It’s true that the advent of electric cars is not necessarily a boon for the environment if it means simply trading our reliance on one fossil fuel—oil, from which gasoline is distilled—for an even dirtier one: coal, which is burned to create electricity.

The mining of coal is an ugly and environmentally destructive process. And, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) burning the substance in power plants sends some 48 tons of mercury—a known neurotoxin—into Americans’ air and water every year (1999 figures, the latest year for which data are available). Furthermore, coal burning contributes some 40 percent of total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) estimates that coal mining and burning cause a whopping $62 billion worth of environmental damage every year in the U.S. alone, not to mention its profound impact on our health.

Upwards of half of all the electricity in the U.S. is derived from coal, while the figure is estimated to be around 70 percent in China. As for Europe, the United Kingdom gets more than a third of its electricity from coal, while Italy plans to double its consumption of coal for electricity production within five years to account for some 33 percent of its own electricity needs. Several other countries in Europe, where green sentiment runs deep but economics still rule the roost, are also stockpiling coal and building more power plants to burn it in the face of an ever-increasing thirst for cheap and abundant electricity.

On top of this trend, dozens of electric and plug-in hybrid cars are in the works from the world’s carmakers. It stands to reason that, unless we start to source significant amounts of electricity from renewables (solar, wind, etc.), coal-fired plants will not only continue but may actually increase their discharges of mercury, carbon dioxide and other toxins due to greater numbers of electric cars on the road.

Some analysts expect that existing electricity capacity in the U.S. may be enough to power America’s electric cars in the near future, but don’t rule out the possibility of new coal plants (or new nuclear power plants) coming on line to fill the gap if we don’t make haste in developing alternate sources for generating electrical energy. And while proponents of energy efficiency believe we can go a long way by making our electric grids “smarter” through the use of monitoring technologies that can dole out power when it is most plentiful and cheap (usually the middle of the night), others doubt that existing capacity will be able to handle the load placed on even an intelligent “smart grid” distribution network.

Environmentalists—as well as many politicians and policymakers—maintain that the only viable, long-term solution is to spur on the development of renewable energy sources. Not long ago, the concept of an all-electric car charged up by solar power or some other form of clean renewable energy was nothing but a pipe dream. Today, though, such a scenario is within the realm of the possible, but only if everyone does their part to demand that our utilities bring more green power on line.

CONTACTS: EPA/mercury emissions; www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/utility/hgwhitepaperfinal.pdf.

Dear EarthTalk: Are there any health hazards associated with the use of the new silicone bakeware and cooking utensils? I have found information associated with the hazards/benefits of Teflon and other cookware but nothing on the use of silicone. — Jean McCarthy, Sebastian, FL

With all the negative press about Teflon and about metals leaching out of pots and pans, consumers are on the lookout for cookware that’s easy-to-clean and doesn’t pose health concerns. Silicone, a synthetic rubber made of bonded silicon (a natural element abundant in sand and rock) and oxygen, is increasingly filling this niche. The flexible yet strong material, which has proven popular in muffin pans, cupcake liners, spatulas and other utensils, can go from freezer to oven (up to 428 degrees Fahrenheit), is non-stick and stain-resistant, and unlike conventional cookware, comes in a range of bright and cheery colors.

But some wonder if there is dark side to silicone cookware. Anecdotal reports of dyes or silicone oil oozing out of overheated silicone cookware pop up on Internet posts, as do reports of odors lingering after repeated washings. Also, silicone’s image may be forever tainted by problems associated with silicone gel breast implants—some women with earlier generations of these implants experienced capsular contracture, an abnormal immune system response to foreign materials. And while theories about silicone implants’ link to breast cancer have since been debunked, the damage to silicone’s reputation lives on.

It’s sad to say, but since the use of silicone in cookware is fairly new, there has not been much research into its safety for use with food. Back in 1979 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined that silicon dioxides—the basic elements in silicone cookware—were generally recognized as safe to use even in food-grade contexts. But the first silicone cookware (silicone spatulas) didn’t start to show up on store shelves until a decade later, and the FDA hasn’t conducted any follow-up studies to determine whether silicone can leach out of cookware and potentially contaminate food. For its part, Canada’s health agency, Health Canada, maintains that food-grade silicone does not react with food or beverages or produce any hazardous fumes, and as such is safe to use up to recommended temperatures.

Consumer advocate Debra Lynn Dadd, who steers clear of Teflon due to health concerns, is bullish on silicone cookware after investigating potential toxicity. “I tried to find some information on the health effects of silicone rubber, but it was not listed in any of the toxic chemical databases I use,” she reports, adding that she also sampled material safety data on several silicone rubbers manufactured by Dow Corning (which makes some 700 variations). “All descriptions I read of silicone rubber describe it as chemically inert and stable, so it is unlikely to react with or leach into food, nor outgas vapors.” She adds that silicone “is not toxic to aquatic or soil organisms, it is not hazardous waste, and while it is not biodegradable, it can be recycled after a lifetime of use.”

So while most of us will probably not have a problem with silicone cookware, those with chemical sensitivities might want to stay away until more definitive research has been conducted. In the meantime, cast iron and anodized aluminum cookware remain top choices for those concerned about harmful elements leaching into their cooked foods.

CONTACTS: FDA, www.fda.gov; Health Canada, www.hc-sc.gc.ca; Debra Lynn Dadd, www.dld123.com; Dow Corning, www.dowcorning.com.

Native tribes across the American West have been and continue to be subjected to significant amounts of radioactive and otherwise hazardous waste as a result of living near nuclear test sites, uranium mines, power plants and toxic waste dumps.

And in some cases tribes are actually hosting hazardous waste on their sovereign reservations—which are not subject to the same environmental and health standards as U.S. land—in order to generate revenues. Native American advocates argue that siting such waste on or near reservations is an “environmental justice” problem, given that twice as many Native families live below the poverty line than other sectors of U.S. society and often have few if any options for generating income.

“In the quest to dispose of nuclear waste, the government and private companies have disregarded and broken treaties, blurred the definition of Native American sovereignty, and directly engaged in a form of economic racism akin to bribery,” says Bayley Lopez of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. He cites example after example of the government and private companies taking advantage of the “overwhelming poverty on native reservations by offering them millions of dollars to host nuclear waste storage sites.”

The issue came to a head—and Native advocates hope a turning point—in 2007 when public pressure forced the Skull Valley band of Utah’s Goshute tribe to forego plans to offer their land, which is already tucked between a military test site, a chemical weapons depot and a toxic magnesium production facility, for storing spent nuclear fuel above ground. The facility would have been a key link in the chain of getting nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain, the U.S. government’s proposed permanent storage facility.

In February 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced intentions to scale back efforts to make Yucca Mountain the nation’s sole repository of radioactive nuclear waste and to look into alternative long-term strategies for dealing with its spent nuclear fuel. The National Congress of American Indians, in representing the various tribes around the region, no doubt breathed a sigh of relief.

The issue essentially goes much deeper: As long as we continue to make use of nuclear energy—and many in Congress are looking to expand its role to get away from fossil fuels—the waste and spent nuclear fuel will keep coming and need to be stored somewhere. Groups like Honor the Earth, founded by author and activist Winona LaDuke to promote cooperation between Native Americans and environmentalists, are trying to persuade tribes that availing their land to nuclear power and other toxic industries isn’t worth the potential long-term damage to the health of their citizens. Honor the Earth helped convince the Goshutes to turn down a lucrative deal to store waste on their land, and is working with dozens of other tribes to try to do the same.

CONTACTS: DOE, www.doe.gov; Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation, www.indian.utah.gov/utah_tribes_today/goshute.html; National Congress of American Indians, www.ncai.org; Honor the Earth, www.honorearth.org.

Dear EarthTalk: What is the potential for carbon “nanotubes” in battery technology? I heard them referred to as the biggest battery breakthrough to come along in years. And what else can we expect to see in terms of new battery technology in coming years? — R.M. Koncan, via e-mail

The rechargeable lithium-ion batteries now so common in everything from iPods to hybrid cars can store twice the energy of similarly sized nickel-metal hydride batteries and up to six times as much as their lead-acid progenitors. But these advances are only a small evolutionary step from the world’s first battery designed by Alessandro Volta in 1800 using layers of metal and blotting paper soaked in salt water.

With battery technology advances long overdue, researchers are racing to develop more efficient ways to store power. One hopeful option is in the use of carbon nanotubes, which can store much more electricity by weight than lithium-ion batteries while keeping their charge and remain durable for far longer.

But what are carbon nanotubes, and how can they be used to store energy? Technicians skilled in working with matter at the molecular (nano) level can arrange pure carbon molecules in cylindrical structures that are not both strong and flexible. They have significantly higher energy density and can store more electricity than any currently available technology. These tubes, each only billionths of a meter wide, essentially become highly efficient, electrically conductive pipes for storing and providing power.

Electrical engineers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have formed carbon molecules into tiny springs that store as much electricity as same sized lithium-ion batteries but can maintain a charge while dormant for years and work well in temperature extremes. Stanford University researchers have created ink made from carbon nanotubes that can be drawn onto paper where it serves as a high-capacity rechargeable energy storage medium. And University of Maryland scientists have created nanostructures able to store and transport power at 10 times the energy density of lithium-ion batteries.

Other technologies in development include batteries using zinc-air, lithium-air and other combinations of elements to provide longer run-times between recharges. Others still are working on prototype nuclear batteries, the trick being to make them small enough to be practical, let alone safe.

Of course, the accelerating growth of nanotechnology itself, which has not yet been thoroughly tested to evaluate potential down sides, has some health advocates worried. Animal studies have shown that some nanoparticles, if inhaled or ingested, can harm the lungs and also cross the blood-brain barrier, which protects the brain from toxins in the bloodstream.

And then there are fuel cells, created in 1839 but only recently commercialized. Not batteries per se, fuel cells generate, store and dispense power by forcing a reaction between a fuel (hydrogen from water, methanol) and oxygen, creating usable non-polluting electricity. One major hurdle for fuel cell makers is making them small enough to be able to work in laptops and other small personal electronics.

CONTACTS: “Researchers fired up over new battery,” MIT News, http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/batteries-0208.html; “Carbon Nanotubes Turn Office Paper into Batteries,” Scientific American, www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-nanotubes-turn-off.

For starters, the stimulus package rewards businesses (as well as individuals) for investments in energy efficiency—that is, for doing more with less power. The federal government has extended its tax credit program for energy efficient business improvements—whereby 30 percent of qualified expenses up to $1,500 can be credited against your tax bill—through 2010. No one knows yet if the program will be extended beyond that, so 2010 could be a great time to finally go for that upgrade you’ve been putting off.

Qualifying upgrades include the installation of central air conditioners, heat pumps, furnaces, boilers, windows, doors and roofing that meet efficiency standards set by the government’s Energy-Star program. Likewise, the costs of upgrading to code-appropriate insulation and sealing as well as installing solar water heaters and biogas or biomass stoves also qualify for the tax credit. Business owners beware, though, that they can only claim a maximum of $1,500 combined for all efficiency-related upgrades.

Stimulus money—some $2.3 billion over the next 10 years—is also available to businesses, institutions and government agencies that green up their vehicle fleets and/or take steps to encourage or subsidize employees to go green with their commutes. Companies that install alternative fuel (ethanol, biodiesel or hydrogen) pumps on site can qualify for tax credits for between 30 and 50 percent of installation costs through 2010. Likewise, businesses that buy electric or plug-in hybrid cars or trucks for their fleets can score credits of between $2,500 and $7,500 per vehicle depending on battery size and fuel efficiency.

Another way businesses can make use of tax credits is to install on-site wind or solar power systems. The federal government will pay up to 30 percent of the set-up cost. Congress has also allocated $1.6 billion for Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) to help finance construction of renewable energy facilities run by public utilities, electric cooperatives and city, state and tribal governments.

Businesses that qualify for any of the aforementioned tax credits should be sure to file IRS Form 5695 with their tax returns and keep all relevant receipts and copies of manufacturer certifications and Energy-Star labels where applicable. Tax advisors can provide more details on how to qualify for these federal incentives, and can also advise as to what additional incentives might be available from states. Be sure to check out the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE), which provides a continuously updated list of both state and federal ways for both businesses and homeowners to save cash by going green.

Image courtesy geonerd, Flickr.

Luz Claudio, writing in “Environmental Health Perspectives,” considers the way Americans and Europeans shop for clothes as “waste couture”: Fashion is low-quality and sold at “prices that make the purchase tempting and the disposal painless.” Yet this sort of so-called “fast fashion” leaves a pollution footprint, with each step of the clothing life cycle generating potential environmental and occupational hazards.

According to “Technical Textile Markets,” a quarterly trade publication, demand for man-made fibers such as petroleum-derived polyester has nearly doubled in the last 15 years. “The manufacture of polyester and other synthetic fabrics is an energy-intensive process requiring large amounts of crude oil,” reports Claudio. In addition, she says, the processes emit volatile organic compounds and solvents, particulate matter, acid gases such as hydrogen chloride, and other production by-products into the air and water.

“Issues of environmental health and safety do not apply only to the production of man-made fabrics,” says Claudio, citing subsidies to the pesticide-laden cotton industry that keep prices low and production high.

In an effort to green up the industry, Earth Pledge launched its FutureFashion initiative in 2005 to promote the use of renewable, reusable and non-polluting materials and production methods. Besides putting on its own FutureFashion showcases, the group organized the January 2008 New York Fashion Week, encouraging designers to create and showcase greener clothing on their runway models. Green-leaning designers can also pick through Earth Pledge’s library of 600 sustainably produced textiles, including organic cotton as well as exotic materials such as sasawashi, pina, bamboo, milk protein, and sea leather.

Another effort underway to speed the fashion industry into a carbon-constrained future is the Ethical Fashion Forum, which provides a variety of tools and resources and runs training sessions and networking events to help facilitate moving the industry towards more sustainable practices.

One stumbling block to the greening of fashion is that only a small number of consumers—some analysts say less than one percent—will pay more for a greener shirt. But if the industry itself can improve its footprint from the inside and drive the costs of more eco-friendly materials and processes down, the benefits will trickle down to consumers, whether they are bargain-conscious or fashion-conscious.

Image courtesy Martin LaBar, Flickr.

As to the attractiveness of wind farms, people do seem to come down on one side or the other rather vehemently. Those in favor of wind development have been known to extol the visual virtues of a horizon full of windmills not only for the turbines’ graceful sculptural lines but also for the fact that their very presence advertises the coming of a modern, almost futuristic age of clean, renewable energy.

Writing in the online magazine Contemporary Aesthetics, Yuriko Saito waxes eloquent about the visual appeal of wind farms when created thoughtfully. “[I]t is possible to create an aesthetically pleasing effect by choosing the color, shape and height of the turbines appropriate…to the particular landscape, making them uniform in their appearance and movement, and…arranging them in proportion to the landscape,” he says. “One writer admires the windmills in Sweden as ‘graceful objects’ because ‘the slender airfoils seem both delicate and powerful…while their gentle motion imparts a living kinetic nature’.”

On the flip side, detractors begrudge wind turbines for destroying their views—a classic NIMBY stance. According to Saito, opposition to wind farms stems from their being sited on previously “open, unhindered lands” and as such “are viewed as machines intruding in a garden.” He adds: “[T]hey are almost invariably decried as ‘marring’, ‘spoiling’, ‘ruining’, and ‘intruding on’ the otherwise relatively natural landscape, such as desert, open field, mountainside, and…ocean, and for creating an ‘eyesore’.”

Respondents to a survey by the British magazine Country Life listed wind turbines as the most egregious type of architectural blemish across England. They disliked wind farms even more than other “eyesores”—such as highway service areas, conventional power stations and ugly office buildings—because of the size of the turbines, some of which are 300 feet tall, and their intrusion on the landscape.

Opponents of a proposed wind farm in the waters of Massachusetts’ Nantucket Sound cite similar gripes. The builder, Cape Wind Associates, has campaigned for seven years for approval of the development, to be located 16 miles off the shore of Nantucket Island. Homeowners, politicians and some evidently conflicted environmentalists have mounted stiff opposition to the facility, which would appear from shore as distant white smears on the horizon. The decision rests with the U.S. Interior Department which, despite stated desires to expand offshore wind energy, is taking its time on the highly contentious matter.

But with wind now the hottest renewable energy source going, those opposed to seeing windmills better get used to it. In 2008 wind power provided 1.5 percent of global electricity—having doubled its output every year now for five years in a row—and should account for as much as eight percent by 2018.

Image courtesy John Foxx, Getty.

Beyond manufacturing, the transport of wine in glass bottles across the country and around the world also takes its environmental toll. According to wine writer Tyler Colman, upwards of 90 percent of American wine is produced on the West Coast, but then shipped to the East Coast where the majority of wine consumers live. Trucking all these heavy glass bottles generates a much larger carbon footprint, ounce-for-ounce than the transportation of much lighter boxed wine. Almost half the weight of an ordinary case of wine comes from the bottles; about 95 percent of the weight of a case of boxed wine is the wine itself.

“A standard wine bottle holds 750 milliliters of wine and generates about 5.2 pounds of carbon-dioxide emissions when it travels from a vineyard in California to a store in New York,” reports Colman, who blogs at DrVino.com. “A 3-liter box generates about half the emissions per 750 milliliters.”  He concludes that switching to wine in a box “for the 97 percent of wines that are made to be consumed within a year” would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about two million tons, or the equivalent of removing 400,000 cars from the roads.

According to the Wine Group, the third largest wine company in the world by volume and a big advocate for switching away from glass bottles, there are other advantages to boxed wine (which typically includes a plastic bag within a cardboard box). The vacuum packaging of boxed wines allows the contents to stay fresh for up to six weeks in the fridge once the seal is broken and the first glass has been poured. The Wine Group has launched the “Better Wines Better World” website in an attempt to curry public favor for technologically advanced, environmentally friendly and economically practical boxed wines.

Still, despite the benefits, boxed wine may still be a tough pill to swallow for many wine connoisseurs still bent on tradition. “Even those traditionalists who are coming around to the idea that maybe screw caps are fine for some wines, balk at the idea of a cellar full of cardboard boxes,” says wine writer and vineyard owner Lee Asbell. “It is difficult to imagine how wine service at fine-dining establishments would handle such a change.” For now, boxed wine is still the domain of cheaper brands. But that could all change as more and more wine makers and drinkers take up the mantle of saving the Earth.

Image courtesy Enertia Building Systems.

Enertia is a brand name for homes designed and sold in kits by North Carolina-based Enertia Building Systems (EBS). The idea essentially marries the concepts of geothermal and passive solar heating/cooling into what amounts to a highly energy efficient hybrid system. Architectural inventor Michael Sykes coined the term “Enertia” in the 1980s to describe the innovative homes he was designing that would store solar and geothermal energy and make use of it for most if not all heating and cooling needs.

Under such a system, solid wood walls replace siding, framing, insulation and paneling, while an air flow channel—or “envelope”—runs around the building inside the walls, creating what Sykes terms a miniature biosphere. Inside the envelope, solar heated air circulates, pumping and boosting geothermal energy from beneath the house and storing it within the wood mass of the walls, where it is doled out gradually.

By harnessing the properties of thermal inertia—the ability of materials to store heat and give it off slowly—an “Enertia” house maintains a relatively fixed and comfortable temperature throughout the warmer day (when solar heat is collected and stored) and cooler night (when the wood walls give off heat to keep things toasty as the mercury dips).

The heart of the system is a south-facing sun space within the envelope that is dominated by windows and which therefore soaks up lots of solar energy, filling the house’s wood walls with thermal energy that in turn radiates into the primary living space. The entire house functions like an electric heat pump—moving warm and cool air around to accommodate the comfort needs of the occupants. It works even throughout the seasonal changes of the year—with minimal to no fossil fuels consumed or pollution generated.

In one Enertia house in North Carolina, the only power bill the owners typically pay is $35/month for electricity. They also have a back-up in-floor radiant heating system powered by natural gas for long cloudy stretches or unusually cold weather. Gas bills for heat typically total $150 for the year, meaning the owners’ total annual outlay for heating, cooling and electricity is less than $600—some $1,000 less than traditional homes in the same zip code are paying, according to data from the U.S. Department of Energy.

EBS markets several different designs for its Enertia houses, but all share the basic premise of primary interior living space heated and cooled by air channeled in from a south-facing “buffer zone” envelope and from below grade. Smaller houses in the line top out at about 2,000 square feet over two floors of living space, while larger ones encompass some 4,000 square feet of living space over three floors. Depending on the model, you could spend anywhere from $66,000 to $292,000 for a complete plan and building materials kit. The rest—including the selection and cost of the land and the labor to build the house—is up to you.

For reasons still unknown to public health experts, certain cities across the U.S., Canada, Australia, Europe and Africa have seen an explosion in bed bugs in recent years. According to Larry Pinto, author of The Techletter, a leading information source for the pest control industry, increased worldwide travel and the rising popularity of second-hand goods may be factors in the resurgence of bed bugs, but the most likely reason is our rejection of DDT and other harsh insecticides composed of chlorinated hydrocarbons.

Pinto suggests that the kinder, gentler pesticides available now, as well as more conservative pest control methods (such as using bait traps for specific infestations instead of all-around, periodic preventative spraying) are less effective at keeping bed bugs—and likely other pests—away.  “Modern insecticides are proving to be somewhat ineffective against bed bugs,” he reports, adding that insects can also develop some level of resistance to insecticides in general.

Due to the bed bug problem in many cities, charities like Goodwill often won’t accept old mattresses or couches any longer. Consumers should beware of purchasing reconditioned or used mattresses and furniture accordingly. Even new mattresses can arrive at your home already infested, especially if they travel in trucks that contain old mattresses that new customers are discarding. If you can drive your new mattress home from the store yourself you are more likely to avoid a bed bug infestation altogether.

The upside of our abandonment of pesticides like DDT, of course, is the resurgence of bald eagles and other wildlife negatively affected by the accumulation of such toxins in the environment during the latter half of the 20^th century. DDT was causing the shells of bird eggs to be thin and weak, resulting in many fewer hatchlings. By the mid-1960s, the U.S. played host to only 400 breeding pairs of bald eagles—less than one percent of the bird’s estimated population in the region prior to white settlement. DDT was finally banned in 1972, and today nearly 10,000 breeding pairs of bald eagles thrive in the continental U.S.

Some home-use treatments made with natural non-toxic ingredients are now available. XeroBugs’ Best Yet, a top choice of hotel/motel managers, makes use of cedar oil and natural enzymes to kill bed bugs. Another leading product is Rest Easy Bed Bug Spray, which uses cinnamon and other natural ingredients. Although these products are deemed effective, some argue that they don’t work nearly well enough to eradicate what some are calling a bed bug epidemic. Some are even calling for bringing back DDT (for use in small doses and for specific applications only) to help eradicate the growing bed bug problem.

But no matter how much I try to justify it to myself, I just don’t have that much of a reason to personally have a car. I ride my bike around town eight months out of the year and curse the MBTA’s existence the other four. Cambridge, the place I call home, is replete with bike lines on practically every major thoroughfare, and Boston is certainly attempting to get there too. And when all else fails, I’m always up for a lovely stroll through town. It’s Boston, after all!

But there are times when it’s clear that I need a car. Like for my frequent trips to Ikea. Or like every eight or so weeks when I go on a massive grocery shopping binge because I hate walking back and forth between the grocery store, even though its only ten minutes away form my house. Or like every eight weeks when I do the laundry because I hate doing laundry with every fiber of my being.

Luckily for those times, there’s Zipcar. If you’ve been living underneath a rock, I’ll — pardon the pun — zip Zipcar up for you. The Cambridge based and founded company allows licensed drivers aged 21 and over to rent a wide variety of cars parked all over the city by the hour or by the day.

If you’re feeling eco-conscious, grab Prius Pete — every Zipcar has an adorable, alliterative name — from the Genzyme Garage in Kendall Square for $7 per hour. If you’re feeling flashier, grab Baker the BMW 328 for $13 per hour from the Boston Common garage.

To become a Zipcar member, users pay a $50 annual fee to join. For those who only grab a car every now and then, they pay the hourly or day-rate for whichever vehicle they want. For those who drive more often, users can make a minimum monthly commitment, and cash in on discounted rates. Every reservation includes 180 miles of driving, a gas card to fill the car up — and make sure to use it any time the vehicle falls beneath a quarter tank! — insurance to cover your indiscretions, and a parking pass if the Zipcar lives in a non-free lot.

Users make a reservation, tap their RFID-tagged Zipcard on the windshield to unlock the vehicle, which already has the key inside the ignition. They then zip around town, and then lock it up when finished by tapping their Zipcard on the windshield again.

Car sharing is as simple as the name sounds. The cars are meant to be parked near where users will need them. Because everyone pays a membership fee, they all in a way jointly own and share the vehicles. Everyone is expected to fill the gas when it gets low, keep the car relatively clean, and keep it from being damaged. Zipcar will even reimburse users that pay for a carwash. Another big part of car sharing is making sure the vehicle is where it’s supposed to be. When Zipcar says your reservation is over at 6:00 PM, they mean 6:00 PM, sharp. If you haven’t locked your car up by then, you’ll get a late fee. Get enough late fees, and Zipcar will suspend you from driving.

Obviously, I don’t want to turn you off from Zipcar. You have to really piss someone off to actually get your account suspended, and because it’s a car sharing program after all, users are usually rather fanatic and therefore largely respectful of the rules. Overall, Zipcar is simple, effective, and much better than having a car and insurance payment every month — plus, for me at least, it’s the closest I’ll ever get to driving a Beamer before I can ever afford one of my own.

While Zipcar got its start in Cambridge back in 2000, it has since spread to 49 cities across the world. Zipcar was founded by residents Robin Chase and Antje Danielson who based the company on car-sharing programs similar to those in Europe. By the end of 2002, the company had 6,000 users in Boston, D.C., and New York.

Zipcar got its start by stocking different neighborhoods with different cars, giving each area it’s own identity. In Cambridge, home to the recycling, biking, hippie granola crunchy type, the company filled the neighborhood with gas-sipping Priuses. In the Back Bay, Zipsters were more likely to want a showier convertible Mini-Cooper for weekend trips to the Cape.

Now in 2009, Zipcar has merged with former rival Flexcar, and now commands a fleet of 6,000 vehicles for 675,000 users in places as far as Ann Arbor, Mich., Tuscaloosa, Alab., and even across the pond in London. In fact, in one of the tougher economic times we’ve seen, Zipcar is preparing itself to go public, and is launching an IPO in 2010. The company is constantly adding cars to its fleet and expanding its user base. With the influx of cash from an IPO, Zipcar really will be going places.

What makes Zipcar so special is its amazing blend of cute personality, sharp business prowess, and of course, cutting edge technology. The technology starts when you try to start the car. Sitting in the upper right corner of every Zipcar is a little black box. When you tap your Zipcard on the windshield above it, the system sends out a signal to Zipcar HQ over EVDO — yes, that ancient data technology your old cell phone used to run — that matches your card to a reservation to a specific Zipcar. When everything aligns correctly, the black box unlocks the car door, the black box releases the kill switch on the engine, and you get in and drive off.

The black box is also hooked into the on-board diagnostics system, or OBD. When my Zipcar wouldn’t start on a particularly cold January night, I called Zipcar, and the helpful man on the phone could already tell me that I had killed the car battery by leaving my headlights during my quick trip into Trader Joe’s. If you somehow lock your Zipcard inside the vehicle, a quick phone call to Zipcar customer service can unlock it. Likewise, the black box has a simple GPS system so that the vehicles can be located should they wander off and get lost. The same kill switch that keeps the car from being stolen can also kill the car should it somehow manage to drive off.

However, the newest technology debuted at the tail-end of September is, of course, Zipcar’s new iPhone app. Up to now, users have had to make reservations though the Zipcar website, the mobile website, or over the phone. Both of the websites are robust, AJAXy, and a breeze to use. The phone however, well, lets just say it’s not Zipcar’s fault if you’re using a technology from the 19th century.

But now with the magic of the Zipcar iPhone app, users can locate themselves on a map of all of Zipcar’s offerings, make a reservation, and even unlock the car from inside the application. When I did just that with my iPhone app, I almost cried from the sheer amazingness of what I’d just done. It also made me feel amazingly futuristic, despite the fact that we’re all supposed to have personal jetpacks in the future. And OK, fine, people have been able to remotely unlock cars since OnStar in the 90s, but that still required calling someone who was sitting at a computer somewhere in Arizona. Now, I can do it from my touch screen god-phone.

Using the rest of the app was just as easy as you would expect Zipcar to make it. Making my reservation was a breeze. The app grayed out all Zipcar lots that didn’t have a car that matched my time reservation. If you needed the exact location of a Zipcar lot, the app would send the exact coordinates to your Maps application which would then direct you to the lot. While my reservation as open, I could extend the time I needed the car from inside the app as well.

Zipcar polled its users and found that 25% of them had an iPhone, hence releasing their first app on Apple’s platform. Everyone else without an iPhone can still use the mobile website to make reservations. Also, once you’ve given Zipcar your cell phone number, they’ll send you text message reminders about your reservations. You can then extend your reservation just by texting Zipcar back. “Ext30m” will get you an extra half-hour to get back while “End today 4pm” will do just what it says.

Zipcar has always been a company to embrace technology, and now every car in their fleet now comes equipped with an auxillary cord to plug into your iPod or mp3 player of choice, so you can jam out to Taylor Swift, or any other embarrassing musical offering you might enjoy. Every car has a toll-tag that auto-magically bills your Zipcar account for the tolls.

Another thing that’s hard to ignore about Zipcar is that the company is rather green—and we’re talking about more than its logo. Like I said before, I only drive a Zipcar when I really need one. But if I had a car of my own, I’d probably take a lot more places. That means I’m driving more, burning more gas, and doing my part to warm the earth with more carbon dioxide. When you factor in people who just use Zipcar instead of owning a car, that’s a lot fewer miles being driven out there.

Zipcar recognizes this, and discounts the Priuses in its fleet more than the other vehicles. Zipcar even ran a “low-car diet challenge” which in return for media coverage, encourage drivers to hang up their keys for a month and ride public transit or use a Zipcar when absolutely necessary. While the miles saved from these twelve users is merely a minuscule blip in the amount of carbon spewed into the atmosphere by the millions of drivers in the U.S. every day, the ideas are still a good one. It’s also a counter intuitive notion, considering that Zipcar essentially makes its money when people drive, but it’s just the good-nature of the company. When was the last time you saw gas companies encouraging eco-consciousness?

Zipcar is here for good it seems, and that’s something that I, and thousands of other users certainly embrace. While Zipcar advertises through print frequently, a lot of Zipcar’s brand strength comes through word of mouth. Zipcar user Matthew Lasek shared just such a story. “About two weeks ago I rented a Volvo and zipped to the hardware store to fill up on more paint, brushes and cleaner to remove all the paint I would inevitably spill. While locking the car a 65 year-old woman asked ‘So how does Zipcar work?’” Lasek then explained the entire membership and rental rental process to the questioning woman, Brookline resident Lauren Smith, who lamented how expensive it is to rent a cart through a traditional car service and how she hated asking her daughter to drive her on her errands.

When asked to sum up the Zipcar experience, Lasek put it like this: “I think this is what Zip Car is: freedom. This strong and able senior wanted to have the freedom to do something as simple as go to Johnny’s Fresh Market; while my exploits in Zipcars to the beach or Six Flags are a little more adventurous, the fact remains that Zipcar lets us do things that our own two legs can’t, or what our wallets would prohibit.”

Images courtesy Zipcar, the author, and Flickr users Andrew Currie, rakka, reinvented, and scoobyfoo.

Courtesy Rainer Hungershausen, Flickr.

The topic of disappearing honey bees first cropped up in 2004 and by the spring of 2007 was all over the news. Thousands of commercial beekeepers across the U.S. and beyond were reporting in some cases that as many as two-thirds of their honey bees were flying away from their hives, never to return. What made the problem—dubbed “Colony Collapse Disorder” (CCD)—so unusual is that most traumas to bee colonies leaves bees dead in or around their hives, not mysteriously gone altogether.

Strangely enough, there was no concrete evidence pointing to disease or predation or of mites that tend to attack bee hives. Some beekeepers reported that moths, animals and other bees were steering clear of the newly empty nests, leading to speculation that chemical contamination due to widespread use of pesticides might be to blame. But no smoking gun emerged and the mystery remains today.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS), which last year convened a multi-agency steering committee to assess the problem and find solutions, several factors could be combining to cause CCD. “Pesticides may be having unexpected negative effects on honey bees,” reports ARS, adding that as yet unknown parasites, pathogens or viruses could also be wreaking havoc on bee colonies. Studies have also indicated that poor management of populations of commercial honey bees—including inadequate diet and long distance transportation—may play a role.

In one study, researchers from Columbia University isolated the presence of a virus—the so-called Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus—in upwards of 96 percent of the hives studied that were affected by CCD. Other studies point to widespread use of Imidacloprid, a common grub-control chemical used on lawns and farms and which has already been banned in France due to its alleged effect on bees. But finding a single cause of CCD seems unlikely, and ARS researchers point to the possibility of “a perfect storm of existing stresses” weakening colonies to the point of collapse: “Stress…compromises the immune system of bees…and may disrupt their social system, making colonies more susceptible to disease.”

Whatever the cause, CCD remains a real threat to agriculture. About a third of all American farm production is dependent upon the pollination efforts of commercially-raised honey bees. While diversifying the stock of insect pollinators beyond just one species of honey bee would certainly represent a step in the right direction, re-jiggering the nation’s agricultural system represents no small challenge.

Not surprisingly perhaps, organic beekeepers have not experienced CCD, leading to speculation that overall greener management practices could be the answer even if direct causes are not determined. Meanwhile, efforts to genetically modify bees that are resistant to predators and pathogens could also prove fruitful, although such high tech solutions are still untested and could open up other cans of worms.

One of California's newest fire-fighitng recruits. Courtesy Ingrid Taylar, Flickr.

As wildfires consume parts of California larger than some smaller states, everyone is talking about how we can prevent such disasters from getting going in the first place. One novel approach is to enlist goats. Not as firefighters—although their surefootedness and determination would probably serve them well in such situations—but as grazers to keep the forest underbrush clear of the tinder-like grasses, bushes and small trees that allow flames to jump to the higher forest canopy and get further spread by the wind.

“Goats help prevent forest fires…by eating the dry stuff before the fire season strikes,” says Lani Malmberg, owner of Colorado-based Ewe4ic (pronounced “u-for-ik”) Ecological Services, which uses goats to gradually and naturally remove weeds and return lands to a healthier more natural state.

Goats have been called in for fire mitigation purposes across parts of California, Arizona and other drought-prone parts of the western U.S. In the Oakland and Berkeley hills regions of California’s Bay Area, where the combined effects of drought and a bark beetle infestation have killed thousands of acres of trees, public agencies and residents have enlisted the help of goat herds to suppress weeds and keep down the fire risk in the process for what remains of the area’s forest cover.

“The goat clearance scheme is one of the key reasons the Bay Area hasn’t had a recurrence of a catastrophic fire in decades,” says Tom Klatt, former manager of the Office of Emergency Preparedness at UC Berkeley and the author of UC Berkeley’s 2007 Fire Mitigation Program Annual Report.

Other earth-minded land managers are going goat as well. The Nature Conservancy recently hired goats to keep dry grasses and other tinder-like plant matter down at its Hassayampa River Preserve in Arizona, where the constant threat of summer fires haunts nearby homeowners while endangering the integrity of the area’s unique and fragile riparian ecosystem.

Using goats to control forest brush may seem like a novel idea, but it’s really been around as long as grazing animals have roamed the planet looking for nourishment. But with ever-increasing human development, wild grazers are fewer and farther between. The problem is exacerbated by our building our homes so close to (and sometimes within) forested areas that naturally burn occasionally. Efforts to then suppress all forest fires—even naturally occurring undergrowth burns—to protect these homes have led to “tinderbox” conditions ripe for those large destructive fires that spread for hundreds of miles, blown by the wind from treetop to treetop.

Grazing goats are also used in other endeavors. “Goats can be utilized as an effective bio-control agent to reduce weed populations to economically acceptable levels,” says Malmberg, adding that weeding with goats requires no pesticides or herbicides and generates zero greenhouse gas or other harmful emissions.

Boston purchased land on the banks of the Charles River to protect the city from possible future flooding.

Today Boston was named one of the top communities for protecting clean water and the public health with green solutions. The report by American Rivers comes at a time when congress is debating sections of a climate bill that will help communities prepare for natural disasters including waterborne diseases and droughts.

“We are at a transformational moment for our nation’s rivers and water infrastructure, and Boston is forging the path to a healthier, more secure future,” said Rebecca Wodder, president of American Rivers.

To prevent floods and water damage to the city, Boston followed a plan drafted by the Army Corps of Engineers to purchase and preserve about 8,000 acres of wetlands along the upper Charles River. Instead of building an extensive system of levees, dams, and plumbling, the city was able to protect itself from future flooding and protect a very diverse ecosystem at the same time.

These are the hallmarks of green solutions, and in an economy where state budgets are tighter than ever, these measures add up to saving close to $40 million in flood damage every year. Considering that rebuilding New Orleans’ levees had a price tag of around $10 billion, purchasing a little bit of land seems like a really good deal.

The American Rivers group stresses that preserving floodplains, grasslands, and forests is one of the most cost-effective solutions to preventing flooding and protecting environments to recharge the rivers and aquifers that supply our drinking water, and here in Boston, we seem to be doing our part.

Green groups are relying increasingly on volunteers to get by as contributions and grants have dried up during the economic downturn. Here two volunteers volunteer last election day at the polls, trying to get petition signatures to persuade Congress to make climate change a priority.

Non-profits of every stripe have been suffering from the economic downturn. In a recent survey of 800 U.S.-based non-profits, 75 percent reported feeling the effects of the downturn, with more than half already experiencing significant cuts in funding from both government and private foundation sources.

According to a recently released report from Civic Enterprises and the Democratic Leadership Council entitled “Quiet Crisis: The Impact of the Economic Downturn on the Nonprofit Sector,” few of these groups have strong reserves to weather the downturn—more than half have less than three months of operating funds on hand, while three-quarters cannot make it six months on existing cash reserves.

And the outlook is not promising. The Chronicle of Philanthropy, which reports on trends in grantmaking, says that foundation assets have declined by some 28 percent following the economy’s nosedive; two-thirds of them expect to have reduced grants significantly by the end of 2009. Many grantmakers have, in fact, suspended grants altogether for the time being.

Despite their funding troubles, many environmental groups continue to provide core services. According to the Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA), many cash-strapped groups are adapting by using more volunteers to get their work done, and actively seeking partnerships with other groups in order to make the most of limited resources and share overhead costs. And, of course, many green groups have cut costs through hiring freezes, layoffs and forced reductions in pay and hours for existing employees.

To Mark Tercek, president of the non-profit Nature Conservancy, the silver lining in the funding crisis for green groups is that it forces them to operate more efficiently and focus on core priorities: “Non-profits…have to be smart about adjusting to a tougher economic environment, including setting priorities,” he says. “If resources are going to be constrained…then organizations have to ask the questions: ‘What are we really best at? What are we uniquely positioned to do?’” Tercek adds that the recession also provides an “opportunity to connect the economic stimulus to environmental matters.”

And that’s just what the Obama administration hopes to do. By encouraging development of green technologies and services, the federal government aims to leverage environmental progress for an overall economic benefit. Most federal funding will go toward incentives for businesses and homeowners to adopt greener ways, but green groups with related expertise are in a good position to benefit as well.

Another boost for green groups could come if Congress passes the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which aims to flood non-profits with some 250,000 volunteers each year in a program akin to the Peace Corps but on the domestic front. Non-profits are also seeking changes to the federal tax code to further encourage corporate, foundation and individual donations.

Americans spend 500 million hours zipping around in recreational boats each year. But until recently the engines on these boats were held to much lower efficiency standards than their automotive counterparts. Last year the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced new more stringent emissions standards for marine engines—both in-board and outboard—that will go into effect in 2010. In fact, several hybrid boats are already on the market, boasting emission ratings well below the new standards.

The 24-foot Endeavor Green Electric Hybrid can run all day on an electric charge that costs only 11 cents and generates no emissions, kicking into a small diesel generator only if the boat’s eight batteries run dry. And when owners can charge the batteries via solar or wind power, the boats have a zero carbon footprint. Florida-based Craig Catamaran Corp. last year launched a hybrid version of its compact catamaran-style speedboat. The sporty little two-seater, which is light enough to be towed by a Mini Cooper or Smart Car, can run for eight hours on less than a gallon of gas, and costs less than $6,000 all in.

For those looking for a larger, more luxurious ride, the 25-foot Frauscher hybrid might be just the ticket. The speedy $155,000 Austrian-built pleasure boat combines an electric engine with a 256 horsepower Steyr diesel motor to allow for emissions-free harbor cruising or high octane speeding across open water.

If you’re not quite ready to take the plunge on a hybrid boat yourself, check out one in action on your next visit to San Francisco. The recently retrofitted Hornblower ferry to Alcatraz and Angel islands is powered by several alternative energy sources, including a hybrid diesel-electric system powered by solar cells and wind turbines right on deck. Alcatraz Cruises, the private company that runs the service claims the Hornblower is the first hybrid ferry boat in the country. The 64-foot vessel has an advanced power management system that regulates when and how the different power sources are used so it can make best use of its energy and minimize emissions. Passengers can see many of the technological advancements on the vessel, making for not only a fun and scenic but educational ride.

In another development, the U.S. Navy has reportedly contracted with Solomon Technologies, makers of the famous Zodiac line of rugged inflatable boats, to create a series of hybrid boats where fuel efficiency and stealthy (quiet) passage is of paramount importance. Recreationists, pacifists and Greenpeace anti-whaling activists alike may get the chance to check one out soon, too, as Solomon is already looking into incorporating hybrid technologies into its recreational and commercial product lines as well.

Adam Cohn, courtesy Flickr.

Decades of rapid-fire development and lack of government oversight has meant that China now faces some serious environmental challenges. According to research by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China surpassed the United States as the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases in 2006—and hasn’t looked back. (While the Chinese emit some eight percent more carbon dioxide than their American counterparts, the U.S. still leads the world in greenhouse gas emissions per capita, due to its significantly smaller population size and higher standard of living.)

Beyond its contribution to global warming, China is also a world leader in other forms of pollution, given its huge population and its ambition to become the next international economic superpower. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), current levels of air pollution in China far exceed international environmental standards. A recent analysis found, for example, that the air in some four dozen Chinese cities contained as much as seven times as much particulate pollution—which can get lodged in human lungs and cause a wide range of health problems—as deemed safe by WHO.

But critics say blaming China for its rampant pollution is unfair, given all the manufacturing the world’s developed countries outsource to Chinese companies. Qin Gang, China’s foreign ministry spokesman, refers to China as the “world’s factory” and says: “A lot of what you use, wear and eat is produced in China… “On the one hand, you increase production in China; on the other hand you criticize China on the emission reduction issue.” Yang Ailun of Greenpeace China agrees: “All the West has done is export a great slice of its carbon footprint to China and make China the world’s factory.”

Despite its efforts to go green, China still depends on coal—the dirtiest of all the fossil fuels—for some two-thirds of its energy needs. Chinese officials have strenuously opposed the binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions set by developing countries, arguing that already industrialized nations are to blame for most of the emissions already in the atmosphere.

According to Isabel Hilton, a journalist with the UK’s Guardian, industrialized countries should feel an obligation to shoulder at least some of the burden of helping China become a greener nation. “This means drastically reducing our own emissions and helping China with the finance and technology required to move to a sustainable, low-carbon economic system.”

There is progress afoot: Meetings between top Chinese and U.S. officials earlier this year led to the creation of a joint research center to address issues related to clean energy, with each country contributing $15 million to pay for initial research efforts.

The intrusion of saltwater from the sea into rivers and groundwater is a serious issue, but the threat is not from a reversal of flow, and our far inland lakes and rivers are not expected to be directly affected by the salty water of our oceans. However, the sensitive areas around the edges of our continents, where fresh water meets salt water, are at risk, and greater efforts must be taken to protect them. Some 40 percent of world population lives less than 40 miles (60 kilometers) from the shoreline.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global average sea levels should rise eight to 34 inches by the year 2100, a much faster pace than the four to 10 inch increase of the past century. Seas rise because of higher global temperatures, melting mountain glaciers and polar ice caps, and other factors. Higher temperatures also cause thermal expansion of ocean water, intensifying the problem.

Rising sea levels cause major problems as they erode and flood coastlines and, yes, as they mix salt water with fresh. A November 2007 article in ScienceDaily posited that coastal communities could face significant losses in fresh water supplies as saltwater intrudes inland. And whereas it had been previously assumed that salty water could only intrude underground as far as it did above ground, new studies show that in some cases salt water can go 50 percent further inland underground than it does above ground.

Salty water invading groundwater can reach not only residential water supplies but intakes for agricultural irrigation and industrial uses, as well. Economic effects include loss of coastal fisheries and other industries, coastal protection costs, and the loss of once-valuable coastal property as people move inland.

Estuaries at the mouths of rivers have in the past handled rising ocean levels. Sediment that accumulates along the edge of an estuary can raise the level of the land as the sea levels rise. And mangrove swamps, which buffer many a coastal zone around the world, flourish in brackish conditions. But because of our preference for living in coastal areas, and our habit of re-engineering our surroundings accordingly, humans make matters worse by preventing natural processes from managing the change. On the coast, we build roads and buildings, and replace natural buffers like mangrove swamps with dikes and bulkheads to control flooding, which make the problem worse by preventing beach sediment from collecting. And as we dam rivers and create reservoirs, we trap the sediment that would naturally flow down to the sea.

In some places, changes are happening. Governments are beginning to restrict or prohibit building in setback zones along the coast where risk of erosion is the greatest. A newer policy of “rolling easements” is also being tried, where developers are allowed to build in restricted zones but will be required to remove the structures if and when they become threatened by erosion. The IPCC recommends more drastic actions, such as creating more marshes and wetlands as buffers against the rising level of the sea, and migrating populations and industry away from coastlines altogether.

CONTACTS: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, www.ipcc.ch.

Dear EarthTalk: Is it better to drive an older, well-maintained car that gets about 25 miles per gallon, or to buy a new car that gets about 35 miles per gallon? — Edward Peabody, via e-mail

It definitely makes more sense from a green perspective to keep your old car running and well-maintained as long as you can-especially if it’s getting such good mileage. There are significant environmental costs to both manufacturing a new automobile and adding your old car to the ever-growing collective junk heap.

A 2004 analysis by Toyota found that as much as 28 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions generated during the lifecycle of a typical gasoline-powered car can occur during its manufacture and its transportation to the dealer; the remaining emissions occur during driving once its new owner takes possession. An earlier study by Seikei University in Japan put the pre-purchase number at 12 percent.

Regardless of which conclusion is closer to the truth, your current car has already passed its manufacture and transport stage, so going forward the relevant comparison has only to do with its remaining footprint against that of a new car’s manufacture/transport and driver’s footprint-not to mention the environmental impact of either disposing of your old car or selling it to a new owner who will continue to drive it. There are environmental impacts, too, even if your old car is junked, dismantled and sold for parts.

And don’t forget that the new hybrids-despite lower emissions and better gas mileage-actually have a much larger environmental impact in their manufacture, compared to non-hybrids. The batteries that store energy for the drive train are no friend to the environment-and having two engines under one hood increases manufacturing emissions. And all-electric vehicles are only emission-free if the outlet providing the juice is connected to a renewable energy source, not a coal-burning power plant, as is more likely.

If you want to assess your current car’s fuel efficiency or emissions, there are many services available online. The government website FuelEconomy.gov provides fuel efficiency stats for hundreds of different vehicles dating back to 1985. Websites TrackYourGasMileage.com and MPGTune.com can help you track your mileage and provide ongoing tips to improve fuel efficiency for your specific make and model vehicle. MyMileMarker.com takes it a step further, making projections about annual mileage, fuel costs and fuel efficiency based on your driving habits. If you have an iPhone, you can keep track of your car’s carbon footprint with the new “Greenmeter App” from Hunter Research and Technologies. The program uses numerous variables to make its calculations on-the-go as you drive, including weather conditions, cost of fuel, vehicle weight, and more.

If you simply must change your vehicle, be it for fuel efficiency or any other reason, one option is to simply buy a used car that gets better gas mileage than your existing one. There’s much to be said, from many environmental vantage points, about postponing replacement purchases-of anything, not just cars-to keep what’s already made out of the waste stream and to delay the additional environmental costs of making something new.

CONTACTS: www.fueleconomy.gov; www.trackyourgasmileage.com; www.mpgtune.com; www.mymilemarker.com; Greenmeter App, www.hunter.pairsite.com/greenmeter.

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.

“Gas consumption – and prices – historically rise with the temperature as more people drive for work or pleasure during the warmer months,” says Sue Pinera, environmental programs director of the Hertz Corp., leaders in the rental car industry.”

But you can definitely drive green and save yourself some money without having to trade in your reliable, reasonably priced family vehicle for a new one that features the latest eco-friendly technology.”

Summer vacations often mean extra driving, either to your destination in your own vehicle or, if you fly, in a rental car once you’re there. “Of all summer driving, vacation driving can be the most costly and least green,” Pinera points out. “Whether it’s spending time stuck in traffic or driving in circles looking for an attraction site in an unfamiliar location, there are plenty of opportunities to waste gas.”

Car rental agents, who work in tourist areas across the country leasing a variety of vehicles, have seen everything that works – and doesn’t work – when it comes to conserving gas, saving money and preserving the environment while vacation driving. Here are some tips from agents at Hertz for smart vacation driving:

In Your Own Car

* Have your car thoroughly checked out before going on a long vacation road trip. Be sure tires are properly inflated, oil and oil and air filters are fresh, and the air-conditioning is working properly. “Just $100 in preventative maintenance can save you real dollars in terms of fuel efficiency and a great deal of aggravation if you happen to catch a potentially serious problem before you break down on the roadside,” Pinera says.

* Drive smoothly and considerately. Aggressive driving – fast starts, excessive speed, abrupt maneuvers and constant braking – is not only dangerous, it significantly increases your vehicle’s fuel consumption. “You’ll enjoy the ride more and spend less on gas if you just drive friendly,” Pinera says.

* Only use premium fuel if your car’s manufacturer specifically recommends it for your engine type. Regular fuel costs less and premium will not improve your fuel efficiency in anything but a high-performance engine.

* Look for gas stations that offer pumps with vapor-recovery nozzles. They look like black plastic accordions attached to the nozzle. These curb emissions. Likewise, never try to “top off” your tank with these nozzles. They’re designed to shut off when the gas tank is at its optimum fullness. Continuing to pump could lead to overfilling and spilling.

* Try to pack light and avoid putting anything on top of your vehicle. Rooftop storage may increase the risk of rollover in some types of vehicles, and increases drag, which lowers fuel efficiency in all kinds of autos.

In a Rental Car

* Whenever possible, choose a fuel-efficient model, such as a subcompact, compact or economy car. The good news is that these are usually the least expensive to rent from any company.

* Consider renting a hybrid. Hertz, for example, offers a “Green Collection” of rental cars that includes fuel-sipping hybrids like the Toyota Prius or other environmentally friendly vehicles like the Toyota Camry or Hyundai Sonata, which feature an average Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) highway fuel efficiency rating of 31 miles per gallon.

* Paying the extra fee for a navigation system can go a long way towards saving you time (and money) driving around lost. “Navigation systems can help you find your way in unfamiliar territory, helping you reach your list of attractions with a minimum of time and gas lost,” Pinera says. “How you entertain the kids in the back seat, however, is entirely up to you.”

For more green driving tips, visit www.greencars.org or www.epa.gov/air/actions/drive_wise.

Courtesy of ARAcontent

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, Cozypure, Greensleep/Vimala, EcoChoices, Keetsa, Gaiam, Ikea, Holy Lamb Organics, Mary Jane’s Farm, The Green Robin, Jan Eleni, Kushtush Organics, Native Organic, Northern Naturals, Under the Canopy and Green and More.

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, Climate Trust, TerraPass, NativeEnergy, Sustainable Travel International, Clean Air-Cool Planet and EcoBusinessLinks.

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.