Sunspots are storms on the sun’s surface that are marked by intense magnetic activity and play host to solar flares and hot gassy ejections from the sun’s corona. Scientists believe that the number of spots on the sun cycles over time, reaching a peak—the so-called Solar Maximum—every 11 years or so. Some studies indicate that sunspot activity overall has doubled in the last century. The apparent result down here on Earth is that the sun glows brighter by about 0.1 percent now than it did 100 years ago.

Solar wind, according to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, consists of magnetized plasma flares and in some cases is linked to sunspots. It emanates from the sun and influences galactic rays that may in turn affect atmospheric phenomena on Earth, such as cloud cover. But scientists are the first to admit that they have a lot to learn about phenomena like sunspots and solar wind, some of which is visible to humans on Earth in the form of Aurora Borealis and other far flung interplanetary light shows.

Some skeptics of human-induced climate change blame global warming on natural variations in the sun’s output due to sunspots and/or solar wind. They say it’s no coincidence that an increase in sunspot activity and a run-up of global temperatures on Earth are happening concurrently, and view regulation of carbon emissions as folly with negative ramifications for our economy and tried-and-true energy infrastructure.

“[V]ariations in solar energy output have far more effect on Earth’s climate than soccer moms driving SUVs,” Southwestern Law School professor Joerg Knipprath, writes in his ‘Token Conservative’ blog. “A rational thinker would understand that, especially if he or she has some understanding of the limits of human influence. But the global warming boosters have this unbounded hubris that it is humans who control nature, and that human activity can terminally despoil the planet as well as cause its salvation.”

Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth’s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity—and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim.

Peter Foukal of the Massachusetts-based firm Heliophysics, Inc., who has tracked sunspot intensities from different spots around the globe dating back four centuries, also concludes that such solar disturbances have little or no impact on global warming. Nevertheless, he adds, most up-to-date climate models—including those used by the United Nations’ prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—incorporate the effects of the sun’s variable degree of brightness in their overall calculations.

Ironically, the only way to really find out if phenomena like sunspots and solar wind are playing a larger role in climate change than most scientists now believe would be to significantly reduce our carbon emissions. Only in the absence of that potential driver will researchers be able to tell for sure how much impact natural influences have on the Earth’s climate.

CONTACTS:  NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, www.solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov; Token Conservative Blog, www.tokenconservative.com; IPCC, www.ipcc.ch.

Dear EarthTalk: Are the United States’ vast oil shale resources a potential source of energy?

– Larry LeDoux, Honolulu, HI

Oil shale is a fine-grained sedimentary rock that contains significant amounts of kerogen, a solid mixture of organic chemical compounds that can be converted into synthetic liquid fuel similar to oil, or into shale gas similar to petroleum-derived natural gas. Geologists believe there is more oil shale out there in the rocks of the world—three trillion barrels worth of fuel—than there is oil in existing reserves globally.

Oil shale has been mined extensively in Brazil, China, Estonia, Germany, Israel and Russia, but up to two-thirds of the world’s supply lies in the Green River basin of the western United States, including parts of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. To date, these American oil shale resources remain virtually untapped, but an 11th hour executive order by the Bush administration in 2008 put two million acres of Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land across Wyoming, Utah and Colorado up for lease to oil shale extractors.

Other nations with oil shale reserves have been mining them for decades for power generation and other uses, but American enthusiasm has run hot and cold, depending on oil prices. The U.S. was bullish on oil shale during the 1970’s oil shocks, but when gas prices fell again, so did the enthusiasm for oil shale.

American companies didn’t look into mining domestic oil shale again until 2003—again, thanks to spiking oil prices. George W. Bush’s Energy Policy Act of 2005 officially opened federal lands to oil shale extraction. But then once again lowered oil prices, along with environmental concerns and growing enthusiasm for renewable energy sources left oil shale’s future in the U.S. again uncertain.

For their part, environmental groups are unequivocally against oil shale extraction. For one, extracting operations destroy affected landscapes, forcing plants and animals out, with regeneration unlikely for decades. Another big issue with oil shale extraction is water usage. The process requires as much as five barrels of water—for dust control, cooling and other purposes—for every barrel of shale oil produced.

Oil shale extraction is also very energy-intensive, and as such is no solution to our global warming woes. Researchers have found that a gallon of shale oil can emit as much as 50 percent more carbon dioxide than a gallon of conventional oil would over its given lifecycle from extraction to tailpipe.

Due to these concerns and others, 13 environmental groups, including the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council, teamed up in January 2009 to file suit against the federal government for opening up all that western U.S. land to oil shale development. The suit contends that the BLM failed to properly consider air quality and endangered species impacts in the region. The groups also contend that the development would require the construction of 10 new coal-fired power plants in order to get at and process the oil shale, significantly upping the carbon footprint of the entire region.

Green groups hope that the Obama administration will overturn Bush’s decision to lease development rights on the land, which is near three national parks in one of the least developed parts of the U.S.

CONTACTS: Bureau of Land Management, www.blm.gov; Wilderness Society, www.wilderness.org; Sierra Club, www.sierraclub.org; Natural Resources Defense Council, www.nrdc.org.

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

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.

A typical mattress is a 23 cubic foot assembly of steel, wood, cotton and polyurethane foam. Given this wide range of materials, mattresses have typically been difficult to recycle-and still most municipal recycling facilities won’t offer to do it for you. But along with increasing public concerns about the environment-and a greater desire to recycle everything we can-has come a handful of private companies and nonprofit groups that want to make sure your old bed doesn’t end up in a landfill.

The Lane County, Oregon chapter of the charity St. Vincent de Paul Society, for example, has spearheaded one of the nation’s most successful mattress recycling initiatives via its DR3 (“Divert, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle”) program. “Keeping [mattresses] out of landfills is a matter of efficiently recycling them so their core materials can be reincarnated into any number of new products,” reports the group, which opened a large mattress recycling center in Oakland, California in 2001. (Why hundreds of miles away in Oakland? To “go where the mattresses are,” says Chance Fitzpatrick of the group.) The facility has been processing upwards of 300 mattresses and box springs per week ever since.

During the recycling process, each mattress or box spring is pushed onto a conveyor belt, where specially designed saws cut away soft materials on the top and bottom, separating the polyurethane foam and cotton fiber from the framework. The metal pieces are magnetically removed, and the remaining fiber materials are then shredded and baled. The whole process takes one worker just three to four minutes per mattress.

On a slow day, the DR3 facility recycles some 1,500 pounds of polyurethane foam, which totals a half million or more pounds over the course of a year. “A well-oiled recycling factory can reuse 90 percent of the mattress,” reports Josh Peterson of Discovery’s Planet Green website. “The cotton and cloth get turned into clothes. The springs and the foam get recycled, and the wood gets turned into chips.” While the DR3 facility only takes mattresses from a small group of waste haulers and individuals around the San Francisco Bay Area, other mattress recyclers are popping up around the U.S. and beyond. Some examples include Nine Lives Mattress Recycling in Pamplico, South Carolina; Conigliaro Industries in Framingham, Massachusetts; MattCanada in Montreal, Québec; and Dreamsafe in Moorabbin, Australia. To find a mattress recycler near you, consult the free online database at Earth911.org.

Those who aren’t near a recycling facility might consider giving their old mattress away. But many health departments prohibit donating mattresses to charities like the Salvation Army or Goodwill. So what’s an upgraded sleeper with a perfectly good old mattress to do? The web-based Freecycle Network allows people to post stuff to give away to anyone willing to come pick it up; likewise, chances are your local version of Craigslist also has a “free” section where you can post that it as available.

CONTACTS: DR3 Mattress Recycling; Nine Lives Mattress Recycling; Conigliaro Industries; MattCanada; Dreamsafe; Freecycle Network.

Dear EarthTalk: Is there any truth to the rumor about high levels of birth control chemicals being found in some cities’ drinking water? If so can these be filtered out?

– Elizabeth Yerkes, via email

It is true that trace amounts of birth control and other medications-as well as household and industrial chemicals of every stripe-are present in many urban and suburban water supplies around the country, but there is considerable debate about whether their levels are high enough to warrant concern. In 2008 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) tested water in nine states across the country and found that 85 man-made chemicals, including some medications, were commonly slipping through municipal treatment systems and ending up in our tap water. Another report by the Associated Press found trace amounts of dozens of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water supplies of some 46 million Americans.

But according to USGS, such chemicals and medications are so diluted-at levels equal to a thimble full of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool-that they do not pose a health threat. But others aren’t so sure. Researchers have found evidence that even extremely diluted concentrations of drug residues harm fish, frogs and other aquatic species, and have been shown to labs to impair human cell function.

One of the common culprits is estrogen, much of which is inadvertently released into sewers through the urine of women taking birth control. Studies have shown that estrogen can wreak reproductive havoc on some fish, which spawn infertile offspring sporting a mixture of male and female parts. Researchers at the University of Pittsburgh found that human breast cancer cells grew twice as fast when exposed to estrogen taken from catfish caught near untreated sewage overflows. “There is the potential for an increased risk for those people who are prone to estrogenic cancer,” said Conrad Volz, lead researcher on the study.

What may be more troubling is the mixture of contaminants and how they might interact to cause health problems. “The biggest concern is the stew effect,” says Scott Dye of the Sierra Club’s Water Sentinels program. “Trace amounts of this mixed with trace amounts of that can equal what? We don’t know.”

With such contaminants proving elusive to municipal filtration systems, the burden of protection often lies with the end user. But getting traces of birth control and other drugs out of your tap water isn’t so easy. Of the many different kinds of in-home water filtration systems available today, only those employing reverse osmosis have been shown to filter out some drugs. Some makers of activated carbon water filters claim their products catch pharmaceuticals, but independent research has not verified such claims.

“The best choice,” says Cathy Sherman of the natural health website Natural News, “would probably be a combination of a reverse osmosis filter augmented by pre- and post-activated carbon filters.” Installing such a system just for drinking water is sufficient, she says, given that water used for cleaning and plumbing doesn’t typically get ingested. As to prevention, the non-profit public health and safety agency, NSF International, urges individuals to not use their toilets or sinks to dispose of unused medications and to opt for the garbage instead; most modern landfills are lined to keep such contaminants inside.

CONTACTS: USGS Water Resources; Sierra Club; NSF International; Natural News.

EarthTalk is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EARTHTALK, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit your question at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk.html; or e-mail us at: earthtalk@emagazine.com.

– Nicole Koslowsky, Pompano Beach, FL

Gasoline-electric hybrids, like the Toyota Prius, are all the rage due to their fuel efficiency, and consumers have been clamoring for carmakers to up the ante and give these vehicles a plug. This way the batteries can be charged at home and not just by the gas engine and other on-board features, thus greatly reducing the need for gas except for long trips. And purely electric cars, like the Tesla Roadster already on the market, will be making more appearances on the streets as greater production brings the costs down.

So what’s an electric or plug-in hybrid driver to do when they need a charge and they’re nowhere near home? Plug-ins are expected to reach up to 60 miles on a charge (great for a commute but not for a longer trip); and though the Tesla reportedly went 241 miles on a charge in a recent European road rally, its everyday stop-and-go efficiency will likely be less and drivers will need “pit stops” far from home.

A few forward-thinking large companies have installed electric outlets accessible to employee parking, but most plug-in hybrid and electric car drivers will be looking for help well beyond the scope of their commutes. In the U.S., several cities in California, as well as Seattle, Chicago, Phoenix and others are now setting up recharging infrastructures. Paris, where Toyota is testing plug-in hybrids, already has over 80 recharging stations throughout the city and suburbs. Across the channel, London is working with the nonprofit Environmental Defense to install upwards of 40 electric recharging stations around town.

According to the California Cars Initiative (CalCars), which promotes plug-in hybrids, Americans recharging their plug-ins via a regular 120V outlet should expect to pay about $1 per gallon equivalent. “Using the average U.S. electricity rate of nine cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), 30 miles of electric driving will cost 81 cents,” the group maintains. “If we optimistically assume the average U.S. fuel economy is 25 miles per gallon, at $3.00 gasoline this equates to 75 cents a gallon for equivalent electricity.”

For its part, Toyota has already released a few hundred plug-in Priuses in the U.S. to university and commercial fleet customers. The company will monitor the vehicles’ performance and use the data to tweak the design for a consumer-friendly version sometime after 2010. Pricing on the vehicles, which get 65 miles per gallon or more in combined gas/electric mode and can run on electricity alone, is as yet undecided. But chances are the car will command a premium of several thousand dollars over the cost of a regular hybrid Prius. The fact that such a feature might obviate the need for gasoline entirely-save for long trips away from charging facilities-may well make it worth the extra up-front cost for some buyers.

Those unwilling to wait for a mass-market plug-in can have their existing Prius or Ford Escape hybrid converted accordingly by any of several “aftermarket” companies at a cost of $6,000 and up. CalCars provides a comprehensive listing of vendors across the U.S. and elsewhere that can do the conversions, and also offers its own instructions for those engineering-savvy hybrid owners who can do it themselves.

CONTACTS: Tesla Motors, www.teslamotors.com; Environmental Defense, www.edf.org; California Cars Initiative, www.calcars.org; Toyota, www.toyota.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Are plans to mine uranium near the Grand Canyon, as proposed by the Bush administration in 2008, still underway? -- Denton Chase, Half Moon Bay, CA

The Obama administration has been quick to overturn several anti-environmental moves ushered in during the 11th hour of George W. Bush’s presidency, but halting uranium exploration and mining near the Grand Canyon has not been one of them.

Last fall, Bush’s Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, circumvented a prohibition on mining activities by authorizing uranium exploration within a million acre buffer zone around Grand Canyon National Park. Recent spikes in the price of uranium-perhaps due to renewed interest in nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels as global warming makes its presence felt-have led to a surge in applications for new uranium mining permits on otherwise protected federal lands.

Green groups fear that once mining starts near the Grand Canyon, similar destructive plans will also get the green light in and around other protected areas, including Arches National Park, Capitol Reef National Park, Canyonlands National Park and the proposed Dolores River Canyon wilderness area.

When Kempthorne first proposed opening up the land to uranium mining, several concerned parties-including dozens of elected officials, public utilities and Native American tribes-complained about potential threats to surface and ground water from such activities. They fear that uranium mining in the area could lead to the release of radioactivity and heavy metals like selenium into the Colorado River and its watershed, including within Grand Canyon National Park.

In lieu of federal action on the issue, green groups have taken up the cause. Some, like the Pew Environment Group, are lobbying President Obama to overturn the mining allowances; others are working the judicial angle. Three organizations-the Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust and Sierra Club-filed suit in federal court in October 2008 to block the Bureau of Land Management, which manages the area, from allowing uranium mining in what they consider risky and nationally significant areas. “This is an agency in dire need of leadership from the new administration,” says Taylor McKinnon, public lands program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Grand Canyon deserves it.”

The battle over uranium mining near the Grand Canyon sheds light on an even larger issue: the 1872 Mining Law, enacted under President Ulysses S. Grant and still in effect today. Long a bone of contention along partisan lines, the law has so far opened up of some 350 million acres of public land across the western U.S. to virtually unchecked mining. Green groups maintain that the law, put in place to encourage westward expansion, no longer makes sense in the modern era of dwindling natural resources.

“Current federal policy that allows the mining industry to operate next to America’s national icons and against the will of local communities must be changed,” said Jane Danowitz, Pew’s U.S. public lands program director. “It’s time to modernize the nation’s 1872 mining law.”

CONTACTS: Center for Biological Diversity, www.biologicaldiversity.org; Sierra Club, www.sierraclub.org; Pew Environment Group, www.pewtrusts.org.

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

Unfortunately for many whales, dolphins and other marine life, the use of underwater sonar (short for sound navigation and ranging) can lead to injury and even death. Sonar systems-first developed by the U.S. Navy to detect enemy submarines-generate slow-rolling sound waves topping out at around 235 decibels; the world’s loudest rock bands top out at only 130. These sound waves can travel for hundreds of miles under water, and can retain an intensity of 140 decibels as far as 300 miles from their source. 

These rolling walls of noise are no doubt too much for some marine wildlife. While little is known about any direct physiological effects of sonar waves on marine species, evidence shows that whales will swim hundreds of miles, rapidly change their depth (sometime leading to bleeding from the eyes and ears), and even beach themselves to get away from the sounds of sonar. 

In January 2005, 34 whales of three different species became stranded and died along North Carolina’s Outer Banks during nearby offshore Navy sonar training. Other sad examples around the coast of the U.S. and elsewhere abound, notably in recent years with more sonar testing going on than ever before. According to the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which has campaigned vigorously to ban use of the technology in waters rich in marine wildlife, recent cases of whale strandings likely represent a small fraction of sonar’s toll, given that severely injured animals rarely make it to shore. 

In 2003, NRDC spearheaded a successful lawsuit against the Navy to restrict the use of low-frequency sonar off the coast of California. Two years later a coalition of green groups led by NRDC and including the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), the League for Coastal Protection, Cetacean Society International, and Ocean Futures Society upped the ante, asking the federal courts to also restrict testing of more intense, harmful and far ranging mid-frequency types of sonar off Southern California’s coastline. 

In filing their brief, the groups cited Navy documents which estimated that such testing would kill some 170,000 marine mammals and cause permanent injury to more than 500 whales, not to mention temporary deafness for at least 8,000 others. Coalition lawyers argued that the Navy’s testing was in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. 

Two lower courts upheld NRDC’s claims, but the Supreme Court ruled that the Navy should be allowed to continue the use of some mid-frequency sonar testing for the sake of national security. “The decision places marine mammals at greater risk of serious and needless harm,” says NRDC’s Joel Reynolds. 

Environmental groups are still fighting the battle against the sonar, lobbying the government to curtail testing, at least during peacetime, or to at least ramp up testing gradually to give marine wildlife a better chance to flee affected areas. “The U.S. Navy could use a number of proven methods to avoid harming whales when testing mid-frequency sonar,” reports IFAW’s Fred O’Regan. “Protecting whales and preserving national security are not mutually exclusive.” 

CONTACTS: NRDC, www.nrdc.org; IFAW, www.ifaw.org. 

Dear EarthTalk: How does the microwave compare in energy use, say, to using a gas or electric stove burner to heat water for a cup of tea?    – Tempie, Dexter, MI 

The short answer is that it depends upon several variables, including the price of electricity versus gas, and the relative efficiency of the appliances involved. Typically, though, a microwave would be slightly more efficient at heating water than the flame on a gas stove, and should use up a little less energy. The reason: The microwave’s heat waves are focused on the liquid (or food) inside, not on heating the air or container around it, meaning that most if not all of the energy generated is used to make your water ready. 

Given this logic, it is hard to believe that a burner element on an electric stovetop would be any better, but an analysis by Home Energy Magazine found otherwise. The magazine’s researchers discovered that an electric burner uses about 25 percent less electricity than a microwave in boiling a cup of water. 

That said, the difference in energy saved by using one method over another is negligible: Choosing the most efficient process might save a heavy tea drinker a dollar or so a year. “You’d save more energy over the year by replacing one light bulb with a CFL [compact fluorescent lightbulb] or turning off the air conditioner for an hour-not an hour a day, one hour at some point over the whole year,” says consumer advocate Michael Bluejay. 

Although a microwave may not save much energy or money over a stove burner when heating water, it can be much more energy-efficient than a traditional full-size oven when it comes to cooking food. For starters, because their heat waves are concentrated on the food, microwaves cook and heat much faster than traditional ovens. According to the federal government’s Energy Star program, which rates appliances based on their energy-efficiency, cooking or re-heating small portions of food in the microwave can save as much as 80 percent of the energy used to cook or warm them up in the oven. 

The website Treehugger.com reports that there are other things you can do to optimize your energy efficiency around the kitchen when cooking. For starters, make sure to keep the inside surfaces of your microwave oven clean so as to maximize the amount of energy reflected toward your food. On a gas stovetop, make sure the flame is fully below the cookware; likewise, on an electric stovetop, make sure the pan or kettle completely covers the heating element to minimize wasted heat. Also, use the appropriate size pan for the job at hand, as smaller pans are cheaper and more energy-efficient to heat up. 

Despite these tips for cooking greener, Bluejay reiterates that most of us will hardly put a dent in our overall energy use just by choosing one appliance over another. According to his analysis, for someone who bakes three hours a week the cheapest cooking method saves only an estimated $2.06/month compared to the most expensive method. 

“Focusing on cooking methods is not the way to save electricity [at home],” says Bluejay. “You should look at heating, cooling, lighting and laundry instead.” 

CONTACTS: Home Energy Magazine, www.homeenergy.org; Treehugger, www.treehugger.com; Michael Bluejay, www.michaelbluejay.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.

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

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

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

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

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

Expanding the Field

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

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

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

How the Yankees Dropped the Ball

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Obama seeks biggest nuclear weapons cut with Russia in a generation.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 4 (UPI) — U.S. President Barack Obama is seeking to slash the nuclear stockpiles of the United States and Russia by as much as 80 percent, sources say.

Obama is intent on re-engaging with Russia on the kind of arms reduction talks that resulted in the 1991 START treaty, which expires at the end of this year, and envisions as few as 1,000 nuclear warheads for each country, The Times of London quoted unnamed administration sources saying Wednesday.

• Bush’s faith based office is expanded and changed to include Muslim outreach; won’t discriminate.

WASHINGTON (AFP) — President Barack Obama warned Thursday that religion must not be hijacked by hate and intolerance, as he announced an overhaul of the former Bush administration’s faith-based initiatives.

The new Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships is expected to advise the new president on domestic and foreign policy issues and to forge links with faith-based organizations overseas.

“The goal of this office will not be to favor one religious group over another — or even religious groups over secular groups,” the president said in a speech at the annual National Prayer Breakfast.

“It will simply be to work on behalf of those organizations that want to work on behalf of our communities, and to do so without blurring the line that our founders wisely drew between church and state.”

• Efficiency rules for all appliances will be getting stricter, saving everyone money.

WASHINGTON – President Obama yesterday ordered the Energy Department to set energy efficiency standards for a broad range of common household appliances, in an effort to save Americans billions of dollars in electrical costs and reduced power plant emissions.

The department was charged with slashing the energy use of more than 30 product categories.

When the standards are fully implemented, the estimated energy savings over the next 30 years would equal the output of all current coal-fired electric generating plants in the United States for two years and save Americans more than $500 billion in their electric bills.

“This will save consumers money. This will spur innovation and this will conserve tremendous amounts of energy,” Obama said.

Whether global warming is somehow to blame or not, much of the United States is getting walloped this winter. The Seattle area has suffered its most significant and lingering snowfall-and lower than average winter temperatures-in decades. Even Los Angeles is getting a nasty taste of winter, with several days topping out at the freezing mark on the thermometer. And other parts of the country more used to challenging winter weather have been getting an extra dose of wind, snow and ice this year as well.

Besides the cold, another challenge this wintry weather presents, especially during such trying economic times, is higher heating bills. Heating typically accounts for about 28 percent of the average American home’s energy use, but this year staying warm might occupy a larger slice of the household expenditure pie. Homeowners who take a few simple steps to make their homes more weather-tight, though, just might be amazed to see their heating bills go down while they languish inside their toasty and warm homes.

If you’re a handy person and your draft issues are minor, you might want to go around and assess just where cold air seems to be coming in-and then caulk, putty or insulate to your heart’s content. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC’s) green-living oriented SimpleSteps.org website, small gaps around windows, light fixtures and plumbing are easy to cover with caulk. Large drafty areas that are protected from moisture and sunlight can be covered with expanding foam sealant, while a little weather-stripping around door jambs goes a long way toward keeping the cold out.

Beyond these easier fixes, adding or updating insulation can pay dividends on your utility bills. NRDC says that if you do it yourself, be careful not to cover or close up attic vents, as proper air flow is key to keeping indoor air quality good. Replacing single pane windows with sealed double or triple pane windows will also improve your home’s energy efficiency significantly. Other tips include insulating heating ducts and your hot water tank, and upgrading to a programmable thermostat which allows you to heat your home when you’re there and lower the temperature when you’re sleeping or at work. Switching ceiling fans to rotate in a clockwise direction will help circulate warm air throughout your home.

Older, inefficient furnaces can also lead to large heating bills. New models which qualify for the federal government’s Energy Star program will use far less gas or oil and reduce your utility bill handily. The non-profit American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) rates different furnaces and boiler options and reports on their findings for free via the consumer guide section of its website.

For those of us less qualified or less interested in doing our own home repair, bringing in a professional energy auditor might be just the ticket. Many local and regional utilities offer free basic energy audits. Meanwhile, the trade group Residential Energy Services Network, as well as the federal government’s Home Performance with Energy Star program, offer free searchable online databases of trustworthy local contractors with experience keeping homes in your area nice and warm.

CONTACTS: NRDC, www.nrdc.org; ACEEE, www.aceee.org; Residential Energy Services Network, www.natresnet.org; Energy Star, www.energystar.gov.

Dear EarthTalk: My husband and I are expecting a child and we’re concerned about the environmental impacts of disposable diapers. I remember the old cloth diapers with pins that my mom used. Are there any new developments in the cloth diapering field? – Stephanie, via e-mail

A growing number of green-minded parents are starting to recognize the health and ecological benefits of reusable cloth diapers over disposables. Most brands of disposables are made from petroleum-derived plastic and wood fiber-some 250,000 trees fall each year to feed America’s disposable diaper addiction.

According to The Green Guide, 95 percent of U.S. families now use disposable diapers-to the tune of as many as 8,000 per child. As a result, 3.5 million tons of them clog landfills each year. Accompanying these diapers, of course, is untreated fecal matter and urine that can easily contaminate the groundwater surrounding landfills. Pathogens in this waste can be spread far and wide by insects and animals.

Furthermore, the process of bleaching disposable diapers to make sure they are as white as possible before they get to consumers leads to the generation of the chemical dioxin, which besides being potentially harmful to factory workers and the environment surrounding manufacturing facilities, can show up in trace amounts in the diapers themselves, potentially exposing babies’ skin to a dangerous carcinogen.

Despite such drawbacks, the convenience factor still wins out for most of us. Old memories of hard-to-fasten stinky cloth diapers collecting in a pail are enough to drive anyone to abandon their best intentions when it comes to diaper-change time. But heightened eco-awareness in recent years has led to a profusion of reusable diaper choices, and enlightened consumers owe it to themselves to take another look.

Today reusable cloth diapers come in many different styles, but the common elements are an absorbent liner, ideally made out of organic cotton or hemp fleece, and a waterproof cover. In some cases these two elements can be separated and washed separately; in others they are combined into one washable unit. Most varieties come with Velcro-style closures that obviate the need for the safety pins of days gone by.

And diaper laundering services do still exist-see if there’s one near you at www.diapernet.org/locate.htm -but parents interested in minimizing their environmental impact on the cheap will wash their reusables at home (without bleach) and dry them on the line. According to Mothering Magazine, some of the best brands are Under the Nile, FuzBaby, Oskri, LizsCloth, Cloud9Softies and PeacefulMoon.

For those who just can’t give up the convenience of disposables, several brands offer a kinder, gentler alternative to Pampers and Huggies. Disposables from Nature Boy and Girl, Seventh Generation, Tushies and TenderCare get high marks for their use of absorbent, chlorine-free materials and, in some cases, biodegradability. And gDiapers offers reusable, washable cotton diaper covers over flushable liners.

Some local health food stores will carry these brands, or look online for e-commerce vendors such as Evo, Leslie’s Boutique, Cotton Babies, Green Mountain Diapers and Nikki’s Diapers, among many others.

CONTACTS: www.evo.com; www.lesliesboutique.com; www.cottonbabies.com; www.greenmountaindiapers.com; www.nikkisdiapers.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.

The Governor’s Clean Energy Challenge, developed by the New England Clean Energy Council and the Massachusetts High Technology Council in cooperation with the state’s electric and natural gas utilities, will offer recognition to participants who meet or exceed the 10 percent target.

“I offer the Challenge to everyone to do their part to dramatically reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency measures, innovative energy technology products, and the use of renewable sources,” said Governor Patrick, who announced the Challenge at the New England Clean Energy Council 1st Annual Green Tie Gala in Boston this week. “As in any competition, there will be recognition for extraordinary accomplishment and leadership.  But this is a contest in which everyone who participates will be a winner.”

Millipore and Pfizer accepted aims to inspire action by businesses, municipalities, and residents to reduce their energy consumption in an effort to combat climate change.

“Millipore is pleased to take the Governor up on his challenge of reducing greenhouse emissions because it is important to our company and the environment,” said Millipore President & CEO Martin Madaus. “We appreciate the Governor’s leadership in positioning Massachusetts and its employers ahead of the curve when it comes to the adoption of clean energy technologies and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. This is a critical program for the Commonwealth’s environmental and economic health, but also for the quality of life of its 6 million residents.”

Other companies that are considering participating in the Challenge and serving as mentors to other companies are members of Massachusetts High Tech Council’s Sustainable Energy Program, a component of the technology trade group’s 10-year-old energy aggregation program, which includes forward-thinking energy consumers like Boston Scientific and Varian Semiconductor. Participants will work with utilities NSTAR, National Grid, and Western Massachusetts Electric.

Clean energy advocates praised the program.  

“Massachusetts is in position to lead the way toward a clean energy future for the Commonwealth, the nation, and the world, and to capitalize on it in terms of innovation, entrepreneurship, and jobs,” said Nick d’Arbeloff, executive director of the New England Clean Energy Council. “The Governor’s Clean Energy Challenge is a way to focus attention and effort on both the environmental imperative and the economic opportunity.”

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

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 cliché. Recent studies have shown that children are reaching puberty at younger and younger ages, and researchers are starting to see links between this trend and other societal ills such as ubiquitous pollution and sedentary lifestyles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

For Martin Schubert, a 25-year-old doctoral student at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, discovering a new way of looking at the LED, or Light-Emitting Diode, is going to change the way the world sees. That accomplishment earned him the $30,000 Lemelson-Rensselaer Prize for 2008.

Precisely, Schubert discovered that ordinary LEDs produce polarized light – a lot of it. That means more energy-efficient, compact displays for everyday tech objects. Before Schubert’s find, normal LEDs had never been known to produce polarized light. Schubert, on a hunch, decided to take readings from the sides of diodes, as all other readings were done from the top, and found the previously undetected polarized light literally pouring out. Even senior experts in his field didn’t anticipate that development.

Schubert then created a reflector that directed the light vertically; creating a truly and potentially cheap source of polarized LED.

“Discovering that normal LEDs emitted polarized light at a ratio of 7:1 from the side, that was big moment,” said Schubert. “Shortly afterwards we made a reflector in a certain way so we could use that light. Those were two big moments.”

Why is accessible polarized light with the possibility of cheap manufacture a big deal?
In order to put Schubert’s accomplishment in perspective, an explanation of the way current lighting technology works in such things as laptops is beneficial. In most laptops, the LCD, or Liquid Crystal Display, is sandwiched in, “a stack of thin films,” said Schubert.

First, there’s the source light, which is generally fluorescent and not polarized. From there it goes through a liquid crystal polarizing filter. After that, it goes through a second polarizer, and then the light hits your eyes.

Some of the drawbacks to this method have to do with the lighting source itself, fluorescence, which utilizes highly toxic mercury. Another is that a significant amount of energy is needed to create light that is sufficiently bright to penetrate the polarizing filters.

While the some recent LCD displays have utilized LED as source lights, such as the extremely thin LCD on the MacAir and some high definition televisions, a polarizing filter is still required, adding not only to the overall thickness, but energy consumption.

In creating an LED that’s polarized at the source, the filtering layers are bypassed, leading to greater energy efficiency and a potentially razor-thin display.

“You lose at least 50% intensity starting with unpolarized light,” said Schubert. “Basically, that’s what motivated me to create a polarized LED. I decided a it would be a great thing to have in LCDs.”

While Schubert’s method isn’t the only way of creating a polarized LED light, it is the cheapest and least labor intensive. The reason has to do with two fundamentally different manufacturing methods.

In order to create a single LED, special crystals are first grown using one of two methods, C-PLANE or M-PLANE.

C-PLANE is currently the industry standard, as growing crystals using the C-PLANE method is faster and lower cost. In order for polarized LEDs using the M-PLANE method to become a reality, the entire manufacturing industry would have to convert to that method – an unlikely possibility, according to Schubert.

“One of my limitations when I first started out was that I couldn’t use that sort of esoteric growth technique. That was a self-imposed limitation,” said Schubert. “I would consider this the first practical way to make polarized LED lighting. You can take what’s being made on assembly line today and just change the chipset.”

And the benefits of readily available polarized LED lighting extend beyond LCD displays.

Schubert cited robotic applications as one example. In trying to teach machines to translate visual data in a way similar to the human eye, polarized light is the holy grail, as it is far easier for robots to interpret. Widely available polarized light could lead to cheaply manufactured robots that have high visual acuity, roaming the halls of, say, a hospital carrying medications or charts.

Schubert’s plans don’t stop with polarized LEDs, either. His plans for the future include researching ways to create LED lights capable of enough power for standard home lighting applications. Currently that is not possible, due to what’s known as, “efficiency droop.”

One of the limitations with LED lighting is that after achieving certain brightness, the power needed to increase the level of light increases by orders of magnitude. So, more power can be given to the LED, but the return in brightness drops quickly to levels that make the power input impractical.

He is also interested in developing more efficient Ultra Violet LEDs, as currently UV LEDs burn out at a rate that hinders their use in widespread applications. Long-life UV LEDs would be beneficial in a plethora of applications, from water sanitation, hospital sterilization, to tanning beds.

If Schubert or other scientists solved the efficiency droop issue and created LEDs for standard household lighting, the power savings are potentially enormous: LEDs use 10 percent of the energy of a standard bulb.

“I saw a statistic that 20 percent of all energy consumed in this country is for lighting. If you increase efficiency by switching over to LEDs, you could shut down hundreds of power plants,” said Schubert. “LEDs are also very long lifetime. They almost never burn out.”

And if Schubert has anything to say about it, you’ll never have to change a light bulb again.