Matthew Mazzotta, armed with a $4,000 grant from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, created the ingenious Park Spark converter system that uses dog poop to power a gas lantern that illuminates a corner of the Pacific Street Dog Park in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Pictured: A local resident admires Mazzotta's handiwork . (Media credit/Luke Ryan via Flickr)

Dear EarthTalk: Is there a way to utilize the energy in my dogs’ poop? I have three dogs and lots of poop and would like to dispose of it in a “greener” manner. — Mary C., Wallace, ID

No doubt creating a way to do so is possible, as large systems called anaerobic digesters (or biogas digesters) are often used in landfills to wring energy out of trash, as well as on some big farms and ranches where large amounts of cow manure provide plenty of feedstock. In such systems microbes generate methane gas—which can be captured and used for power—once they are set free on manure or trash. The economics of putting biogas digesters in landfills or big cattle operations can make the up-front expense tolerable—money can be made or saved by selling or utilizing the resulting power—but doing so in one’s back yard might be a different story.

Not to say it can’t be done: This past September artist Matthew Mazzotta, armed with a $4,000 grant from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)—where he earned a master’s degree in visual studies last year—created the ingenious Park Spark poop converter system that uses dog poop to power a gas lantern that illuminates a corner of the Pacific Street Dog Park in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The system uses two steel, 500-gallon oil tanks, connected by diagonal black piping and attached to an old gaslight-style street lantern. “After the dogs do their business, signs on the tanks instruct owners to use biodegradable bags supplied on site to pick up the poop and deposit it into the left tank,” reports Jay Lindsay on the Huffington Post. “People then turn a wheel to stir its insides, which contain waste and water. Microbes in the waste give off methane, an odorless gas that is fed through the tanks to the lamp and burned off.” Although the park is small, neighborhood dog owners have provided enough waste for a steady supply of fuel.

The 33-year old Mazzotta got the idea after travelling in India and seeing people there using poop in small “methane digesters” to cook food. When he visited Pacific Street Park with a friend in 2009 and saw the park’s trash can filled with bags of dog poop, the Park Spark idea was born. He hopes the installation, which was dismantled after its one-month run, has helped point out to people that there are potential energy sources all around us, and that we must consider every option at our disposal, so to speak, as we wean ourselves off oil in the face of impending climate change.

Besides reducing waste going to landfills, another environmental benefit of utilizing dog poop for energy is reducing one’s carbon footprint. Burning methane derived from dog poop or other biodegradable waste material in an anaerobic digester is carbon neutral, meaning it doesn’t contribute any new greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that could exacerbate global warming.

While it might not be worth $4,000 or a degree from MIT for you to create your own version of the Park Spark in your backyard, it’s good to know that such technology exists, and will no doubt someday be available and affordable for the rest of us as long as we continue to show find ways to reduce, reuse and recycle everything we possibly can.

CONTACTS: The Park Spark Project, www.parksparkproject.com; The Huffington Post, www.huffingtonpost.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Are there efforts to increase bike lanes and paths around the nation? I’d like to be able to bike more instead of drive, but I’m concerned about safety. — John Shields, Minneapolis, MN

Around the U.S. new bike lanes and paths are all the rage, helping cash-strapped cities simultaneously green operations and trim budgets—adding bike lanes is far less costly (to taxpayers and the environment) than building new roads. Also, the nonprofit League of American Bicyclists reports that real estate values increase with proximity to bike paths. “People enjoy living close to bike paths and are willing to pay more for an otherwise comparable house to be closer to one,” the group reports, citing examples from Indiana, California and elsewhere showing that homes near bike trails command a premium upwards of 10 percent.

In New York City, bicycling is the fastest growing mode of transportation. A 2006 citywide mandate has led to the laying down of some 200 miles of new bike paths recently. Also, the area around Madison Square in midtown is now bike-friendly; seven blocks of Broadway now feature green-painted bike lanes between the curb and the parking lane to provide cyclists with a buffer against rushing motorized traffic.

In September, central Tennessee (Nashville and environs) adopted an ambitious plan to add upwards of 1,000 miles of bike paths (also 750 miles of sidewalks) across seven counties, a scheme that won the “best project” award from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Nashville itself will increase alternative transportation spending from 0.5 percent to 15 percent of its transportation budget, and hopes to reduce traffic congestion and obesity—Tennessee has the nation’s second highest rate of obesity—in the process.

Portland, Oregon, long a leading U.S. city on environmental policy, has allocated over $20 million over the last few years for bicycle infrastructure improvements, and plans to spend another $24 million upgrading the city’s network of bike paths and trails. One of the city’s latest innovations has been to convert two parking spaces on city streets to bike corrals capable of holding two dozen bicycles. In addition the Bike Portland blog reports that the city now supports some 125 bike related businesses, mostly small and locally owned, covering everything from custom bike building to accessories and repair.

In Davis, California, named America’s top cycling city by the League of American Bicyclists, bikes outnumber cars and bike paths occupy 95 percent of arterial and collector roads there. Some 14 percent of all commuters in Davis commute to work by bike, which is 35 times the national average. Other cities in the League’s Top 10 include Palo Alto and San Francisco in California; Corvallis, Portland and Eugene in Oregon; Boulder, Colorado; Madison, Wisconsin; Tucson, Arizona; and Seattle, Washington.

Some cities—New York, Los Angeles, Seattle—make available maps of bicycle routes. The inclusion of bike routes on Google Maps has also been a boon to cyclists across the country looking for the safest and most direct routes. Users can click on a bicycle icon after hitting “Get Directions.” Local bicycle clubs are a good place to turn to find the best bike-friendly routes though your region; The A1 Trails website provides a comprehensive list of bike clubs and other resources around the U.S. and Canada. With so many tools and new infrastructure, it might be high time to leave the car parked and hop on your bicycle.

CONTACTS: League of America Bicyclists, www.bikeleague.org; Institute of Transportation Engineers, www.ite.org; Bike Portland, www.bikeportland.org; A1 Trails, www.a1trails.com.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently detected huge deepwater plumes of dispersed oil up to 30 miles long, seven miles wide and hundreds of feet thick. Pictured here: Workers clean off an oil-soaked pelican at the Fort Jackson, Louisiana International Bird Rescue Research Center (Media credit/Lorna Baldwin, PBS NewsHour via Flickr)

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that the BP oil leak is much more of an environmental threat than previous spills from tankers, and if so why? – Nathan Gore, Pawtucket, RI

No one knows for sure how the ongoing oil catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico will affect the deep sea ecosystem, but scientists are not optimistic. Oil from what is now considered the nation’s second largest spill, 1989′s Exxon Valdez mishap, slicked 11,000 square miles of ocean surface and 1,300 miles of pristine Alaskan coastline while killing hundreds of thousands of birds and marine mammals and untold numbers of fish and fish eggs. But the impacts of the ongoing Deepwater Horizon leak in the Gulf may be far worse given that much of the loose oil is actually in the water column, not on the surface. In fact, researchers from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently detected huge deepwater plumes of dispersed oil up to 30 miles long, seven miles wide and hundreds of feet thick.

Why would an undersea spill be worse? One outcome could be the expansion in size and extension in time of a seasonal "dead zone" that already plagues the Gulf of Mexico as a result of industrial pollutants and agricultural run-off from the Mississippi River. While huge Gulf of Mexico algae blooms help to naturally clean up the Midwest’s factory emissions and wasted fertilizer, such a process doesn’t come without a cost to the ecosystem. Every spring, in a condition known as hypoxia, this fast growing algae depletes large sections of the Gulf’s water column of the oxygen crucial for other life forms to survive there. The BP oil spill is likely to exacerbate this problem, as natural oil-eating microbes swarming over undersea oil plumes could cause or add to hypoxic conditions in otherwise teeming swaths of the Gulf.

According to NOAA researcher Samantha Joye, the undersea oil poses a direct threat to large marine wildlife, such as fish, sharks and cetaceans, and also to the tiny stuff, including zooplankton, shrimp, corals, crabs and worms. By endangering these latter populations, the foundation of the marine food chain, the oil could have chronic long-term effects on the wider Gulf ecosystem, including the industries—more shrimp and oysters come from the Gulf than anywhere else in the world—that rely on them.

Another worry is how the chemical dispersants being used to break up the undersea oil will impact the Gulf’s ecosystems and inhabitants. The dispersant’s ingredients are a trade secret closely held by the company that makes it, and therefore have not been vetted by marine biologists to determine their safety for use in such a large application. It also remains to be seen what impact the tiny oil droplets left in the dispersant’s wake will have. It could actually be worse for the undersea environment to break the oil up into tiny droplets (which is done to try to make it easier for microbes to digest them).

Beyond all these undersea environmental effects, the oil is also starting to wash up into coastal wetlands already besieged by overdevelopment, pollution and the lingering effects of Hurricane Katrina. If there can be any silver lining to this catastrophe, it may be that it is the wake-up call we’ve needed to start moving more rapidly away from fossil fuels to a clean, renewable energy future. For starters, we can all begin to reduce our own oil consumption and opt for clean and green energy sources whenever possible.

CONTACTS: Deepwater Horizon Response, www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com; NOAA, www.noaa.gov.

Dear EarthTalk: Where does ethanol as an automobile fuel fit into the alternative energy mix? Is it better for the environment than gasoline? – Donna Allgaier-Lamberti, Pullman, MI

Ethanol—a biofuel derived from corn and other feedstocks—is already playing a major role in helping to reduce emissions from many of the traditional gasoline-powered cars on the road today. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, nearly half of all the gasoline sold in the U.S. contains up to 10 percent ethanol, which not only boosts octane but also helps meet federally mandated air quality requirements. By promoting more complete fuel combustion, this small amount of ethanol mixed into gasoline reduces exhaust emissions of carbon monoxide—a regulated pollutant linked to smog, acid rain, global warming and other environmental problems—by as much as 30 percent compared with pure gasoline.

Also, a growing number of so-called "flex-fuel" vehicles now available can run on either straight unleaded gasoline or so-called E85, a mix of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. Ethanol proponents underscore emissions savings, cost stability (ethanol is distilled from domestically grown corn) and reduced reliance on (foreign) oil as benefits of more drivers filling up their tanks with E85 instead of gas.

But even though some eight million flex-fuel vehicles are now on U.S. roads, most of them are not near convenient ethanol refilling stations and are therefore mostly running on regular gasoline. (The U.S. Department of Energy website has a map-based listing of E85 refueling stations across the country—most are in the Midwest’s "corn belt.") So while the capacity and perhaps demand for a cleaner burning fuel is there, supplies have not kept pace—some say because the federal government has subsidized ethanol producers only and not the distributors and retailers who get the product to customers.

But this may change. In May 2009 President Obama signed a Presidential Directive to advance research into biofuels like ethanol and expand their use. The resulting Biofuels Interagency Working Group is developing a plan to increase flex fuel vehicle use by making E85 and other biofuels more available.

While many environmental advocates view increasing ethanol use as a promising development (if drivers would actually fill up with it), others are not so sure. Cornell agriculture professor David Pimentel argues that producing ethanol actually creates a net energy loss. His research shows that a gallon of ethanol contains 77,000 BTUs of energy for engines to burn but requires 131,000 BTUs to process into usable fuel, not including additional BTUs burned from fossil fuel sources to power the farm equipment to grow the corn, and the barges, trains and trucks used to transport it to refineries and ultimately fueling stations.

Pimentel also says that powering a car for a single year on ethanol would require 11 acres of corn, which could alternatively feed at least seven people. If we step up our use of ethanol and begin putting our farmers’ yields into gas tanks instead of on dinner tables, we could see a shortage of domestically grown food and higher prices at the grocery store. To address this problem, biofuels producers are researching alternative non-food feedstocks such as algae, corn stalks, wood chips and switchgrass, though they would still make use of arable land that could grow food for human consumption.

CONTACTS: U.S. Department of Energy, www.energy.gov; Argonne National Laboratory, www.anl.gov; E85 Fueling Station Locations, www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/ethanol/ethanol_locations.html.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E — The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: Has the recent violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo threatened the populations of lowland gorillas? How many are left? – Glenn Hammond, San Francisco, CA

The short answer is yes, dramatically. Not to be confused with Western Lowland Gorillas, which are thriving in significant numbers in neighboring Congo (a recent census counted 125,000), today fewer than 5,000 Eastern Lowland Gorillas are estimated to remain in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), formerly known as Zaire. Some 17,000 inhabited the region as recently as 1994, but today habitat loss, hunting, and war and violence are combining to push them over the edge.

Following the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, an influx of refugees, along with bloodthirsty militias, moved across the border into the neighboring DRC. These militias set up training grounds in the very forests the gorillas call home, making conservation work impractical to say the least. Park rangers, game wardens and wildlife researchers either fled their wooded beats or were removed at gunpoint.

In the wake of this, civilian populations in the affected areas still had to make ends meet somehow. So hunting for so-called “bushmeat” and cutting down the forest for firewood, charcoal and space for agricultural plots became the means for day-to-day survival, and continue to this day. Some 91 percent of the human population in the region practice subsistence agriculture. This means that large swaths of gorilla habitat throughout the region have been converted to farms. At the same time, 96 percent of the locals rely on firewood as their main supply of energy for warmth and cooking. “Forested parks are for many of them the last remaining source of fuel” reports the Year of the Gorilla website.

Because the violence has been so persistent and the research areas so vulnerable, scientists don’t really know how badly Eastern Lowland Gorilla populations have been affected. The Year of the Gorilla Project, in conjunction with the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF), the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and other groups, is working to reinstate regular monitoring and effective surveillance of the remaining Eastern Lowland Gorilla population throughout Kahuzi-Biega National Park, where armed factions have proliferated.

“The last reliable data on population size and distribution were recorded in 1995, and it is suspected that the population has shrunk dramatically since” reports the Year of the Gorilla website. “New, precise information will be one outcome of this project, enabling intelligent and effective approaches to the conservation of this rare species.”

Biologists, environmentalists and wildlife fans the world over are certainly hoping for the best, and will no doubt continue to watch what happens as the fate of some of our closest relatives on the planet hangs in the balance.

CONTACTS: Year of the Gorilla, www.yog2009.org; WWF, www.panda.org; WCS, www.wcs.org; Congolese Institute for the Conservation of Nature, www.fieldmuseum.org/congo/insticcn.html;

Dear EarthTalk: I know of solar power systems that people can put on their roofs to generate electricity or heat water. Are there systems that serve whole neighborhoods? — Lee Helscel, via email

Collective bargaining is a good strategy when looking to get the best price on a given product or service. Solar power is no exception, and dozens of neighborhood-wide installations in the U.S. and Canada have created a new model whereby going solar can actually start to pencil out for individual homeowners.

One of the first neighborhood-wide solar installations in the world was at the master-planned community of Drake Landing in the town of Okotoks in Alberta, Canada. The entire community, now with more than 50 homes built and occupied, is heated by a neighborhood-wide “borehole thermal energy” system designed to store abundant solar energy underground during the summer and distribute it to each home as needed for space heating throughout the winter. The system, which launched in June 2007, now fulfills some 90 percent of each home’s space heating needs, with any slack taken up by fossil fuels.

While some planned communities like Drake Landing incorporated neighborhood solar power from the get-go, others decided it made sense after they were first built. One example is the deal that homeowners in Marin County, California can get in on, thanks to the hard work of the nonprofit GoSolarMarin. The group negotiated discounted group rates with several photovoltaic solar panel providers, and eventually signed on with SolarCity, a Silicon Valley based solar provider that operates some 30 different “community solar programs” across California, Arizona and Oregon.

GoSolarMarin was able to negotiate a rate some 25 percent lower than what a typical solar installation would cost for Marin County residents willing to participate. And best of all, homeowners can lease from SolarCity instead of having to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket to buy equipment that may become obsolete in a few years. SolarCity monitors all clients’ installations online to ensure that they are running at peak performance, and also makes house calls for maintenance as needed.

While California is no doubt a leader in residential solar power, the concept is spreading. Neighborhood Solar, for instance, is a Colorado-based nonprofit formed to accelerate the adoption of residential solar power in the Denver Metro area. The group organizes homeowners into collective solar purchasing groups, and negotiates significant discounts accordingly. “We act as an independent buyer’s agent” the group reports on its website, “with the goal of providing the best value to residential solar purchasers while helping installers put up more solar at reduced overhead costs.”

Community-based groups like GoSolarMarin and Neighborhood Solar are springing up all over the country, and dozens of solar companies have now adopted the community installation model. Community leaders interested in neighborhood-scope solar programs should shop around for the best prices and service guarantees before signing with any one solar provider. There’s a lot individuals can do to be part of clean energy solutions; there’s even more a group working in concert can accomplish, and community-based solar is but one bright and shining example.

CONTACTS: Drake Landing Solar Community, www.dlsc.ca; GoSolarMarin, www.gosolarmarin.com; SolarCity, www.solarcity.com; Neighborhood Solar, www.neighborlysolar.com.

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

Dear EarthTalk: What were the environmental impacts of the huge coal ash spill in Tennessee this past December? — Dave S, Lynnfield, MA

Environmentalists’ call for an end to the age of coal-one of the dirtiest and most common of all the fossil fuels we now use-took on new urgency this past December when some 525 million gallons of wet coal ash, enough toxic slurry to flood more than 3,000 acres of nearby land, spilled into the nearby Tennessee River and surrounding areas when a retaining wall at a power plant in the town of Harriman gave way.

The sludge destroyed 12 homes, though no one was directly injured. However, an unprecedented fish kill occurred in the Tennessee River and area tributaries in the aftermath of the spill. According to John Moulton, a spokesman for the Tennessee Valley Authority which owns the plant, a test of river water near the spill site found elevated levels of lead and thallium, both of which have been linked to birth defects and nervous and reproductive system disorders. He reassured locals that, although these substances exceeded safety limits for drinking water, they would be filtered out by normal water treatment processes.

But some area residents aren’t so sure that they are safe from the effects of the spill, which is estimated to have been over 40 times bigger by volume than the infamous Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989. Calling it an “environmental disaster of epic proportions,” Carol Kimmons, a local resident who works at the non-profit Sequatchie Valley Institute, told reporters that the nasty black ash flowed into “the water supply for Chattanooga and millions of people living downstream in Alabama, Tennessee and Kentucky.” She added that the spill was 70 percent bigger than a similar one in Kentucky in October 2000 (306 million gallons) that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) referred to at the time as “one of the worst environmental disasters in the Southeastern United States.”

More than a year after that Kentucky spill, researchers found levels of lead downstream from where the spill took place that were 400 times higher than the EPA’s safe limit. And levels of Beryllium were 160 times higher than acceptable EPA levels. “Coal contains huge amounts of heavy metals, and when coal is burned, the organic matter burns off, but many of the nasty chemicals stick around, in higher concentrations,” said Kimmons. “Also, coal is ‘washed’ using some really nasty chemicals, which are also left over in coal slurry.” The bottom line, she concluded, is that “coal slurry is really, really toxic stuff.”

Ironically, on the very same day as the huge Tennessee spill, a coalition of 39 non-profit groups delivered a letter to then President-elect Barack Obama asking him to overturn a pending Bush administration rule change that would ease regulations on coal waste disposal. The groups contend that coal ash has already polluted 23 states and that the proposed new rule would only allow more pollution and more risks to human health and the environment. Now-President Obama has pledged to undertake a comprehensive inventory of liquid coal ash waste and propose new regulations to ensure its safe disposal.

“This disaster proves that regulations around coal slurry impoundments need to be tightened, and not loosened,” says Kimmons. Only time will tell if verbal commitments from Washington materialize into help on the ground.

CONTACTS: Sequatchie Valley Institute, svionline.org; Tennessee Valley Authority, tva.gov.

Dear EarthTalk: I run a sorting machine at the post office, and am worried about all the paper dust swirling around the building. I asked both management and our union if this was a health or safety problem and both said no, but I’m not sure they really know. Can you set the record straight?

– J.G. Eddins, Phoenix, AZ

One of the drawbacks to the increasing mechanization of postal facilities is the increase in paper dust. The machines doing the grunt work loosen the dust and send it airborne where workers can breathe it in copiously. Contrary to what management and the union may say, paper dust can be a hazard to postal workers, causing and exacerbating respiratory problems. Sorting machines could also theoretically disperse contaminants (such as anthrax) intentionally sent through the mail into postal facilities, further adding to the risk of the job.

“There’s no federal safety standard on it, so it’s a real problem,” reports Bob Williamson, president of the San Francisco chapter of the American Postal Workers Union (APWU). “We’ve had people who have developed occupational asthma from breathing the fine dust.” Other reported problems include bronchitis, allergic reactions, migraines, bacterial infections, conjunctivitis and sore throats.

In the Fall of 2008, more than 450 current and former postal employees, many in the Chicago area, signed a petition to occupational health officials and postal unions blaming health problems on paper dust fibers inside post offices. Some are seeking health benefits to pay for related medical treatment.

“I do believe that my life is going to be shortened,” Delphine Howard, a former manager at two local post offices, told Chicago’s ABC7 News. “I started having severe bronchitis attacks, severe asthma attacks, and severe chest pains.” She worked for the postal service from 1987 until 2005 when her doctor diagnosed her with “a medical condition that is affected by unclean air, dust particles and residue in volumes in her present employment areas.” Several other Chicago area postal workers complained of similar symptoms as a result of ongoing exposure to postal dust.

The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) studied the issue in 1998 and found no direct link between health and postal dust, but did discover that sorting machines could send potentially carcinogenic volatile organic compounds (such as ink) and other irritants like dust mites, into the air. The USPS told ABC7 News it had “only received two direct complaints of respiratory problems in the last several years.”

Diligent cleaning of the machines can help keep the problem in check. “Vacuum and wipe down the machines every day rather than resorting to the quicker method of blowing the dust off the machines and into the air,” says the APWU’s Williamson, adding that workers can also wear masks to minimize breathing in of postal dust and any contaminants in the air with it. He also recommends that post offices rotate their workers around to different duties to avoid perpetual exposure to potentially harmful or aggravating activities. Besides dealing with paper dust, mail sorters frequently suffer from muscular-skeletal problems associated with repetitive motion strain.

CONTACTS: American Postal Workers Union (APWU), apwu.org; U.S. Postal Service, usps.com.

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

Dear EarthTalk: I don’t understand why there are many European diesel cars with very high mileage ratings that are not available in the U.S. Can you enlighten? – John Healy, Fairfield, CT

Different countries do have differing standards in regard to how much pollution gasoline and diesel automobile engines are allowed to emit, but the reason you see so fewer diesel cars in the U.S. is more of a choice by automakers than the product of a decree by regulators on either side of the Atlantic.

Since the advent of the automobile age in the U.S., gasoline has been king of the road; today upwards of 95 percent of passenger cars and light trucks on American roads are gas-powered. And the federal government has done its part to keep it that way, taxing diesel at a rate about 25 percent higher than gasoline. A recent assessment by the American Petroleum Institute, an oil industry trade group, found that federal taxes accounted for 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel but only 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline.

In Europe, where in many regions about half of the cars on the road run on diesel, these tax incentives are flip-flopped, with diesel drivers reaping the economic benefits accordingly.

But according to Jonathan Welsh, who writes the “Me and My Car” Q&A column for The Wall Street Journal, interest in diesels-which typically offer better fuel efficiency than gas-powered cars-has gained significant momentum in the U.S. in recent years given the uptick in gasoline prices. The popularity of diesels also surged, albeit briefly, in the mid-1970s after the U.S. suffered its first “oil shock” that sent gas prices through the roof. But gas prices settled down and so did American fervor for diesels at that point.

Today, though, with so much emphasis on going green, diesel cars-some of which boast similar fuel efficiency numbers as hybrids-are on the comeback trail in the U.S. Recently passed regulations require diesel fuel sold in the U.S. today to have ultra low emissions, which appeals to those concerned about their carbon footprints and other environmental impacts. Also, the increased availability of carbon-neutral biodiesel-a form of diesel fuel made from agricultural wastes that can be used in place of regular diesel fuel without any engine modifications-is convincing a whole new generation of American drivers to consider diesel-powered cars. Right now only Volkswagen, Mercedes and Jeep sell diesel-powered cars in the U.S., but Ford, Nissan and others plan to launch American versions of diesel models already successful in Europe within the next year.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Coalition for Advanced Diesel Cars, a trade group that represents several automakers as well as parts and fuel suppliers, would like to see the U.S. government increase incentives for American drivers to choose diesel-powered engines by leveling the fuel taxation field-so gasoline and diesel could be competing fairly at the pump-and by boosting tax breaks on the purchase of new, more fuel efficient diesel vehicles. One hurdle is the relative lack of filling stations across the U.S. with diesel pumps, but as such vehicles become more popular, filling stations that don’t already offer them can relatively easily add a diesel pump or two.

CONTACTS: American Petroleum Institute, www.api.org; U.S. Coalition for Advanced Diesel Cars, www.cleandieseldelivers.com.

Dear EarthTalk: What does “carbon neutral” really mean? And is it really possible to live in such a manner without just resorting to buying carbon credits? –Vera Hoffman, Seattle, WA

Carbon neutral is a term that has sprouted many definitions, and how to achieve it has spawned numerous interpretations, too. According to the New Oxford American Dictionary, which made carbon neutral its 2006 “Word of the Year,” it involves “calculating your total climate-damaging carbon emissions, reducing them where possible, and then balancing your remaining emissions, often by purchasing a carbon offset.”

But the term is really so ’06. Today’s term, “climate neutral,” complicates the issue. Tracking carbon is great, but carbon dioxide (CO2) is only one of several greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, says the 2008 publication, Kick the Habit: A U.N. Guide to Climate Neutrality, by the United Nations Environment Program. CO2 makes up some 80 percent of the world’s greenhouse gases, but five others-nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride and methane-also contribute. Limits on all six gases were called for by the Kyoto Protocol international climate treaty.

Semantics aside, whether a person can live in a climate-neutral manner is a question of lifestyle choices and making improvements over time. Start your climate neutral quest by calculating your energy usage. Type “climate footprint” or “carbon footprint” into Google and try a couple of calculators that track use in different ways. One is Earthlab’s (https://www.earthlab.com/createprofile/reg.aspx); the University of California at Berkeley also offers one at: http://bie.berkeley.edu/files/ConsumerFootprintCalc.swf.

For a calculation, you’ll need information about your home energy use and your travel by car and public transit. Some calculators ask whether you’re vegetarian, how much you recycle and compost, and how much you spend buying goods and dining out. The equation can get involved. Record your information sources, and then revisit the calculator periodically with new numbers to see how you’re doing.

The final element involves a carbon offset, “an emission reduction credit from another organization’s project that results in less carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than would otherwise occur,” says the David Suzuki Foundation, which promotes “ways for society to live in balance with the natural world.” You can purchase credits from a renewable energy company, for instance, to offset the amount of carbon emissions you can’t eliminate through other measures.

Will your efforts make a difference? Kick the Habit says that, for individuals, “less than 50 percent are direct emissions (such as driving a car or using a heater).” About 20 percent are caused by the creation, use and disposal of products we use; 25 percent comes from powering workplaces; and 10 percent from maintaining public infrastructure. You can drive your car less and turn down the heat, but consider ways you can affect business and government policies that could tap into that other 50-plus percent.

“We are all part of the solution,” wrote U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in the foreword to Kick the Habit. “Whether you are an individual, a business, an organization or a government, there are many steps you can take to reduce your climate footprint. It is a message we must all take to heart.”

CONTACT: Kick the Habit, www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/kick-the-habit.

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

Dear EarthTalk: I want to start an organic vegetable garden in my yard and I would like to know how to combine crops to make better use of time and space. – Val Thomason, Denton, TX

Most commercial farms concentrate on growing a few select crops to supply a wide variety of customers, but gardening at home is a different story entirely. Most backyard food gardeners are looking to augment their family’s diet with a variety of seasonal fruits, vegetables and herbs throughout the growing season.

For those of us who face time and space constraints in our gardening endeavors, combining crops within the same planting areas makes a lot of sense. Such techniques are particularly well-suited to organic gardens where chemical fertilizers and pesticides aren’t used to artificially boost crop productivity.

The most common way to combine garden crops is via an age-old technique called interplanting, which in essence means planting various garden edibles with different growth and spacing attributes together in the same soil beds or rows. One example involves combining fast-maturing vegetables, such as lettuce, field greens or beets, with slower-maturing ones like winter squash or pole beans. According to the informational “Our Garden Gang” website, mixing tall plants, like sweet corn, peas or staked tomatoes, with low-growing crops such as melons or radishes, is another way to maximize diversity and yield.

Building on the idea of interplanting, Better Homes & Gardens magazine suggests that gardeners combine plants that produce vines and can be grown on trellises or fences along with low-growing crops. So-called “vertical gardening” concentrates much more production into each square foot of planting area. Also, the magazine reports, crops grown off the ground “tend to be healthier because they are less likely to contract fungus infections or soil-borne leaf diseases.” Tomatoes, pole beans, cucumbers, snap peas, melons and winter squash are all examples of crops suitable for vertical gardening if staked or supported properly.

Another common technique often employed by “weekend” gardeners, organic or otherwise, is succession planting, which entails replacing a finished crop with a different one, or planting a single crop in small amounts over an extended period of time. One example would be to replace a spring crop with a summer crop, such as planting cucumbers-which thrive in warmer weather-where the peas had been growing earlier. Another form of succession planting involves staggering the planting of seeds from one specific crop throughout its growing season to ensure a continuing supply as long as possible.

Some crops particularly well-suited to succession planting include bush beans, lettuce, spinach and radishes, each of which have long growing seasons but can be harvested after only a few weeks. A related technique would be to plant both early- and late-maturing varieties of the same type of crop around the same time, and harvesting the resulting crops successively. Tomatoes and corn, for example, each come in varieties that ripen at different times during their respective growing seasons.

And while it may be easy to get carried away with edible gardening, don’t forget to plant a few flowers to spruce up the look of your garden and also attract bees to help pollinate your food crops. Marigolds and sunflowers are good choices as they are relatively easy to grow organically and tend to attract lots of bees.

CONTACTS: Our Garden Gang, http://ourgardengang.tripod.com; Better Homes & Gardens, www.bhg.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Are there any flea and tick products out there that don’t contain toxic chemicals?

–Ewan Locke, Madison, WI

Harmful pesticides in mainstream flea and tick products are indeed hazardous to more than insects. The active substance in most of these products is likely one of seven common organophosphate insecticides (OPs), which work by interfering with the transmission of nerve signals in the brains and nervous systems of not just insects-most of whom die on the spot-but to a lesser degree in pets and humans as well. While it would certainly take an awful lot of exposure to OPs to affect a full-grown healthy human adult, no one is sure how the chemicals might affect children or those with pre-existing nerve disorders.

The non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which authored the 2000 report “Poisons on Pets” (results are online at the group’s GreenPaws.org website), reports that “studies with lab animals have raised concerns among scientists that children exposed to certain of the pesticides in pet products-even at levels believed to be safe for adults-face much higher risks, not only for acute poisoning, but also for longer-term problems with brain function and other serious disease.” The group adds that children’s behavior-notably toddlers’ hand-to-mouth tendencies and the fact that kids play where such toxins often accumulate-makes them more vulnerable to ingesting OPs than adults in the same household.

The magnitude of the potential risk to public health is what makes the inclusion of such chemicals in pet products so troubling: Surveys show that as many as 50 percent of American families report using some kind of flea and tick control product on pets, subjecting untold millions of children to toxic chemicals on a daily basis. Initial research also shows that thousands of pets may be sickened or die each year as a result of chronic low-dose exposure to OPs through their flea and tick collars.

Fortunately, several non-toxic alternatives to OP-laden flea and tick control products are now available. NRDC tested upwards of 125 pet-oriented flea and tick control products for its Poisons on Pets report and found less than two dozen that don’t contain harmful chemical compounds. Stripe-On formulations from Adams, Breakthru, Demize and Scratchex get high marks from NRDC for low-toxicity, while tabs (pills) from Comfortis, Program and Sentinel also make the safety grade. Hartz, which uses OPs in most of its product line, also offers some safer formulations (Spot-On, Advanced Care and Ultra Guard) for cats and kittens. These products rely on insect growth regulators, which arrest the growth and development of young fleas, rather than pesticides to simply kill them. NRDC notes, however, that even these safer formulations contain chemicals, and that all such products should be used with caution.

One way to treat your pet but avoid chemicals altogether is to go the essential oil route.‚  Oils from cedarwood, lemongrass, peppermint, rosemary or thyme have all been shown to be effective, when used sparingly, to keep fleas and ticks away from pets and their favorite haunts. Of course, a little conscientious legwork can obviate the need for any kind of topical or pill-based flea and tick control products, toxic or otherwise. According to NRDC, frequent washing and combing of pets and vacuuming carpets and furniture can bring mild flea infestations under control and help avoid outbreaks altogether.

CONTACT: NRDC Green Paws, www.greenpaws.org; Scratchex, www.scratchex.com; Sentinel, www.sentinelpet.com; Comfortis, www.comfortis4dogs.com; Hartz, www.hartz.com.

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

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that palm oil, common in snack foods and health & beauty products, is destroying rainforests? If so, what can consumers do about it? – Emma Miniscalco, via e-mail

It’s no wonder that worldwide demand for palm oil has surged in recent years. Long used in cosmetics, palm oil is now all the rage in the snack food industry, since it is transfat-free and therefore seen as healthier than the shortening it replaces.

But to produce palm oil in large enough quantities to meet growing demand, farmers across Southeast Asia have been clearing huge swaths of biodiversity-rich tropical rainforest to make room for massive palm plantations. Today palm oil production is the largest cause of deforestation in Indonesia and other equatorial countries with dwindling expanses of tropical rainforest. Indonesia’s endangered orangutan population, which depends upon the rainforest, has dwindled by as much as 50 percent in recent years.

The clearing of these forests is a big factor in global warming, given how much carbon dioxide (CO2) trees store when left alone. Once forests are cut, tons of CO2 heads skyward where it does the most harm. Also, when not replaced by palm oil plantations, rainforests help maintain water resources by absorbing rainfall and then releasing it into streams and rivers, thus minimizing flooding and soil depletion.

Simply boycotting palm oil and the products containing it may not help, as reduced demand could force the companies behind the plantations to instead initiate more intensive timber harvesting and a widespread conversion of the land to agriculture, which would add a heavy pollution load onto the already compromised land, air and water. It is up to the countries involved in palm oil production to regulate the industry and budget sufficient funds for enforcement. But with huge profits coming in from the sale of palm oil, public officials in Indonesia and elsewhere are loathe to clamp down on their golden goose.

Several of the largest palm oil producers have joined forces with banks and nonprofit groups to try to green up the industry. In 2003, some 200 commercial entities in the global palm oil supply chain met and established the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) to promote the growth of palm oil in an environmentally friendly manner. RSPO works to develop definitions and criteria for the sustainable production of palm oil, while facilitating the adoption of more green-friendly practices throughout the industry. The group celebrated its first shipment of “sustainable palm oil” to Europe this past November.

Despite progress, many green leaders are skeptical that RSPO has the teeth to make a positive impact on the fast-growing palm oil industry. Greenpeace International considers RSPO to be “little more than greenwash,” pointing out that at least one RSPO-certified producer-United Plantations, a supplier to Nestlƒ© and Unilever-is deforesting Indonesia’s vulnerable peat land forests. And Sinar Mas, another major RSPO player, has cleared tropical rainforest all over the country for its palm oil plantations, and is still expanding rapidly. Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium on deforestation throughout Indonesia so that the RSPO and the government can take stock and then proceed accordingly.

CONTACTS: RSPO, www.rspo.org; Greenpeace, www.greenpeace.org.

Dear EarthTalk: My wife and I drive more than 20,000 miles a year in our recreational vehicle (RV) which gets about seven miles to the gallon, but high fuel prices are eating into our nest egg. Are there more fuel efficient ways to enjoy the RV lifestyle? — Walter Hendricks, Tampa, Florida

Major RV manufacturers all report a downturn in sales since the price of fuel started to skyrocket a few years ago. A typical RV weighs more and gets worse gas mileage than an 18-wheeler truck, and those who might have bought one in the past to save money on lodging and food on their road travels are now realizing that filling “Ëœer up might end up costing more than hotels and restaurants.

But as with the auto and truck industry overall, some RV manufacturers are scrambling to incorporate new features and design new models with better fuel efficiency and a lower overall carbon footprint.

According to the website RV.net, several factors go into designing a greener RV. First and foremost is reducing weight, which can be accomplished by using lighter materials and improving the structural design. Reducing the size of RV engines also can help reduce fuel consumption (as well as overall weight)-if owners can live with trading off some horsepower, that is. More efficient transmissions, better aerodynamics and increased non-powered engine cooling round out the suggestions on RV.net.

Some of these features can be found in the new Avanti line of RVs from Indiana-based Damon Motor Coach, which offers a 70 percent or more increase in fuel economy over other large (“Class A”) RVs. Damon essentially converted the ultra-efficient chassis, engine and transmission of a leading parcel delivery fleet truck-package delivery companies optimize for fuel efficiency in their fleets to save on fuel-for use as an RV. The Avanti’s chassis also sits lower than other RVs, so it gets less wind resistance. These factors add up in fuel efficiency-14.5 miles per gallon-double that of other RVs in its class.

Of course, size isn’t everything. Ontario-based Roadtrek takes stripped down commercial vans-such as the Chevrolet Express or Dodge Sprinter-and converts them into deluxe, albeit smaller, motor homes with fuel efficiency ranging from 15 to 30 miles per gallon. Meanwhile, Sportsmobile also offers a wide range of converted GM and Ford vans customized as motor homes. Owners of Volkswagen’s popular “pop-top” Eurovan, discontinued in North America in 2003, can reportedly sell their vans for what they paid for them new, even with high mileage, due to surging demand and lack of supply.

Another option for reducing fuel consumption is to put a “slide-in” camper-top onto an existing pick-up truck. The additional weight will decrease fuel efficiency slightly, but you’ll still get much better mileage than with any kind of large RV. Those used to roomier accommodations might opt to tow a “fifth-wheel”-a large RV-style trailer with all the amenities-behind a suitable car, pick-up or SUV with a trailer hitch.

But no matter what, living on the road is not going to be good for your carbon footprint or for the environment in general. If the environment is a big concern, giving up the RV-and outfitting your home with energy efficient windows and appliances-might just be the most responsible thing you can do.

CONTACTS: RV.net, www.rv.net; Damon Motor Coach, www.damonrv.com; Roadtrek, www.roadtrek.com; Sportsmobile, www.sportsmobile.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.

EarthTalk^TM

From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: I caught the tail end of a discussion about “ecopsychology” recently on the radio, something about the negative impacts of people not communing with nature enough, spending too much time watching TV, sitting at computers, etc… Can you enlighten? — Bridget W., Seattle, WA

The term ecopsychology, first coined by writer and theorist Theodore Roszak in his 1992 book, Voice of the Earth, is loosely defined as the connection between ecology and human psychology. Roszak argues that humans can heal what he calls their “psychological alienation” from nature and build a more sustainable society if they recognize that we all have an innate emotional bond with the natural world.

The basic premise is that we operate under an illusion that people are separate from nature, and that humans are more apt to derive comfort and even inspiration from contact with the natural world-with which they evolved over the millennia-than with the relatively recent construct of modern urban society. Distancing ourselves from nature, Roszak maintains, has negative psychological consequences for people and also leads to ecological devastation at the hands of a society that, as a result, lacks empathy for nature.

In a more recent essay called “Ecopsychology: Eight Principles,” Roszak, who went on to start the non-profit Ecopsychology Institute, states that the core of the mind is the ecological unconscious, which, if repressed, can lead to an “insane” treatment of nature. “For ecopsychology, repression of the ecological unconscious is the deepest root of collusive madness in industrial society,” he writes, adding that “open access to the ecological unconscious is the path to sanity.”

While many psychotherapists have adopted aspects of ecopsychology in treating various mental illnesses and psychological disorders, the teachings of Roszak and other contributors to the still-evolving field can be helpful even for those not in need of a therapist’s care. John V. Davis, a Naropa University professor who teaches and writes about ecopsychology, for example, says that meditating in the outdoors, participating in wilderness retreats, involving oneself in nature-based festivals or celebrations of the seasons or other natural phenomena, joining in Earth-nurturing activities such as environmental restoration or advocacy work, and spending time around animals (including pets, which have been shown to have healing effects with the elderly and with people with psychological disabilities) are just a few ways in which the discipline can be used by everyday people to the benefit of their psychological health.

Getting kids involved with nature and the outdoors is viewed by ecopsychology fans as key to their development, especially in the technological age we occupy now. Richard Louv, author of the book, Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder, argues that kids are so plugged into television and video games that they’ve lost their connection to the natural world. This disconnect, Louv maintains, has led not only to poor physical fitness among our youth (including obesity), but also long-term mental and spiritual health problems. His work has sparked a worldwide movement to introduce more kids to the wonders of nature through various planned and spontaneous activities.

CONTACTS: Ecopsychology Institute, ecopsychology.athabascau.ca; John V. Davis, www.johnvdavis.com; Richard Louv, www.richardlouv.com; International Institute for Ecopsychology, www.ecopsychology.org; Project NatureConnect, www.ecopsych.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’s the story with animal cloning? Is the meat industry really cloning animals now to “beef up” production? –‚ Frank DeFazio, Sudbury, MA‚ 

Cloning has been controversial ever since Scottish scientists announced in 1996 that they had cloned their first mammal, a sheep they named Dolly. While Dolly lived a painful, arthritic life and died prematurely, possibly due to the imperfections of cloning, industry nonetheless began seeking out ways to capitalize on the new technology. Meanwhile, critics bemoan cloning as immoral and a potential health and safety risk, given the as-yet-unknown consequences of eating foods generated in this way.‚ 

In January 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the sale of cloned animals and their offspring for food, despite fierce opposition from animal welfare and consumer advocacy groups, environmental organizations, some members of Congress, and many consumers.‚ 

“Our evaluation is that the food from cloned animals is as safe as the food we eat every day,” said Stephen Sundlof, the FDA’s chief of veterinary medicine. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has asked that producers withhold cloned animals, but not their offspring, from the food supply while farmers, processors, grocery stores and restaurants decide how they will respond to the FDA’s landmark decision.‚ 

Unsurprisingly, industry groups also argue that beef and milk from cloned animals is safe to consume. They cite a 2005 University of Connecticut study, which concluded that beef and milk from cloned cows did not pose any health or safety threats to people consuming it. But critics say that the oft-cited single study was far too limited to yield any meaningful conclusions: Milk and beef was taken from just six cloned animals, and the study did not take into account whether clones were more susceptible to infection or other microbial problems, as many scientists suspect. Other researchers have noted severe deformities in many cloned animals, as well as a higher incidence of reproductive, immune and other health problems.‚ 

The Washington, DC-based Center for Food Safety, in a petition it filed in late 2006, declared: “The available science shows that cloning presents serious food safety risks, animal welfare concerns and unresolved ethical issues that require strict oversight.” The group announced on September 2, 2008 that 20 leading U.S. food producers-including Kraft Foods, General Mills, Gerber/Nestle, Campbell’s Soup and Ben and Jerry’s-will not use cloned animals in their products. “The move by these companies represents a growing industry trend of responding to consumer demand for better food safety, environmental and animal welfare standards,” the group said in making the announcement.‚ 

Given the FDA’s green light, consumers’ only hope of avoiding cloned animal products may be to appeal to businesses directly not to peddle such items. The Pennsylvania-based American Anti-Vivisection Society, which opposes all forms of animal research and testing, has mounted a campaign to urge McDonald’s to forego cloned animals in its 30,000 restaurants worldwide.‚ 

CONTACTS: U.S. Food & Drug Administration,‚ www.fda.gov; Center for Food Safety,‚ www.centerforfoodsafety.org; American Anti-Vivisection Society,‚ www.aavs.org.‚ 

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve read that household cleaners contain cancer-causing toxic ingredients. What should I do, then, to keep my house clean but also safe for my kids?‚ ‚ – Christine Stewart, via e-mail‚ 

While much of the research is mixed or inconclusive, a variety of human and animal studies have linked chemicals common in household cleaning products with a wide range of health risks.‚ 

The most offensive common ingredients, according to a 2006 study by the University of California Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, are ethylene-based glycol, used commonly as a water-soluble solvent in cleaning agents and classified as a hazardous air pollutant by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and terpenes, a class of chemicals found in lemon, pine and orange oils that can morph into carcinogenic compounds when they mix with ground-level ozone.‚ 

Also, chlorine, often labeled as “sodium hypochlorite” or “hypochlorite,” is almost ubiquitous in household cleaners, unfortunately for the inhabitants of many homes. Breathing in its fumes can irritate the lungs, and as such poses a serious health risk to those with pre-existing heart or respiratory problems.‚ 

According to the non-profit Cancer Prevention Coalition, some other problematic chemicals found in many household cleaners include crystalline silica, an irritant to the eyes and lungs and a likely carcinogen, and butyl cellosolve, which has been linked to kidney and liver problems and is reportedly toxic to forming cells. The group lists dozens of other potentially dangerous ingredients in household products on the “Hazardous Ingredients in Household Products” PDF available for free on its website.‚ 

Gaiam, a leading purveyor of green household and lifestyle items, reports that the average American household contains between three and 25 gallons of toxic materials, mostly in the form of household cleaners filled with petrochemical solvents designed to dissolve dirt. The company bemoans the fact that no law requires cleaning products manufacturers to list ingredients on their labels or to test their products for safety, leaving it up to consumers to make sure their homes are not only clean, but also non-toxic.‚ 

Luckily there are plenty of “greener” alternatives now widely available from manufacturers like Gaiam, Earth Friendly Products, Citra-Solv, Ecover, Mrs. Meyers, Sun and Earth, SimpleGreen, Method, and Seventh Generation, among many others. Even big players are getting in on the act. Clorox recently released a new line of home cleaning products under the Green Works label to attract a greening clientele.‚ 

For those so inclined, making your own green cleaning solutions is easy and cheap. According to‚ The Green Guide, consumers can “circumvent the armada of commercial cleaners” by keeping handy an ample supply of eight ingredients for nearly every do-it-yourself cleaning job: baking soda, borax, distilled white vinegar, hydrogen peroxide, lemons, olive oil, vegetable-based (liquid castile) soap, and washing soda.‚ 

CONTACTS: Cancer Prevention Coalition,‚ www.preventcancer.com; Gaiam,‚ www.gaiam.com; Earth Friendly Products,‚ www.ecos.com; Citra-Solv‚ ‚ www.citra-solv.com; Ecover,‚ www.ecover.com; Clorox Green Works,www.greenworkscleaners.com; Mrs. Meyers,‚ www.mrsmeyers.com; Sun and Earth,‚ www.sunandearth.com; Seventh Generation,‚ www.seventhgeneration.com; SimpleGreen,‚ www.simplegreen.com; Method Green Home Care Products,‚ www.methodhome.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: I’ve heard that increasing eco-awareness around the world has now extended itself to the afterlife, whereby burials can even be “green.” Is that true? — Mary Lewis, Duxbury, MA

Modern western-world burial practices are arguably absurd, all things considered: We pack our dearly departed with synthetic preservatives and encase them in impenetrable coffins meant to defy the natural forces of decomposition that have been turning ashes to ashes and dust to dust for eons. And in the process we give over thousands of acres of land every year to new cemetery grounds from coast to coast.

According to National Geographic, American funerals are responsible each year for the felling of 30 million board feet of casket wood (some of which comes from tropical hardwoods), 90,000 tons of steel, 1.6 million tons of concrete for burial vaults, and 800,000 gallons of embalming fluid. Even cremation is an environmental horror story, with the incineration process emitting many a noxious substance, including dioxin, hydrochloric acid, sulfur dioxide, and climate-changing carbon dioxide.

But increasing demand for more natural burial practices has spawned changes in the industry, and dozens of funeral homes and cemeteries across the country have started to adopt greener ways of operating. Many of these providers are members of the non-profit Green Burial Council, which works “to make burial sustainable for the planet, meaningful for the families, and economically viable for the provider.”

The organization partners with land trusts, park service agencies and the funeral profession to help consumers get the greenest burial experience possible. Its network of approved providers is committed to reducing the industry’s toxins, waste and carbon emissions. Many of the group’s member cemeteries-you can find a directory on the Green Burial Council’s website-offer clients the option of burying loved ones in more natural landscapes uncluttered by headstones and mausoleums. In place of a traditional headstone, for example, a tree might be planted over the grave.

And instead of conventional wood and steel coffins, clients can bury loved ones in more biodegradable wicker or cardboard, or in a casket made of wood certified as sustainably harvested by the nonprofit Forest Stewardship Council. Advocates of such greener burials say that people take comfort in knowing their bodies will decompose and become part of the cycle of nature.

Likewise, dry ice is becoming a popular, non-toxic alternative to embalming. According to Greensprings Natural Cemetery in Newfield, New York, “No state in the U.S. requires embalming, though some may require it if burial doesn’t take place within a set amount of time-usually 24 or 48 hours.”

Even the practice of scattering ashes at sea has a new wrinkle. Florida-based Great Burial Reef will place urns with cremated remains within 100 percent natural, PH-balanced concrete artificial reefs placed at the bottom of the ocean. And Georgia-based Eternal Reefs will mix your ashes with the cement they use to create “reef balls”-hollow spheres that resemble giant Wiffle balls that are sunk offshore. Loved ones equipped with the GPS coordinates can boat or even dive to visit the site of the remains.

CONTACTS: Green Burial Council, www.greenburialcouncil.org; Forest Stewardship Council, www.fscus.org; Greensprings Natural Cemetery, www.naturalburial.org; Great Burial Reef, www.greatburialreef.com; Eternal Reefs, www.eternalreefs.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’s the deal nowadays with aerosol spray cans? I thought that the ozone-depleting chemicals used in them were eliminated back in the 1970s. Is this true? If so, what is now used as a propellant? Are aerosols still bad for the ozone layer? — Sheila, Abilene, TX

The aerosol spray can has a storied history in the United States. First invented in the 1920s by U.S. Department of Agriculture scientists to pressurize insect spray, American soldiers eventually used the technology to help ward off Malaria in the South Pacific during World War II. The aerosol spray cans today, while much smaller and more refined, are direct descendents of those original military grade clunkers. Use of the cans for consumer applications took off during the ensuing decades, until the mid-1970s when ozone depletion first came to the public’s attention.

As a result, consumer aerosol products made in the U.S. have not contained ozone-depleting chemicals-also known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)-since the late 1970s, first because companies voluntary eliminated them, and later because of federal regulations. Clean Air Act and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations further restricted the use of CFCs for non-consumer products. All consumer and most other aerosol products made or sold in the U.S. now use propellants-such as hydrocarbons and compressed gases like nitrous oxide-that do not deplete the ozone layer. Aerosol spray cans produced in some other countries might still utilize CFCs, but they cannot legally be sold in the U.S.

According to the industry trade group, the National Aerosol Association, aerosol manufacturers in Europe and other parts of the world initially did not follow the lead of U.S. industry in substituting alternative propellants for CFCs. “The fact that aerosols made in underdeveloped countries may contain CFCs has caused confusion in press reports and in the public mind about the stratospheric ozone/aerosol link,” reports the group. Other countries have also switched out ozone-depleting propellants with non-depleting forms because they signed 1987′s Montreal Protocol, a landmark international agreement signed by 191 countries with the goal of phasing out the production and use of CFCs and other ozone depleting chemicals. Scientists report that that the phase out of the chemicals is now about 90 percent complete.

Of course, just because those deodorant sprays and shaving cream cans aren’t depleting the ozone layer doesn’t mean they are actually good for the environment. They still contain hydrocarbons and/or compressed gases notorious for their contribution to global warming. Every time you hit the button, then, you are raising your carbon footprint, albeit ever so slightly.

Modern-day, CFC-free aerosol sprays also emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that contribute to ground-level ozone levels, a key component of asthma-inducing smog. The state of California is now regulating consumer products that contain VOCs-and aerosol sprays are not the only targets: Fingernail polish, perfumes, mouthwashes, pump hair sprays, and roll-on and stick deodorants also emit them.

CONTACTS: National Aerosol Association, www.nationalaerosol.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: Everyone knows we should recycle metal, glass and plastic cans and bottles, but what about all the lids, tops and caps?  I see people recycling plastic bottles, for example, with their caps on, but I’ve always been told to thrown them out. Is that wrong? – Stefanie Gandolfi, Oakland, CA

Many municipal recycling programs throughout the U.S. still do not accept plastic lids, tops and caps even though they take the containers that accompany them. The reason is that they are not typically made of the same kinds of plastics as their containers and therefore should not be mixed together with them.

“Just about any plastic can be recycled,” says Signe Gilson, Waste Diversion Manager for Seattle-based CleanScapes, one of the west coast’s leading “green” solid waste and recycling collectors, “but when two types are mixed, one contaminates the other, reducing the value of the material or requiring resources to separate them before processing.”

Also, plastic caps and lids can jam processing equipment at recycling facilities, and the plastic containers with tops still on them may not compact properly during the recycling process. They can also present a safety risk for recycling workers. “Most plastic bottles are baled for transport and if they don’t crack when baled, the ones with tightly fastened lids can explode when the temperature increases,” says Gilson.

Some recycling programs do accept plastic caps and lids, but usually only if they are off their containers completely and batched separately. Given the many potential issues, however, most recyclers would rather avoid taking them altogether. Thus it is hard to believe but true: In most locales the responsible consumers are the ones who throw their plastic caps and lids into the trash instead of the recycling bin.

As for metal caps and lids, they, too, can jam processing machines, but many municipalities accept them for recycling anyway because they do not cause any batch contamination issues. To deal with the potentially sharp lid of any can you are recycling (such as a tuna, soup or pet food can), carefully sink it down into the can, rinse it all clean, and put it in your recycling bin.

Of course, the best way to reduce all kinds of container and cap recycling is to buy in large rather than single-serving containers. Does the event you’re holding really require dozens and dozens of 8- to 16-ounce soda and water bottles, many of which will get left behind only partly consumed anyway? Why not buy large soda bottles, provide pitchers of (tap) water and let people pour into re-usable cups?

The same kind of approach can be taken with many if not all of the bottled and canned grocery items we buy routinely for the home. If more people bought in bulk, apportioning out of larger, fewer containers, we could take a huge bite out of what goes into the waste stream.

CONTACT: CleanScapes, www.cleanscapes.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I am considering solar panels for my roof to provide heat for my hot water and possibly to do more than that. Are there some kinds of solar panels that are better than others? How do I find a knowledgeable installer? – Elise, Watertown, MA

What type of solar energy capture system you put on your home depends on your needs. If you want to go full tilt and generate usable electricity from your home’s rooftop-and even possibly contribute power back to the larger grid-tried and true photovoltaic arrays might be just the ticket. A typical installation involves the panels, which are constructed of many individual silicon-based photovoltaic cells and their support structures, along with an inverter, electrical conduit piping and AC/DC disconnect switches.

These systems can cost tens of thousands of dollars to install, and as such may not pencil out for those looking for the cheapest power solution. But the upside is that homeowners with photovoltaic panels on their rooftops can rest assured that as long as the sun shines, they will have power to spare without generating emissions of carbon dioxide and other noxious pollutants.

Qualified solar installers can usually advise clients on which specific types of systems will work best given the specific location of a home. U.S. homeowners can find qualified photovoltaic installers via the website FindSolar.com. And the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP) provides a free searchable database of its U.S. and Canadian members specializing in home solar set-ups.

For less demanding applications, such as for heating water for your home or swimming pool, a much simpler (and less expensive) solar thermal system might be all you need. A basic hot water system usually consists of a solar collector-basically a small metal box with a glass or plastic cover and a black copper or aluminum absorber plate inside-tied into the building’s plumbing and electrical works. According to the industry tracker website Solarbuzz, such solar collectors are usually mounted on rooftops.

Professional installers can get your home up and running with a solar thermal system for less than $4,000 in most cases. While the savings in your electric bill may be small, homeowners in it for the long haul will definitely save over time, all the while enjoying the fact that you have lowered your family’s carbon footprint significantly.

Homeowners looking to find out more about residential solar systems should be sure to check out the RealGoods Solar Living Sourcebook, a 600+ page renewable energy “bible” now in its 30th edition. The book features the latest nuts-and-bolts information on how to harvest renewable energy in a variety of ways depending on need. And RealGoods also sells much if not all of the equipment needed.

Another reason to consider going solar in one fashion or another is tax incentives. According to the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE), 17 states now offer homeowners some kind of tax rebate or incentive for the purchase and/or installation of solar power equipment of any kind. You can see what if any your state offers by logging onto the dsireusa.org website, where the searchable database is available in its entirety for free.

CONTACTS: Solarbuzz, www.solarbuzz.com; FindSolar.com, www.findsolar.com; NABCEP, www.nabcep.org; RealGoods, www.realgoods.com; DSIRE, www.dsireusa.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

Dear EarthTalk: My body doesn’t tolerate cheese well. Are there dairy-free cheeses that will be easier on my constitution and better for the environment, too? — Steve Sullivan, Seattle, WA

With some 30 to 50 million Americans suffering from various degrees of lactose intolerance, and an estimated three million of us now eating animal-free (vegan) diets for humane, environmental and/or health reasons, the production of alternatives to dairy products has started to become big business.

But while substitutes for milks and ice creams abound, mostly soy- or rice-based blends that have come a long way since they first appeared on grocery shelves, finding satisfactory alternatives to the many varieties of cheese can be a challenge. But the choices are expanding rapidly.

The first place to look might just be your regular supermarket’s produce section-that’s often where you’ll find Galaxy Foods’ Veggie line of non-dairy cheeses. After all, they are made from soy, a crop. Galaxy’s offerings come shredded, grated, in slices and in hunks. Fans swear they taste just like the real thing. And they are all excellent sources of calcium without cholesterol, saturated/trans-fats or lactose.

Galaxy also offers cheeses made from rice. And while some of both the Rice Brand and Veggie line contain small amounts of cultured milk salt, dried skim milk protein and trace amounts of lactose, Galaxy also make two purely vegan varieties, usually found in the dairy sections of grocery or health food stores.

A few other popular brands made with rice include Rice Slices and Lifetime Low Fat Jalapeno Jack Rice Cheese. Check the shelves of your local organic or natural food market to find one or more to sample.

Another leading producer of dairy-free cheeses is Scotland’s Bute Island Foods. The company began making its own vegan hard cheese alternatives (sold under the Sheese brand name) in 1988, and has since expanded into cream cheese alternatives (Creamy Sheese) as well. From pizzas to sauces to sandwiches to spreads, Bute Island has vegan and lactose-intolerant cheese lovers covered.

Some other soy-based choices that get good reviews include Good Slice Cheddar Style Cheese Alternative (great for sandwiches), vegan-friendly Tofutti Soy Cheese Slices, Follow Your Heart’s Vegan Gourmet (pizza, anyone?), and Teese (it melts with the best of them), among others.

Do-it-yourselfers might want to experiment with making their own non-dairy cheese using ingredients such as tofu and yeast. A quick web search will yield many recipes for making cheese and for using non-dairy cheeses in favorite dishes. Many of the best are collected in Joanne Stepaniak’s The Ultimate Uncheese Cookbook, available in some bookstores as well as from Amazon.com and other online vendors.

With so many good choices, not to mention recipes for home cooked varieties, many a vegetarian may just make the leap into full-fledged vegan eating. And existing vegans can rejoice: French Onion Soup (dairy-free, of course) is back on the menu.

CONTACTS: Galaxy Foods, www.galaxyfoods.com; Bute Island Foods, www.buteisland.com; Follow Your Heart, www.followyourheart.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Can those energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs that are popular now cause headaches because of the flickering they do? I converted my whole house over last fall and both my kids were complaining of headaches on and off. – Sandy, Eugene, OR

With a switch to energy efficient compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs already in full swing in the U.S. and elsewhere-Australia has banned incandescents, Britain will soon, and the U.S. begins a phase-out of incandescents in 2012-more and more complaints have arisen about the new bulbs causing headaches.

Many experts say that the issue is being overblown, however, that there is no scientific evidence that the bulbs cause headaches and that a kind of hysteria has grown out of a small number of anecdotal reports.

Industry experts acknowledge that day-to-day exposure to older, magnetically ballasted long tube fluorescent bulbs found mostly in industrial and institutional settings could cause headaches due to their noticeable flicker rate. The human brain can detect the 60 cycles per second such older bulbs need to refresh themselves to keep putting out light.

However, modern, electronically ballasted CFLs refresh themselves at between 10,000 and 40,000 cycles per second, rates too fast for the human eye or brain to detect. “As far as I’m aware there is no association between headaches and the use of compact fluorescent lamps,” says Phil Scarbro of Energy Federation Incorporated (EFI), a leading distributor of energy efficiency-related products-including many CFLs.

But Magda Havas, an Environmental & Resource Studies Ph.D. at Canada’s Trent University, says that some CFLs emit radio frequency radiation that can cause fatigue, dizziness, ringing in the ears, eyestrain, even migraines. You can test to see if CFLs in your home give off such radiation, she says, by putting a portable AM radio near one that’s on and listening for extra static the closer you get. She says that such electromagnetic interference should also be of concern to people using cell phones and wireless computers.

Sometimes headaches are due to eyestrain from inadequate lighting. When replacing an incandescent bulb with a CFL, pay attention to the lumens, which indicate the amount of light a bulb gives out (watts measure the energy use of a bulb, not the light generated). A 40-watt incandescent bulb can be replaced by an 11-14 watt CFL because the lumen ouput is approximately the same (490); a 100-watt incandescent can be replaced by a 26-29 watt CFL, both providing about 1,750 lumens. If you’re still skeptical, replace a 40-watt incandescent with a 60-watt equivalent 15-19 watt CFL, which will boost lumens to 900.

Another consideration is color temperature (measured in degrees “Kelvin”). CFLs rated at 2,700 Kelvin give off light in the more pleasing red/yellow end of the color spectrum, closer to that of most incandescents. Bulbs rated at 5,000 Kelvin and above (usually older ones) give off a less pleasing white/blue light.

The Environmental Defense website provides a handy chart comparing the watts and lumens of incandescents versus CFLs, along with further discussion about color temperature.

CONTACTS: EFI, www.efi.org; Environmental Defense, www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagid=630.

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 is “community based tourism” and how does it purport to safeguard pristine places? -- Erin O’Neill, Tukwila, WA 

Community based tourism refers to situations in which local people-usually those that are poor or economically marginalized in very rural parts of the world-open up their homes and communities to visitors seeking sustainably achieved cultural, educational or recreational travel experiences. 

Under a community-based tourism arrangement, unique benefits accrue to both the traveler and the hosts: Travelers usually accustomed to chain hotels and beachfront resorts discover local habitats and wildlife and learn about traditional cultures and the economic realities of life in developing countries. And the host communities are able to generate lucrative revenues that can replace income previously earned from destructive resource extraction operations or other unsustainable forms of economic support. 

Locals earn income as land managers, entrepreneurs or food and service providers-and at least part of the tourist income is set aside for projects which provide benefits to the community as a whole. And just as important, says ResponsibleTravel.com, which promotes community based tourism in a partnership with Conservation International, the communities become “aware of the commercial and social value placed on their natural and cultural heritage through tourism,” thus fostering a commitment to resource conservation. 

Travelers indulging in a community based tourism trip might follow a local guide deep into his tribe’s forest to spot otherworldly wildlife, eat exotic regional delicacies around rough-hewn tables, watch and even take part in celebrations of local culture, and sleep on straw mats at the homes of local families.  

In many cases, local communities partner with private companies and nonprofits that provide money, marketing, clients, tourist accommodations and expertise for opening up lands to visitors. In 1997, eco-travel operator Rainforest Expeditions wanted international visitors to learn about threats to the rainforest. Natives in Peru’s Es©-eja community of Infierno wanted to generate income without destroying their rainforest home, central to their subsistence lifestyle. So the two joined forces and the resulting Posada Amazonas lodge to this day offers visitors an exotic way to learn about rainforest ecology directly from English-speaking Es©-eja staff, who in-turn earn a living sharing their local knowledge and traditions. 

Another example is the partnerships that the nonprofit Projeto Bagagem (Project Baggage) has forged with several Brazilian communities to bring in tourist dollars to support sustainable choices. A third of the cost of every Projeto Bagagem trip goes to the villagers and another third to a local nonprofit. Last year the group won a Seed Award from the United Nations and the non-profit World Conservation Union for its efforts to translate “the ideals of sustainable development into action on the ground.”  

Extreme poverty coupled with abundant natural resources makes the Amazon basin an ideal place for such programs to thrive, but community based tourism can be experienced anywhere. To find qualifying, pre-vetted trips that contribute to local economies all over the world, visit ResponsibleTravel.com. 

CONTACTS: ResponsibleTravel.com, www.responsibletravel.com; Rainforest Expeditions, www.perunature.com; Projeto Bagagem, www.projetobagagem.org. 

Dear EarthTalk: How often do I really need to change my car’s oil? Conventional wisdom has always put it at every 3,000 miles to prevent engine wear, but isn’t changing oil that frequently wasteful and unnecessary? Also, what is the “greenest” and longest-lasting oil I should use? – Vic Roberts, Lincoln, MA 

There is much debate in the automotive world over how often drivers of typical passenger cars or light trucks should change their oil. The quick-lube chains usually recommend it be done every three months or 3,000 miles, but many mechanics would tell you that such frequent changes are overkill. Indeed, most car owner’s manuals recommend changing out the oil less frequently, usually after 5,000 or 7,500 miles. 

According to the automotive website Edmunds.com, the answer depends more on driving patterns than anything else. Those who rarely drive more than 10 miles at a time (which doesn’t get the oil hot enough to boil off moisture condensation) or who start their car frequently when the oil isn’t hot (when most engine wear occurs) should change their oil more often-at least twice a year, even if that’s every 1,000 miles, according to Edmunds. But commuters who drive more than 20 miles a day on mostly flat freeway can go as far as their owner’s manual recommends, if not longer, between changes. As a car ages, more frequent changes might be in order, but that’s for a qualified mechanic to decide on a case-by-case basis. 

“The necessity of 3,000 mile oil changes is a myth that has been handed down for decades,” writes Austin Davis, proprietor of the website TrustMyMechanic.com. He says that the economics of the oil change industry demand pushing customers to get their oil changed more frequently-purportedly as “cheap insurance” against problems cropping up-whether they need it or not. One of the largest oil change chains, Jiffy Lube, for instance, is owned by Pennzoil-Quaker State, and as such has an incentive to sell as much of the company’s traditional petroleum-based oil as possible. 

One way to reduce trips to and money spent unnecessarily on quick-lube outlets is to switch to synthetic oils, which last longer and perform better than their traditional petroleum-based counterparts. Davis says that educated drivers should opt for longer lasting, better performing synthetic oils, which are “most likely good for 10,000 to 15,000 miles or six months” whether or not their manufacturers recommend more frequent changes or not. Some synthetic motor oils, like Amsoil, NEO and Red Line, to name a few, are created specifically to last 25,000 miles or one year before needing a change. 

While neither conventional nor synthetic motor oils are good for the environment if disposed of improperly or spilled, most environmentalists would opt for the latter since it lasts three or more times longer and thus reduces waste (or energy use if recycled). Researchers have been experimenting with producing greener motor oils-one pilot project out of Purdue University has produced high-quality, carbon-neutral motor oil from canola crops-but consumers should not expect to see such products on store or garage shelves anytime soon, as the costs of production are high and the availability of cropland is limited. But the very existence of such alternatives-no doubt more are in the offing-bodes well for the future as oil becomes more scarce and expensive. 

CONTACTS: Edmunds.com, www.edmunds.com; TrustMyMechanic.com, www.trustmymechanic.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: How does congestion toll pricing, used in some cities around the world, cut down on vehicle traffic and promote green-friendly public transit? — Bill Higley, via e-mail

Despite increasing green awareness and steadily rising gasoline prices, Americans and other denizens of the developed world-not to mention millions of new Chinese and Indian drivers hitting the road every week-are loath to give up the freedom and privacy of their personal automobiles. But snarled traffic, longer commute times and rising pollution levels have given city transportation planners new ammunition in their efforts to encourage the use of clean, energy-efficient public transit. One of the newest tools in their arsenal is so-called congestion pricing (also called variable toll pricing), whereby cars and trucks are hit with higher tolls if they access central urban areas at traditionally congested times.

Singapore was the world’s first major city to employ congestion pricing in 1975 when it began charging drivers $3 to bring their vehicles into the city’s central business district. The system has since expanded citywide, with toll rates at several locations changing over the course of a day. Funds generated by the program have allowed Singapore to expand and improve public transit and keep traffic at an optimal flow. Some of the tangible benefits of the program, according to Environmental Defense, include a 45 percent traffic reduction, a 10 miles-per-hour increase in average driving speed, 25 percent fewer accidents, 176,000 fewer pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted, and a 20 percent increase in public transit usage.

London implemented a similar plan in 2003 that was so successful it was extended to some outlying parts of the city in 2007. Today, drivers pay $13 to bring their vehicles into certain sections of London during peak traffic hours. According to the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, London’s plan has significantly reduced traffic, improved bus service and generated substantial revenues. Environmental Defense says the plan reduced congestion by 30 percent, increased traffic speed by 37 percent, removed 12 percent of pollutants from the air and cut fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by 20 percent.

A 2006 congestion pricing experiment in Stockholm produced similar results, shrinking commute times significantly, reducing pollution noticeably and increasing public transit use during a seven-month test. The day after the trial ended, traffic jams reappeared, so Stockholm voters passed a referendum to reinstate the plan. Today the city has one of the most extensive congestion pricing systems in the world.

Perhaps the next major city to implement congestion pricing will be New York, if Mayor Michael Bloomberg gets his way. In July 2007, the state legislature rejected Bloomberg’s first such proposal-which would have used funds collected to pay for expansions and improvements to the regional public transit system-but ever-increasing congestion and pollution might force lawmakers’ hand in the future.

“A congestion pricing plan is the most cost-effective way to jump-start transit improvements and reduce traffic congestion,” says Wiley Norvell of Transportation Alternatives, one of a handful of groups working with Bloomberg to craft a version of the plan that will fly with state lawmakers. With two-thirds of New Yorkers opposed, it looks like an uphill battle for now, but advocates say passing such rules is inevitable.

CONTACTS: Environmental Defense, www.environmentaldefense.org; Transportation Alternatives, www.transalt.org.

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve read that plastic bottles are not always safe to reuse over and over as harmful chemicals can leach out into the contents. I’m wondering if the same issues plague Tupperware and other similar plastic food storage containers. – Sylvie, Dawson City, Yukon, Canada

The recent hubbub over plastic containers leaching chemicals into food and drinks has cast a pall over all kinds of plastics that come into contact with what we ingest, whether deserved or not. Some conscientious consumers are forsaking all plastics entirely out of health concerns. But while it is true that exposure to certain chemicals found in some plastics has been linked to various human health problems (especially certain types of cancer and reproductive disorders), only a small percentage of plastics contain them.

According to “The Green Guide,” a website and magazine devoted to greener living and owned by the National Geographic Society, the safest plastics for repeated use in storing food are made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE, or plastic #2), low-density polyethylene (LDPE, or plastic #4) and polypropylene (PP, or plastic #5). Most Tupperware products are made of LDPE or PP, and as such are considered safe for repeated use storing food items and cycling through the dishwasher. Most food storage products from Glad, Hefty, Ziploc and Saran also pass “The Green Guide’s” muster for health safety.

But consumers should be aware of more than just a few “safe” brands, as most companies make several product lines featuring different types of plastics. While the vast majority of Tupperware products are considered safe, for example, some of its food storage containers use polycarbonate (plastic #7), which has been shown to leach the harmful hormone-disrupting chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) into food items after repeated uses. Consumers concerned about such risks might want to avoid the following polycarbonate-based Tupperware products: the Rock ‘N Serve microwave line, the Meals-in-Minutes Microsteamer, the “Elegant” Serving Line, the TupperCare baby bottle, the Pizza Keep’ N Heat container, and the Table Collection (the last three are no longer made but might still be kicking around your kitchen).

Beyond BPA, other chemicals can be found in various food storage containers. Containers made out of polylyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE, or plastic #1-such as most soda bottles-are OK to use once, but can leach carcinogenic, hormone-disrupting phthalates when used over and over again. Also, many deli items come wrapped in plastic made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC, or plastic #3), which can leach cancer-causing dioxins. Swapping foods out of such wraps once the groceries are at home is advisable.

Containers made of polystyrene (PS, or plastic #6, also known as Styrofoam) can also be dangerous, as its base component, styrene, has been associated with skin, eye and respiratory irritation, depression, fatigue, compromised kidney function, and central nervous system damage. Take-out restaurant orders often come in polystyrene containers, which also should be emptied into safer containers once you get them home.

If your head is spinning and you can’t bear to examine the bottom of yet another plastic food storage container for its recycling number, go with glass. Pyrex, for instance, does not contain chemicals that can leach into food. Of course, such items can break into glass shards if dropped. But most consumers would gladly trade the risk of chemical contamination for the risk of breakage any day.

CONTACTS: “The Green Guide,” www.thegreenguide.com; Tupperware, www.tupperware.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’s going on in the music industry with all the CDs and plastic CD holders undoubtedly generating a lot of plastic waste? – John S., via email 

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), CDs and DVDs are typically manufactured by combining various mined metals (aluminum, gold, silver and nickel) with petroleum-derived plastics, lacquers and dyes. Given what complicated beasts CDs and DVDs are-products with thin layers of different materials mixed together are nearly impossible to recycle-most municipal recycling program won’t accept them, leaving consumers to fend for themselves in figuring out how to dispose of them. As a result, most discarded discs end up in the trash. 

These difficult-to-recycle materials can pollute groundwater and, in turn, contribute to a whole host of human health problems. But the low cost of producing such top-selling consumer items means that replacing them with something greener is not likely anytime soon. 

Research has shown that polylactic acid (PLA), a biodegradable plastic-substitute derived from corn and other agricultural wastes, could replace plastic polycarbonate as a disc’s main substrate, but the present high cost of using such a material makes it unlikely to catch on any time soon with those paying to produce mass volumes of CDs and DVDs. 

As for jewel cases, most are made out of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), an inexpensive petrochemical-based plastic that is notoriously difficult to recycle and has been linked to elevated cancer rates among workers and neighbors where it’s manufactured. Furthermore, when PVC is thrown in with regular recyclables it can contaminate entire batches, ruin equipment and cause human health problems. While cardboard and paper jewel cases may be all the rage among a few record labels-Warner Music Group’s U.S. division, for example, has been using 30 percent post-recycled paper for the packaging in all of its CDs and DVDs since 2005-the high cost and low durability of such alternatives have kept them largely out of the mainstream. 

So what’s a conscientious consumer to do? Those willing to pay a small processing fee can send old CDs and DVDs to one of a handful of private companies (such as Washington-based GreenDisk) set up to recycle them into high-quality plastics used in auto parts, office equipment, alarm panels, street lights, electrical cable insulation, jewel cases and other specialized items.  

A shift in consumer preferences already underway may be just the thing that will make everyone’s personal collections of music and movies greener. Consumers are already able to download some six million individual digital songs via the 500 or so legal online music services now up and running on the Internet. According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, digital sales now account for some 30 percent of all U.S. music sales and 15 percent globally. And most consumer analysts expect these percentages to grow steadily in the coming years, which is good news for the environment. 

CONTACTS: EPA’s “Lifecycle of a CD or DVD,” www.epa.gov/osw/students/finalposter.pdf; GreenDisk, www.greendisk.com; International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, www.ifpi.org. 

Dear EarthTalk: What are the major environmental issues that our next president, be it Obama or McCain, will have to confront? – Melinda Barnes, via e-mail 

Global warming is unquestionably the most pressing environmental issue facing whoever ends up in the White House in January 2009. Not only does climate change impact-and in most cases exacerbate-other environmental problems, it has even wider implications for the economy and society at large. Luckily for all of us, both Barack Obama and John McCain are committed to tackling climate change, although their proposed approaches differ in significant ways. 

The non-profit League of Conservation Voters (LCV), America’s leading voice for environmental advocacy within electoral politics, would prefer to see Obama elected president given his environmental track record and plans for the future. While both candidates favor instituting a mandatory “cap-and-trade” program (whereby the federal government allows polluters to trade for the right to emit a reduced overall amount of greenhouse gases), Obama is for more strident cuts. He would like to see the U.S. reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by some 80 percent by 2050, while McCain supports only cutting back by 65 percent. Both candidates have authored legislation in the Senate designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, although no such bills have come close to passing. 

Even though McCain is by far the most forward-thinking of the original Republican presidential contenders on global warming and the need to take action, LCV still gives him poor marks, only a 24 rating (out of 100) lifetime and zero for 2007. LCV says that McCain missed all 15 critical environmental votes last year and that he “repeatedly clings to outdated policies and flip-flops on core environmental issues.” By comparison, Obama earned a score of 67 in 2007 and has a lifetime LCV rating of 86. 

One area where environmentalists take issue with McCain is his support for expanding the role of nuclear power in cutting fossil fuel use. Obama would rather bolster alternative energy sources like wind and solar power that do not have the nasty side effect of radioactive waste in need of storage and disposal. (McCain also supports the development of new renewables, but not to the extent that Obama is willing to commit). 

Some of the other hot button environmental issues sure to occupy the next president’s time include: how to best protect the nation’s water resources and wetlands; whether to allow more drilling for oil and natural gas both offshore and within Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; whether to reinstate the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, a Clinton-era law (subsequently overturned by the Bush administration) calling for protection of some 58 million acres of public land from logging; how to meet U.S. commitments on existing environmental laws in international trade agreements; and whether to bring back the so-called “polluter pays” part of the government’s “Superfund” toxic waste clean-up program. 

While Obama is clearly the greener candidate on most of these issues, the fact that McCain even takes them seriously-and is committed to any greenhouse gas reductions whatsoever-is a plus for environmental advocates exasperated by eight years of green naysaying by the Bush administration. 

CONTACTS: Obama ’08, www.barackobama.com; McCain for President, www.johnmccain.com; League of Conservation Voters, www.lcv.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.

Dear EarthTalk: Should we expect to see “plug-in” hybrid cars anytime soon? I’ve been hearing they are on the horizon but I wonder if that means in one year or 10. – Bill A., Stratford, CT

Gasoline-electric hybrids now, like Toyota’s popular Prius, don’t need to plug in-you just fill their tanks with gasoline and the battery keeps charged by the internal combustion engine and by energy generated from the wheels when braking (a feature known as “regenerative braking”). The battery then powers the electric motor when it is called into service during idling, backing-up, crawling in gridlock, maintaining speed while cruising, and for extra uphill power when needed. As such, the electric motor is essentially a back-up engine while the hybrid relies mainly on the gasoline engine.

Plug-in hybrids take the concept further by plugging into a regular electric outlet to enable the vehicle to operate solely on its electric motor for ranges of 40-50 miles or more on a single charge. This has profound implications for commuters who need only drive short distances to and from work every day and who may be able to do so solely on electric power. The gasoline engine then becomes the supplemental one for when the car needs to travel farther than the electric engine can take it.

According to researchers at the University of California Davis, the electricity cost for powering a plug-in hybrid is only about one-quarter of the cost of powering a like-sized gasoline vehicle. Other benefits include far fewer fill-ups at gas stations and the convenience of recharging at home.

Toyota, currently the world’s largest producer of hybrid vehicles by far thanks to the success of its Prius, announced that it expects to have a commercially viable plug-in hybrid available to consumers as early as 2010 and is now testing prototype versions of plug-in hybrids at two California universities.

Felix Kramer of the California Cars Initiative (CCI), a non-profit dedicated to promoting plug-ins, called Toyota’s announcement “stunning and very welcome,” and says that these vehicles will be the cleanest practical cars on the road in a world where gas stations dot just about every intersection. The promise of such cars, says CCI on its website, is that drivers will have a “cleaner, cheaper, quieter car for local travel, and the gas tank is always there should you need to drive longer distances.”

U.S. automakers are also jumping onto the plug-in bandwagon. General Motors says that it will have mass-market plug-in hybrids-modifications of its Saturn Vue and Chevrolet Volt-on the road by 2010. Ford has also developed a small fleet of plug-ins, but is not yet ready to offer them to the public. Fisker, a U.S. start-up focusing on the creation of high performance, energy efficient vehicles, plans to sell an $80,000 plug-in hybrid sports car by late 2009. Chrysler’s Sprinter van was the first plug-in from a major U.S. manufacturer, but it is only presently available to a limited number of institutions as a fleet vehicle.

Plug-ins have also caught on elsewhere. Chinese carmaker BYD plans to sell a plug-in hybrid sedan in the U.S. within five years. And Volkswagen hopes to have a plug-in hybrid Golf ready to roll by 2010.

CONTACTS: California Cars Initiative, www.calcars.org; BYD, www.byd.com; General Motors, http://www.gm.com/experience/fuel_economy/news/2008/hybrids/plug_in_vue_011008.jsp; Fisker, http://jalopnik.com/344419/detroit-auto-show-fisker-karma-luxury-hybrid-only-80000.

Dear EarthTalk: I was intrigued to hear that there were a number of ways one could modify or construct a roof on a house or office facility that would provide great environmental benefit. Can you enlighten? – Bill Teague, Menlo Park, CA

Most buildings are designed to shed rain, and as such are built with hard, impenetrable roofing surfaces. As a result, rainwater bounces off and collects as runoff, picking up impurities-including infectious bacteria from animal waste as well as harmful pesticides and fertilizers-on the way to municipal storm sewers, which in turn eventually empty out into local bodies of water.

Minimizing this run-off means that more impurities will remain in local soils where they can be broken down more easily into their constituent elements than if they are concentrated downstream. In order to achieve this goal, landscape architects have developed so-called “green roofs,” which utilize living plant matter and soil on top of a building in order to absorb, collect and reuse rainwater while preventing run-off. Many buildings employing green roofs are able to find abundant uses for the water they collect, from watering exterior plantings at ground level to flushing toilets inside.

According to Steven Peck of the Toronto-based non-profit Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, green roofs can play an important role in maintaining ecological integrity within otherwise paved over areas. “The roofscapes of our cities are the last urban frontier-from 15 percent to 35 percent of the total land area-and the green roof industry can turn these wasted spaces into a force for cleaner air, cleaner water, energy savings, cooling, beauty and recreation,” he says.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) encourages the creation of green roofs for mitigating the urban “heat island effect,” whereby temperatures in crowded cities can soar some 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than in less developed areas nearby. Other benefits, says the EPA, include: providing amenity space for tenants (in effect replacing a yard or patio); reducing building heating and cooling costs due to the buffering effect of the plant matter and soil; filtering pollutants like carbon dioxide out of the air and heavy metals out of rainwater; and increasing bird habitat in otherwise built-up areas.

Beyond going all out to build a “living” green roof, certain inorganic materials can also make an existing roof greener. The non-profit Cool Roof Rating Council (CRRC), for instance, suggests roofing surfaces that reflect the sun’s heat so as to reduce the urban heat island effect while improving residential energy efficiency. According to the group, “a cool roof reflects and emits the sun’s heat back to the sky.” Builders can check out CRRC’s website for a database of information on the radiative properties of various roofing surfaces so as to make the smartest choice for clients and the environment.

Another quality that makes certain roofs greener than others is how long they last. Metal roofs are known to be relatively maintenance free and last longer than shingles in most situations. Slate roofs also have an excellent reputation for lasting long, although getting work done on them can be expensive when they do need repairs. The Slate Roofing Contractors Association reports that sea green slates can last anywhere from one to two centuries, depending on where the slate is quarried and how well it’s eventually installed.

CONTACTS: Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, www.greenroofs.org; CRRC, www.coolroofs.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.

Dear EarthTalk: I need to replace my old TV. Can you tell me which of the latest models is the greenest? I was told that the flat-screen/plasmas are real energy hogs. What do you recommend? -- Angela Montague, via e-mail

According to The Wall Street Journal’s Rebecca Smith, a 42-inch plasma TV set can draw more power than a large refrigerator, even if the TV is only used a few hours a day. This is partly because many newer models don’t turn off but go into “standby” mode so they can start up fast later with no warm-up period. “Powering a fancy TV and full-on entertainment system-with set-top boxes, game consoles, speakers, DVDs and digital video recorders-can add nearly $200 to a family’s annual energy bill,” she adds.

Smith recommends green consumers consider the Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) models, which typically uses less energy than comparable plasma sets. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a 28-inch conventional cathode-ray tube (CRT) set uses about 100 watts of electricity. A 42-inch LCD set might consume twice that amount, while plasma could use five times as much, depending on the model and the programming. For the largest screen sizes (60 inches and up), projection TVs are the most energy efficient, clocking in at 150-200 watts-significantly less than the energy a plasma set would use.

“What scares us is that prices for plasma sets are dropping so fast that people are saying, why get a 42-inch plasma set when you can get a 60-inch or 64-inch one,” says Tom Reddoch of the non-profit Electric Power Research Institute. “They have no idea how much electricity these things consume.”

For its part, the industry is taking some steps to make its products more efficient, and to improve disclosure of energy usage. In June 2008 Sony pronounced its new 32-inch Bravia KDL-32JE1 LCD model “the world’s most energy efficient television.” Slated for sale in Japan in August 2008 for around $1,400, the new set utilizes fluorescent tubes to create higher levels of brightness with less energy consumption, but still delivers large resolution, a high contrast ratio and a wide viewing angle.

Beginning in November 2008, forward-thinking manufacturers will get a little boost from the U.S. government, which will start awarding the most energy efficient new TV sets “Energy Star” labels to help consumers identify greener choices. TVs bearing the Energy Star label must operate at least 30 percent more efficiently than standard models in both stand-by and active modes. Consumers can see which models qualify by visiting the televisions section of the EnergyStar.gov home electronics page. According to the EPA, if all TVs sold in the U.S. met Energy Star requirements, yearly energy savings would top $1 billion and greenhouse gas emissions would drop by the equivalent of taking a million cars off the road.

Of course, the greenest option of all (aside from getting out from in front of that tube and spending more time outdoors) is to keep or repair your existing CRT unit (a digital-to-analog converter will be needed after February 2009 when new signal specifications go into effect). Most CRT sets use less energy than any of the LCD or plasma models, and if it ain’t broke, why fix it? Buying a new TV, even a greener one, only generates more pollution in production and transport, and creates waste in junking the old model.

CONTACTS: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov; Energy Star, www.energystar.gov; Electric Power Research Institute, www.epri.com; Sony Corp., www.sony.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I heard that children are reaching puberty at earlier ages now and that it may have to do with environmental toxins and even their TV viewing habits. Can you enlighten? – Mark Abbot, via e-mail

To say that kids are growing up faster than ever these days may be more than just clich©. Recent studies have shown that children are reaching puberty at younger and younger ages, and researchers are starting to see links between this trend and other societal ills such as ubiquitous pollution and sedentary lifestyles.

In a 2007 report for the Breast Cancer Fund entitled “The Falling Age of Puberty in U.S. Girls: What We Know, What We Need to Know,” ecologist Sandra Steingraber argues that unfettered access to computers and TVs over the last 30 years has led to an increasingly sedentary lifestyle among kids in the U.S. and beyond. Active kids produce more melatonin, a natural hormone that serves as the body’s internal clock and calendar. This could explain why sedentary kids are likely to go through puberty sooner: Their bodies think their decreased melatonin production is a trigger to move into puberty. “[Melatonin is] an inhibitory signal for puberty,” says Steingraber. “The more melatonin you have, the later you go into puberty.”

Of course, sedentary lifestyles are also linked to childhood obesity, a condition that often continues-along with the many health problems that can accompany it-into adulthood. A recent National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found that, between 2001 and 2004, 17.5 percent of children ages six to 11 were overweight-an effective doubling of obesity rates three decades ago. A study by the non-profit Obesity Society came up with a slightly higher figure-20 percent-with the percentages higher for Hispanic, African-American and Native American children.

Obesity is certainly one factor in the surge in so-called “precocious” adolescence, but chemicals are also thought to play a role. According to Erin Barnes, writing in E – The Environmental Magazine, a study comparing the body mass index of Danish and American girls found that the former group hit puberty a full year later than the latter even though their weights were in the same range. Another study found that wealthy girls in South Africa reach puberty a full year after their African-American counterparts. “Many researchers,” writes Barnes, “are studying the relationship between chemical pollutants like PCBs (polychlorinated bphenyls) and phthalates (commonly used plasticizers) and premature development.”

Some researchers believe that the preponderance of synthetic chemicals in more developed societies are interfering with human endocrine development and essentially “tricking” kids’ bodies into going through puberty prematurely. Also, precocious puberty in girls has been linked to breast cancer, as well as higher rates of drug abuse, violence, unintended pregnancies, problems in school and mental health issues.

“Shortening childhood means a shortening of the time before the brain’s complete re-sculpting occurs,” says Steingraber. “Once that happens, the brain doesn’t allow for complex learning.” She adds that the brain can only build the connections used to learn a language, play a musical instrument or ride a bike before it gets flooded with the sex hormones that come with the onset of puberty.

CONTACTS: Breast Cancer Fund, www.breastcancerfund.org; National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, www.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes.htm; Obesity Society, www.obesity.org.

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 green-friendly lawn and garden pesticides are available today? I’m particularly interested in options that won’t harm my cats. – Nancy Blanchard, via e-mail 

Pesticides have greatly boosted agricultural yields over the last half century, so it is no wonder, given the commercial availability of many of these synthetic chemicals, that American homeowners apply 100 million pounds of the stuff each year to make their own gardens grow bigger and faster, too. 

But the downside of using such chemicals is that they can poison people and pets as well as backyard wildlife: “Common insecticide ingredients such as 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), atrazine and dicamba have been shown to harm mouse embryos at times equivalent to the first week after conception in humans,” says Erica Glasener of The Green Guide. Due to such revelations, home gardeners are fast discovering the benefits of avoiding chemicals in favor of natural, less toxic alternatives. 

But before thinking about applying pesticides, gardeners can design (or re-design) their gardens to make the most of native plants that have evolved over eons to thrive in local conditions without synthetic aid or lots of water. Choosing native plants appropriate to your elevation, soil type, drainage and sun exposure will naturally repel many common pests and also reduce the propagation of invasive exotic species.  

Similarly, embedding your plants in healthy soil replete with beneficial insects and worms can also help reduce the need for pesticides. Laura Moran of Mainstreet.com suggests that home gardeners compost their vegetable food waste-which is chock full of nutrients that plants love-and mix it into existing soil to give the garden a healthy boost. “Aside from stimulating healthy root development,” she writes, “the addition of rich compost also improves soil texture, aeration and water retention.” It also provides a nice home, she says, for the beneficial bugs that are destroyed along with the bad ones by chemical pesticides. 

If pesticides are necessary, there are a handful of organic varieties available. Bacillus thuringiensis (“Bt”) is a naturally occurring bacterium that is lethal to most leaf-eating caterpillars on trees, shrubs, flowers and vegetables. According to gardening writer Jeff Ball, it is harmless to all other insects, animals and humans. It comes in a powder form for use as a dust, or, when diluted with water, as a spray. Organic chemists have formulated varieties of Bt to kill mosquitoes or potato beetles as well. 

To control slugs in an environmentally friendly manner, The Green Guide‘s Glasener suggests recycling the black cell packs that vegetables and annuals are sold in, and placing them (empty) upside down near the base of plants. “Each morning, check the containers for pests, and if you find any, simply throw the container away with the pests inside,” she says. Another easy slug control method is to use hollowed out grapefruit rinds in a similar manner around the base of plants, disposing of them if they turn up any slugs. 

Pet owners may already be familiar with insecticidal soaps used to control fleas. Some of these soaps can also be used in the garden to repel insects. For more information, consult a local nursery specializing in organic methods and native plants. Find one near you via the free online Native Plants Nursery Directory. 

CONTACTS: The Green Guide, www.thegreenguide.com; MainStreet.com, www.mainstreet.com; Native Plants Nursery Directory, www.plantnative.org/national_nursery_dir_main.htm. 

Dear EarthTalk: What’s going on with all the cases of autism cropping up and no one seems to know why? It stands to reason it must be something (or some things) environmental, yet every study allegedly turns up no conclusion? What are the possible causes? – Jessica W., Austin, TX 

No doubt about it, autism rates have skyrocketed in the U.S. and beyond in recent years. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the disease affects one in every 150 children born today in the U.S., up from one in 500 as recently as just 10 years ago. It’s become the fastest-growing developmental disability-more prevalent than childhood cancer, juvenile diabetes and pediatric AIDS combined-and it continues to grow at a rate of 10 to 17 percent per year. 

While researchers think there is a genetic component to autism, they also believe environmental factors are playing a role in its recent increase. Environmental mercury and other heavy metal exposure, contaminated water, pesticides, a greater reliance on antibiotics-and even extensive television viewing by very young children-may be factors in mounting autism rates. Researchers at the American Academy of Pediatrics and other institutes have also identified flame retardants as possible culprits. 

Vaccines containing the mercury preservative thimerosal (now mostly removed from the market) have long been blamed for causing autism, but scientific links are inconclusive. In lieu of a smoking gun, a more complex picture of autism’s environmental causes is now emerging. 

Some researchers are focusing on the role of food in a young child’s development. Many autistic children suffer from digestive diseases or have genetic dispositions rendering them unable to naturally rid their bodies of toxins. As such, exposure to heavy metals, pesticides, contaminated water and even processed food could have a devastating cumulative effect, some researchers think. According to Brian MacFabe, a researcher at the University of Western Ontario who has studied autism triggers in rats, simple changes such as removing wheat and dairy from the diet could potentially bring about improvements.

Groups such as the nonprofit Healthy Child Healthy World say it’s about time researchers are looking at environmental factors. “Whatever triggered this current autism epidemic…autistic kids clearly need extra protection from further environmental assault,” the group writes on its blog. They advise parents to be vigilant about the industrial cleaners used in school buildings and the pesticides sprayed on playing fields, where kids spend 25 to 30 hours per week. They and other groups are also looking at the role of untested chemicals in common cleaning products: phthalates, glycol ethers and other known toxins. 

Others wonder if a collective “nature deficit disorder” among children plays a factor in rising autism rates. Outdoor exposure has long been associated with healthier cognitive functioning in children, with reduction in Attention Deficit Disorder symptoms and greater emotional capacity. But new findings suggest it could impact autism, too. Last year, Cornell University researchers found higher rates of autism in counties where more households subscribed to cable and children under the age of three regularly watched TV. The Amish, with almost no exposure to TV, have little evidence of autism, notes the study. 

CONTACTS: CDC Autism Information Center, www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism; Healthy Child Healthy World, www.healthychild.org. 

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: In renovating a vacation cabin, I discovered carpenter ants working their way through the walls. Is there any way to responsibly get rid of the pests without using noxious chemicals that could potentially harm my family? — Curran Clark, Lummi Island, WA

Carpenter ants may seem small and look harmless, but they can do serious damage to anything wooden in your home, including not only furniture but also the very framing and walls that hold up the house. If you are seeing a lot of ants or small piles of sawdust-like material in random spots in or around your home, you are most likely suffering from a carpenter ant infestation.

Ants are very social beings and form large colonies before spreading out to find additional nest sites. They thrive by hollowing out wood, especially in moist or rotten spots, to build their nests and then use their new home in your walls and chairs as a base camp from which to forage for food and water in their nearby surroundings. Indeed, their very presence is a good indication of moisture or rot problems in the wood, so homeowners may have more work on their hands than simply exterminating carpenter ants.

In the northern latitudes of the continental U.S. and in much of Canada, carpenter ants are the most common insect wood destroyer, surpassing even the mighty termite. But while many commercially available chemical pesticides will rid a structure of carpenter ants, homeowners are increasingly steering away from such toxins proven to impact the human nervous, respiratory and reproductive systems.

Perhaps the most economical and effective way to get rid of carpenter ants is by applying boric acid (also known as borax) to their nest sites and surroundings. This natural non-toxic element, mined from below the Mojave Desert in southern California, has a long history of use in exterminating brazen populations of cockroaches, palmetto bugs, waterbugs, silverfish, termites, and, you guessed it, carpenter ants.

Al Abruzzese, owner of the website Al’s Home Improvement Center, swears by boric acid to get rid of wood-boring pests. “This simple inexpensive, household chemical is deadly to all insects,” he says. “It has been shown to attack their nervous systems, as well as being a drying agent to their bodies.”

Beyond just being effective as an all-natural insecticide, boric acid is non-toxic to humans. Abruzzese says it is safe enough to use around children-it has been used in ointments and salves for diaper rash on babies in the past-and can be an important part of eyewash solutions as well, albeit in very diluted form (don’t try it at home). One common brand name to look for is Nisus Bora-Care, but any pesticide with boric acid or borax listed as an active ingredient will do just fine.

For those not into do-it-yourself pest control, calling in an exterminator that uses all natural products is a good option. Oregon’s All Natural Pest Elimination, for instance, services the entire four state region of the Pacific Northwest with products from Natureline-crafted from safe botanical extracts and essential oils, not synthetic chemicals-on all of its extermination jobs. Look in the yellow pages for exterminators in your area, and call each one you are considering to make sure they stay away from noxious chemicals.

CONTACTS: Al’s Home Improvement Center, www.alsnetbiz.com/homeimprovement; Nisus Bora-Care, www.nisuscorp.com; All Natural Pest Elimination, www.nobuggy.com.

Dear EarthTalk: What is “cogeneration” as a means of providing heat and power? – Jerry Schleup, Andover, MA

Cogeneration-also known as combined heat and power, distributed generation, or recycled energy-is the simultaneous production of two or more forms of energy from a single fuel source. Cogeneration power plants often operate at 50 to 70 percent higher efficiency rates than single-generation facilities.

In practical terms, what cogeneration usually entails is the use of what would otherwise be wasted heat (such as a manufacturing plant’s exhaust) to produce additional energy benefit, such as to provide heat or electricity for the building in which it is operating. Cogeneration is great for the bottom line and also for the environment, as recycling the waste heat saves other pollutant-spewing fossil fuels from being burned.

Most of the thousands of cogeneration plants operating across the United States and Canada are small facilities operated by non-utility companies and by institutions like universities and the military. For small cogeneration plants-those that generate anywhere from one to 20 megawatts of power-biomass or even methane from garbage dumps can be used as a front-end fuel source, but natural gas is far more common as the primary input.

For instance, Sunnyvale, California-based Network Appliance Inc., a computer networking company, relies on a one megawatt natural gas-powered cogeneration system to power the building’s extensive air conditioning needs, and for back-up power for use during peak demand times. The company estimates it saves around $300,000 a year in energy costs thanks to the cogeneration system.

In another example, Illinois-based Epcor USA Ventures operates three mid-sized (25 megawatts and up) cogeneration power plants in San Diego to power U.S. Marine Corps and Navy bases there. All three plants work in the same way: Natural gas turbines drive electrical generators that in turn exhaust hot gases. These are then captured to drive a steam generator hooked into the bases centralized heating and cooling systems. Since the systems generate power to spare, Epcor is talking with area companies about kicking in for a share of the steam to keep their energy bills and carbon footprints in check.

Cogeneration is not limited to stationary power plants. Honda is exploring the use of a specialized automotive cogeneration generator designed to improve the overall efficiency of hybrid vehicles by recapturing waste exhaust heat from the internal combustion engine and converting it to electricity to recharge the battery pack. The idea is still in the research and development phase, it could make its way into new cars within a few years, further improving on the already impressive efficiency of hybrid cars.

CONTACTS: Network Appliance Inc., www.netapp.com; Epcor USA Ventures, www.primaryenergy.com; Honda Motor Company, http://world.honda.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: I’ve heard that there are plans to build a large repository for nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but that plans have been slow and are very controversial. Where is our nuclear waste kept now and what dangers does it pose?   – Miriam Clark, Reno, NV 

Plans to store the majority of our nation’s spent nuclear fuel and other highly radioactive waste at a central repository underneath Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert 80 miles from Las Vegas were first hatched in the mid-1980s. But the project has languished primarily due to opposition from Nevadans who don’t want to import such dangerous materials into their backyard. Critics of the plan also point out that various natural forces such as erosion and earthquakes could render the site unstable and thus unsuitable to store nuclear isotopes that can remain hazardous to humans for hundreds of thousands of years to come. 

But the Bush administration is keen to jump-start the project and recently submitted a construction license application to develop the facility-which when completed could hold up to 300 million pounds of nuclear waste-with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In announcing the filing, Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman said that the facility being proposed can “stand up to any challenge anywhere,” adding that issues of health safety have been a primary concern during the planning process. 

But the administration has still not submitted a crucial document declaring how protective the facility will be with regard to radiation leakage. Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency concluded that the facility needs to prevent radiation leakage for up to 10,000 years. But a federal judge ruled that to be inadequate and ordered the administration to require protection for up to one million years. The White House argues that the NRC should press on with its review process and that the standard can be settled on later. 

Currently, without any central repository, nuclear waste generated in the U.S. is stored at or near one of the 121 facilities across the country where it is generated. Nevadans like Democratic Senator Harry Reid, who has doggedly opposed the Yucca Mountain repository, say it makes more sense to leave such waste where it is than to risk transporting it across the nation’s public highways and rail system, during which accidents or even terrorist attacks could expose untold numbers of Americans to radioactivity.  

But others say that the current system, or lack thereof, leaves Americans at great risk of radioactive exposure. The non-profit Nuclear Information and Resource Service concluded in a 2007 report that tons of radioactive waste were ending up in landfills and in some cases in consumer products, thanks to loopholes in a 2000 federal ban on recycling metal that had been exposed to radioactivity. 

As with all issues surrounding nuclear technology, where and how to dispose of the wastes is complicated. While some environmental leaders now cautiously support development of more nuclear reactors (which are free of fossil fuels) to help stave off climate change, others remain concerned that the risks to human health and the environment are still too high to go down that road. Whether or not the NRC approves plans for Yucca Mountain won’t resolve the larger debate, of course, but perhaps the greenlighting of other promising alternative energy sources could ultimately make nuclear power unnecessary altogether. 

CONTACTS: Nuclear Regulatory Commission, www.nrc.gov; Nuclear Information and Resource Service, www.nirs.org. 

Dear EarthTalk: Summer’s going to be a scorcher this year, and I’d like to know how I can keep cool indoors without just running my energy-hogging air conditioners all the time. Any tips? – John McGovern, Cohasset, MA 

According to Harvey Sachs of the non-profit American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the movement of air over the skin is what’s key to keeping the body cool. So instead of turning on that A.C., see which direction the breeze is blowing outside (no matter how minimal it may be), and then open a few windows strategically to try to get it flowing through the house from end-to-end or side-to-side. 

If the breeze alone isn’t enough, apply some fan power. Even small tabletop fans, which can be had for $30 or so at Target and similar stores, can really whip the air around. Placing one facing in by the window where air is coming in, and one at an opposite window positioned to blow warm air out, can create a nice “wind tunnel” effect in pulling air through the house. 

This strategy can be especially effective at night when it is cooler. But then it’s important to shut the windows when you leave for the day in the morning to keep the cooler air in and the warmth of the new day out. Keep blinds shut and curtains drawn, too, as sunlight pouring into the house only creates more heat. And remember that lights left on are not only wasting electricity-they’re creating heat, as well. 

Ceiling fans also do a nice job of circulating air in the rooms you occupy most, and though they do require some up-front costs for installation they use only about 1/30th the electricity of a room air conditioner. 

Beyond moving the air around to keep cool, the website WikiHow.com lists several tips for using water to keep cool sans AC. One tried and true method is to wet your wrists and other pulse points with cold water, and then keep those spots cool by holding an ice cube wrapped in a face cloth against them. The relief is immediate, and this method will cool down the entire body-by as much as three degrees Fahrenheit-for upwards of an hour. Another WikiHow suggestion: Wear a short-sleeved shirt and keep the sleeves wet with cold water (from a squirt bottle, faucet or hose). Keeping the pant legs of long pants wet is also a good way to keep your legs cool. Add in a breeze or a fan, and you can actually get cold.  

Of course, if you just can’t live without air conditioning, there are greener options out there. For starters, a single window unit that keeps one room cool is far less energy intensive and polluting than central air conditioning that keeps all the rooms in the house (including those you’re not using) cool. Look for new models sporting the federal Energy Star label, which marks units as energy efficient. 

Another option for those in hot, dry climates is an evaporative cooler, which cools outdoor air through evaporation and blows it inside the house. These units make for a nice alternative to traditional central air conditioning, as they cost about half as much to install and use only one quarter of the energy overall.  

CONTACTS: American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, www.aceee.org; WikiHow, www.wikihow.com; Energy Star, www.energystar.gov. 

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: Is it true that the DEET used in most mosquito repellents is toxic? If so what problems does it cause? And what are some non-toxic alternatives for keeping mosquitoes at bay? – Tom Pollack, Oakland, CA 

DEET is commonly known as the king of mosquito repellents, though not everyone is keen to slather it on their skin. A study conducted in the late 1980s on Everglades National Park employees to determine the effects of DEET found that a full one-quarter of the subjects studied experienced negative health effects that they blamed on exposure to the chemical. Effects included rashes, skin irritation, numb or burning lips, nausea, headaches, dizziness and difficulty concentrating. 

Duke University pharmacologist Mohamed Abou-Donia, in studies on rats, found that frequent and prolonged DEET exposure led to diffuse brain cell death and behavioral changes, and concluded that humans should stay away from products containing it. But other studies have shown that while a few people have sensitivity to DEET applications, most are unaffected when they use DEET products on a sporadic basis according to the instructions on the label. 

The upside of DEET is that it is very effective. A 2002 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that DEET-based repellents provided the most complete and longest lasting protection against mosquitoes. Researchers found that a formulation containing 23.8 percent DEET completely protected study participants for upwards of 300 minutes, while a soybean-oil-based product only worked for 95 minutes. The effectiveness of several other botanical-based repellents lasted less than 20 minutes.  

But a number of new concentrations of botanical repellents that have hit the market since are reportedly better than ever. In 2005, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) granted approval to two healthier alternatives to DEET-picaridin and oil of lemon eucalyptus-for protection from mosquitoes. Picaridin, long used to repel mosquitoes in other parts of the world, is now available in the U.S. under the Cutter Advanced brand name. Oil of lemon eucalyptus, which is derived from eucalyptus leaves and is the only plant-based active ingredient for insect repellents approved by the CDC, is available in several different forms, including Repel Lemon Eucalyptus, OFF! Botanicals, and Fight Bite Plant-Based Insect Repellent.  

Some other good choices, according to the nonprofit National Coalition against the Misuse of Pesticides, include products containing geraniol (MosquitoGuard or Bite Stop), citronella (Natrapel), herbal extracts (Beat It Bug Buster) or essential oils (All Terrain). The group also gives high marks to oil of lemon eucalyptus, such as that found in Repel’s Lemon Eucalyptus Insect Repellent.  

Another leading nonprofit, Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), likes Herbal Armor, Buzz Away and Green Ban, each containing citronella and peppermint as well as various essential oils (cedar wood, lemongrass, etc.). PANNA also lauds Bite Blocker, a blend of soybeans and coconut oils that provides four to eight hours of protection and, unlike many other brands, is safe to use on kids. 

CONTACTS: “Comparative Efficacy of Insect Repellents against Mosquito Bites,” http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/347/1/13; National Coalition Against the Misuse of Pesticides (NCAMP), www.beyondpesticides.org; Pesticide Action Network North America, www.panna.org. 

Dear EarthTalk: I want to offer my employees a 401(k) plan that is socially and environmentally responsible. Are there such plans and, if so, where do I look? — CJ Hughes, Queens, NY 

Even though socially responsible investing (SRI) has been around for decades, only recently have some companies begun to offer their employees greener options for 401(k) retirement investment accounts.  

According to Rona Fried of SustainableBusiness.com, SRI options for retirement plans are still only offered to about 20 percent of employees, but that’s changing fast. One survey found that more than two-thirds of employees want such choices. And a 2007 survey by the Social Investment Forum found that 60 percent of benefit plan sponsors polled plan to include SRI options for retirement funds by 2010. 

Retirement accounts are big business in the U.S.: Some 50 million Americans have invested $2.5 trillion in 401(k) plans to date. With so few SRI options out there now and employees eager to make their savings work for the environment, greener 401(k) plans are sure to take a bigger and bigger slice of the pie moving forward. “It’s a matter of simple supply and demand,” says Paul Hilton of Calvert Funds, which currently offers one SRI retirement fund option but plans to add two more within the next couple of years. “Corporations are responding to the increasing desire of Americans to invest with their values.” 

Right now health care and government agencies are those most likely to include an SRI option for employees’ retirement accounts, but a handful of large companies have gotten in on the act as well. For instance, chipmaker Intel began offering its employees an SRI retirement plan option eight years ago.  

“In 2000, we were trying to create a culture of corporate social responsibility and it made sense for us to practice what we preach by including this option in our retirement plan,” says Dave Stangis, Intel’s director of corporate responsibility. “In addition, Intel itself is a top holding in many SRI mutual funds and we wanted to reinforce that with our employees. It’s a way for us to be a role model.”  

Still, most plans give employees only a limited number of funds to choose from, often from Calvert and another SRI mutual fund leader, Domini. Both firms ply the three main tenets of SRI: (1) rigorous research to assess the social and environmental integrity of companies being considered for inclusion in an investment portfolio; (2) using investors’ positions as stockholders (i.e. owners) of companies invested in to advocate for good corporate citizenship (often through the introduction of corporate resolutions); and (3) channeling affordable credit to needy communities ill-served by traditional lenders to rebuild neighborhoods and create jobs. SRI funds are also increasingly making “early stage” investments in new companies on the cutting edge of environmental progress, such as alternative energy companies. 

In order to help diversify the marketplace for SRI retirement plans, consultant Rob Thomas started Social(k) in 2005 to offer companies a full array of SRI options for their 401(k) plans. Social(k) offers 140 different SRI funds from which employees at participating companies can choose. Thomas’s goal is to offer as many funds as possible and become the one-stop shop for retirement investing. Companies can offer either Social(k) alone, or as a secondary option alongside an existing 401(k) plan.  

CONTACTS: SustainableBusiness.com, www.sustainablebusiness.com; Calvert Funds, www.calvert.com; Domini Social Investments, www.domini.com; Social(k), www.socialk.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: Recent NASA photos showed the opening of the Northwest Passage and that a third of the Arctic’s sea ice has melted in recent decades. Are sea levels already starting to rise accordingly, and if so what effects is this having? -- Dudley Robinson, Ireland

Researchers were astounded when, in the fall of 2007, they discovered that the year-round ice pack in the Arctic Ocean had lost some 20 percent of its mass in just two years, setting a new record low since satellite imagery began documenting the terrain in 1978. Without action to stave off climate change, some scientists believe that, at that rate, all of the year-round ice in the Arctic could be gone by as early as 2030.

This massive reduction has allowed an ice-free shipping lane to open through the fabled Northwest Passage along northern Canada, Alaska and Greenland. While the shipping industry-which now has easy northern access between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans-may be cheering this “natural” development, scientists worry about the impact of the resulting rise in sea levels around the world.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made up of leading climate scientists, sea levels have risen some 3.1 millimeters per year since 1993. And the United Nations Environment Program predicts that, by 2010, some 80 percent of people will live within 62 miles of the coast, with about 40 percent living within 37 miles of a coastline.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) reports that low-lying island nations, especially in equatorial regions, have been hardest hit by this phenomenon, and some are threatened with total disappearance. Rising seas have already swallowed up two uninhabited islands in the Central Pacific. On Samoa, thousands of residents have moved to higher ground as shorelines have retreated by as much as 160 feet. And islanders on Tuvalu are scrambling to find new homes as salt water intrusion has made their groundwater undrinkable while increasingly strong hurricanes and ocean swells have devastated shoreline structures.

WWF says that rising seas throughout tropical and sub-tropical regions of the world have inundated coastal ecosystems, decimating local plant and wildlife populations. In Bangladesh and Thailand, coastal mangrove forests-important buffers against storms and tidal waves-are giving way to ocean water.

Unfortunately, even if we curb global warming emissions today, these problems are likely to get worse before they get better. According to marine geophysicist Robin Bell of Columbia University’s Earth Institute, sea levels rise by about 1/16″ for every 150 cubic miles of ice that melts off one of the poles.

“That may not sound like a lot, but consider the volume of ice now locked up in the planet’s three greatest ice sheets,” she writes in a recent issue of Scientific American. “If the West Antarctic ice sheet were to disappear, sea level would rise almost 19 feet; the ice in the Greenland ice sheet could add 24 feet to that; and the East Antarctic ice sheet could add yet another 170 feet to the level of the world’s oceans: more than 213 feet in all.” Bell underscores the severity of the situation by pointing out that the 150-foot tall Statue of Liberty could be completely submerged within a matter of decades.

CONTACTS: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), www.ipcc.ch; WWF, www.panda.org; Earth Institute at Columbia University, www.earth.columbia.edu.

Dear EarthTalk: What’s available now in lawnmowers that are easier on the environment? My yard is too big for one of those “reel” mowers, and I’m no longer a spring chicken, so I have to buy something that runs on more than human power. What’s out there? — Joel Klein, Albany, NY

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), traditional gas-powered lawnmowers are a public nuisance to say the least. Using one of them for an hour generates as many volatile organic compounds-dangerous airborne pollutants known to exacerbate human respiratory and cardiovascular problems-as driving a typical car for 350 miles. The EPA estimates that, with some 54 million Americans mowing their lawns on a weekly basis, gas lawnmower emissions account for as much as five percent of the nation’s total air pollution. Beyond that, homeowners spill some 17 million gallons of gasoline every year just refueling their lawnmowers.

So what’s a green-minded property owner to do about keeping the grass down? Go electric, of course!

Electric mowers, which either plug into a wall outlet via a long cord or run on batteries charged up from the grid, create no exhaust emissions and run much cleaner than their gas-powered counterparts. They also need less maintenance, with no spark plugs or belts to worry about, and are easier to use, as they tend to be smaller and come with push-button starters. The icing on the cake might be the fact that electric mowers are cheaper to run, using about as much electricity as an ordinary toaster. Most electric mower owners spend about $5 a year on electricity to keep their grass trimmed just right. The non-profit Electric Power Research Institute reports that replacing half of the 1.3 million or so gas mowers in the U.S. with electric models would save the equivalent amount of emissions of taking two million cars off the road.

But going electric has some minor trade-offs. Electric mowers tend to cost up to $150 more than their gas-powered counterparts, and the plug-in varieties can only go 100 feet from the closest outlet without an extension cord. And the cordless models last only 30-60 minutes on a charge, depending on battery size and type, though that’s plenty sufficient for the average lawn (just remember to re-charge it in time for the next mow).

And, of course, just because electric mowers don’t consume fossil fuels or spew emissions directly doesn’t mean they are totally green-friendly. Most people derive their household electricity from coal-fired power plants, the dirtiest of all energy sources. Of course, running an electric mower on electricity generated from clean and renewable sources (solar, wind or hydro power) would be the greenest of all possibilities, and those days may be upon us soon.

For those ready to take the electric mower plunge, the Greener Choices website, a project of Consumer Reports, gives high marks to Black & Decker’s corded ($230) and cordless ($400) models for their efficiency, reliability and ease-of-use. Corded models from Worx and Homelite (both around $200) also fared well, along with cordless offerings from Craftsman, Homelite, Remington and Neuton ($300-450).

CONTACTS: Black & Decker, www.blackanddecker.com; Remington, www.remingtonpowertools.com; Homelite, www.homelite.com; Worx, www.worxpowertools.com; Neuton, www.neutonpower.com; Greener Choices, www.greenerchoices.org.

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.

Ed. Note: Due to incorrect information provided to Blast, the original version of this article contained erroneous statistics, which have now been corrected.

Dear EarthTalk: The 2008 Summer Olympics in China are drawing a lot of attention right now for political reasons. I’ve heard, though, that one ray of light is China’s effort to make the event as green as possible. What’s going on in that regard? — Josh Rogers, Concord, NH

It’s true that China is using the upcoming Beijing Olympics as a sustainability showcase, going so far as to dub the event the “Green Olympics.” Through a partnership with the U.S. government and the Maryland-based International Center for Sustainable Development, China is giving Beijing a green makeover to make the city a model for net zero pollution, green building and sustainable community development.

According to China’s Technology Minister Wan Gang, the Beijing Olympics are expected to generate some 1.2 million tons of carbon dioxide, in large part because of the flying the world’s athletes will do to get to and from the games. To offset these potent greenhouse gases, China will take a series of measures, Wan says, including planting trees, closing 1,000 small coal mines before and during the games and banning up to a million cars from city streets.

Beijing’s Olympic Village, where the Chinese government has been busy erecting dozens of stadiums and other structures according to rigorous green standards, is emerging as quite an example of sustainable community development. The steel-looped Beijing National Stadium, for instance, includes a rainwater collection arrangement, a natural ventilation system and a clear roof with inflatable cushions made from ETFE (Ethylene Tetrafluoroethylene), a kind of plastic that increases light and heat penetration.

Another example is the “Water Cube,” a spectacular-looking structure that looks like a building made of bubble-wrap. Officially known as the National Aquatics Center, it is completely surrounded with ETFE pillows and is expected to cut energy use by 30 percent. And when it has finished serving its purpose as an Olympic venue, it has been built to be converted to a shopping area and leisure center with tennis courts, retail outlets, nightclubs and restaurants.

All seven main Olympic stadiums are equipped with solar generators capable of outputting 480 kilowatts of energy at any given moment. Ninety percent of the lighting outside the stadiums, as well as the entire hot water supply for the Olympic Village will be powered by solar energy. Also, the main stadiums will receive power from Beijing’s first wind farm.

While the Olympic Games will only last for two weeks, environmentalists hope the greening of Beijing will indeed continue beyond the summer ‘08. Some proposals include building 14 wastewater treatment facilities to achieve 90 percent treatment rate in Beijing, and extending potable water to the entire city.

Also, the municipal government of Beijing has invested in expensive energy-efficient heating and transportation equipment that will greatly improve environmental quality for decades hence. Beijing, where 1,000 new cars roll onto the streets every day, also plans to source clean energy from other parts of China and through the purchase of pollution offsets on a quickly expanding international market.

CONTACTS: ICSD Beijing 2008 Green Olympics Initiative, www.solarcities.org/beijingolympics.htm; Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, en.beijing2008.cn.

Dear EarthTalk: How is it said that we are “losing winter” because of climate change? It didn’t seem so last winter, when it even snowed in places for the very first time. — Peter Kim, Duxbury, MA

The effects of global warming manifest themselves differently in different locations, and winter is no doubt getting shorter and warmer across New England, the Canadian Maritimes and Northern Europe.

In New England, average winter temperatures have increased 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1970. The years 2006 and 1998 were the first and second warmest years on record in the U.S. since we started counting, with the last eight five-year periods the warmest in history. According to the National Climatic Data Center, that warming has been accelerating over the last three decades, from just over a tenth of one degree Fahrenheit per decade to almost a third of a degree now.

By 2100, temperatures in the Northeastern U.S. are predicted to have risen by 8-12 degrees Fahrenheit, with the number of snow days half of what we are used to now. A recent study by the Union of Concerned Scientists on the effects of global warming in the Northeast concluded that, under some 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.”

And it seems that as one moves farther north, more and more winter is lost. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment of 2004 reported that Arctic temperatures are now rising at nearly twice the rate of the rest of the world (as much as 14 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years), reducing sea ice and melting frozen soils. It’s been widely reported that Alaska’s polar bears are probably doomed by 2050, but the scale of this climatic shift will likely do much more-completely changing the culture of the Arctic.

Global warming impacts are far from monolithic: Some parts of the planet are heating up and others are experiencing colder than average temperatures and record snowfalls, just as climate models predict. But the overall trend is clear: It’s getting warmer, and winter is losing intensity and duration. “If you’ve ever enjoyed ice skating, sledding, skiing, snowboarding or building a snowman, writes E – The Environmental Magazine, you should know that the future of these enshrined institutions is by no means guaranteed.”

Winter’s retreat may be sad for children intent on sledding, but it also augurs badly for the economy, especially for businesses reliant on snow. New England’s ski industry has experienced sharp declines in the number of days their lifts are shuttling people up the mountain. Snowmaking machines, originally intended to just cover any slack left by Mother Nature, now operate to capacity throughout the winter.

And snowmobile manufacturers report a 50 percent drop in sales over the last decade as the number of snow-covered days diminishes. Yet another business casualty is New England’s maple syrup industry, which has been thwarted in recent years by early thaws which have depleted production capacity by as much as 50 percent. According to Tom McCrumm of the Massachusetts Maple Producers Association, there may no longer be a maple sugar industry in New England by 2100.

CONTACTS: National Climatic Data Center, www.ncdc.noaa.gov; Union of Concerned Scientists, www.ucsusa.org; Massachusetts Maple Producers Association, www.massmaple.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.

Dear EarthTalk: What initiatives are taking place on college campuses to reduce the footprints of these large users of energy and other resources? – Shawna Smith, Hamilton, NY 

Microcosms of the world at large, college campuses are great test beds for environmental change, and many students are working hard to get their administrations to take positive action. The initiatives that are emerging are models for the larger society, and the students pushing for them will be taking these lessons with them, too, as they enter the work force after graduation. 

Foremost on the minds of green-leaning students today is global warming, and many are joining hands to persuade their schools to update policies and streamline operations so that their campuses can become part of the solution. Largely a result of student efforts, for example, nearly 500 U.S. colleges and universities have signed the American College and University Presidents (ACUP) Climate Commitment. 

This agreement requires schools to put together a comprehensive plan to go “carbon neutral” in two years of signing. (Carbon neutral means contributing no net greenhouse gases to the atmosphere either by not generating them in the first place or by offsetting them somehow, such as through tree-planting or by buying “offsets” from companies that fund alternative energy projects.) 

ACUP also commits schools to implementing two or more tangible (and easily implemented) policies right away, such as improving waste minimization and recycling programs, reducing energy usage, providing or encouraging public transportation to and from campus (and switching campus buses over to bio-diesel fuel), constructing bicycle lanes, and implementing green building guidelines for any new construction. 

Signatory schools also pledge that they will integrate sustainability into their curricula, making it part of the educational experience. 

One place where students are forcing green changes on campus is the dining hall. According to the Sustainable Endowments Institute’s 2007 report card, which looks at environmental initiatives at the 200 colleges and universities with the largest endowment assets in the U.S. and Canada, 70 percent of such schools now “devote at least a portion of food budgets to buying from local farms and/or producers,” while 29 percent earned an “A” in the “food and recycling” category. Yale University even has organic gardens that are student-run and that supply an on-campus farmer’s market for use by campus food services, the local community and students alike. 

Another area where college campuses are leading the way is in water conservation. Colleges consume huge quantities of water in dormitories, cafeterias, at athletic facilities and in maintaining their rolling green grounds. According to Niles Barnes of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), most of the 3,800 institutions of higher education in the U.S. have engaged in some sort of water-saving program. Low-water-volume toilets and urinals, as well as low-flow showerheads and faucets, are “pretty much standard practice across U.S. colleges today,” says Barnes. 

CONTACTS: ACUP, www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org; Sustainable Endowments Institute, www.endowmentinstitute.org; AASHE, www.aashe.org. 

Dear EarthTalk: What is the status of wetlands in North America? Years ago I remember that wetlands loss, due to development and sprawl, was accelerating fast, but I haven’t heard much on the topic of late. – John Mossbarger, La Jolla, CA 

Wetlands serve as primary habitat for thousands of wildlife species-from ducks to beavers to insects-and form an important ecosystem link between land and water. They also play a key role in maintaining water quality, as they filter out agricultural nutrients and absorb sediments so that municipal water supplies don’t have to. On and near shorelines, wetlands provide a natural buffer against storm surges and rising floodwaters, helping to disperse and absorb excess water before it can damage life and property. 

The eradication of wetlands in the so-called New World began when white settlers, intent on taming the land, started developing homesteads and town sites throughout what was to become the United States and Canada. Researchers estimate that at the time of European settlement in the early 1600s, the land that was to become the lower 48 U.S. states had 221 million acres of wetlands. By the mid-1980s, following another great period of loss after World War II when army engineers drained huge swaths of formerly impenetrable marshes and swamps, the continental U.S. had only 103 million wetland acres remaining. 

Across the U.S. and Canada, the vast majority of wetlands-about 85 percent-have been destroyed in the name of agricultural expansion. Other major factors include road building, residential development, and the building of large facilities like shopping malls, factories, airports and, ironically, reservoirs.  

But growing awareness about the importance of wetlands has led to new regulations aimed at protecting those that remain. A variety of state and federal programs, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wetland Reserve Program (whereby landowners voluntarily protect, restore and enhance wetlands on their own private property), have been effective in stemming the tide of wetlands loss. During the 1990s the rate of wetlands loss in the U.S. declined by some 80 percent over previous decades. But the nation is still losing upwards of 50,000 wetland acres per year, according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

The issue is of even greater concern in Canada, which harbors a quarter of the world’s remaining wetlands in its northern boreal forests. According to Natural Resources Canada, fully 14 percent of Canada’s total land mass is in the form of wetlands. Researchers believe that about 50 million acres of wetlands have been lost in Canada since European settlement. Underscoring the correlation between urbanization and wetlands loss, less than .2 percent of Canada’s wetlands lie within 25 miles of major urban centers today. 

On the global level, 158 governments are signatories to the 1971 Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, an international treaty that provides a framework for international cooperation in the conservation and wise use of wetlands. Some 1,743 wetland sites-totaling almost 400 million acres-have been protected as “Wetlands of International Importance” under the terms of the treaty. Although the Ramsar treaty can do little to stop illegal or legal draining of wetlands, its very existence highlights how seriously the majority of the world’s countries take protecting land formerly thought of as God-forsaken and useless.  

CONTACTS: Wetlands Reserve Program, www.nrcs.usda.gov/Programs/WRP/; Natural Resources Canada, www.nrcan-rncan.gc.ca; Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, www.ramsar.org. 

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: I really want to eat healthy and organic but am constantly traveling and on the go. How can I eat fast food without having to always end up at McDonalds and Burger King? – Dylan Baker, Seattle, Washington  

The latest trend in fast food is healthy and organic, and luckily for conscious consumers, several chains offering just such fare are taking root in different parts of the U.S. One of the leaders of this small but scrappy pack of fast food upstarts is O’Naturals. The small chain currently runs two stores of its own in Maine (Falmouth and Portland) and one in Acton, Massachusetts, and franchises out additional locations in Kansas and Florida. O’Naturals’ menu contains lots of vegetarian-friendly items, including “build-your-own” flatbread sandwiches, salads, noodle stir-frys and soups. The meat the restaurant does serve is grass-fed and hormone-free, while the chickens are free-range and the Alaskan salmon is wild.  

Another healthy option is EVOS, which currently runs five “quick-casual” restaurants in Florida and is planning a major expansion into the western U.S. Vegetarians can rejoice in the chain’s wide selection of vegetarian and vegan items. While its hormone- and antibiotic-free burgers are still only about as healthy as red meat gets, their soy burger satisfies without the guilt or the cholesterol. Also, EVOS uses organic field greens in its wraps and salads, organic milk in its milkshakes, and fresh fruit in its smoothies. Additionally, the restaurant air-bakes its fries and other typically deep-fried items to keep the fat content as much as 70 percent lower than the same kinds of foods found elsewhere. 

Meanwhile, Seattle-based Organics-To-Go, with five locations in Washington and California, lays out a wide array of “grab-and-go” organic and natural foods so customers can make up their own meals out of a cornucopia of healthy choices. Other fast food alternatives offering lots of health (as well as vegetarian and vegan) options include Au Bon Pain, Bruegger’s Bagels, Noah’s Bagels, and World Wraps, while Subway and Quizno’s alike can be good options for those willing to study the menu carefully.  

Even though many alternatives exist, it is hard to beat the reach of the major fast food chains, several of which are making small steps toward healthier menus and will undoubtedly continue to do so if consumers bite. McDonald’s, KFC, Burger King and Wendy’s have reduced or eliminated trans-fats. Burger King now offers a veggie burger, and McDonald’s is testing one in California. Taco Bell offers many non-meat options, including a bean and cheese burrito, a veggie fajita wrap, and a 7-layer burrito, which can be had without the cheese and sour cream. Carl’s Jr. also has many tasty and healthy vegetarian options despite an otherwise standard fast-food menu. Vegetarians and vegans looking for more ideas about what to eat when time is of the essence should consult any number of websites with pages devoted to the topic, including Vegetarian-Restaurants.net, VegCooking, FitWise and Vegetarian Resource Group.  

And remember, nothing beats seeking out local restaurants when you’re on the road, to soak up some of the local culture. And with trends as they are it shouldn’t be too difficult to find many that do serve healthy menus-just not quite as fast as “fast food” but probably fast enough. 

CONTACTS: O’Naturals, www.onaturals.com; EVOS, www.evos.com; Vegetarian-Restaurants.net, www.vegetarian-restaurants.net; VegCooking, www.vegcooking.com; FitWise, www.fitwise.com; Vegetarian Resource Group, www.vrg.org.  

Dear EarthTalk: Are sunscreens safe? Which ones do you recommend that will protect my skin from the sun and not cause other issues?     – Bettina E., New York, NY 

Getting a little sunshine is important for helping our bodies generate Vitamin D, an important supplement for strong bones, and f or regulating our levels of serotonin and tryptamine, neurotransmitters that keep our moods and sleep/wake cycles in order. Like anything, though, too much sun can cause health issues, from sunburns to skin cancer. For those of us spend more time in the sun than doctors recommend-they say to stay indoors between 11 AM and 3 PM on sunny days to be safe-sunscreens can be lifesavers. 

Getting too much sun is bad because of ultraviolet radiation, 90 percent of which comes in the form of Ultraviolet A (UVA) rays that are not absorbed by the ozone layer and penetrate deep into our skin. Ultraviolet B (UVB) rays make up the rest. These rays are partially absorbed by the ozone layer (which makes preserving the ozone layer crucial for our health), and because they don’t penetrate our skin as deeply, can cause those lobster-red sunburns. Both types of UV rays are thought to cause skin cancer. 

Yet while most sunscreens block out at least some UVB radiation, many don’t screen UVA rays at all, making their use risky. According to the non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG), by far most of the commercially available sunscreens do not provide adequate protection against the sun’s harmful UV radiation and may also contain chemicals with questionable safety records. 

In all, 84 percent of the 831 sunscreens EWG tested did not pass health and environmental muster. Many contained potentially harmful chemicals like Benzophenone, homosalate and octyl methoxycinnamate (also called octinoxate), which are known to mimic naturally occurring bodily hormones and can thus throw the body’s systems out of whack. Some also contained Padimate-0 and parsol 1789 (also known as avobenzone), which are suspected of causing DNA damage when exposed to sunlight. Furthermore, EWG found that more than half the sunscreens on the market make questionable product claims about longevity, water resistance and UV protection. 

As a result, EWG has called on the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to establish standards for labeling so consumers have a better idea of what they may be buying. In the meantime, consumers looking to find out how their preferred brand stacks up can check out EWG’s online Skin Deep database, which compares thousands of health and beauty products against environmental and human health standards. 

The good news is that many companies are now introducing safer sunscreens crafted from plant- and mineral-based ingredients and without chemical additives. Some of the best, according to Skin Deep, are Alba Botanica Sun’s Fragrance-Free Mineral Sunscreen, Avalon Baby’s Sunscreen SPF 18, Badger’s SPF 30 Sunscreen, Burt’s Bees’ Chemical-Free Sunscreen SPF 15, California Baby’s SPF 30, Juice Beauty’s Green Apple SPF 15 Moisturizer, and Kabana’s Green Screen SPF 15. Natural foods markets stock many of these, or they can be found online at websites like Sun Protection Center and Drugstore.com. 

CONTACTS: Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org; Skin Deep Cosmetic Safety Database, www.cosmeticsdatabase.com; Sun Protection Center, www.sunprotectioncenter.com, Drugstore.com, www.drugstore.com. 

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: How is wind power faring in the U.S. now? Is more of it coming on line and becoming a larger percent of the grid? And what about some of the highly publicized efforts to build wind farms, such as in Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Has that been approved? – Paul Howe, San Francisco, CA

Clean and green wind energy iscon the new darling of alternative energy developers, and the U.S. industry has been surging the past three years, especially as developers take advantage of government incentives-in the form of the so-called Production Tax Credit (PTC)-for erecting turbines and connecting them to the grid.

The non-profit American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) reports that, in 2007 alone, total U.S. wind power capacity grew by a new record of 45 percent, injecting some $9 billion into the economy. These new installations provide enough electricity to power 1.5 million typical American homes while strengthening the nation’s energy supply with clean, homegrown electricity.

According to AWEA, utility-grade wind power installations are now in operation across 34 U.S. states, generating more than 16,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity cumulatively-enough to power upwards of 4.5 million homes and to generate 45,000 new domestic jobs. But even with this growth, wind energy still accounts for just one percent of U.S. electricity supply. Continued growth apace with that of recent years, though, should make it a major player in the American energy scene within a decade. President Bush himself recently suggested that wind has the potential to supply up to 20 percent of the nation’s electricity.

Of course, the volatility of oil prices has helped wind energy gain its foothold. Once a wind farm is built, the fuel cost is essentially zero (as long as the wind blows), whereas fluctuating fossil fuel prices have made traditional power sources more costly and risky. Upping our reliance on wind power has also allowed us to lower our overall carbon footprint. If coal or natural gas were to be substituted to generate the electricity we now get from wind, it would put 28 million additional tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year. Wind power also saves water by not requiring the billions of gallons of water used to cool coal-fired power plants, an increasingly contentious issue in arid areas with limited access to fresh water.

As for the contentious Cape Wind project proposed for Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts, the federal agency in charge, the U.S. Minerals Management Service, is sifting through tens of thousands of public comments and expects to make a final decision on the project by next winter. But even if they give it the green light, extensive permitting demands and legal challenges will likely hold up construction for years.

AWEA thinks that 2008 can be as much of a growth year as 2007 if Congress extends the PTC program. The Senate has already approved extending the PTC for at least one more year, but the House has yet to bring it up for a vote. Meanwhile, wind energy proponents are pacing the halls of Congress trying to persuade their Representatives that what’s good for the wind industry is good for America.

CONTACTS: American Wind Energy Association, www.awea.org; Cape Wind, www.capewind.org; U.S. Minerals Management Service, www.mms.gov.

Dear EarthTalk: I am getting married this summer and was wondering if you have any tips on how to make the festivities greener? — Tara McCarthy, Los Angeles, CA

You know environmental consciousness has really taken hold when couples start to worry about whether their weddings will be green enough. But more and more people who care deeply about the planet view getting married as a chance to show off their values; so green nuptials make all the sense in the world.

To help remove the guesswork, many couples turn to wedding planners well versed in environmental issues. According to Idaho-based Angel Wedding Planners, every element of the wedding planning process can provide an opportunity to make choices that minimize waste and environmental impact. One of the easiest places to do right by the environment is in choosing invitations. Angel suggests going with tree-free or recycled paper, and also points out that a one piece folded design can save paper and envelopes.

In regard to feeding your hungry and thirsty guests, Angel recommends sourcing food and drink from local organic producers, if possible. Some caterers specialize in preparing and serving such items. Organic flowers (from local vendors or online via Organic Bouquet) are another way to make a green statement.

Another way to help ensure that your wedding is as green as can be is by avoiding disposable products wherever possible. Caterers should use real dishes, linens, cutlery and glassware, or rent them if necessary. Other areas where “green” decisions can make a difference include: wedding attire (consider a dress rental or buying a used one and then re-selling it); transportation (carpooling works for weddings, too, at least from the wedding to the reception); photography (those disposable cameras at every table are fun but they can be very wasteful); and wedding registries (there are numerous to be found through a Google search, or support a local green store).

Speaking of the Internet, many websites have sprung up in recent years to make the process of planning a green wedding easier. Valerie Edmunds, founder of Green Elegance Weddings, hopes her company can make an important environmental contribution by directing some of the $25,000 people typically spend on a wedding toward greener products and services. Her advertising-supported website provides page after page of free useful information about eco-friendly wedding apparel, invitations, gifts, flowers, food and beverages, even the honeymoon. The site’s Resource Directory contains links to a wealth of online information and to businesses and organizations that provide related earth-friendly products and services.

Those looking for even more virtual handholding might want to visit the website, OurWeddingDay.com, which provides dozens of free online tools (including an “RSVP Manager,” Save-the-Date E-cards, a Gift Registry and an Event Manager) to help couples create the “ultimate green wedding from start to finish.” The site also posts hundreds of articles from leading bridal magazines so brides can save paper by not having to go out and purchase any of the 135 or so foot-thick bridal magazines clogging the newsstands.

CONTACTS: Angel Wedding Planners, www.angelweddingplanners.com; Organic Bouquet, www.organicbouquet.com; Green Elegance Weddings, www.greeneleganceweddings.com; OurWeddingDay.com, www.ourweddingday.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: My old computer finally bit the dust and I am in the market for a replacement. Are there any particularly “green” computers for sale these days? — Brian Smith, Nashua, NH

Thanks in part to pressure from non-profits like Greenpeace International-which has published quarterly versions of its landmark “Guide to Greener Electronics” since 2006-computer makers now understand that consumers care about the environmental footprints of the products they use.

The latest version of Greenpeace’s guide gives high marks to Toshiba, Lenovo, Sony and Dell for increasing the recyclability of their computers and reducing toxic components and so-called “e-waste” (refuse from discarded electronic devices and components). The group also credits Apple, HP and Fujitsu for making strides toward greener products and manufacturing processes, but emphasizes that even such top ranked companies have lots of room for improvement when it comes to the environment.

PC Magazine, the leading computer publication for consumer and business users, recently assessed dozens of personal computers according to environmental standards it developed in-house based on energy efficiency, recyclability and the toxicity of components. The publication also factored in various “green” certification schemes such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s EnergyStar program, the European Union’s Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) directive, Taiwan’s Greenmark and the computer industry’s own Electronic Products Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT).

The top choices for green desktop computers, according to PC, are Apple’s Mac Mini, Zonbu’s Desktop Mini, HP Compaq’s 2710p and dc7800, Lenovo’s ThinkCentre a61e, and Dell’s OptiPlex 755. As for laptops, the greenest current models include Dell’s Latitude D630, the Everex Zonbu, Fujitsu’s LifeBook S6510, and Toshiba’s Tecra A9-S9013.

Perhaps more important than the green-ness of your new computer is what you do with the old one. Stuffing it into the trash or setting it out for curbside pick-up may be the worst thing you can do with an outdated computer, as heavy metals and other toxins inevitably get free and get into surrounding soils and water. If the machine still works, donate it to a local school that can put it to use, or to Goodwill or the Salvation Army, either of which can re-sell it to help fund their programs. Another option is to donate it to the National Cristina Foundation, which places outdated technology with needy non-profits.

Once you’ve gotten rid of an old computer and outfitted yourself with a spiffy new green one, you might just want to score a few green accessories. Brooklyn, New York’s Verdant Computing, which bills itself as a purveyor of “the greenest computer products on the web,” sells remanufactured ink and toner cartridges, laptop cases made from recycled plastic, GreenDisk CDs packaged in recycled plastic jewel cases, solar-powered MP3 accessories, energy-saving printers and even a software program, GreenPrint, which modifies the print programs on your computer to economize on paper and ink/toner use. Verdant also has most products shipped to consumers directly from the manufacturers to save re-shipping.

CONTACTS: Greenpeace International, www.greenpeace.org; PC Magazine, www.pcmag.com; National Cristina Foundation, www.cristina.org; Verdant Computing, www.verdantcomputing.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Are there any efforts underway to green the air travel industry? It seems to me that it must be one dirty business from a pollution standpoint. — Elias Corey, Seattle, WA

Environmental battles over the siting and expansion of airports are as old as the air travel industry itself, but only in recent years have the airlines themselves been under pressure to go green.

And there’s no time like the present for the industry to take some action: Air pollution from commercial jets is a growing concern among scientists, as is air travel’s role in climate change because of the more acute warming effect of emissions when they are disbursed so much closer to the upper atmosphere.

According to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, an independent group of scientists that advises the British government, emissions from aircraft will likely be one of the major contributors to global warming by the year 2050. According to USA Today, on a flight from New York to Denver, a commercial jet generates between “840 to 1,660 pounds of carbon dioxide per passenger. That’s about what an SUV generates in a month.”

Despite still gloomy times for the industry post-9/11, a few are actually responding to the call. Virgin is blazing new trails as part of a $3 billion investment in energy efficiency. The company is experimenting with biodiesel and ethanol-fuels derived from crops-and has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in ethanol-related businesses. But don’t expect to ride on a biofuel-powered jet anytime soon.

Airplane makers are getting in on the act, too. Boeing successfully flew the world’s first hydrogen-powered, fuel cell airplane in April 2008. A company spokesperson called the plane-a small one-seater-”full of promises for a greener future.” Boeing is working to develop a commercial version, but uncertainties about hydrogen production and distribution put this advancement well into the future, too.

So what can consumers do to fly greener today? Sharon Beaulaurier of GreenLight magazine suggests choosing airlines with newer, more fuel-efficient fleets such as JetBlue, Singapore Airlines or Virgin.

She adds that direct flights are better than those with stopovers, as frequent take-offs and landings use more fuel than when the planes are cruising. She also recommends avoiding airlines and airports with bad track records for delays, which leave planes idling and spewing greenhouse gases for hours unnecessarily.

The National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) runs AvoidDelays.com, which helps fliers choose airlines and airports based on on-time departures. Airlines with poor records include American, Atlantic Southeast, ExpressJet, Mesa and United, according to NATCA, which also calls Chicago’s O’Hare, New York’s LaGuardia, Newark, Philadelphia and San Francisco the worst airports for catching on-time flights.

Meanwhile, the European Union wants to require airlines touching down in Europe to participate in continent-wide carbon reduction programs already in place. Backers hope it will cut Europe’s exponential growth in airline emissions in half by 2020. Some carriers oppose the plan and are fighting it in court.

CONTACTS: Virgin Group, www.virgin.com; Boeing, www.boeing.com; AvoidDelays.com, www.avoiddelays.com.

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: It is true that the carcasses of whales that wash up on shore are considered dangerous to humans because of the amount of toxins and chemicals in their blubber? – Michael O’Loughlin, Tigard, Ore.

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.

Dear EarthTalk: How can I find out which seafood to avoid if I am concerned about lessening my impact on the environment and avoiding consuming unhealthy pollutants? – Pat Kelly, Seattle, WA 

Several decades ago a fish-centric diet was considered to be not only healthy but also environmentally friendly. But today those of us who eat a lot of fish may not be doing ourselves or the environment any favor. The two major concerns are overfishing and pollution. 

Demand for low-calorie, protein-rich fish has grown tremendously alongside increases in world population. At the same time, the technologies employed for catching seafood have improved to the point that the commercial fishing industry has essentially stripped the ocean of its once teeming fish populations. One recent analysis concluded that only 10 percent of the large predatory fish that once roamed the world’s oceans are left, due to overzealous sport and commercial fishing. Another study concluded that three-quarters of the world’s fisheries are either fully fished or overfished. 

Pollution from industrial, agricultural and other everyday activities like electricity generation and automobile driving has also taken a serious toll on the health of the remaining fish species. Scientists routinely find unsafe levels of mercury, PCBs, dioxins, pesticides and other harsh toxins in the fat, internal organs and even muscle tissue of many different kinds of fish. These contaminants are then passed on up the food chain to our dinner plates. 

According to Seafood Watch, a project of the Monterey Bay Aquarium that works to educate the public about the seafood crisis, consumers can make a difference by getting educated so as to make smart choices about what seafood to avoid. Consumers can download and print out free Seafood Watch pocket guides to the “best choices” across six different regions of the U.S.-after all, what’s abundant and sustainably harvested in your area may not be the same for someone across the country. 

Another convenient way to get the low-down on the fish you may be contemplating buying at the grocer or a restaurant is to text “30644″ with the message “FISH,” followed by the name of the specific fish in question. In a few seconds, an automated response will come back from the non-profit Blue Ocean Network’s FishPhone service with information on the status of the fish in question-and alternatives, should Blue Ocean consider the fish an undesirable choice. 

The basic skinny on fish consumption is that if you like it, you should eat it, but responsibly-that means in moderation and armed with the proper knowledge of which types of fish to buy and which to avoid. 

For those looking to cut down on or eliminate seafood from their diets but still gain the health benefits of eating fish, plenty of alternatives exist. As most vegetarians know, beans, tofu and many nuts can be significant alternative sources of protein. And walnuts, flaxseed and hemp oil/seeds are all rich in the Omega-3 fatty acids common in many fish and thought to help ward off heart disease, cancer, macular degeneration (age-related blindness), arthritis and inflammatory disorders. 

CONTACTS: Seafood Watch, www.mbayaq.org/cr/seafoodwatch.asp; FishPhone, www.fishphone.org. 

Dear EarthTalk: What makes those so-called “new urbanism” housing developments popping up around the U.S. more environmentally friendly than regular old suburban neighborhoods? – Rusty Spinoza, Galveston, TX 

The husband-and-wife team of town planners Andr©s Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk are typically credited as the founders of new urbanism, a style of community design that embraces mixed use (commercial and residential) development in pedestrian-friendly and green space-rich neighborhoods-much like the old neighborhoods many baby-boomers remember before suburban sprawl made us all slaves to our cars. 

Duany and Plater-Zyberk formulated their new urbanism principles while living in one of the Victorian neighborhoods of New Haven, Connecticut while they attended graduate school in architecture at Yale. Their neighborhood included corner shops, front porches and a variety of attractive and well-designed housing and commercial structures-planting the seed of an idea that has now swept the U.S. and beyond. 

The prototypical new urbanist community is Florida’s Seaside, which Duany and Plater-Zyberk began designing in 1979 for the 80-acre coastal parcel’s developer, Robert S. Davis. Their plan took the best elements of a handful of graceful southern cities like Key West, Charleston and Savannah to create a community based on the tried-and-true concept of walkable, self-contained neighborhoods. Besides 300 homes, Seaside contains a school, a town hall, an open-air market, a tennis club, a tented amphitheater and a post office-everything anyone could ever need in a town, and all within a five minute walk. 

According to the non-profit Smart Communities Network, Seaside works as a community because of its design: “Mandatory porches are set close enough to walkways to enable porch sitters and passersby to communicate without raising their voices…. The streets are all interconnected; creating a network that eliminates ‘collector’ routes and reduces congestion. Walkways crisscross the development to encourage walking and biking, while narrow streets serve to reduce traffic speed.” Building fronts are a uniform distance from the curb and all streets are tree-lined to further the community’s “sense of place.” 

Other examples of new urbanist communities include: Stapleton on the outskirts of Denver, Colorado; Seabrook on the southern coast of Washington State; Melrose Arch in Johannesburg, South Africa; Alta de Lisboa near Lisbon, Portugal; and Jakriborg in southern Sweden. Meanwhile, the idea has caught on in New Orleans, where developers are styling new communities in the wake of Hurricane Katrina based in part on the principles of new urbanism. 

According to the website NewUrbanism.org, being green is central to the concept of new urbanism, where houses tend to be compact and on small lots. And many developers are incorporating green building design and alternative energy generation into their plans for these communities. Furthermore, proponents say that building densely settled, walkable communities instead of road-intensive suburban developments cuts down on the need to drive, thus further reducing the carbon footprint. 

CONTACTS: Seaside, www.seasidefl.com; Smart Communities Network, www.smartcommunities.ncat.org; NewUrbanism.org, www.newurbanism.org. 

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: How safe are the fire retardants that are used to quell forest fires across the American West? – Barbara, Minneapolis, MN

So-called long-term fire retardants-those usually dropped from airplanes over forest fires-are comprised of water mixed with a slurry of chemicals, thickeners and corrosion inhibitors designed to prevent plants on the ground from igniting, keep the ingredients from separating and dispersing during targeted drops, and ensure that the harsh chemicals on board the plane don’t endanger the flight’s safety.

Firefighters sometimes add iron oxide to make the fire retardant turn red when applied so they can see where they have already covered. Ammonium phosphate and ammonium sulfate, known for their use as agricultural fertilizers, are also often added to provide nutrients to help the forest regenerate after a burn.

In recent years, where global warming and droughts have exacerbated forest fires across the American West, federal and state firefighting agencies have upped their cumulative annual use of long-term fire retardants to some 20+ million gallons a year spread across tens of thousands of individual fly-overs.

While such chemicals have been valuable in minimizing the damage of forest fires, their use comes with a price. The nitrogen in ammonium phosphate and ammonium sulfate can wreak terrible havoc on aquatic ecosystems, creating algae blooms that kill fish by choking out their oxygen. A 1998 study by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, found long-term fire retardants to be “very toxic to aquatic organisms including algae, aquatic invertebrates and fish.” The study also said that fire-fighting chemicals “could cause substantial fish kills depending on the stream size and flow rate.”

These chemicals have also been shown to affect some plants’ reproductive capacities. One study found that spraying fire retardants in some cases decreased plant species diversity, as weedier species better adapted to make use of excess nitrogen in the soil tended to thrive while native species were not able to compete.

In 2000 the U.S. Forest Service issued guidelines for use of fire retardants by aerial fire fighting crews. While the focus of the document was fire control and safety, it encouraged pilots to avoid applying retardant within 300 feet of waterways or other sensitive areas. The Forest Service acknowledges the risk of using retardants, but believes that their use in moderation is a net gain; as fewer “ground troops” need to be sent in to risky situations while more property can be saved from the ravages of a fast-moving fire.

Fires are actually an essential part of forest ecology and many species of trees and plants thrive in part because of the natural occurrence of fires (sequoia trees, for example, depend upon the high temperatures of forest fires to pry open their cones so new seeds can spring forth and take root). The main reason that such catastrophic, news making fires occur in the first place is that humans have sprawled too closely to the forest edge. This has lead to forest management policies that suppress natural fires, causing large build-ups of tinder-like woody debris that eventually ignites and burns out of control.

CONTACTS: USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center, www.npwrc.usgs.gov; U.S. Forest Service Guidelines for Aerial Application of Retardants and Foams in Aquatic Environments, www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/retardants/current/gen/appguide.htm.

Dear EarthTalk: There are so many energy drinks on the market, but they all seem very high in sugar, coloring and preservatives. Are there any natural versions that offer a healthier kick-start? – John Hwang, Cambridge, MA

Energy drinks constitute one of the fastest growing sectors of the soft drink market across the U.S. and around the world, with some 500 new varieties introduced in recent years. But it’s true that most are far from healthy. Besides containing excessive amounts of sugar and caffeine, which alone can be dangerous to those with diabetes or heart conditions, many also feature a battery of supposedly beneficial herbal supplements (taurine, guarana and ginseng) that are not proven to increase energy and may actually sap energy, being detrimental to bodies overloaded with new and unfamiliar stimuli.

“Most of the energy drinks contain high-tech-sounding ingredients that are not controlled substances, of no value, and potentially harmful” in large amounts, says sports nutritionist Cynthia Sass. “The amount of the stimulants is not always listed on the label, and even when the information is listed, it is hard for consumers to interpret because we are not familiar with these ingredients.”

Sass recommends good old fashioned water as the best alternative to energy drinks. Re-hydrating is a great way to stay alert and to move other nutrients through the body. Other tried and true ways to increase energy include maintaining a healthy diet, regular physical activity and, of course, a good night’s sleep.

But what about those times when you really need a boost? Yerba mate tea, which is derived from yerba mate plants that naturally contain caffeine as well as other natural stimulants, is a popular choice. Perhaps part of the reason some people swear by it is that its brewed leaves contain theobromine-also found in cocoa-an alkaloid known to help elevate the mood. Boosters of the drink say it also helps strengthen the immune system, relieve allergies and aid in weight loss.

Not a straight tea drinker? Brewed yerba mate, which has an earthy flavor that some call an acquired taste, is sold commercially not just as tea but also blended in lattes, coffees and energy drinks. Guayaki (available at Safeway, Wegmans, 7-Eleven and elsewhere) is one of a handful of companies paving the way for yerba mate in the U.S. The company sells flavored versions with a hint of cane juice to sweeten it up for otherwise sugar-addicted American consumers.

Another take on healthy energy drinks comes from a handful of companies selling products with vitamins and nutrients instead of caffeine to give drinkers a kick. Zipfizz is a powder that can be mixed in with water and contains a combination of vitamins and minerals that provide the body with electrolytes, antioxidants and vitamin B-12, among other natural, immune-strengthening nutrients. Eniva Vibe, also packed with vitamins and minerals, is another popular new entry into the healthy energy drink market.

As with anything you consume, mileage may vary, so to speak, so experts advise going slow at first to  make sure it agrees with you. And if all else fails, remember you can always just go take a nap.

CONTACTS: Cynthia Sass, www.cynthiasass.com; Guayaki, www.guayaki.com; Eniva Vibe, www.enivamembers.com/vibe_index.aspx; Zipfizz, www.zipfizz.com.

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: How or where can I recycle clothes that are too old or worn out for Goodwill? – Tim Cheplick, Perrineville, NJ

Just because that old shirt you used to love is too threadbare to wear anymore doesn’t mean it has to end up in a landfill. “Consumers don’t understand that there’s a place for their old clothing even if something is missing a button or torn,” says Jana Hawley, a professor of textile and apparel management at the University of Missouri-Columbia. “Ninety-nine percent of used textiles are recyclable.”

Non-profits like Goodwill and the Salvation Army play a crucial role in keeping old clothes out of the waste stream. When they get donations of clothes that are too threadbare to re-sell in one of their shops, they send them to “rag sorters” that specialize in recycling pieces of fabric large and small. Says Hawley, these textile recyclers sell about half the clothing they get back overseas in developing countries, while unusable garments, especially cotton t-shirts, are turned into wiping and polishing clothes used by a variety of industries and sold to consumers. She adds that other textiles are shredded into fibers used to make new products, such as sound-deadening materials for the automotive industry, archival-quality paper, blankets and even plastic fencing.

Outdoor clothing and gear maker Patagonia, which plies a strong environmental mandate in key aspects of its operations (from sourcing of raw materials to managing waste to making grants to environmental nonprofits), in 2005 launched its innovative Common Threads Garment Recycling program. The program was originally begun so customers could return their worn out Capilene long undies for recycling, but has expanded to taking back Patagonia fleece and cotton t-shirts as well as Polartec fleece from other manufacturers. Consumers wanting to unload items that meet the program’s criteria can do so at any Patagonia retail store or by mailing them into the company’s Reno, Nevada service center.

Of course, do-it-yourselfers handy with needle-and-thread or sewing machines can turn their old clothes into new creations such as quilts, handbags and smaller items. The website Expert Village, which claims to have the largest online collection of “how-to” videos, offers a free series called “How to Recycle Old Clothes into New Fashions.” Short step-by-step videos in the series cover such topics as transforming old garments into works of art; sewing patches, buttons and beads onto old clothes; deconstructing a wedding dress; ironing graphics onto old garments, and much more. Another good use for threadbare clothes (as well as sheets and towels) is pet bedding, whether in your own home or donated to a local animal shelter.
According to the non-profit Institute for Local Self-Reliance, textiles make up about four percent of the weight and eight percent of the volume of all municipal solid waste in the U.S. The commercial recycling company U’SAgain-which runs private for-profit recycling services in Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, Minneapolis, Seattle, St. Louis and elsewhere-finds that some 85 percent of the 70 pounds of textiles the average American purchases each year ends up landfilled. That means the typical U.S. city with 50,000 residents has to pay (with local tax dollars) for the handling and disposal of some 3,000 tons of textiles every year. The shame of such waste is that textiles are so easy to recycle or otherwise find new uses for.

CONTACTS: Goodwill, www.goodwill.org; Salvation Army, www.salvationarmy.org; Patagonia, www.patagonia.com; Expert Village, www.expertvillage.com; U’SAgain, www.usagain.com.

Dear EarthTalk: What are the conservation implications of all the wild colonies of escaped pet parrots that have turned up in and around some major U.S. cities? — Mike Gifford, Kirkland, WA

At least three dozen different parrot species are now considered threatened or endangered in their quickly shrinking native tropical and sub-tropical habitats (mostly in South America). As such, the health of wild flocks in the U.S. and other developed countries around the world may well be key to preserving these birds that could otherwise go extinct.

Today wild parrot flocks thrive in urban and suburban areas of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Texas, Washington State and elsewhere. San Francisco and Brooklyn each host particularly large flocks, especially considering their relative lack of green space. Wild parrot flocks are also reportedly thriving in cities across much of Western Europe. Most of these parrots, of course, are not former pets themselves, but the descendents of birds that long ago may have escaped during transport from their jungle homes to pet stores generations ago.

Parrots are among the most intelligent and adaptable birds, so it is no surprise that they’ve done so well in North America and other regions, despite colder temperatures. Indeed it is not uncommon in the Northeast to see large groups of parrots perched in winter on deck railings piled with several inches of snow. The regions they inhabit, despite the cold weather, provide enough food and shelter to meet their relatively modest needs. And once the parrots were able to establish themselves in their new habitats, they got on with the business of breeding. Therefore, their offspring, though born in the city, are wild birds nonetheless, carrying on lifestyles not unlike those of their ancestors back in the jungles of South America (though their predators are different).

Conservationists are optimistic that the parrots’ successful adaptation to more northerly urban environments bodes well for their future, despite the loss of much of their ancestral rainforest habitat. According to Roelant Jonker of the non-profit City Parrots, encouraging the formation of wild flocks of urban parrots promises to be a much more effective conservation tactic than trying to raise more birds in captivity where they would not so readily pass on their genes or learn the survival, adaptation and social skills necessary to survive. To Jonker, the proof is in the pudding: Some 2,500 wild red-crowned Amazon parrots (a quarter of the world’s total) are thriving in and around California’s biggest urban areas at the same time their population numbers are plummeting back in their native rainforest habitat.
The 2006 Judy Irving documentary, The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill, shadows wild parrot crusader Mark Bittner and his efforts to care for a wild flock of Red-headed Conyers living in San Francisco. Bittner feeds birdseed to the Conyers and gets to know each individual bird and its idiosyncrasies. The film’s shots of parrots interacting with one another and with Bittner really drive the point home how much we have in common with the wild kingdom of animals all around us, whether we live in the city or the country.

CONTACTS: City Parrots, www.cityparrots.org; The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill, www.wildparrotsfilm.com.

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: I know there’s a big debate now as to why we need bottled water at all, but is anyone addressing the incredible waste of plastic bottles by this industry? -- Bert B., Dubuque, Iowa

The plastic waste spawned by the recent astronomical growth in the bottled water business is significant. Environmentalists especially decry it because the water from our taps is usually as good as if not better quality than what’s inside the bottle (and indeed sometimes bottled water is just tap water). Further, water bottles are not subject to the bottle bill laws that have kept billions of soda containers-made from the exact same petroleum-derived PET plastic packaging-out of our bursting landfills.

According to the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), a Washington, DC-based non-profit committed to increasing the recycling of beverage containers of all kinds, sales of non-alcohol non-carbonated drinks-bottled water as well as energy and sports drinks-will likely surpass soda sales in the U.S. by 2010. More than seven times as much non-carbonated bottled water is sold annually in the U.S. than just a decade ago.

The fact that more Americans are switching over from unhealthy soda to water is a positive health trend, but reliance on bottled rather than tap water means that the environment is taking a big hit. CRI’s analysis shows that Americans have never recycled as much PET as in recent years. However, the sheer increase in bottled water sales means that even more of the material is going un-recycled than ever before. CRI says that if bottled water were covered under just the 11 state bottle bills currently granting five- to 10-cent refunds on returned soda bottles, the PET wasting rate could drop threefold or more nationally.

Besides being less wasteful, cutting back on the need to manufacture more plastic bottles from non-recycled (virgin) materials would also have a noticeable impact on America’s carbon footprint. CRI estimates that some 18 million barrels of crude oil equivalent were consumed in 2005 to replace the two million tons of PET bottles that were wasted instead of recycled. Some other negative environmental impacts of making more and more PET from virgin petroleum sources include damage to wildlife and marine life, air and water pollution, and greater burdens on already stressed landfills and incinerators.

CRI and others are working to get policymakers at both state and federal levels to mandate increased recycling for water bottles. Oregon is the first state to update its bottle bill-the first in the nation when it was enacted back in 1971-to include a five-cent refund on PET water bottles beginning in January 2009.

And just this past November, Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey introduced a bill on Capitol Hill calling for the creation of a federal bottle bill mandating a five-cent refund on all beverage containers-including water bottles. Entitled The Bottle Recycling Climate Protection Act, the bill is now with the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for review, and may come up for a vote this year.

Environmentalists are not optimistic, however, that such a bill can pass, given how influential the beverage industry is in protecting its interests, which include keeping the base price of its products like bottled water as low as possible, regardless of the availability of an after-purchase refund.

CONTACTS: Container Recycling Institute, www.container-recycling.org; The Bottle Recycling Climate Protection Act, http://www.fedcenter.gov/Articles/index.cfm?id=8608&pge_id=1854.

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve been hearing a lot about all the recycled materials being turned into handbags and purses. Are these bags actually fashionable? — Mary-Beth Johnstone, Cos Cob, Conn.

Eco fashion, especially in the world of bags, purses and carriers, has proven to be an inventive outlet for all kinds of recycled materials. And yes, most of these bags-even those made from such unlikely materials as candy wrappers (by Ecoist) or carpets (CarpetBags)-not only look good, but would probably draw looks of admiration from fellow bag aficionados.

The Canadian website, eco-handbags.ca, carries a large assortment of creatively adapted materials turned to wearable art from green handbag companies. There are bags made from old books, sailboat sails, juice boxes, aluminum cans, plastic bottles, neckties, cigar boxes, skateboards, candy wrappers, chopsticks, soda pop tops and bicycle tire inner tubes. And these don’t look like they’ve been knit together from a trash bin: They are impeccably sewn one-of-a-kind accessories. The juice box cooler bag, handmade by a cooperative in the Philippines for Bazura Bags, is a great all-purpose carry-all, while the sleek Roadster Handbag made of truck tire inner tubes by English Retreads makes for a stylish everyday purse.

Ava DeMarco and her husband Rob Brandegee one day looked at used license plates and saw handbags. The couple had launched their company, Littlearth Productions, in 1993 with a mission to match style with eco-consciousness. At first, license plates were used as ornaments on recycled rubber bags. Then they became the bags themselves, twisted into colorful cylindrical purses. Now Littlearth’s recycled license plate handbags can be found in more than 1,000 retail outlets and in the clutches of everyone from Oprah to Chelsea Clinton. “Everything we make is one of a kind, because all license plates are unique,” says DeMarco. In one year, Littlearth recycled more than 15 tons of rubber and 40,000 license plates.

And why not turn all that old tire rubber into something eminently wearable? The material is completely durable and effective for everything from men’s messenger bags to women’s clutches. “I’ve always been aware of the tire situation,” says Robin Gilson, president and founder of Vulcana, a company that makes bags out of recycled car tires.

“They collect water; they are breeding grounds for mosquitoes. I thought: ‘Wouldn’t it be great if you could melt car tires down and reshape them?’”

After taking a leave of absence from her job as an attorney in 1995, Gilson tracked down a company that would take recycled car tire crumb and mix it with natural rubber to create a material suitable for stitching into bags. Vulcana launched its product line in 2001. The company takes 30 to 50 percent of its material from recycled car tires. The rest is virgin rubber, mostly from small, family-owned plantations in Malaysia. Some products are hemp-fused, which means the rubber is cured directly onto a hemp fabric.

For animal-lovers the new range of handbags has been especially welcome-whether they’re made from tires, records, hemp or chopsticks, these bags are a great alternative to leather and an easy way to make a fashion statement.

CONTACTS: Bazura Bags, www.bazurabags.com; Eco Handbags, www.eco-handbags.ca; Ecoist, www.ecoist.com; English Retreads, www.englishretreads.com; Littlearth Productions, www.littlearth.com; Vulcana, www.vulcanabags.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: My pediatrician swears by those gel hand sanitizers for lowering the risk of my family getting sick during cold and flu season. But I’ve also heard that these products can be dangerous to kids if ingested. Are there any safer alternatives that work just as well?  – Jason Blalock, Oakland, CA 

A 2005 study by the Children’s Hospital in Boston compared illness rates across a study group of 292 families-half of them got hand sanitizers while the other half were given literature advising them of the benefits of frequent hand washing. The findings revealed that those families who used hand sanitizers experienced a 59 percent reduction in gastrointestinal illnesses and that the increased use of sanitizers correlated to a decreased spread of contagions in general. 

Another study conducted at Colorado State University yielded similar conclusions, that alcohol-based hand sanitizers were as much as twice as effective as either regular soap or antibacterial soap at reducing germs on human hands. A Purdue University study, however, concluded that while alcohol-based hand sanitizers may kill more germs than plain or triclosan-based soaps, they do not prevent more infections that make people sick. Instead they may kill the human body’s own beneficial bacteria by stripping the skin of its outer layer of oil. 

The down side of the gel/alcohol products is their danger as poison, especially for young children who may ingest the gel by licking it off their hands or eating it directly out of dispensers. Purell and Germ-X, two of the leading brands, each contain 62 percent ethyl alcohol. While this alcohol is what gives the products their germ-busting power, it also puts kids at risk of alcohol poisoning. A few squirts of the hand sanitizer-which is equivalent to124 proof booze-is enough to make a kid’s blood alcohol level .10, which is the equivalent of being legally drunk in most states. 

So what’s a concerned parent to do? Unfortunately, the so-called greener alternatives out there aren’t safe to swallow either. EO Hand Sanitizer, for example, though it uses organic lavender oil also contains alcohol to sanitize the skin surface, and would also be considered poison if a large enough amount was ingested. Similarly greener (but still not safe to eat) products are available from Avant and All Terrain. 

For now, soap and warm water-and constant nagging of your kids to wash their hands-may be the safest way to sanitize. Also, make sure that any hand sanitizer dispensers you may still use are kept out of the reach of little hands. 

But who knows how we’ll be sanitizing our hands in the future. Researchers at Arizona State University have found that certain types of natural clays pulled right from the ground are highly effective at killing bacteria. One type of green clay has been shown to do a number on E. coli, salmonella, staph and other bacteria known to make people sick. But the research is still in its infancy, so don’t expect to see moms pulling jars of clay out of their purses anytime soon. 

CONTACTS: EO Products, 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.

Dear EarthTalk: I just read an article that said air fresheners contain chemicals that can cause health problems when inhaled. Are scented candles any better? – Leanne Chacksfield, Cincinnati, OH

Like most air fresheners, many scented candles contain and release phthalates, potentially harmful chemicals that have been linked to the disruption of hormonal systems and other health problems in people exposed to them. Burning candles can also emit small amounts of acetaldehyde, formaldehyde and naphthalene, organic chemicals that are also potentially harmful and that can leave nasty black soot deposits on floors and other surfaces.

According to Pamela Lundquist of the nonprofit Children’s Health Environmental Coalition (CHEC), this black soot deposit “is primarily made up of elemental carbon, but may also contain phthalates and volatile organic compounds like benzene and toluene, which can cause cancer and neurological damage.”

Children can easily ingest these chemicals if their hands have been wandering and end up in their mouths. The chemicals can lodge deep in the lungs, disrupting the lower respiratory tract, exacerbating existing problems like asthma, and potentially causing other longer term breathing problems.

Despite laws against it, many candlewicks still contain lead, long linked to impaired learning and brain damage in children. Lead dispersed from burning candles can be breathed in and also constitute part of the dreaded black soot deposit. Candles with lead-containing wicks are on the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ban/recall list now (thanks to efforts by nonprofits like U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG), but many are still out there on store shelves. Consumers can avoid them by sticking to candles with soft cotton wicks, not stiff, metal ones.

Eco-conscious candle burners should also avoid paraffin-based candles, which are made from waxes derived in the process of refining crude oil and literally consist of fossil-fuel generating hydrocarbons. Unfortunately, the vast majority of commercially available candles are made from paraffin, though many alternatives are now available.

Soy-based candles are a popular choice, as they are made from plant waste and emit less soot than the paraffin variety. Beeswax candles are another nice alternative, as well, especially if you can pick them up at a local farmers’ market. For scented or aromatherapy candles, look for varieties that use only pure plant essential oils instead of synthetic chemicals with unintelligible names. Some leader makers of Earth- and people-friendly candles include Blue Corn Naturals, Honeyflow Farm, Vermont Soy Candles and Aveda.

CONTACTS: Children’s Health Environmental Coalition (CHEC), http://www.checnet.org/; Blue Corn Naturals, http://www.bluecornnaturals.com/; Honeyflow Farm, http://www.honeyflowfarm.com/; Vermont Soy Candles, http://www.vermontsoycandles.com/; Aveda, http://www.aveda.com/.

Dear EarthTalk: I notice occasional solar panels on roadsides, powering individual streetlamps or signs. Is any research being done to expand on this idea and implant solar collectors in roads, parking lots or sidewalks to generate power in a similar but bigger way? — Emily Eidenier, via e-mail

The concept of using road surfaces to generate clean solar power is actually already moving beyond the idea stage. Roads absorb heat from the sun every day and are usually free of sightline obstructions that could otherwise block the transmission of light rays. And if the roads built for cars and driving are partly to blame for global warming, why not make them part of the solution too?

Idaho-based company Solar Roadways is one of the trailblazers. Electrical engineer Scott Brusaw was inspired to start the company when he heard Caltech solar energy expert Nate Lewis suggest that covering just 1.7 percent of continental U.S. land surface with photovoltaic solar collectors could produce enough power to meet the nation’s total energy demand.

Brusaw put two and two together when he realized that the interstate highway system already covers about that much of the nation’s land surface, so he got to work designing a system that combines a durable and translucent glass road surface with photovoltaic solar collectors that could be wired directly into the electricity grid. Brusaw’s innovative design would also heat the roads in winter, thus providing a important safety benefit.

With improvements in the efficiency of solar collectors in recent years, Brusaw believes his system, if implemented from coast-to-coast in place of the tarmac on existing highways, could produce enough energy to meet the entire world’s electricity needs.

But skeptics wonder whether such an expensive high-tech road surface can stand up to the rigors of everyday use-from overloaded 18-wheelers putting extra stress on the highway to oil spills seeping into expensive electronic circuitry-without having to be replaced or repaired often. Brusaw acknowledges that his system still needs fine-tuning, but in the meantime is developing a working prototype along a 45-mile stretch of road between the Idaho cities of Coeur D’Alene and Sandpoint.

Europeans are also pioneering ways to use the sun’s rays to work as they beat down on roadways. The British firm Astucia has developed a road stud that contains small solar panels and emits LED light to illuminate dark roadways. On the 120 U.K. roads where the new studs have been installed, night-time accidents are down some 70 percent.

And the Dutch firm Ooms Avenhorn Holding BV has developed a way to siphon solar heat from asphalt road surfaces and use it to de-ice roads and help power nearby buildings. A latticework of pipes under the road surface allows water to heat up during warm weather. The water is then pumped deep under ground where it maintains its higher temperatures and can be retrieved months later to keep road surfaces ice-free during winter months. Apartment buildings, industrial parks and an air force base have benefited from the innovation, and the firm is working on exporting its system to other countries in the coming years.

CONTACTS: Solar Roadways, http://www.solarroadways.com/; Astucia, http://www.astucia.co.uk/; Ooms Avenhorn Holding BV, http://www.ooms.nl/english/.

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: As an online gamer, I spend a lot of time in front of my computer. What’s the environmental impact? And are “greener” PCs available?  – Bob Grant, Burlington, Vt.

Online gamers and other heavy computer users are definitely leaving an environmental mark. Depending on when it was made and how it was designed, a standard desktop PC can use anywhere from 60-300 watts when in use, while an inefficient gaming PC with powerful graphics card, multiple hard drives and optical drives, flash memory reader and a 30-inch LCD might consume as much as 750 watts, or about as much as a typical refrigerator. Until July of 2007, government Energy Star requirements only measured a computer’s energy use while in standby mode, which allowed the majority of brands to carry the label.  

New stricter efficiency requirements have brought greener models. You’ll find the largest selection from companies like Dell and Hewlett Packard. Many businesses use the Electronic Products Environmental Assessment Tool (EPEAT) to assist in the purchase of greener computing systems, and the evaluations can be useful to consumers, too. EPEAT evaluates and rates computing equipment on 28 efficiency and sustainability criteria, awarding them bronze, silver or gold for overall performance. 

Technology company VIA is well regarded as an industry leader in low-wattage processors (central processing units or CPUs), with some barely sipping only a dozen or so watts from the power supply. Some typical VIA designs can outperform competitors using only 23 watts, or less than half the power called for by Energy Star specifications. Of course graphics cards used by PC gamers are serious energy hogs. Your top-end ATI or nVidia card will render great graphics, but use 300 watts or more. Newer cards are better, but much depends on their use. The best advice is to buy only the graphics power you need.  

One of the easiest ways to save on computer power is to use technology that automatically rests when you do, and to shut your computer down when you’re not using it. Windows XP allows users to configure power management settings, and Vista Ultimate lets you configure power-saving options in even more ways. Vista can actually throttle its power consumption for some tasks and power down at other times. If you’re just typing a Microsoft Word document, performance will back down, whereas if you are editing video in a powerful program like Adobe Premier Pro, Vista will use all the processing power available.  

Bear in mind that screen savers are not energy savers. In fact, power-down features may not work if you have a screen saver activated. Happily, LCD color monitors do not need screen savers. In terms of shutting down, while PCs use a small amount of energy when they start up, it’s considerably less than the energy used when they are on for long periods of time. Consider turning off the monitor if you aren’t going to use your PC for more than 20 minutes, and both the CPU and monitor if you’re not going to use your PC for more than two hours. 

If you’re concerned about the “wear and tear” of turning PCs on and off, don’t be. Most PCs reach the end of their “useful” life due to advances in technology long before the effects of being switched on and off multiple times can have a negative impact on their service life. 

CONTACTS: Energy Star, http://www.energystar.gov/; EPEAT, http://epeat.net/; Recycling an old monitor, http://www.via.com/.  

Dear EarthTalk: Vegetarians and vegans are so self-righteous about not eating meat and how meat eating is so bad for the environment. How true are these claims? Frank Doolittle, Sudbury, Mass.

There has never been a better time to go vegetarian. Mounting evidence suggests that meat-based diets are not only unhealthy, but that just about every aspect of meat production-from grazing-related loss of cropland, to the inefficiencies of feeding vast quantities of water and grain to cattle, to pollution from “factory farms”-is an environmental disaster with wide and sometimes catastrophic consequences. 

There are 20 billion head of livestock on Earth, more than triple the number of people. According to the Worldwatch Institute, global livestock population has increased 60 percent since 1961, and the number of fowl being raised for food has nearly quadrupled in the same time period, from 4.2 billion to 15.7 billion.  

The 4.8 pounds of grain fed to cattle to make one pound of beef represents a colossal waste of resources in a world teeming with hungry and malnourished people. According to Vegfam, a 10-acre farm can support 60 people growing soy, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people growing corn-but only two raising cattle. 

Food First’s Frances Moore Lapp© says to imagine sitting down to an eight-ounce steak. “Then imagine the room filled with 45 to 50 people with empty bowls… For the feed cost of your steak, each of their bowls could be filled with a full cup of cooked cereal grains.” Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer says that reducing U.S. meat production 10 percent would free grain to feed 60 million people.  

U.S. animal farms generate billion of tons of animal waste every year, which the Environmental Protection Agency says pollute our waterways more than all other industrial sources combined. The infamous 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill dumped 11 million gallons of oil into Prudoe Bay, but the relatively unknown 1995 New River hog waste spill in North Carolina poured 25 million gallons of excrement into the water, killing 14 million fish and closing 364,000 acres of shell fishing beds. Hog waste spills have caused the rapid spread of Pfiesteria piscicida, which has killed a billion fish in North Carolina alone.  

Other than polluting water, beef production alone uses more water than is used in growing our entire fruit and vegetable crop. And over a third of all raw materials and fossil fuels consumed in the U.S. are used in animal production. Meat also increases our carbon footprints. According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, livestock around the world contribute more greenhouse gases (mostly methane) to the atmosphere-18 percent of our total output-than emissions from all the world’s cars and trucks. 

“There is no question that the choice to become a vegetarian or lower meat consumption is one of the most positive lifestyle changes a person could make in terms of reducing one’s personal impact on the environment,” says Christopher Flavin of the Worldwatch Institute. “The resource requirements and environmental degradation associated with a meat-based diet are very substantial.” 

CONTACTS: Food First, http://www.foodfirst.org/; UN Food and Agriculture Organization, http://www.fao.org/; Worldwatch Institute, http://www.worldwatch.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.

Dear EarthTalk: As I understand it, coal that is used to fuel power plants and other industrial activity is a key culprit in pollution and climate change. So what is “clean coal” and is it really? — Matthew Oliver, Minneapolis, MN

The term “clean coal” describes various processes that remove pollutants from coal, our cheapest, most abundant — and dirtiest — energy source. By reducing coal’s environmental footprint through technological wizardry, the coal mining industry and the Bush administration hope to keep coal, which currently produces more than half of all U.S. electricity, a big part of our energy picture for many years to come.

Clean coal proponents also want to liquefy coal to turn it into a form of automotive fuel that, according to the industry-sponsored Coal-to-Liquids Coalition, costs less and burns cleaner in some ways than the traditional diesel fuel it could replace. Several members of Congress from coal states are keen on having the government subsidize the production of so-called liquid coal — which can be used anywhere diesel fuel currently goes — as a “homegrown” alternative to foreign oil. Industry analysts say there is enough coal in America to last hundreds of years, saving us untold expense and trouble obtaining regular petroleum from unfriendly foreign governments.

But major environmental groups, from the Sierra Club to the Natural Resources Defense Council, say that “clean coal” is anything but. The process involves heating coal to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit and mixing it with water to produce a gas, then converting the gas into diesel fuel. Although the Coal-to-Liquids Coalition says that carbon dioxide emissions from the entire production cycle of liquid coal are “equal to, or slightly below, those of conventional petroleum-derived fuels,” its claims are based on a single federal study, now six years old, that environmental leaders disagree with profoundly.

Jim Presswood, federal energy advocate of the Natural Resources Defense Council says, “Liquid CO2 emissions are twice as much as emissions from conventional petroleum-derived fuels.” He says that even if CO2 emissions were captured as part of the process, at best liquid coal would be 12 percent worse than the gasoline equivalent. As some environmentalists have put it, liquid coal can turn any hybrid Prius into a Hummer.

The Washington Post editorialized, “To wean the U.S. off of just one million barrels of the 21 million barrels of crude oil consumed daily, an estimated 120 million tons of coal would need to be mined each year. The process requires vast amounts of water, particularly a concern in the parched West. And the price of a plant is estimated at $4 billion.” Also, in recent years, particularly in Appalachia, mining companies have gone from simple excavation to blasting off the tops of mountains in an ecologically devastating process known as “mountain top removal.”

For their part, greens acknowledge the importance of cleaning up coal and other dirty energy sources, but would rather see more funding devoted to researching, developing and implementing alternative and renewable energy sources that don’t come with so much environmental baggage.

CONTACTS: Coal-to-Liquids Coalition, Sierra Club’s “Stopping the Coal Rush.”

Dear EarthTalk: Everybody says stop using plastic bags, but what about all the plastic, cellophane, cardboard and other materials used for packaging the food itself? What can we do to reduce how much of this unnecessary stuff comes wrapped around our food? — Sunil Sreedharan, Mumbai, India

Yes, food packaging is a big problem in North America as well as elsewhere around the world, with landfills filling up and recyclers facing a glut of materials to process. It’s hard to say just how much of the 130 million tons of paper, plastic and metals that get tossed or sorted for recycling in major U.S. cities is from food packaging, but the percentage is no doubt sizable. The main problem is in the psychology of marketing: Manufacturers know that products in big flashy-looking packages attract more buyers.

A 1994 European Union directive requires companies operating in its 27 member nations to take back and recycle (or otherwise deal with, taking the burden off of local communities) at least 60 percent of their packaging waste, including that used for food items. But no such “producer pays” laws, which provide incentive for manufacturers to cut back on waste to begin with, exist in the United States or Canada. As such, it falls to consumers to patronize stores and manufacturers that minimize packaging.

One way to take a bite out of packaging is to buy as much in bulk as your family can keep up with. It may take longer to get through that gigantic box of cereal you got at Costco, but think of all the cardboard and plastic your bulk purchase saved over buying several small boxes. Similarly, instead of sending the kids off to school every day with a new juice box in the lunch bag, how about a safe metal or plastic reusable, washable container that you can refill each morning from the gallon jug you keep in the fridge?

Another way to forego packaging is to reduce time spent in large supermarkets, where wasteful product packaging rules. Most natural foods stores have large bulk-buying sections so you can haul away in large paper or plastic bags the equivalent of many containers of beans, pastas, rice or other staples. Frequenting local farmers’ markets — armed with your reusable shopping tote, of course — is another way to keep food packaging out of your home. The website Local Harvest offers a free searchable database of farms across the U.S. that run Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs and participate in farmers’ markets.

It’s worth noting that we tend to toss way too much food packaging where a quick rinse would make the same cans, jars and jugs useful storage containers or quality recycling fodder. Soup cans, for example, can easily be recycled into new steel and are collected universally by municipal recycling programs. And while you’re buying soup, opt for the family size cans and save leftovers instead of buying single-serving containers. Even when packaging material is recyclable, there’s no reason to waste it, as even recycling uses resources and costs money.

Beyond shopping and sorting more responsibly, individuals also have the power of their voices to pressure food makers to cut back on packaging. You can also try to persuade your elected officials to look into the feasibility of enacting “producer pays” laws in your community, city or state. And you can talk to co-workers, friends, relatives and others about the importance of buying in bulk and reducing waste.

CONTACTS: European Union Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, Local Harvest.

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

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve been reading about various green festivals going on around the country and I want to attend some and get up to speed on environmental issues and products. What are some good ones and how do I stay on top of all the wheres and whens? — Alex, Chicago, IL

Whether you’re a consumer in search of green products and healthy organic foods, an environmental advocate looking to network, or a businessperson who wants to “green up” operations, there is an environmental event out there for you.

One of the best is the Green Festivals series, which appears in an increasing number of U.S. cities every year and is growing in leaps and bounds in attendance. Co-sponsored by two leading national nonprofits, Global Exchange and Co-Op America, these so-called “parties with a purpose” bring together businesses, environmental groups and community organizations working toward the collective goal of “forging a just, sustainable, inclusive economy—a green economy.”

Hundreds of thousands of people from all walks of life have participated in these festivals over the last decade to peruse aisles packed with exhibits, hear speakers, make connections with like-minded folks and indulge in green-themed music, art, culture and food. In 2008, events will take place in Seattle (April 12-13), Chicago (May 17-18), Washington, DC (November 8-9) and San Francisco (November 14-16).

Another event geared toward the green-leaning general public is EcoFest, held every September for the last two decades in New York City. This free event also features myriad commercial and nonprofit exhibits and celebrity speakers and performers. Attendees at EcoFest’s 2008 event will get to check out prototypes of alternative energy vehicles, watch a green-themed fashion show and participate in environmental education workshops, among other events.

One very educational event is the yearly DC Environmental Film Festival, which takes place March 11–22 this year in Washington. The festival features 115 documentary, feature, animated, archival, experimental and children’s films, shown at various locations around Washington, including museums, libraries, embassies, universities and theatres. Most are free and many include discussions with the filmmakers and/or scientists and environmental leaders.

Many environmental festivals are broad with regard to topics covered, but several issue-specific and business-to-business events take place throughout the year as well. To key in to these events, go to the Green Fairs and Festivals page at the EcoBusinessLinks Environmental Directory. Examples include Texas’s Renewable Energy Roundup, Colorado’s Rocky Mountain Sustainable Living Fair, Georgia’s GreenBuild Expo, Vermont’s SolarFest, and Croton-on-Hudson, New York’s Great Hudson River Revival, which has been raising funds to protect New York’s Hudson River since the late 1970s.

Green events take place all year long, but a large number happen in the spring to coincide with Earth Day (April 22). Many school and community environmental groups hold Earth Day events every year. To find an Earth Day event near you this coming spring, consult Earth Day Network’s free online database.

CONTACTS: Green Festivals, EcoFest, EcoBusinessLinks Environmental Directory, Earth Day Network.

Dear EarthTalk: Is it possible to landscape my property in a green-friendly way? I would like to create a more natural and wildlife-friendly backyard, but I don’t want to break the bank doing it. Are there any tax incentives for completing such projects? — Michal Avraham, Olive Branch, MS

One common misperception about adopting green practices around the home is that doing so will cost more money. But this may be true only in the short run. There are certainly some up-front outlays to converting a conventional backyard into a more environmentally friendly space (like any landscaping job), but homeowners should be able to make their money back within a few years through savings on their water and yard service bills alone.

Landscapes designed with the principles of nature and wildlife habitat in mind are often referred to as “naturescapes” (or “xeriscapes” when they also require little water to maintain). They usually replace most lawn grass and instead populate space with native plants that are attractive to wildlife for food or shelter.

According to the nonprofit PlantNative, maintaining a green backyard can cost up to 90 percent less than keeping up a traditional lawn-based landscape. “Since naturescapes effectively take care of themselves, there is little or no maintenance and hence little or no maintenance cost,” says the group. The average American lawn costs about $700 yearly to maintain, says PlantNative, which also points out that the average household lawnmower is used upwards of 40 hours a year, the equivalent of a full work week.

Melissa Santiago, a researcher with Ohio State University who authored a fact sheet on the benefits of managing property for wildlife, couldn’t agree more: “Maintaining wildlife habitat or other natural areas can be a cost-effective approach to land management.” She recommends that landowners with room to spare plant one or more rows of native trees and shrubs as so-called “shelterbelts” that provide wildlife habitat and also provide shade in summer (to reduce air conditioning costs) and wind resistance in winter (they have been shown to reduce heating costs by as much as 30 percent).

Tax breaks for greening up your residential landscape are few and far between, but do exist. The state of Indiana offers tax breaks to landowners who convert a minimum of 15 acres over to habitat suitable for native wildlife. Many other state governments offer landowners similar assistance for maintaining habitat for threatened wildlife. And municipalities across the arid southwestern U.S. offer various incentives for homeowners who cut water use, whether through xeriscaping or any other means.

To get started converting your yard over, contact a local nursery well-versed in native landscaping to lend some informal or professional expertise. To find a nursery in your area that fits the bill, consult PlantNative’s free online directory of native plant nurseries. Or, if you want to do your own homework, check out the National Wildlife Federation’s free online Native Plant Guide (which covers the 50 U.S. states) or the Canadian Wildlife Federation’s guidebook Backyard Habitat for Canada’s Wildlife (available in print for $19.95 plus shipping).

CONTACTS: PlantNative, National Wildlife Federation, Canadian Wildlife Federation.

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: I heard a reference to “Earth-friendly chocolate” and was wondering about what goes into chocolate that would raise environmental concerns. — Ben Moran, Providence, RI

Like coffee beans, the cacao seeds from which we derive chocolate can only be grown successfully in equatorial regions — right where the world’s few remaining tropical rainforests thrive. As worldwide demand for chocolate grows, so does the temptation among growers to clear more and more rainforest to accommodate high-yield monocultural (single-crop) cacao tree plantations. What are left are open, sunny fields with dramatically lower levels of plant and animal diversity. Adding environmental insult to injury, most cacao plantations use copious amounts of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and fungicides that further degrade the land that once teemed with a wide variety of rare birds, mammals and plants.

Another problem with chocolate production, although not specifically an environmental concern, is the conditions endured by workers that pick and process the cacao seeds. The International Institute of Tropical Agriculture has documented some 284,000 children between the ages of nine and 12 working in hazardous conditions on West African cacao farms. In Africa’s Ivory Coast, for example, where more than 40 percent of the world’s cacao is grown, underage cacao workers are routinely overworked, performing often-dangerous farming tasks in a setting that some liken to slavery. As a result of these and other related injustices, so-called “fair trade” advocates have targeted large producers of cacao to improve working conditions and pay living wages that allow workers to get their kids out of the fields and into school.

Some cacao farmers have enlisted the help of scientists and environmental groups to find ways to produce chocolate more fairly and more sustainably. The nonprofit Rainforest Alliance, which works on similar issues with coffee growers, is now partnering with cacao growers in Ecuador to develop environmentally and socially responsible cacao production and processing standards. The standards seek to maintain critical conservation areas, reduce pressures to convert more forestland to cacao plantations, and provide social and economic benefits to local communities. As a result, some 2,000 cacao growers in five Ecuadorian communities have now formed cooperatives that help find new markets for their products while overseeing adherence to fair labor standards and environmental protection measures. Rainforest Alliance hopes to expand the program to other cacao growing regions of the world in the coming years.

Those looking to get their hands on some organically grown fair trade chocolate have more options than ever before. Leading brands include Dagoba, Endangered Species Chocolate, Equal Exchange, Green & Black’s, Sjaak’s, Sunspire, Terra Nostra Divine, Theo, Sweet Earth, and Yachana Gourmet. Actor Paul Newman has gotten in on the act, too, with his Newman’s Own brand. Like Newman’s Own, many of the companies donate money to environmental and other nonprofit efforts. Whole Foods and other natural foods retailers stock many of these brands, which are also available via various Internet-based retailers including Global Exchange’s Fair Trade Online Store.

CONTACTS: International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Global Exchange’s Fair Trade Online Store.

Dear EarthTalk: What’s a “land trust” and how does it help the environment? — Sam Stout, Darien, CT

A land trust is an organization that works with landowners to conserve their land, either by buying it from them or obtaining it as a donation. Legal agreements between the trust, the landowner and the local government are then created in order to permanently limit development of the land. Land trusts are usually nonprofit, and their purpose is to provide long-term stewardship of not just land, but sometimes areas of historical or archeological significance.

The need for land trusts arose out of public concern for the loss of open space, wildlife habitat and scenic beauty in the face of rampant development on private land during the latter half of the 20th century. More than 1,600 land trusts have since sprung up in a variety of communities across the U.S. Together they have protected some 37 million acres of land, according to the Land Trust Alliance, a Washington, DC-based umbrella group formed in 1981 to help land trusts share information and work more effectively.

When a land trust acquires land, it may retain ownership in perpetuity in order to protect the parcel from development. When landowners donate parcels to a land trust outright, they can take advantage of state and federal income tax deductions — similar to any tax-deductible, non-profit donation — while saving considerable money on property and estate taxes moving forward.

Whether a land trust buys a parcel or gets it donated, it can either hold onto the property or, depending on the arrangement with the former owner, sell it to a third party — often a local or state government that commits to turning it into a protected area. Land trusts also sell land to private buyers, usually with strict restrictions on future development. The benefit to keeping the land under private ownership is that it can then stay on local property tax rolls and thus continue to provide revenue for the local government.

Another way land trusts work is through “conservation easements,” whereby individuals can protect their land but still retain ownership and the option of selling or passing it along to heirs. Future owners of the land are also bound by the easement’s terms, which restrict development and use and are often monitored by a land trust. Conservation easements usually lower the financial value of their land (by limiting development potential), but landowners benefit because their property taxes go down accordingly. Likewise, if and when heirs inherit the land, the conservation easement lessens their estate tax burden.

Every conservation easement is different, but most include provisions limiting or forbidding construction or resource extraction. Often they protect especially sensitive lands such as wetlands. Some easements allow specific parcels to be used for agriculture, ranching or logging. Many allow hiking, camping, bird watching or even hunting (though some specifically ban hunting and are created for that purpose).

Another nonprofit group, the American Land Conservancy (ALC), functions like a national land trust working nationwide to ensure that large or exceptional pieces of property stay out of the hands of developers. Some of ALC’s work has led to the creation or expansion of national parks in Colorado, Hawaii and elsewhere.

CONTACTS: Land Trust Alliance, American Land Conservancy.

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 is the status of sharks around the world? I see occasional stories about sharks attacking humans, but on balance aren’t we a lot more brutal to them then they are to us? – Pam Hitschler, Radnor, PA

It’s true that humans do a lot more damage to shark populations than vice versa. Marine biologists report that sharks are in rapid decline around the world. In the North Atlantic Ocean, shark populations have declined more than 50 percent over the past 20 years alone, with some species now nearing extinction.

Experts see the primary cause as overfishing, which depletes sharks as well as their prey. Sharks are especially vulnerable to illegal "longlines" (fishing nets strung across dozens if not hundreds of miles of ocean), where they get inadvertently snared along with the tuna and swordfish fishermen intend to catch.

Rising demand for shark fin soup in is also contributing to the demise of sharks. According to a report by Wildaid, shark fins are among the most expensive seafood products in the world, selling for some $700 per kilogram on the Hong Kong market. With prices like that, many longline fishermen, who are already operating illegally, are happy to augment their incomes by "finning" a few sharks along the way. (Finning is the practice of removing a fin from a shark and discarding the rest of the carcass at sea.)

Often, threatened wildlife species manage to maintain their numbers in spite of excessive human predation. But sharks face an especially uphill battle, says renowned shark expert Ransom Myers, because they "take a long time to mature and have relatively few babies."

So what is being done to save sharks? In the U.S., the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act is the primary law that oversees the conservation of U.S. fisheries and has established various management regulations for 39 species of sharks in the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. It outlaws finning if the carcass is discarded but not if the rest of carcass is kept, clearly an unfortunate loophole.

The U.S. also helped develop a United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization treaty (the International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks) whereby 87 countries agreed to develop their own plans for the conservation of sharks. However, only two countries—the U.S. and Australia—have lived up to the agreement. The U.S. plan is administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which has been working with regional fisheries authorities to make sure fishermen are sticking to cautiously low quotas regarding the number of sharks they are allowed to catch.

What can consumers do to save the sharks? The Monterey Bay Aquarium in Monterey, California urges consumers to avoid all shark products, not just on restaurant menus but also all souvenirs such as jaws and teeth, and shark-cartilage pills, which have been touted as cancer cures but which have been proven to be completely ineffective and are now widely considered a scam. The aquarium also encourages consumers to support with their pocketbooks conservation groups working to protect sharks and oceans, and specifically those working to set aside marine reserves that are off-limits to fishing.

CONTACTS: Wildaid, Monterey Bay Aquarium.

Dear EarthTalk: What are some of the best online sources of environmental information? — Hip2bGreen, Seattle, WA

One of the best places to start in venturing out into eco-cyberspace is the website of a green group you already know—perhaps one for whom you have donated money or volunteered. Most groups use their websites to keep their supporters updated on the issues they cover, and provide links to many other green websites. Beyond such groups, several independent “third-party” sources also provide useful information on a wide range of environmental topics, from consumer tips to news to action alerts.

One leading green website is Grist (grist.org), which reports environmental news in a witty and engaging manner, billing itself as “gloom and doom with a sense of humor.” Checking out Grist’s daily rundown of environmental news is de rigueur among eco-activists, and many regular folks keep tabs on it, too. Other excellent news sources include Environmental News Network (enn.com), and Environmental News Service (ens-newswire.com). And one new kid on the block is The Daily Green (thedailygreen.com), which bills itself as the "consumer’s guide to the green revolution." Owned by major magazine publisher Hearst, The Daily Green offers news, green tips and advice, and a plethora of green home, food and lifestyle topics.

The Green Guide (thegreenguide.com), run by National Geographic, is probably the best online source for green consumer information, specializing in green living tips, product reviews and environmental health news. Looking for guidance on saving water around the house, choosing among non-toxic paints or packing greener lunches for your school-age kids? The Green Guide would be a good place to start.

If you’re interested in more comprehensive looks at green issues and topics, emagazine.com posts much of the content of its flagship E — The Environmental Magazine, along with weekly news and commentary. Visitors can also access 18 years worth of in-depth articles—the magazine has been turning out bi-monthly print issues since 1990—on just about every green topic imaginable.

Those interested in social networking and the environment should look to Care2 (care2.com), the world’s largest online environmental community. The site offers its eight million members free e-mail accounts and provides lots of background information on just about every environmental issue.

A handful of green blogs are starting to get a lot of media attention and web traffic. The king of them all is Treehugger (treehugger.com), which offers several posts each day from a stable of thinkers committed to environmental issues. Its coverage is not comprehensive, but Treehugger excels at tapping into trends in environmental thinking and culture. Another source of environmental tips and culture online is IdealBite (idealbite.com), a blog-style site offering up "bite-sized ideas for light green living."

And then there are the “click-to-donate” websites, where visitors can read up on a variety of conservation campaigns and then contribute money via credit card. Ecology Fund (ecologyfund.com), the Rainforest Site (the rainforestsite.com) and Red Jellyfish (redjellyfish.com) are some of the leaders in this category.

So cue up that browser and start clicking. You’ll be amazed at what you can learn, let alone accomplish!

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 is the impact of all the littering that individuals do, largely from their cars and on highways? What can I do to help clean it up? How can we strengthen laws to prevent it? — Won’t litter in Norwalk, CT

Environmentalists consider litter a nasty side effect of our convenience-oriented disposable culture. Just to highlight the scope of the problem, California alone spends $28 million a year cleaning up and removing litter along its roadways. And once trash gets free, wind and weather move it from streets and highways to parks and waterways. One study found that 18 percent of litter ends up in rivers, streams and oceans.

Cigarette butts, snack wrappers and take-out food and beverage containers are the most commonly littered items. Cigarettes are one of the most insidious forms of litter: Each discarded butt takes 12 years to break down, all the while leaching toxic elements such as cadmium, lead and arsenic into soil and waterways.

The burden of litter cleanup usually falls to local governments or community groups. Some U.S. states, including Alabama, California, Florida, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Texas and Virginia, are taking strong measures to prevent litter through public education campaigns, and are spending millions of dollars yearly to clean up. British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland also have strong anti-litter campaigns.

Keep America Beautiful (KAB), the group known for its "crying Indian" anti-litter TV ads of bygone days, has been organizing litter clean-ups across the U.S. since 1953. KAB has a strong track record of success in litter prevention, though it has been accused of doing the bidding of its industry founders and supporters (which include tobacco and beverage companies) by opposing many mandatory bottle and can recycling initiatives over the years and downplaying the issue of litter from cigarettes. Nonetheless, 2.8 million KAB volunteers picked up 200 million pounds of litter in KAB’s annual Great American Clean-up last year.

A more grassroots-oriented litter prevention group is Auntie Litter, which started in 1990 in Alabama to help educate students there about the importance of a healthy and clean environment. Today the group works internationally to help students, teachers and parents eliminate litter in their communities.

In Canada, the nonprofit Pitch-In Canada (PIC), founded in the late-1960s by some hippies in British Columbia, has since evolved into a professionally run national organization with a tough anti-litter agenda. Last year 3.5 million Canadians volunteered in PIC’s annual nationwide Cleanup Week.

Doing your part to keep litter to a minimum is easy, but it takes vigilance. For starters, never let trash escape from your car, and make sure household garbage bins are sealed tightly so animals can’t get at the contents. Always remember to take your garbage with you upon leaving a park or other public space. And if you’re still smoking, isn’t saving the environment a compelling enough reason to finally quit? Also, if that stretch of roadway you drive everyday to work is a haven for litter, offer to clean it up and keep it clean. Many cities and towns welcome “Adopt-A-Mile” sponsors for particularly litter-prone streets and highways, and your employer might even want to get in on the act by paying you for your volunteer time.

CONTACTS: Keep America Beautiful, Auntie Litter, Pitch-In Canada.

Dear EarthTalk: My uncle worked for over a decade on the top floor of an office building with cell phone towers directly above him. He was recently diagnosed with cancer. Is there any scientific evidence of links between exposure to cell phone tower radiation and cancer? — Jennifer L., Wellesley, MA

No one doubts that cell phone towers give off low-level radio-frequency radiation (similar to the microwave oven in your home), but scientists are still debating the health effects of long-term exposure. Some people are genetically predisposed to certain types of cancers, while others are not (for example, some lifelong smokers get lung cancer while others don’t). And with so many different chemicals, pollutants and other substances around us in our air, food and water, it is very difficult to determine with certainty if a particular environmental influence (such as a cell phone tower) is the culprit when health problems, such as cancer, arise in a particular locale or among certain populations.

But that hasn’t stopped many communities from worrying about this issue and taking cautionary measures. In San Francisco, for instance, concerned individuals and neighborhood groups have formed the San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU) for the purpose of preventing "the placement of wireless antennas on or near residences, schools, health care centers, day care centers, senior centers, playgrounds, places of worship, and other inappropriate locations…"

SNAFU is worried that San Francisco is “already immersed in a sea of electromagnetic radiation” from, among other sources, some 2,500 licensed cell phone antennas at 530 locations around the city. The group is distributing petitions calling on local public officials to increase “restrictions on the number and location of cellular phone antennas and other wireless transmitters.” Other controversies have erupted in communities in Connecticut and elsewhere over churches renting their rooftops and steeples to cell phone companies for placement of antennas. And parents in Ossining, New York waged an unsuccessful battle in 2000 to ban revenue-generating cell towers from school grounds.

Still, the American Cancer Society (ACS) does not seem concerned, stating that limited epidemiological evidence suggests no link between cancers and living or working near a cell phone tower. ACS says that the energy level of radio waves coming off cell towers is too low to cause any noticeable human health impacts, and that a person would have to stand right in front of an antenna to pick up even trace amounts of radiation. And unlike X-rays or gamma rays, radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation is "non-ionizing," meaning it lacks the gusto to break the bonds that hold molecules (like DNA) in cells together.

Still, cell phones and their towers are a fairly new technology, and very few studies of their health effects have yet been conducted. And the bulk of the research cited by the American Cancer Society has focused on direct and prolonged exposure to radio-frequency electromagnetic radiation in general, not on cell towers and their effects specifically. SNAFU reports that "no systematic attempt has been made to determine what current cumulative exposures to this radiation are…." Lingering public concerns about the issue surely means that more research on the topic is to come.

CONTACTS: American Cancer Society, San Francisco Neighborhood Antenna-Free Union (SNAFU).

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.