten back upwards of 70 percent of the 1.5 million lead-tainted Thomas & Friends wooden railway toys it recalled just last year. While there is still no nationally accepted procedure governing the disposal or recycling of such items, individual companies are bound by the laws of their respective states regarding disposal of the harmful materials. Those who worry about lead leaching out of landfills and into groundwater and soils would like the see the federal government mandate strict safety rules for dealing with lead and other hazardous materials. 

Consumers unsure about whether a particular toy or other item has been part of a recall should check online at the “Recalls and Product Safety” section of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s website. If a given product has been recalled, you can probably return it to the store where you bought it and let them deal with the hassle of getting it to the manufacturer. Or if you know an item was recalled for hazardous materials, you can drop it off at your local municipal hazardous waste collection facility. The website Earth911 provides a comprehensive national database of such facilities coast-to-coast. 

CONTACTS: Mattel Product Recalls, service.mattel.com/us/recall.asp; RC2 Recall Information, recalls.rc2.com; U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, www.cpsc.gov; Earth911, www.earth911.org. 

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

Whether wildlife officials in a given region consider a dead beached whale a biohazard or not is local decision, but nevertheless experts agree that only trained professionals should go anywhere near a dead wild animal to prevent the spread of bacterial infection alone, no matter whether any industrial pollutants might be oozing out. But regardless, it is true that some types of whales, given their spot at the top of the marine food chain, do harbor chemical pollution in their fatty tissue and organs.

Researchers have found, for instance, that PCBs, dangerous toxins notorious for polluting New York’s Hudson River and long banned in the U.S. are present in the blubber of beluga and orca whales, among others, in amounts-some 80 parts per million-that could kill a person. DDT, a pesticide banned in 1972 in the U.S. for wreaking havoc on bird and other wildlife populations, also still shows up in measurable amounts in whale blubber around the world.

Beyond such well-known pollutants, newer ones are starting to show up in large amounts in the carcasses of beached whales and other top marine predators. Today biologists are most worried about the marked increase in flame retardants (PBDEs) and stain repellents (PFOS) in dead marine mammals. Flame retardants are particularly troublesome because they “seem to travel over long distances in the atmosphere, and some studies have shown that they can be toxic to the immune system and can affect neurobehavioral development,” according to a recent report by the Arctic Council, a multilateral international body in charge of overseeing Arctic law and development. The report also noted that PFOS does “not seem to break down under any circumstances,” meaning it is passed up the food chain to whales and other top predators, and then in some cases consumed by humans, especially indigenous Arctic people still hunting marine animals as part of their subsistent lifestyles.

According to the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS), whales aren’t the only wild animals carrying around large amounts of toxic chemicals. Bottlenose dolphins, manatees, polar bears, seals, sea lions and other marine wildlife also have PCBs, DDT, PBDEs, PFOS and the other pollutants in their tissues and bloodstreams. “The large-scale die-off of bottlenose dolphins along the mid-Atlantic coast of the United States in the mid-1980s may have been the direct or indirect result of increasing levels of toxic waste from industrial sources,” HSUS reports, adding that “such pollutants can depress the immune system of marine mammals, making the animals susceptible to diseases they could normally fight off.” Another example: Polar bears in Norway have been exhibiting serious congenital abnormalities; HSUS blames exposure to toxic pollutants in the bears’ otherwise pristine environment.

Environmental and health experts worry about such contamination because many of the chemicals in question are known “endocrine disruptors,” meaning they can impair reproduction in both wildlife and humans by mimicking or altering natural hormonal activity. Such chemicals can also cause neurological problems and developmental or skeletal abnormalities.

CONTACTS: Arctic Council, www.arctic-council.org; HSUS, www.hsus.org.

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve found environmentally friendly shoes for myself, but have had trouble finding similar shoes for my kids. Are they out there? – Dawn Masterson, Augusta, Ga.

Kids’ shoes are a quickly expanding market and companies with a green perspective are now jumping into the race with mini versions of everything from flip-flops to slippers to heeled dress shoes. While green kids’ shoes from makers like Simple, which offers organic cotton EcoSneaks with car tire soles, might seem expensive at $40 or more, they are durable enough to get passed around from sibling to sibling. “It is an investment if you’re going to do quality,” says Craig Throne, general manager of footwear at Patagonia.

Patagonia has been making climbing gear and outdoors wear for over 30 years, and is committed to using sustainable materials-including recycled polyester and only organic cotton in their clothes. Using hemp and recycled rubber content, the company has created kids’ shoes that are rugged and sturdy enough for hiking or climbing, or for simply running around in the back yard.

Of course, packaging plays a big role and in Patagonia’s case that means 100 percent recycled content boxes with soy-based inks and fun graphics that encourage kids to reuse the boxes. “We’re getting kids to participate and be more aware of the outdoor world,” says Throne.

Timberland has launched its own line of sustainable kids’ shoes, too. “Kids today are learning about the environment at a younger and younger age-in many cases, they’re even teaching their parents,” says Lisa DeMarkis, head of Timberland’s kid’s division. “It’s important to show kids that even small choices can have a positive impact.”

The company strives to use the most environmentally friendly materials when possible-like recycled soda bottles (PET) in linings or meshes, recycled laces and organic cotton canvas-while always making sure that the shoes meet performance goals: “At the end of the day, the shoe has to stand up to kids and their daily adventures,” DeMarkis says. Curious customers can read the “nutritional labels,” which include the amount of renewable energy used in production, right on Timberland’s 100 percent post consumer recycled shoeboxes.

Parents looking to avoid leather in their kids’ shoes, whether for ethical or environmental reasons, have to do a bit of hunting online. While many vegetarian and non-leather clothing sites have yet to add kids’ shoes, KidBean.com has, including the popular baby shoes called Isabooties, which are made with soft, synthetic Ultrasuede.

For parents of budding dancers, a vegan alternative ballet slipper can be had from the Cynthia King Dance Studio in Brooklyn, New York. The dance instructor and studio owner approached a local shoemaker when she couldn’t find an affordable outlet for vegan slippers, and now provides them to the world at large.

CONTACTS: Cynthia King Dance Studio, www.cynthiakingdance.com; Isabooties, www.isabooties.com; KidBean, www.kidbean.com; Patagonia, www.patagonia.com; Simple, www.simpleshoes.com; Timberland, www.timberland.com.

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.

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, http://www.eoproducts.com/; OrganicBeautySource.com, www.organicbeautysource.com; MotherNature.com, http://www.mothernature.com/. 

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

Dear EarthTalk: 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. 
 
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.

“Climate change is our generation’s civil rights movement,” says Brianna Cayo Cotter, communications director for the Energy Action Coalition, which backed PowerShift 2007 at the University of Maryland last November. Drawing over 5,500 students, the event was the largest gathering of college students ever assembled to talk about solutions to global warming, a weekend of non-stop workshops, speakers and rallies. “We’re at a crucial moment in history,” Cotter said. “Climate change is an issue that’s already impacting us, from the destruction of the Appalachian Mountains to the wildfires in California. We get that the steps taken today will end up being the future for tomorrow.”

She is not alone in her enthusiasm. The green movement has become a force to be reckoned with on campuses, says E. Students are demanding changes -­ energy conservation, waste reduction, sustainable course offerings, organic food choices, and real climate legislation from Congress beyond the campus confines. So far, 497 school presidents have signed the American College and University President’s Climate Commitment, which commits them to implementing a plan to go “carbon neutral” within two years of signing.

While the progress is encouraging, not all are convinced that the green campus movement has arrived yet. As Nina Rizzo, the California Freedom from Oil campus organizer for Global Exchange, says, “The movement is potent, but we’re not there yet. I don’t think people are angry enough.”

Michael M’Gonigle, author of Planet U, a professor of environmental law and policy at the University of Victoria and a co-founder of Greenpeace International, agrees that the incremental changes he’s seeing on campuses have yet to resemble the sustained force of 1960s activism. “But the anxiety about climate change is really palpable -­ students feel it,” he says. “And there’s an overarching social anxiety, something we have to act on… We can do something right here and right now at this institution.”

And students are doing something. In 2001, Pennsylvania State University made the nation’s largest retail purchase of wind energy, buying 75 percent of what two local 24-megawatt wind farms produced annually. In 2005, wind turbine manufacturer Gamesa decided to locate its headquarters in the state, bringing with it 1,000 new jobs. The school had changed the market price for wind in the state, and other schools are following suit. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s “Green Power Partnership” rankings, Penn State now ranks third among schools for green power purchasing, with 20 percent of its electricity use coming from wind power. Its fellow state school, the University of Pennsylvania is now second, at 29 percent. New York University is number one, with an incredible 100 percent of its electricity use generated by wind.

Smaller schools have jumped in, too. Vermont’s Middlebury College offers the complete package, from its natural landscape design to its fully composted dining hall waste to its “yellow bike” borrowing system for on-campus commutes. The school’s $11 million bio-mass facility is scheduled to open late fall 2008, with the capacity to burn enough wood chips to displace the use of $1 million gallons of fuel oil­cutting the school’s fuel needs in half.

Minnesota’s Carleton College is another small liberal arts school with green might, installing its own wind turbine on campus, engaging in “dorm wars” to encourage low energy use, and committing to green building retrofits and composting of all food waste. A similarly focused school, Maine’s College of the Atlantic, has achieved near perfection in its student-led green pursuits, eliminating or offsetting all its greenhouse gas emissions, supporting on-campus watershed preservation and following the highest standards of green building in all new campus structures.

These initiatives are reaching beyond the campus, too, as students begin to realize their collective might. A coalition of students in Virginia has teamed up to fight a new Dominion “clean coal” plant in Wise County, Virginia. “No new coal” has become a battle cry among college greens, particularly those in the Southeast confronted with the devastation of mountaintop removal mining, including polluted water, filthy air and land stripped of life. Ryan Hasty, a junior at Emory and Henry College in southwestern Virginia, who became president of The Greens on his campus last year says, “It’s an old technology, it’s very dirty and it isn’t worth sacrificing the health and well-being of those who live near the mine sites and the power plant. Not to mention the destruction of some of the cleanest and most bio-diverse waterways in the world.”

There are changes underway inside the classrooms, too. Duke University has a new Energy and Environment track (combining business and environmental management) that prepares students to remake their worlds in very concrete ways. Erika Lovelace of Duke’s Office of Enrollment says, “The degree prepares you to come up with sustainable ideas to assist local communities.” At the University of Colorado in Boulder, 22-year-old environmental studies major Paul Chase says working environmental education into the broader curriculum is a major campus goal.

It is not only in purchasing wind power, adding bike lanes and greening the cafeteria offerings that these schools do the essential work of curing the nation’s fossil-fuel dependency and other environmental ills. It is in educating students about the importance of creating and supporting a new green economy, in the process turning out leaders. In that respect, the campus sustainability movement is already a resounding success.

Where indeed? The January/February 2008 issue of E – The Environmental Magazine (now posted at www.emagazine.com) reports that climate change is already affecting many of our most beloved winter sports, from ice-skating to skiing to maple sugaring. It’s not surprising, considering that 2006 was the warmest year on record in the U.S., and 1998 was the second warmest. While winter is still highly unpredictable (a week before E’s issue made it to newsstands, the country was hit with epic snowfalls and low temperatures) the warming trend is clear.

E’s cover package also includes some colorful reminiscing about the historic snowfalls many of us remember from childhood, plus an SOS from some of the country’s leading winter athletes, who are having to venture far and wide to find seasonal snow. Pro snowboarder Gretchen Bleiler, who has won more halfpipe competitions than any other female snowboarder, is watching the shorter, milder winters in her hometown of Aspen, Colorado, the deteriorating snowbanks on worldwide slopes and the last-minute cancellations of major snowboarding events.

“We moved to Aspen when I was 10,” says Bleiler. “I remember the first year we went to school there were avalanche danger days. The snow would rise so high in the valley. Then this past season they had to cancel the Grand Prix in New Jersey because it was too warm to even make snow.”

By the end of the century, temperatures in the Northeastern states are likely to rise by eight to 12 degrees Fahrenheit (at which time snow-covered days will have been reduced to half of what we traditionally experience). A 2007 Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment report, prepared by the Union of Concerned Scientists, says that under some higher-emission scenarios, “Only western Maine is projected to retain a reliable ski season by the end of the century, and only northern New Hampshire would support a snowmobiling season longer than two months.”

Consider these facts:

• Snowmobile sales slid 12 percent in the most recent accounting from the International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association. Total sales of 79,814 in 2006 contrasted sharply with the 170,325 sold in 1997.
• Cliff Brown of the University of New Hampshire notes that the state had 65 downhill ski areas in the 1970s, but only 20 remain. New Hampshire winters warmed 3.8 degrees Fahrenheit in the 20th century, and snowmaking alone hasn’t saved the day, especially for the low-lying family facilities. The surviving resorts, Brown says, are larger, tend to be corporate owned, and are located at higher elevations. To stay in business, the resorts have also diversified from skiing. On a recent fall day, the lower slopes at Bromley Mountain in southern Vermont looked more like an amusement park than a ski area.
• Northern New England’s climate was once ideal for maple sugaring, but as temperatures rise the industry is inexorably migrating north. Over the past four decades, the traditional mid-February to April maple sugaring season has slowly gotten shorter. According to a University of Vermont study, it now starts a week early and ends 10 days early, with a net loss of three production days. Long-time tappers worry that, by 2100, there may no longer be a maple sugar industry in New England.

The warming changes already visible are, to cite a particularly apt cliche, “the tip of the iceberg.” In the next few decades, global warming will be shaped by many different factors, with relatively unpredictable results. But the scientific consensus is near unanimous that the loss of predictable and comforting winter patterns will be a major consequence. Nostalgia for snowy winters past and “the way it was” will be a major growth industry, even as skiing, skating, snowman building and maple syrup-making gradually recede into our collective memory.

Read the article