But beyond the plastic, these filters—which are on cigarettes in the first place to absorb contaminants to prevent them from going into the lungs—contain trace amounts of toxins like cadmium, arsenic and lead. Thus when smokers discard their butts improperly—out the car window or off the end of a pier or onto the sidewalk below—they are essentially tossing these substances willy-nilly into the environment.

Studies done by Johns Hopkins University, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and even the tobacco industry itself show that these contaminants can get into soils and waterways, harm or kill living organisms and generally degrade surrounding ecosystems.

While individual discarded cigarette butts may be small, they add up to a huge problem. Some 5.5 trillion cigarettes are consumed worldwide each year. The non-profit Keep America Beautiful reports that cigarette butts constitute as much as one-third of all litter nationwide when measured by the number of discarded items, not volume. According to the Ocean Conservancy, a non-profit that advocates for stronger protection of marine ecosystems, cigarette butts are the most commonly littered item found on America’s salt and fresh water beaches according to feedback received by hundreds of thousands of volunteers taking part in the group’s annual Coastal Clean-up event.

While the tobacco industry may have its hands full just trying to stay afloat in the maelstrom of ongoing bad publicity, critics say it should be doing more to prevent cigarette butt litter. “Just as beverage manufacturers contribute to anti-litter campaigns, and have invested in public education on litter issues, so too should the tobacco industry,” says Kathleen Register, founder and executive director of Clean Virginia Waterways, a non-profit that has spearheaded the fight against cigarette butt litter in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S. She adds that cigarette manufacturers “need to take an active and responsible role in educating smokers about this issue and devote resources to the cleanup of cigarette litter.”

Register suggests a number of strategies including putting anti-litter messages on all cigarette packaging and advertisements, distributing small, free portable ashtrays, and placing and maintaining outdoor ashtrays in areas where smokers congregate. She also suggests putting an extra tax on cigarette sales, with proceeds going toward anti-litter education efforts and to defray the costs of cleaning up butts. “Picking up littered cigarette butts costs schools, businesses and park agencies money,” she says. “By taxing smokers for anti-litter educational efforts, some of the costs of cleaning up cigarette butts will shift onto smokers.” One way or another, Register hopes, smokers will learn that the Earth is not one giant ashtray.

Admittedly, tires aren’t the sexiest things, but recent technological advances have made them easier on the planet.

The dB Super E-spec tires from Yokohama are made with orange oil, which replaces much of the normally-used petroleum. This new tire represents one of the biggest breakthroughs in tire making since the more than century-old discovery of vulcanized rubber. It certainly gives new meaning to the common auto phrase, “peel out.”

“We’re trying to help save the planet, one orange oil tire at time,” said Yokohama’s Mark Chung. “Essentially, the Super E-spec blends renewable natural rubber with the orange oil extracted from peels at juicing plants. This combo makes the tire 80 percent petroleum free, which is great for the environment.”

“Folks can also save cash at the gas pump because the orange oil tires are lighter and more fuel efficient. Every gallon of gas saved by the Super E-spec means 20 fewer pounds of CO2 released into the atmosphere,” said Chung.

Another way fuel efficiency is achieved is through proper tire inflation. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates that approximately 37 million cars and 29 million trucks have underinflated tires. According to AAA, a motorist who drives an average of 12,000 miles annually on tires that are underinflated by five to eight psi (pounds per square inch) is wasting up to 50 gallons of gasoline, equating to $141.50 (at $2.83 a gallon) a year. That’s more than half the cost of a week’s worth of groceries ($226) for a family of four, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Yokohama offers additional earth-friendly tips:

• Once a month, check tire inflation when the tires are cold (at least three to four hours after the vehicle has been driven) check tire pressure with a reliable tire gauge. Be sure that the valve stems have a plastic or metal cap to keep dirt out and seal against leakage.
• Tires should be rotated at least every 6,000 to 8,000 miles and the alignment should be checked once a year. Misaligned tires can cause the car to scrub, which lowers mileage and causes unnecessary tire wear.
• An overinflated tire changes and increases wear on the center of the tread. A tire is designed to run with the vehicle’s weight spread correctly in the road contact zone.
• Clean or replace your air filter. A clogged air filter blocks the air needed to burn fuel efficiently which wastes gas.
• Keep your car tuned up according to the manufacturer’s recommended schedule and you’ll keep all systems in good working order, which can optimize your mileage.
• Slow down. For every five miles per hour you go above 60 mph, you’re lowering your gas mileage and, ultimately, paying even more for each gallon of gas.

Courtesy of ARAcontent

The Chinese Lucky Bamboo undergoes photosynthesis and oxygenates the water. This particular bamboo was chosen because it’s extremely low maintenance. As long at is has light and water, it’ll stay alive. The “living rock gravel” at the bottom is specially treated and conditioned with algae, which clean and filer the water. The snails clean the aquarium surfaces and feed on the algae, keeping its growth in check. While the decorative rocks don’t play a vital role in the self-sustainability of the aquarium, it gives the frogs something to play with and hide behind and is aesthetically pleasing.

The only outside maintenance required is just to feed the frogs two pellets each, twice a week and twice yearly cleanings. All of the parts of the aquarium keep the ecosystem in balance. With such a perfect environment for the frogs, some have reported that they have lived for as long as 6 years!

A company based in Myrtle Beach, S.C. called Wild Creations has perfected these self-sustaining aquariums. The aquriums are sold at stores like Brookstone, however we recommend dealing directly with Wild Creationsfor more information or for orders. Prcing starts at $19.99. And while we’re sure the Brookstone employees take great pride in their knowledge of the vibrating recliners and other electronic gadgets, they’re not biologists, and probably wouldn’t be much help with an enclosed ecosystem. Service employees are very available by phone and email.

If frogs aren’t your cup of tea, EcoAquariums with fish are also available, for a more traditional product. We’ve been very happy with our EcoAquarium, and it’s become a great addition to our desk! They’re perfect for anyone into science, or even if you just need a friend to talk to now and then. We won’t tell.

That might be about to change. Tire maker Yokohama announced their new dB Super E-spec line, the first tire made with orange-oil (yes, from oranges). It’s a fire made with 80 percent non-petroleum based materials.

“Yokohama Tire Corporation has effectively re-invented the tire,” the company said in a statement. What? Not going to say “re-invented the wheel?” Come-on. How often do you get to say that and mean it?

“The eco-focused dB Super E-spec mixes sustainable orange oil and natural rubber to drastically cut the use of petroleum, without compromising performance,” said Dan King, Yokohama’s vice president of sales. “It also helps consumers save money at the gas pump by improving fuel efficiency via a 20-percent reduction in rolling resistance. With these innovations, the dB Super E-spec could very well be the most technologically-advanced tire ever produced.”

Oil from orange peels combined with rubber was originally a racing idea, Yokohama says. Their ADVAN ENV-R1TM racing tires for Porsche GT3 cup cars use orange oil to improve a tire’s grip on the road.

The tires will initially be available in four sizes: 185/65R15 88H, 195/65R15 91H, 195/55R16 86V and 215/60R16 95V – which fit popular hybrids and other vehicles such as the Toyota Prius, Honda Civic Hybrid/Civic GX NGV, Toyota Camry Hybrid, Honda Accord Hybrid, Nissan Versa and VW Golf.

We think it fits the Corolla, too, yes?

– 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.

Nanotechnology makes use of minuscule objects-whose width can be 10,000 times narrower than a human hair-known as nanoparticles. Upwards of 600 products on store shelves today contain them, including transparent sunscreen, lipsticks, anti-aging creams and even food products.

Global nanotechnology sales have grown substantially in recent years, to $50 billion in 2007, according to Lux Research, author of the annual Nanotech Report. And the final tally isn’t in yet, but analysts had predicted 2008 sales to be $150 billion. The National Science Foundation says the industry could be worth $1 trillion by 2015, when it would employ two million workers directly.

What makes nanoparticles so useful is their tiny size, which allows for manipulation of color, solubility, strength, magnetic behavior and electrical conductivity. Nanoparticles do exist in nature, and they’re also created inadvertently through some industrial processes. What’s new-and potentially hazardous-is the widespread engineering of these particles for commercial purposes.

While there is no conclusive evidence that nanomaterials are either unsafe or not, health advocates worry that we’re already putting them on our bodies and ingesting them as if they’d been thoroughly tested and proven safe. Animal studies, including one with rats at the University of Rochester, have shown that some nanoparticles can cross the blood-brain barrier, which protects the brain from toxins in the bloodstream. And inhaled nanoparticles have also harmed the lungs of animal test subjects.

Despite these and other studies, nanomaterials are virtually unregulated in the U.S. And of $1.3 billion budgeted for research in 2006, only $38 million went to examining risks to health and to the environment.

“While the benefits of nanotechnology are widely publicized, the discussion of the potential effects of their widespread use in consumer and industrial products is just beginning to emerge,” reports the Journal of Nanobiotechnology. “Both pioneers of nanotechnology and its opponents are finding it extremely hard to argue their case as there is limited information available to support one side or the other.”

Europe’s regulators are far more wary about nanotechnology than their American counterparts. Britain’s Royal Society recommended in 2004 that nanoparticles be viewed as brand new substances, and the European Commission is examining them on a case-by-case basis. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is loosely charged with regulating nanotechnology here, but has barely dipped its toe in the water.

Taken together, the evidence suggests considerable uncertainty about the use of nano-ingredients in consumer products. It’s just not known if they’re safe, which begs the question: Why have we gone ahead and approved them for commercial use? Indeed, we may look back at our current decade and see it, for better or worse, as a time when tiny things caused big and momentous changes in our lives.

CONTACTS: EU’s REACH Law, www.ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/reach/reach_intro.htm; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nanotechnology Page, www.epa.gov/ncer/nano.

Dear EarthTalk: How is the fur industry doing these days? Has it been impacted by activism from PETA and similar groups?   — Clara Andrews, Edmonds, WA

An accurate source of up-to-date numbers is hard to come by, but it’s safe to say that the fur industry has been hurt by the ongoing and very visible anti-fur campaign-sometimes featuring top supermodels-by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and other animal rights groups.

Whether or not activist efforts are the cause, the governments of the United Kingdom and Austria have banned fur farming in their countries altogether, while The Netherlands has phased out fox and chinchilla farming. The U.S. has not taken any action against the industry, but the number of mink farms in the U.S. has plummeted from 1,027 in 1988 to less than 300 today, according to Weekly International Fur News.

But while the fur industry’s sales numbers may have trailed off through the 1990s, resurgence in the popularity of fur-especially among newly affluent high-fliers in Russia and China-has meant that business is booming for those furriers serving such far-flung markets.

By 2004 the industry was reporting banner sales-some $11.7 billion worldwide-despite the slumping post-9/11 economy. “Fur remains big with international designers and is set to continue as an integral part of fashion,” International Fur Trade Federation (IFTF) chairman, Andreas Lenhart, told reporters.

According to IFTF data, the vast majority of the fur industry’s pelts-upwards of 85 percent-now come from farm-raised animals. (This does mean, though, that 15 percent are still caught in the wild, often by trapping methods that are painful as well as indiscriminate, catching unintended quarry, including endangered species and domestic pets.) The most farmed such animal is the mink, followed by the fox. Chinchilla, lynx, muskrats and coyotes are also farmed for their fur. PETA reports that 73 percent of the world’s remaining fur farms are in Europe, while about 12 percent are in North America.

IFTF argues that fur farming has environmental benefits, such as providing good use for 647,000 tons of animal by-products each year from Europe’s fish and meat industries alone (they are fed to the captive animals), and generating a lot of manure, sold as organic fertilizer. Mink farming also provides fat for soaps and hair products, says IFTF.

Of course, anti-fur activists don’t see it this way. “The amount of energy needed to produce a real fur coat from ranch-raised animal skins is approximately 15 times that needed to produce a fake fur garment,” says PETA. “Nor is fur biodegradable, thanks to the chemical treatment applied to stop the fur from rotting.” PETA adds that these same chemicals contaminate groundwater near fur farms if not handled responsibly.

Activists are also concerned, of course, about the conditions animals endure on fur farms. “The animals-who are housed in unbearably small cages-live with fear, stress, disease, parasites and other physical and psychological hardships…” reports PETA. The group adds that the animals are killed in very inhumane ways-such as by electrocution, gassing or poisoning-to preserve the quality of the pelts above all else.

CONTACTS: PETA, peta.org; IFTF, iftf.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.

Peatlands are wetland ecosystems that accumulate plant material to form layers of peat soil up to 60 feet thick. They can store, on average, 10 times more carbon dioxide (CO2), the leading greenhouse gas, than other ecosystems. As such, the world’s peat bogs represent an important “carbon sink”-a place where CO2 is stored below ground and can’t escape into the atmosphere and exacerbate global warming. When drained or burned, however, peat decomposes and the stored carbon gets released into the atmosphere.

A 2007 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) study of the role peatlands play in human-induced climate change found that the world’s estimated 988 million acres of peatland (which represent about three percent of the world’s land and freshwater surface) are capable of storing some two trillion tons of CO2-equivalent to about 100 years worth of fossil fuel emissions.

As such, the widespread conversion of peat bogs into commercial uses around the world is serious cause for alarm. In Finland, Scotland and Ireland, peat is harvested on an industrial scale for use in power stations and for heating, cooking and use in domestic fireplaces.

But the problem is most urgent in countries like Indonesia and Malaysia, where economic hardships force people to drain peatlands to create farms and plantations. Marcel Silvius of the Dutch non-profit Wetlands International says that “annual peatland emissions from Southeast Asia far exceed fossil fuel contributions from major polluting countries.” He adds that Indonesia, now ranked 21st in the world in greenhouse gas emissions, would move to third place (behind the U.S. and China) if peatland losses were factored in.

Wetlands International estimates that CO2 emissions from drained or burnt Indonesian peatlands alone total some two billion tons annually, equal to about 10 percent of the emissions resulting from burning coal, oil and natural gas. Similar amounts of CO2 are likely coming out of Malaysian peatlands as well.

The problem has worsened in recent years as surging global demand for timber, pulp and biofuel speeds up the conversion of otherwise-ignored peatlands to intensively managed tree farms and palm oil plantations. Silvius says that a ton of palm oil-Indonesia’s top export and the key ingredient in biodiesel fuel-grown on drained peatlands emits 20 times more CO2 than a ton of gasoline. Yet, he says, protection of peatlands may actually be one of the least costly ways to mitigate global warming, as it would cost less than seven cents ($US) per ton of avoided CO2.

“Just like a global phase out of old, energy guzzling light bulbs or a switch to hybrid cars,” says UNEP head Achim Steiner, “protecting and restoring peatlands is perhaps another key ‘low hanging fruit’ and among the most cost-effective options for climate change mitigation.” For its part, UNEP is stressing that countries should be allowed to count protecting peatlands as among their creditable efforts to reduce their carbon footprints as the world braces for global warming.

CONTACTS: UNEP, www.unep.org; Wetlands International, www.wetlands.org.

Dear EarthTalk: Has anyone been tracking whether climate change is causing more loss of human life as it gets more pronounced? — Gordon Gould, Compton, CA

Researchers believe that global warming is already responsible for some 150,000 deaths each year around the world, and fear that the number may well double by 2030 even if we start getting serious about emissions reductions today.

A team of health and climate scientists from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the University of Wisconsin at Madison published these findings last year in the prestigious, peer-reviewed science journal Nature. Besides killing people, global warming also contributes to some five million human illnesses every year, the researchers found. Some of the ways global warming negatively affects human health-especially in developing nations-include: speeding the spread of infectious diseases such as malaria and dengue fever; creating conditions that lead to potentially fatal malnutrition and diarrhea; and increasing the frequency and severity of heat waves, floods and other weather-related disasters.

Backing up WHO’s findings is a study by Stanford civil and environmental engineer, Mark Jacobson, showing a direct link between rising levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere and increased human mortality. He found that the added air pollution caused by each degree Celsius increase in temperature caused by CO2 leads to about 1,000 additional deaths in the U.S. and many more cases of respiratory illness and asthma. Jacobson estimates as many as 20,000 air-pollution related deaths may occur worldwide each year with each one degree Celsius increase.

“This is a cause and effect relationship, not just a correlation,” relates Jacobson. “The study was the first to specifically isolate CO2’s effect from that of other global-warming agents and to find quantitatively that chemical and meteorological changes due to CO2 itself increase mortality due to increased ozone, particles and carcinogens in the air.”

For their part, though, global warming skeptics such as atmospheric physicist Fred Singer maintain that cold weather snaps are responsible for more human deaths than warm temperatures and heat waves. “The elderly die in inadequately heated homes. People get skull fractures from falls on the ice. Men die of heart attacks while shoveling snow. People get colds, flu, pneumonia and other respiratory diseases. Infectious diseases proliferate. Hospital admissions rise.” Singer, founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, concludes that since global warming would raise maximum summer temperatures modestly while raising winter minimum temperatures significantly, it “should help reduce human death rates.”

A team of Harvard researchers found otherwise. Their July 2007 study, published in the peer-reviewed Occupational and Environment Medicine, found that global warming is likely to cause more deaths in summer because of higher temperatures, but not fewer deaths in milder winters. In analyzing weather data related to the deaths of 6.5 million people in 50 American cities between 1989 and 2000, the researchers found that during two-day cold snaps there was a 1.59 percent increase in deaths because of the extreme temperatures. But in similar periods of extremely hot weather, mortality rates increased 5.74 percent.

CONTACTS: WHO, www.who.int ; Science and Environmental Policy Project, www.sepp.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.

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.

– Polly LaBarre, New York, NY

Easily exploited by hunters, whalers and fishermen in the 19th century, Hawaiian monk seals essentially never recovered. As early as 1976, the Hawaiian monk seal was listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The species is also on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN’s) Red List of Threatened Species, and trade in the species or its parts is banned under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

According to statistics from the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, beach counts of  populations of Hawaiian monk seals declined by some 60 percent between 1958 and 1996. Today only 1,300-1,400 of the animals exist in the wild, and their populations have declined about four percent annually in recent years.

What makes marine biologists and environmentalists so sad to see Hawaiian monk seal populations dwindle is the fact that the charismatic mustachioed creatures are one of the few mammals known to science to have evolved very little from their ancestral beginnings some 15 million years ago. In a sense, the monk seals are living fossils, and provide scientists with a window in days long gone by.

In June 2006, the Bush administration created the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, a 1,200-mile-long, 140,000-square-mile stretch of open ocean northwest of Honolulu. The area is dotted with uninhabited islands and reefs that provide perfect habitat for some 7,000 different species of marine wildlife, a quarter of which, like the monk seal, are found nowhere else on the planet. The establishment of the monument ensures that no development or resource extraction will take place in the area, which is roughly the size of California and is the largest protected marine area in the world. Meanwhile, public access is restricted. And commercial and sport fishing will be phased out there within five years.

The establishment of the new national monument is key to saving the monk seals, as habitat loss is currently their chief threat, given that hunting is no longer allowed. Other threats include incidental capture in fishing gear, ingestion of fisheries debris or toxic substances, a decrease in prey availability-monk seals are carnivores-and even intentional kills, in some cases by misguided fishermen thinking that the seals are competing for their catches. These factors, along with an inherently slow reproductive rate, continue to threaten the remaining Hawaiian monk seal population.

While the protection of critical habitat, such as in Papahānaumokuākea, is an important part of an overall strategy to try to save the charismatic species from extinction, other conservation efforts include learning more about the animals’ reproductive habits, the rehabilitation and release of undersized seal pups that would not otherwise make it in the open ocean without help, captive breeding, the removal of marine debris, and the mitigation of other human disturbances-from loud boat engines to oil spills.

CONTACTS: IUCN, www.iucn.org; CITES, www.cites.org; U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, www.nmfs.noaa.gov; Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, www.hawaiireef.noaa.gov.

Dear EarthTalk: We will need to replace our house gutters soon. What are our best options from an environmental perspective? – Jodie Green, Dallas, TX

First understand clearly why your gutters need to be replaced. Are they rusted or broken? Are the fasteners no longer holding them in place? Or have the gutters leaked and failed to keep water out of your house? Answers to these questions will help you decide which type of gutter to choose.

Use a material that is the most durable for your climate; ultimately the longer your gutters last, the less environmental cost there will be in the product lifecycle, from manufacturing to recycling. A cheaper product that degrades twice as fast as another would not be the best choice, even if it does have a greener production process: The extra cost of having to fix your water-damaged home-and the health problems that could arise from exposure to mold-would make a “cheaper” gutter in reality much more costly.

“Galvanized steel, copper and aluminum are preferred gutter materials,” reports Austin Energy, the Texas capitol’s community-owned electric utility. Copper is a more expensive, high-end gutter material, as are stainless steel and wood, although wood is used mostly in historical restoration.

According to home improvement expert Don Vandervort, who writes for ThisOldHouse.com, steel and aluminum each have big pluses. Steel is sturdy, while aluminum will not rust. Copper and stainless steel are sturdy and lasting, too, says Vandervort, but they can cost three to four times as much as steel or aluminum. “Steel gutters can stand up to ladders and fallen branches better than aluminum,” he says. “But even thick galvanized steel eventually rusts.” He advises buying “the thickest you can afford.” Austin Energy says that gutters should be a minimum of 26 gauge galvanized steel or 0.025 inch aluminum.

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) is also used for gutters, but “can get brittle with age or in extreme cold,” says Vandervort, and cannot carry as much snow load as metal gutters. PVC is also not a very green-friendly choice. The Center for Health, Environment and Justice (CHEJ) calls PVC plastic “one of the most hazardous consumer products ever created…dangerous to human health and the environment throughout its entire life cycle.” When produced or burned, says CHEJ, PVC plastic releases dioxins, a group of potent synthetic chemicals that can cause cancer and harm the immune and reproductive systems.

Replacing your gutters can be an unfortunate expense, but it can provide an environmental opportunity, because the way you handle your roof’s water is important. Consider linking your gutters to a “rooftop catchment system” that captures rainwater in a cistern or rain barrels and can then be used to water non-edible plantings. Efficient water use is a guideline in the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) for Homes standard for certifying green-built homes.

Finally, if you have a problem with debris, consider a RainTube. This recycled-plastic gutter insert (which won the 2008 Sustainable Product Award from Green Building Pages) keeps gutters clear of debris, preventing overflow into your house. Of course, cleaning your gutters now and then is probably the best environmental option in that it may head off any need for replacement or modification.

CONTACTS: Austin Energy, www.austinenergy.com; U.S. Green Building Council, www.usgbc.org; RainTube, www.raintube.com; Green Building Pages, www.greenbuildingpages.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.

It’s Easy Being Green by Crissy Trask
In It’s Easy Being Green you can learn how to make better choices for the environment. This is what the busy person needs to start making changes today. Get informative, comprehensive and practical information for adopting greener buying habits and identifying earth-friendly products; shopping for green products online; participating in online activism; and learning from over 250 eco-tips for cultivating a sustainable environment.

Some very simple tips include installing rain gutters and rain barrels to collect rainwater from your roof to use in the garden. Shifting appliance use to off-peak hours. Making your own household cleaners instead of relying on toxic commercial products. Or submerging a plastic bottle in your toilet tank to save one quart of water per flush and thousands of gallons a year.

This book concurrently presents a plan, tips and an Internet resources list that you can use to follow-through on good intentions. An extensive product labels list is also provided to help interpret how some foods are produced. If you haven’t invested in substantially greener behaviors, consumerism and politics because you didn’t know how or thought it was difficult, help is here: It’s Easy Being Green is a handbook for all those who aspire do more to protect the environment but want it to be simpler.

Microgreens by Eric Franks
This can become your guide to growing nutrient-packed greens. Microgreens-vegetables harvested soon after sprouting-are expected to be one of 2009’s hottest food trends. With simple instruction, Microgreens teaches how to plant, grow, and harvest microgreens from one’s own garden. The small amount of space needed to grow microgreens-a porch, patio, deck, or balcony will do-allows anyone to easily incorporate them into their daily meals, and the greens’ nutritional potency make them a must-eat in a healthy diet.  Some of the microgreens discussed include amaranth, arugula, basil, beet, cilantro, cress and mustard.

Green by Design: Creating a Home for Sustainable Living by Angela M. Dean
In this book, Dean offers specific, hands-on advice for creating sustainable homes. The book’s four primary chapters cover design intent, design process, design strategies, and design specifics. Each of these chapters provides some information in the main text, then conveys a lot more information through detailed case studies. Although it is not a detailed reference guide, this book does provide a solid overview of green building for homeowners. So, if you are planning a remodeling in your apartment or venturing into buying a new house you can find out what options you have  to create a environmentally aware home.

The business has vowed to donate over $10,000 worth of their S.H.O.P Totes on the 39th Annual Earth Day. Today you can register on their website to win an Acts of Kindness S.H.O.P. Tote. The drawing ends on April 22, and the eco-friendly winners will receive their bag after Earth Day to accessorize their wardrobe and to support Calypso’s mission of re-using shopping bags.

With the collaboration of several American artists, Lori Siebert, Emma Hand, Robin Roderick, Tina Higgins, and Andrea Tachiera, Calypso Studios was able to launch their artistic collection to the world in January. The Start Helping Our Planet Tote not only eliminates the amount of plastic that our planet consumes, but is easy to carry, giving modern consumers a sustainable alternative to plastic bags. The totes easily roll up into a 2″ X 3″ size, and three of the bags fit into one convenient wristlet carrying case. 

“In our ever growing eco-friendly world, we are proud to announce our Start Helping Our Planet Totes,” said Kathy Lawrence. “They are convenient, fashionable and can travel with consumers everywhere they go.”

Besides caring for the environment Calypso also works closely with American Artists, creating jewelry and accessories from earth’s natural elements that are fashionable, economical, and earth friendly. And, a percentage of all their sales go towards  environmental organizations the business is involved with. So, go ahead and enter your name to win that tote, maybe you will find an earth-friendly accessory to buy too.

However, if you’re not the type of woman that plants a tree or join PETA we have a cute alternative for you so you can look the part. One of our favorite stylists at SalonCapri, Nick Penna Jr., has shared some neat hair tips to create dreadlocks, the easy way.

Start by sectioning off your hair into half-inch sized pieces. Apply a wax to the section of hair smoothly. By using a comb, tease the root area of the hair and begin to twist the hair slowly. Spray with a light hairspray and you twist and use a flat iron to hold the hair in place and move it up and down to create a “dreadlock” look. Not only will this look real but you won’t have to shave your hair afterward.

Now, in order to do something that will actually help Mother Earth, Penna also gave us these earth-friendly beauty suggestions, like skipping on shampoo to conserve hair products and save money on your hair.

Shower daily, but don’t always shampoo. Just wash out hair with water and dry it normally. Three times a week use shampoo and wash hair thoroughly. By reducing the amount of times you shampoo a week, you can also save on fading your color.

“Washing your hair every other or every third day is fine and actually better for your hair. Invest in a good shampoo. While it may cost more up front, it lasts much longer and you don’t need as much,” Penna said.

Now that you got the look part down for April 22, start looking for a charity that will be hands-on protecting the environment so that you can donate some of the money you will save on those hair products.

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 keep meeting people who say that human-induced global warming is only theory, that just as many scientists doubt it as believe it. Can you settle the score? — J. Proctor, London, UK

So-called “global warming skeptics” are indeed getting more vocal than ever, and banding together to show their solidarity against the scientific consensus that has concluded that global warming is caused by emissions from human activities.

Upwards of 800 skeptics (most of whom are not scientists) took part in the second annual International Conference on Climate Change-sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank-in March 2009. Keynote speaker and Massachusetts Institute of Technology meteorologist Richard Lindzen told the gathering that “there is no substantive basis for predictions of sizeable global warming due to observed increases in minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and chlorofluorocarbons.”

Most skeptics attribute global warming-few if any doubt any longer that the warming itself is occurring, given the worldwide rise in surface temperature-to natural cycles, not emissions from power plants, automobiles and other human activity. “The observational evidence…suggests that any warming from the growth of greenhouse gases is likely to be minor, difficult to detect above the natural fluctuations of the climate, and therefore inconsequential,” says atmospheric physicist Fred Singer, an outspoken global warming skeptic and founder of the advocacy-oriented Science and Environmental Policy Project.

But green leaders maintain that even if some warming is consistent with millennial cycles, something is triggering the current change. According to the nonprofit Environmental Defense, some possible (natural) explanations include increased output from the sun, increased absorption of the sun’s heat due to a change in the Earth’s reflectivity, or a change in the internal climate system that transfers heat to the atmosphere.

But scientists have not been able to validate any such reasons for the current warming trend, despite exhaustive efforts. And a raft of recent peer reviewed studies-many which take advantage of new satellite data-back up the claim that it is emissions from tailpipes, smokestacks (and now factory farmed food animals, which release methane) that are causing potentially irreparable damage to the environment.

To wit, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences declared in 2005 that “greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise,” adding that “the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.” Other leading U.S. scientific bodies, including the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Geophysical Union have issued concurring statements-placing the blame squarely on humans’ shoulders.

Also, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of 600 leading climate scientists from 40 nations, says it is “very likely” (more than a 90 percent chance) that humans are causing a global temperature change that will reach between 3.2 and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of this century.

CONTACTS: Heartland Institute, www.heartland.org; Science and Environmental Policy Project, www.sepp.org; U.S. National Academy of Sciences, www.nas.edu; IPCC, www.ipcc.ch.

Dear EarthTalk: Are elephant populations stable these days? – Reuben Perrin, Hartford, CT

Far from it. The double whammy of poaching (illegal hunting) and habitat loss has led to a dramatic decline in populations of both African and Asian elephants in recent decades. In 1930, there were between five and 10 million wild African elephants, plying the entire African continent in large bands. Just 60 years later, when they were added to the international list of critically endangered species, only about 600,000 were scattered across a few African countries. Today that number is likely less than 500,000.

While Asian elephants were never as numerous as their African counterparts, their population numbers have also dropped precipitously, from an estimated 200,000 a century ago to less than 40,000 today. Conservationists fear that unless demand dries up for ivory, and people stop moving into prime elephant habitat, the world’s largest land mammal could become just a memory within another hundred years.

Putting an end to habitat loss may be next to impossible as more and more people vie for fewer and fewer resources and move out further into the countryside, so conservationists working to save elephants tend to concentrate on reducing or eliminating poaching. While trophy hunting of elephants may have been big decades ago, today most elephant hunters are after the ivory in the tusks, which have been a hot commodity across Asia for years as raw material for highly prized and often ornate carvings. Despite elephants’ inclusion in Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) in 1990-meaning the sale of tusks and other elephant parts is a violation of international law-poaching is bigger business than ever, with prices for ivory rising more than 16-fold in recent years.

Some countries, such as Tanzania and Kenya, are working hard to hold up their end of the CITES agreement, hiring patrols of young men-some of them former poachers themselves-to monitor local elephant populations and enforce national and international laws against killing these and other endangered species. Conservation groups like the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) and the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) are working hand-in-hand with local officials to improve elephant habitat and keep poachers at bay. These organizations hope that the people in these regions can learn how to bring in revenues from tourism instead of hunting.

But elsewhere governments are not as committed to the ivory ban, let alone to following laws imposed by outsiders. Government officials in Zimbabwe, South Africa and Botswana, for example, argue that trade in ivory should be regulated, not prohibited. They maintain that countries that are managing their elephants well should be allowed to sell ivory in order to pay for conservation measures.

In part to test such waters, the first legal sale of ivory in a decade took place in October 2008, despite protests from conservationists. Buyers, mostly from China and Japan, eagerly snatched up some 100 tons of stockpiled elephant tusks-no elephants were killed recently or illegally for the sale-with the proceeds going to groups working to save the elephant and its habitat. But with the legal ivory sale has come an uptick in elephant poaching, leaving conservationists with that “one step forward, two steps back” feeling.

CONTACTS: CITES, www.cites.org; AWF, www.awf.org; WCS, www.wcs.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.

Nicholas Penna Jr., of SalonCapri in Newton Highlands and Hyde Park, Mass., talked to Blast recently with some wicked cool, green hair tips

Create Dreadlocks (the easy way!):

• Section off hair into half-inch sized sections
• Apply a wax to the section of hair
• Using a comb, tease the root area of the hair
• Begin to twist the hair
• Spray with a light hairspray
• Use a flat iron to hold the hair in place and move it up and down to create a “dreadlock” look

Skip Shampoo to conserve your hair products and save $/ stress on your hair:

• Shower daily, but don’t always shampoo! Just wash out hair with water and dry it normally
• Three times a week use shampoo and wash hair thoroughly
• By reducing the amount of times you shampoo a week, you can also save on fading your color

SalonCapri was awarded “Best of Boston 2008″ by Boston Magazine.

There is no doubt that polar bears are in serious trouble. Already on the ropes due to other human threats, their numbers are falling faster than ever as a result of retreating ice due to global warming. The nonprofit International Union for the Conservation of Nature, which added the polar bear to its “Red List” of the world’s most imperiled wildlife back in 2006, predicts a 30 percent decline in population for the great white rulers of the Arctic within three generations (about 45 years).

The nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity presents an even more pessimistic forecast. If current warming trends continue, they say, two-thirds of all polar bears-including all of Alaska’s polar bears-will be extinct by 2050. Both organizations agree that the species as a whole will likely be wiped out completely within 100 years unless humans can get global warming in check.

The erroneous notion that Alaska wildlife officials don’t believe the polar bear is in trouble was put forth by Alaska governor Sarah Palin when she initiated a suit against the federal government in hopes of overturning its decision to include the polar bear under the umbrella of endangered species protection. “I strongly believe that adding them to the list is the wrong move at this time,” Palin wrote in a January 2008 New York Times Op Ed piece. “My decision is based on a comprehensive review by state wildlife officials of scientific information from a broad range of climate, ice and polar bear experts.”

The real story is that affording the polar bear endangered species protection would bring further regulations capping greenhouse gas emissions, a threat to Alaska’s main economic driver: oil revenues. Alaska professor Rick Steiner uncovered the misinformation in Palin’s claims when he found evidence that the state’s top wildlife officials agreed with federal findings that polar bears are headed toward extinction: “So, here you have the state’s marine mammal experts, three or four of them, very reputable scientists, agreeing with the federal proposed rule to list polar bears and with the USGS [United States Geological Survey] studies showing that polar bears are in serious trouble,” said Steiner.

A solid link between global warming and polar bear mortality emerged in 2004 when researchers were surprised to find four drowned bears in the Beaufort Sea off Alaska’s North Slope. The meltdown of sea ice-the polar ice cap had retreated a record 160 miles to the north-forced the bears to swim unusually long distances to find solid ice, which they depend on as hunting and fishing platforms and for rest and recuperation. And more recently, USGS researcher Steven Amstrup published findings that polar bears are “stalking, killing and eating other polar bears” as competition for scarcer food heats up.

Beyond global warming, other risks to polar bear populations include toxic contaminants in the surrounding environment as well as in the fatty tissue of the prey they rely on, conflicts with shipping, stresses from recreational polar-bear watching, oil and gas exploration and development, and overharvesting through legal and illegal hunting.

CONTACTS: International Union for the Conservation of Nature, www.iucn.org; Center for Biological Diversity, www.biologicaldiversity.org.

Dear EarthTalk: There’s a lot of talk today about solar and wind power, but what about biomass? How big a role might this renewable energy source play in our future? Couldn’t everyday people burn their own lawn and leaf clippings to generate power? – Deborah Welch, Niagara Falls, NY

The oldest and most prevalent source of renewable energy known to man, biomass is already a mainstay of energy production in the United States and elsewhere. Since such a wide variety of biomass resources is available-from trees and grasses to forestry, agricultural and urban wastes-biomass promises to play a continuing role in providing power and heat for millions of people around the world.

According to the non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), biomass is not only a renewable energy source but a carbon neutral one as well, because the energy it contains comes from the sun. When plant matter is burned, it releases the sun’s energy originally captured through photosynthesis. “In this way, biomass functions as a sort of natural battery for storing solar energy,” reports UCS. As long as biomass is produced sustainably-with only as much grown as is used-the “battery” lasts indefinitely.

While biomass is most commonly used, especially in developing countries, as a source of heat so families can stay warm and cook meals, it can also be utilized as a source of electricity. Steam captured from huge biomass processing facilities is used to turn turbines to generate electricity. Of course, biomass is also a “feedstock” for several increasingly popular carbon-neutral fuels, including ethanol and biodiesel.

According to the federal Energy Information Administration, biomass has been the leading U.S. non-hydroelectric renewable energy source for several years running through 2007, accounting for between 0.5 and 0.9 percent of the nation’s total electricity supply. In 2008-although the numbers aren’t all in yet-wind power likely took over first place due to extensive development of wind farms across the country.

According to the USA Biomass Power Producers Alliance, generating power from biomass helps Americans avoid some 11 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions that burning the equivalent amount of fossil fuels would create each year. It also helps avoid annual emissions of some two million tons of methane-which is 20-plus times stronger a “greenhouse” gas than carbon dioxide-per year.

The largest biomass power plant in the country is South Bay, Florida’s New Hope Power Partnership. The 140 megawatt facility generates electricity by burning sugar cane fiber (bagasse) and recycled urban wood, powering some 60,000 homes as well as the company’s own extensive milling and refining operations. Besides preserving precious landfill space by recycling sugar cane and wood waste, the facility’s electricity output obviates the need for about a million barrels of oil per year.

Some homeowners are making their own heat via biomass-fed backyard boiler systems, which burn yard waste and other debris, or sometimes prefabricated pellets, channeling the heat indoors to keep occupants warm. Such systems may save homeowners money, but they also generate a lot of local pollution. So, really, the way to get the most out of biomass is to encourage local utilities to use it-perhaps even from yard waste put out on the curb every week for pick-up-and sell it back to us as electricity.

CONTACTS: UCS, www.ucsusa.org; USA Biomass Power Producers Alliance, www.usabiomass.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.

RenewableEnergyJobs.com launched in February and has a rapidly-growing database of jobs, both here and abroad.

“Renewable energy is mainstream and deserved a site that would offer job seekers and employers the focus that they deserve and also the global reach,” said Sam Newell of Mindpool Consulting, the group behind RenewableEnergyJobs.com.  While the majority of the positions available on the website are based in the U.K., Newell said he expects the number of American jobs to grow faster than those worldwide.

“The numbers will balance out over time and obviously I see the U.S. as being a far larger market overall than the U.K.,” Newell said.  The listings go beyond England and America, with at least a dozen jobs posted for the Netherlands, Australia, France and Germany, with dozens of other positions scattered across the globe.

The site, which does not charge a registration fee for either employers or job-seekers, has experienced a groundswell of activity since its launch in February.  Newell said all of the postings have come without any marketing efforts on his part.

“The site has grown through word of mouth mainly,” he said.  But even in that short time, RenewableEnergyJobs compares favorably in job numbers to TreeHugger and GreenBiz, two renewable energy sites that are longer-established.

But Newell’s site offers something that few other sites can: the chance to work across the sea.

“The fact that we have jobs in 26 countries within 3 weeks tells me that we are doing something right,” he said.

When you compare battery to gasoline power, electricity wins hands down. A 2007 study by the non-profit Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) calculated that powering a plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) would cost the equivalent of roughly 75 cents per gallon of gasoline-a price not seen at the pump for 30 years.

The calculation was made using an average cost of electricity of 8.5 cents per kilowatt hour and the estimated distance the car would travel on one charge, versus a car that gets 25 miles per gallon and is powered by $3 per gallon gasoline. Change any of those variables and the relative costs change. For example, substituting a car that gets 50 miles per gallon doubles the comparative electrical cost (though it still works out much cheaper than gasoline). On the other hand, in some areas where wind or hydropower is wasted at night-just when the PHEV would be charging-the utility might drop the kilowatt hour cost to two to three cents, making the charge much less costly.

And don’t worry that we’ll run out of electrical power: A 2005 study by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory estimated that three-quarters of the country’s current small vehicle fleet could be charged by our existing electrical grid without building new power plants. (And if all those cars were replaced by PHEVs, it would eliminate the need for 6.5 billion barrels of oil per day, or 52 percent of current U.S. oil imports.)

Regarding environmental impact, charging up your car with electricity from the grid also wins handily over filling up at the gas station. In the most comprehensive PHEV study to date, released in 2007 by EPRI and the non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), results predict that all greenhouse gases will be reduced as PHEVs begin to penetrate the car market. Estimated cumulative greenhouse gas reductions from 2010 to 2050, depending upon how fast PHEVs take hold, range from 3.4 to 10.3 billion tons.

More than one half of our national energy grid is powered by coal, and in areas where PHEVs are charged through coal-provided electricity, says NRDC, there is the possibility of increased levels of soot and mercury emissions. However, charging up can be much less of a guilt-ridden affair where cleaner electrical sources like wind and solar are available. The website HybridCars.com points out that as more power plants are required to develop green power and emit fewer greenhouse gases, the environmental and health benefits will further increase.

CONTACTS: Electric Power Research Institute, www.epri.com; HybridCars.com, www.hybridcars.com; Natural Resources Defense Council, www.nrdc.org.

Dear EarthTalk: What is aerial wolf gunning and why does Alaska governor Sarah Palin endorse the practice? — Vivian Anderson, Seattle, WA

Aerial wolf gunning involves stalking and shooting wolves from low-flying planes and helicopters. The practice yields better results than traditional ground-based hunting since it allows hunters to cover lots of ground quickly and track prey from an unobstructed “bird’s eye” vantage point. For these very reasons, some hunters-as well as many environmentalists and animal rights advocates-consider aerial hunting unsportsmanlike and even inhumane since it violates the “fair chase” ethic.

Aerial hunting is mostly forbidden on U.S. public lands per the Federal Airborne Hunting Act, passed by Congress in 1972. But individual states can allow it for the sake of protecting “land, water, wildlife, livestock, domesticated animals, human life or crops.” Alaska governor Frank Murkowski exploited this language in 2003 and signed a state bill allowing Alaskans to apply for permits to kill wolves-which some Alaskans’ fear take a large toll on the moose and caribou that hunters like to shoot-from aircraft.

But when Sarah Palin, herself an avid hunter, took over the governorship in 2006, she instituted a $150 bounty for any hunter who killed a wolf from an aircraft in select areas where moose and caribou populations were not as large as hunters would have liked. A state judge quickly put a halt on the bounty, ruling that the Palin administration lacked the authority to offer such payouts. But the judge was powerless to stop aerial hunting itself as long as it was done in a permitted fashion in the name of “predator control,” per the loophole in the federal ban.

Palin also approved a $400,000 state-funded campaign that helped undermine a recent ballot initiative to ban aerial hunting, and also introduced legislation to ease restrictions on the practice. In the four years Palin has been governor, upwards of 800 wolves have been killed by aerial hunting in Alaska. Palin has joined influential groups such as the Alaska Outdoor Council in maintaining that wolf populations need culling, as the great canines are literally stealing food from the tables of Alaska’s many subsistence hunters who rely on moose and caribou kills to feed their families through the long cold winters.

But Rodger Schlickeisen of the non-profit Defenders of Wildlife says that it is Alaska’s small but politically influential commercial hunting interests-not subsistence hunters-who want to keep aerial wolf-gunning alive in the 49th state. “Their clear intention is to eliminate as many of nature’s major predators as possible to artificially increase moose and caribou numbers where it’ll then be easier for urban and wealthy out-of-state hunters to shoot their trophy animals,” he says, adding that scientific data do not show the need for stepping up predator control efforts.

Schlickeisen insists that most regular Alaskans are opposed to aerial hunting, even for the purpose of predator control. “Twice in the past 12 years, Alaska voters have approved state ballot initiatives to limit the use of aircraft to kill wildlife-and twice the state legislature, encouraged and abetted by the [appointed] board of game, has overridden the citizen-passed laws to restore use of aircraft,” he says.

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

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

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

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

Protecting Forests

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

Fighting Auto Emissions

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

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

Saving Waterways

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

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

————————————–

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

Though it has not received a lot of press to date, the industry is on the case-in part for the sake of its own survival, and thanks to the hard work of a handful of green groups, guitar makers and wood suppliers.

In 1996, Gibson, one of the world’s premier guitar brands, became the first in the industry to make some of its instruments using wood certified as “sustainably harvested” by the non-profit Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). By 2006, some 42 percent of the wood purchased by the company for its Gibson USA electric guitars came from FSC-certified sources. By 2012, Gibson expects to increase that to 80 percent.

Gibson isn’t the only instrument maker greening up its footprint: Taylor, Fender, Martin, Guild, Walden and Yamaha, along with Gibson, have signed on as partners with the Music Wood Coalition, a project of the leading environmental non-profit Greenpeace. The coalition, which is also made up of a half-dozen tonewood suppliers, hopes its efforts will protect threatened forest habitats and safeguard the future of trees critical in manufacturing instruments of all kinds. Eco-advocates and guitar makers alike fear that the spruce, maple, mahogany, ebony and rosewood trees that have been the foundation of the wooden instrument industry for years are being cut down faster than they can be replaced.

The coalition’s initial focus is on halting the aggressive deforestation going on in Southeast Alaska. Greenpeace has been in talks with Sealaska Timber Corporation, one of the biggest logging operations in Alaska, to get 190,000 acres of the company’s privately owned Southeast Alaska timberland-a prime source of Sitka spruce, a wood coveted by instrument makers for its use in guitar soundboards-certified by FSC. Greenpeace Forest Campaign Coordinator Scott Paul views getting these forestlands certified as an important win-win opportunity for Sealaska, which wants to maintain a viable income stream, and for instrument makers who need a dependable source of resonant, durable and beautiful woods.

“These [private] lands are going to be logged,” says Paul. But with FSC oversight, he says, the forests can be managed sustainably. And the process is already underway, with the first part of the two-step certification process already completed. “Our goal is to create a demand…for FSC certified ‘good wood’ as the only acceptable music wood from the North American coastal temperate rainforest,” adds Paul.

Guitar makers know that the woods they’ve used for years might not continue to be had at the quantities and low prices they’re used to, but they are willing to adapt: “Alternative woods are the key to successful guitars,” says Bob Taylor of Taylor Guitars, which has been a pioneer in the use of exotic and sustainably harvested tonewoods in their high quality acoustic guitars. “But the market needs to go there all together.”

Tradition is a huge driving force, agrees Paul. “Players expect a spruce soundboard, a mahogany neck, an ebony or rosewood bridge.” There needs to be a leap of faith in changing markets, he says, where people are becoming more environmentally conscious.

CONTACTS: Gibson USA, www.gibson.com; Forest Stewardship Council, www.fscus.org; Greenpeace Music Wood Coalition, www.musicwood.org; Taylor Guitars, www.taylorguitars.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 ordering information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.

EarthTalk^TM
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: What are some of the leading proposed technological fixes for staving off global warming, and how feasible are they? — James Harris, Columbus, Ohio

While most of the world fixates on how to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases we emit into the atmosphere, scientists and engineers around the world are busy working on various “geo-engineering” technologies-many of which are highly theoretical-to mitigate global warming and its effects. Many scientists oppose using new technology to fix problems created by old technology, but others view it as a quick and relatively inexpensive way to solve humankind’s most vexing environmental problem.

One of the theories proposed for reducing global warming involves deflecting heat away from the Earth’s surface with solar shields or satellites with movable reflectors. Computer models suggest that blocking eight percent of the sun’s Earth-bound radiation would effectively counteract the warming effect of our CO2 pollution. The idea was inspired by the cooling effects of large volcanic eruptions-such as Mt. Pinatubo in 1991-that blast sulfate particles into the stratosphere. These particles reflect part of the sun’s radiation back into space, reducing the amount of heat that reaches the atmosphere.

Another technological fix involves “sequestration,” the storage of CO2 either deep underground or deep in the ocean. Some of the nation’s largest utilities, which are also “washing” coal to filter out impurities, are working on ways to capture the CO2 they emit and store it miles below the Earth’s surface. Costs of such technologies have been prohibitive, but new regulations could force the issue in the near term.

Another leading theory, “ocean fertilization,” entails scattering iron powder throughout the world’s seas, providing nutrients to boost the amount of phytoplankton that thrive in the water’s upper layers. Through photosynthesis, these plants absorb CO2, which in theory stays with them when they die and fall to the ocean floor. Initial experiments have not lived up to the hype, however, but more research is underway.

Yet another take on altering the seas for the sake of the climate, “engineered weathering,” entails replacing some of the oceans’ carbonic acid with hydrochloric acid. This, the theory goes, accelerates the underwater storage of CO2 otherwise destined for the atmosphere. According to Harvard Earth and Planetary Science Ph.D. Kurt Zenz House, engineered weathering “dramatically accelerates a cleaning process that nature herself uses for greenhouse gas accumulation.”

While the cost of many of these so-called “geo-engineering” fixes would not necessarily be prohibitive in light of the cost of transforming our global energy economy, the risks of unintended consequences weigh heavily on even the researchers proposing them. “Personally, as a citizen not a scientist, I don’t like geo-engineering because of the high environmental risk,” Ken Caldeira, a researcher at California’s Carnegie Institution of Washington, told New Scientist. “It’s toying with poorly understood complex systems.” But he also wonders: “Is it better to let the Greenland ice sheet collapse and let the polar bears drown their way to extinction, or to spray some sulphur particles in the stratosphere?”

CONTACTS: New Scientist, www.newscientist.com; Science Daily,

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 ordering information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.

An Ethernet switch is a simple solution to adding more devices—be they computers, Xbox, or TiVo—to a network internet connection. Set-up is simple: connect any port on the device to the network and then connect the switch and the device via an Ethernet cord. You’re all set—no software input required. Connecting your computers via a switch not only shares your internet connection between devices, it also allows for ultra-fast transfers between networked computers, allowing gigabit speed transfers of large files.

Energy savings come from the devices’ ability to intelligently sense not only which ports have devices plugged in, but also their power state and the length of Ethernet cord connecting the switch and device. If the computer is off, the switch ramps power down to that port. Shorter Ethernet cords require less power, and the switch adjusts accordingly. D-Link even designed the packaging for the DGS-2205 to be eco-friendly, and the device is Energy Star compliant.

The router comes with a plethora of other features, including the ability to work with all existing 10, 100, or 1000 Mbps Ethernet devices as well as traffic sensing mechanisms that eliminate congestion to keep LAN games lag free and VoIP calls jitter-free.

D-Link currently offers four switches with these green features. The DGS-2205 and -2208 are aimed at home and small office users with the ability to connect 4 and 7 devices, respectively. The DGS-1016D and -1024D, which connect 15 and 23 devices, can be rack mounted. While only the DGS-2205 is available now, the other switches will be updated with the green features later this year.

Remember that if you connect to the internet via a cable or DSL modem, you’ll need a router that can assign multiple IP address to your devices; an Ethernet switch shares one IP address between your devices. Also, if you tend just to just put your computer to sleep instead of shutting it down, D-Link admits that you won’t see significant power savings.

Even still, the D-Link router series is an affordable, low-effort way to cut power costs and energy use. And since you’ll feel less guilt, maybe you can splurge for a bigger, brighter display too.

Due to its plight in recent decades, the cheetah, which can reach speeds of 70 miles per hour, is considered one of the world’s most endangered species by the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

A hundred years ago some 100,000 wild cheetahs inhabited 44 or more countries throughout Africa and Asia. According to the Cheetah Conservation Fund (CCF), a Namibia-based non-profit organization, today the species exists in only two dozen of those countries-including areas of North Africa, the Sahel, East Africa and southern Africa-with worldwide population numbers now between 12,000 and 15,000 individuals living in small groups. In addition, about 150-200 of the fast cats live in the wild in Iran (where they are known as the Asiatic Cheetah), their forebears having been brought in from Africa in the early 20^th century.

The chief threats to the cheetah’s existence are loss of habitat, poaching and hunting (their hide and trophies can command top dollar), and getting shot by livestock farmers. Decline of gazelles, wildebeests, impalas and other preferred prey species (also due to hunting and habitat loss) is a factor, too.

According to CCF, throughout Africa cheetah numbers are dwindling even within protected wildlife reserves due to increased competition from other larger predators like lions and hyenas. As a result, most protected areas are unable to maintain viable cheetah populations, so individual cats tend to fan out beyond wildlife reserves, placing them in greater danger of conflict with humans. Those cheetahs that do survive in the wild come from a smaller, less diverse gene pool, leaving them susceptible to disease and predation in their own right. Furthermore, captive breeding has proven tricky, and wildlife biologists are not optimistic that such efforts can have a measurable positive impact on the cheetah’s future.

Cheetahs have lean bodies, long legs, a large heart and expansive lungs. And with these features come additional speed; perhaps this is why the cheetah is often referred to as the “greyhound” of the cats. In fact, some say a cheetah looks like a “dog with a cat’s head.” But with weaker jaws and smaller teeth than other large predators, cheetahs have difficulty protecting their kills, let alone their own cubs. This has meant that population numbers for wild cheetahs are falling faster than for other big cats.

The cheetah’s future may look dim, but conservationists have been working to lessen the decline in some areas. For instance, CCF began educating livestock farmers around Namibia in the early 1990s about how to prevent cheetahs from preying on their livestock without resorting to the rifle. As a result of these education efforts, along with stronger enforcement of endangered species and anti-poaching laws, cheetah populations in that country stabilized-now some 2,500-3,000 cheetahs make their home in Namibia-after having fallen to half that the previous decade. Clearly more such efforts are needed.

CONTACTS: Cheetah Conservation Fund, www.cheetah.org; Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), www.cites.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.

EarthTalk^TM
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine

Dear EarthTalk: Don’t all these huge snow and ice storms across the country mean that the globe isn’t really warming? I’ve never seen such a winter! — Mark Franklin, Helena, MT

On the surface it certainly can appear that way. But just because some of us are suffering through a particularly cold and snowy winter doesn’t refute the fact that the globe is warming as we continue to pump carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

According to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997. And the National Atmospheric and Oceanographic Administration (NOAA) reports that recent decades have been the warmest since at least around 1000 AD, and that the warming we’ve seen since the late 19^th century is unprecedented over the last 1,000 years.

“You can’t tell much about the climate or where it’s headed by focusing on a particularly frigid day, or season, or year, even,” writes Eoin O’Carroll of the Christian Science Monitor. “It’s all in the long-term trends,” concurs Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Most scientists agree that we need to differentiate between weather and climate. The NOAA defines climate as the average of weather over at least a 30-year period. So periodic aberrations-like the harsh winter storms ravaging the Southeast and other parts of the country this winter-do not call the science of human-induced global warming into question.

The flip side of the question, of course, is whether global warming is at least partly to blame for especially harsh winter weather. As we pointed out in a recent EarthTalk column, warmer temperatures in the winter of 2006 caused Lake Erie to not freeze for the first time in its history. This actually led to increased snowfalls because more evaporating water from the lake was available for precipitation.

But while more extreme weather events of all kinds-from snowstorms to hurricanes to droughts-are likely side effects of a climate in transition, most scientists maintain that any year-to-year variation in weather cannot be linked directly to either a warming or cooling climate.

Even most global warming skeptics agree that a specific cold snap or freak storm doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not the climate problem is real. One such skeptic, Jimmy Hogan of the Rational Environmentalist website writes, “If we are throwing out anecdotal evidence that refutes global warming we must at the same time throw out anecdotal evidence that supports it.” He cites environmental groups holding up Hurricane Katrina as proof of global warming as one example of the latter.

If nothing else, we should all keep in mind that every time we turn up the thermostat this winter to combat the cold, we are contributing to global warming by consuming more fossil fuel power. Until we can shift our economy over to greener energy sources, global warming will be a problem, regardless of how warm or cold it is outside.

CONTACTS: NASA, www.nasa.gov; NOAA, www.noaa.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.

The brainchild of Grameen Foundation founder Muhammad Yunus, microfinance is a form of banking whereby financial institutions offer small loans to the poor. The idea behind the concept, which originated in Bangladesh in the mid 1970s, is that motivated and disciplined poor people could climb out of poverty if they had access to funding-even small amounts-that help get businesses off the ground. With access to revolving loan funds, these “micro-entrepreneurs” can build businesses, pay back the borrowed money, and continue to provide for themselves and their families in a sustainable manner.

A classic example would be a woman who borrows $50 to buy chickens so she can sell eggs to other members of her community. As her chickens multiply, she can sell more eggs, and eventually she can sell chicks as well. She pays back the money and has climbed out of a perhaps desperate situation financially-and the community benefits from having a new source of nutritious food.

“Having access to money to start a small business isn’t about fulfilling a dream, it’s literally about keeping their families one step ahead of starvation and putting a roof over their heads,” says Tracey Turner, founder of MicroPlace, an online “microfinance marketplace” launched by eBay in 2007. Individuals can put small or large amounts of money on MicroPlace and get a rate of return in the two- to three-percent range-better than a donation-and get the satisfaction of knowing that their cash is helping someone in a developing country improve their lot and that of their impoverished community.

On the environmental front, microfinance is, in and of itself, “green” in that it promotes businesses that can be sustained indefinitely. Example after example over the last three decades have proven the concept that when poor people are given opportunities to earn a living in a legitimate and sustainable fashion, they have little or no need to pillage their surrounding natural resources to shelter or feed themselves. Also, most of the financial institutions involved in microfinance hold up sustainability as a precondition for awarding loans. Others encourage greener businesses by offering lower interest rates to borrowers with sustainability-oriented plans.

While upstarts like MicroPlace and Kiva (which operates on a similar model whereby individual investors can get in on the microlending fun) are grabbing most of the microfinance headlines these days, Grameen Bank was the first microfinance lender in the world, initiating its first project in 1976 in the Bangladeshi village of Jobra. Today Grameen does a lot more than just offer small loans. It also accepts deposits and provides other banking services, and runs several development-oriented businesses including fabric, telephone and energy companies. And it has spawned thousands of other institutions doing similar things: World Bank statistics show that more than 7,000 microfinance institutions serve some 16 million people in developing countries with $7 billion in outstanding loans, 97 percent of which are repaid.

In 2006, Grameen founder Muhammad Yunus was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.

CONTACTS: Grameen Bank, www.grameen-info.org, MicroPlace, www.microplace.com; Kiva, www.kiva.org.

Dear EarthTalk: What is the so-called “smart grid” I’ve been hearing about, and how can it save energy and money? — Larry Burger, Litchfield, CT

America’s electricity grid is built upon what many consider to be an antiquated principle: Make large amounts of electricity and have it always available to end users whether they need it or not. It’s much like the way most home water heaters work in keeping water constantly hot even when it is not being used. It is also a strictly one-way relationship with utilities supplying power to end users, but not also vice-versa.

The smart grid concept is predicated on a two-way flow of energy-and information-between electricity generators and end users. The system not only delivers power to end users as needed, depending on demand; it also gathers power from end users that produce their own-homes and businesses that generate solar, wind or geothermal power themselves-when they have more than they need.

Some 42 states and Washington, DC already require utilities to have systems in place to buy excess energy generated by their customers. But, writes journalist Michael Prager in E – The Environmental Magazine, “because they can’t know in real time that power is coming in, utilities generate as much as they would have anyway.” He adds that when information flows both ways, end users will be able to send information back to the grid specifying how much power they need and when they will need it. They’ll also be able to communicate when they have excess power available to upload to the grid.

On the forefront of research into the feasibility of the smart grid on a large scale is the Future Renewable Electric Energy Delivery and Management (FREEDM) Systems Center, established in 2008 by the National Science Foundation and headquartered at North Carolina State University. FREEDM is partnering with universities, industry and national laboratories in 28 states and nine countries to develop technologies they say will “revolutionize the nation’s power grid and speed renewable electric-energy technologies into every home and business.” So far, some 60 utilities, alternative energy startups, electrical equipment manufacturers and other firms have signed onto the new partnership.

One such utility, Colorado-based Xcel Energy, has even begun to put smart grid technology into practice on a trial basis for a small percentage of its customer base. The utility has spent some $100 million outfitting 35,000 homes and businesses in and around the city of Boulder with automation and communications capabilities to enable two-way communication of electricity needs.

Xcel won’t have enough data to assess energy and cost savings until early 2010, but analysts are optimistic that the utility’s costly experiment will reap benefits down the road for consumers, utilities and the environment. Indeed, environmentalists and economists alike have high hopes that widespread implementation of such “intelligent” systems could help usher in a new age of unprecedented energy efficiency, emissions reductions and cost savings around the United States and beyond.

CONTACTS: Future Renewable Electric Energy Delivery and Management (FREEDM) Systems Center, www.freedm.ncsu.edu; Xcel Energy, www.xcelenergy.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.

No doubt, rental car companies large and small have responded to increased consumer demand for fuel efficiency in the last few years by stocking up on gasoline-electric hybrids and other vehicles with better mileage and lower emissions. But whether or not these companies will continue their commitment to fuel efficiency as gas prices fall and consumers begin to look again at bigger cars remains to be seen.

Hertz may have sparked the trend in 2006 when it launched its Green Collection, which includes thousands of fuel efficient cars such as the Toyota Camry, Ford Fusion, Buick LaCrosse and Hyundai Sonata. These models, now available at 50 airport rental locations, average 31 miles per gallon (mpg) on the highway, and most carry the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) SmartWay certification, indicating lower greenhouse gas and other emissions. In June 2007, Hertz bolstered its green offerings significantly by incorporating some 3,400 Toyota Prius hybrids into its American rental fleet.

Meanwhile, other companies are towing the line as well. Avis and its partner Budget offer 2,500 hybrids (Toyota’s Prius and Nissan’s Altima) for rent in the U.S. And Advantage Rent-a-Car, a smaller but up-and-coming player in the industry, has pledged to turn 100 percent of its rental fleet “green” by 2010.

Not to be outdone, Enterprise-the nation’s largest rental car company with a total fleet of 1.1 million rental vehicles-offers some 440,000 vehicles that get 28 mpg or better in highway driving. Some 5,000 of the total are hybrids (Toyota’s Camry and Prius and Ford’s Escape SUV), while another 73,000 can run on the ethanol-based biofuel or on regular gas. Customers of Enterprise (or one of its sister brands, Alamo or National) can also opt to pay an extra $1.25 per rental to offset their carbon emissions. (Funds go to Terra Pass, which funds clean energy projects.) And last year the company opened several new “green branches” where 60 percent of the vehicles for rent are hybrids or other fuel efficient models.

Of course, green car rentals do come with a premium. Renting a hybrid typically costs $5 to $15 more per day than an equivalent conventional car. In a recent comparison on overall costs (including gas expenses), SmarterTravel.com’s Sarah Pascarella figured that a two-day trip from San Francisco to Yosemite National Park was $55 cheaper in one of Hertz’s Hyundai Accent economy cars than in a hybrid Prius from their Green Collection. Comparisons with vehicles from Avis and others yielded similar results. “I found choosing an economy car over a hybrid was often the more economical choice,” she reports.

In order to encourage greener rentals despite the cost premium, San Francisco International Airport now offers travelers a $15 credit if they rent a hybrid from any of the companies operating there. Elsewhere, in-town rental locations usually offer better deals on hybrids, although customers should still expect to pay a premium for renting green no matter where they are-at least until both supply and demand for such vehicles rises, which will inevitably lead to price reductions.

CONTACTS: Hertz, www.hertz.com; Avis, www.avis.com; Advantage, www.advantage.com; Enterprise, www.enterprise.com, EPA SmartWay, www.epa.gov/smartway/; Terra Pass, www.terrapass.com; SmarterTravel.com, www.smartertravel.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Are any major brands of disposable tissues, paper towels, napkins and toilet paper yet using recycled content and chlorine-free bleaching? — Sylvia Comstock, Montpelier, VT

Not many. In fact, some of the biggest names in disposable paper products are the worst offenders. According to the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), forests at home and abroad are being destroyed to make toilet paper, facial tissues, paper towels and other disposable paper products. Giant paper producers such as Kimberly-Clark (Scott, Cottonelle, Kleenex and Viva) and Procter & Gamble (Puffs, Charmin and Bounty) are, in the words of NRDC, “forcing the destruction of our continent’s most vibrant forests, and devastating the habitat for countless wildlife species in the process.”

Much of the virgin pulp used by these large manufacturers comes from Canada’s boreal forest. Some 500,000 acres of boreal forest in Ontario and Alberta alone-key habitat for caribou, lynx, wolves and scores of birds-are felled each year to provide pulp for disposable paper. Beyond wildlife concerns, Canada’s boreal forest, which stretches from coast to coast, comprises perhaps the world’s largest terrestrial storehouse of carbon dioxide, so it is critical to keep it intact to help mitigate global warming.

Kimberly-Clark uses some 1.1 million cubic meters of trees from Canada’s boreal forests each year to produce 465,000 metric tons of pulp. Only 19 percent of the pulp it uses to make home use disposable paper products comes from recycled sources. Some of its brands, including Kleenex and Scott, contain no recycled content whatsoever. Nor do Procter and Gamble’s Bounty, Charmin or Puffs, says NRDC.

Another issue with tissue (and paper overall) is the use of chlorine for whitening. Chlorine used in many bleaching processes contributes to the formation of dioxins and furans, chemicals that end up in our air and water and can cause cancer. Safer processes use oxygen compounds and result in paper that is “totally chlorine free,” “process chlorine free” (chlorine free except for recycled fibers that were previously chlorine-bleached) or “elemental chlorine free,” which substitutes safer chlorine dioxide for chlorine.

NRDC and other groups are pressuring the tissue products industry to change its ways, and are working to educate consumers about their options when buying tissue paper products. NRDC’s online “Shopper’s Guide to Home Tissue Products” offers reams of free advice on which brands to look for-and which to avoid. Marcal is the only household name that NRDC rates high on paper sourcing (100 percent recycled and 40 to 60 percent post-consumer content) and chlorine use (process chlorine-free). Brands ranking highest (up to 80 percent post-consumer content and process-chlorine free) include 365 (the Whole Foods brand), Seventh Generation, Earth First, and Planet, among others. No brands are totally chlorine free.

In general, consumers should seek out brands that specifically tout use of 100 percent recycled materials with a high percentage (40 percent or more) of post-consumer waste, and not just keywords like “green” or “eco” on their labels, which may be misleading. Also, before you even purchase that next roll of disposable paper think about how you can reduce the amount you use in the first place. Paper tissues, towels and napkins, for example, have re-usable options in handkerchiefs and cotton towels and napkins.

CONTACTS: NRDC Shopper’s Guide to Home Tissue Products, www.nrdc.org/land/forests/gtissue.asp; Kimberly-Clark, www.kimberly-clark.com; Procter & Gamble, www.pg.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.

Every month green-minded people in 460-plus cities around the world meet up at informal social gatherings called Green Drinks. Started in 1989 in London by Edwin Datschefski and friends, the concept has spread like wildfire, with some 350 different Green Drinks chapters worldwide today. The events are designed to be low-key, unstructured and welcoming of all viewpoints on environmental topics. Many participants have found jobs, made friends, developed new ideas, done deals and had moments of serendipity and inspiration at various Green Drinks events.

In the U.S. alone, different Green Drinks events are held in 223 cities every month. The New York City chapter is the biggest in the world, with an invite list topping 10,000 people and typical attendance in the hundreds. Green Drinks events are also popular in the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Poland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Japan, New Zealand, Chile, Puerto Rico and Australia. Melbourne, Australia currently holds the record for the world’s biggest Green Drinks event, with more than 1,700 participants showing up on the first night of the city’s February 2007 Sustainable Living Festival.

“People from different fields come together with a mutual interest in environmental issues and cross-pollinate and drink in a very low-key social atmosphere,” says Margaret Lydecker, who started New York City’s Green Drinks chapter in 2002 and currently serves as the U.S. point-person for the events. Lydecker-who has personally helped start upwards of 100 different chapters, including one in Kabul, Afghanistan-says the events have been a big catalyst for connectivity, community, collaboration and change in the environmental sector in New York and beyond.

In the U.S. and Canada, most mid-sized and large cities already have thriving Green Drinks chapters. You can likely find one somewhere near you, wherever you live, by searching under the “Find City” link on the GreenDrinks.org website, and clicking through until you get a schedule of upcoming events in your particular city. If there isn’t yet a Green Drinks chapter in your region, by all means start a new one.

Heather Burns-DeMelo, who had started a local/green happenings website for Connecticut called CTgreenscene.com, was inspired by Lydecker in 2007 to start a Green Drinks chapter where she lives in Connecticut’s Fairfield County so that green-minded people in the area could connect in person. “The web is great,” she says, “but face-to-face is key to growing the movement.”

According to Burns-DeMelo, setting up the chapter was easy-she just emailed Green Drinks founder Datschefski from the greendrinks.org website with a request to start a new chapter-but getting people to come to the initial events was more challenging. She and friends set up sign-up tables at local community events, found a restaurant willing to host, sent a press release to local papers, hung fliers and posted notices on her website and others. The hard work paid off: 65 people showed up at the first event on a gloomy Wednesday night, and the chapter has been growing by leaps and bounds ever since.

CONTACT: Green Drinks, www.greendrinks.org.

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.

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

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

Big Possibilities

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

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

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

Finding New Wind

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PVC is used in the construction of everything from pipes to pool toys, and is easy to spot (check any plastic product for a recycling symbol with the number the three in it). Companies like Microsoft and Mattel have abolished the use of PVC in their packaging for years now, but it’s still one of the most widely used plastics in North America.

The presence of PVC in toys has been of high concern for parents over the past several years. Parents very rarely check to see if toys they purchase for their children contain PVC, and therefore many children are unknowingly exposed to phthalates, which are used to soften PVC to make it more durable, when chewing on a toy. Though the exact effect is unknown, young people would be more prone to any sort of health issue caused by phthalates.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently begun cracking down on companies that irresponsibly handle PVC. In early December, the EPA and the Justice Department came to a $12 million settlement with Shintech Inc., the largest manufacturer of PVC in the U.S., and it’s subsidiary K-Bin Inc., demanding they clean up their facilities in Freeport, Texas after determining they violated the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Clean Water Act.

“It is imperative that business and industry do their part to minimize the possible harm their operations may cause to our environment,” said EPA Regional Administrator Richard E. Greene in the DOJ report. “This agreement will ensure corrective action is taken and provide added benefits to the environment through supplemental projects.”

The companies were fined $2.6 million and ordered to spend $4.8 million to decrease chlorofluorocarbon emissions and better hazardous waste management at their Texas plants. The remaining $4.7 million will be spent on supplemental environmental projects as well as renovations to ensure PVC emissions are reduced by 10,000 pounds, the DOJ reports.

The supplemental projects include funding the addition of at least 300 acres of wetlands and forest to the Austin Woods preserve, as well as aiding a new Houston recycling program that will help to ensure the proper disposal of appliances containing ozone-depleting refrigerant.

The EPA is committed to help reduce PVC emissions, while many companies are committed to lowering the usage of PVC in their products.

“It’s not something you want in a product,” said Greenpeace member Jack Desena. “In small doses the phthalates aren’t a big deal, we all come in contact with them on a regular basis. But the manufacturing, processing and disposal of polyvinyl chlorides is the real problem. When you process them they release so many toxins into the air.  It really rips apart the environment.”

A few weeks before the vote, Plymouth Rock Studios announced it had registered its entire development project with the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) and would be pursuing Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification. This means that Plymouth Rock Studios, slated to open in 2010, will be the world’s first totally green movie studio.

“This is Hollywood East” says Steven Taylor, artist-in-residence at the studio. “We will be the center of innovation in entertainment for the entire East Coast, and a leader in environmentally advanced smart technologies.”

One of the studio’s two founders, David Kirkpatrick, says, “Our mission is to promote imagination and possibility, and we’re proud to complement this vision with a progressive, environmentally friendly movie studio. By pursuing LEED certification, we will create a holistic, state-of-the-art facility in Plymouth, and ensure that Massachusetts is a pioneer in sustainable, green practices.”

LEED is an independent, third-party certification system and is the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction and operation of buildings, as set by the USGBC. Architects, realtors, building managers, engineers, interior designers, landscape architects, construction managers, lenders and government officials use the program on new and old buildings alike. In the U.S., buildings account for 72% of electrical consumption, 38% of C[O.sub.2] emissions and 30% (136 million tons annually) of waste output, according to the council. The LEED process seeks to manage those factors.

Plymouth Rock Studios is aiming for complete carbon neutrality. To get there, they have brought in Gensler, a top global architecture, design and planning firm with 31 offices on five continents. “Gensler is thrilled to be part of this transformational project in the leadership of sustainable design practices in the entertainment industry and New England region,” says Douglas C. Gensler, the managing director of the firm’s Boston office.

Gensler’s plan is to include sustainable materials in the construction of buildings on the campus, low-impact design strategies, geothermal energy, daylight capture, organic gardens and water-reuse systems.

“In creating a green environment, the Plymouth Rock Studios team has taken great care in their design to minimize site disturbance, use energy-efficient mechanical equipment and plan the site in a way that maximizes the appropriation of natural light,” says the firm’s website. This means using light/shades shelves, composting to minimize waste, collecting and reusing rainwater and centralized collection and management of recyclable waste.

Plymouth Rock Studios also hopes to include renewable energy for its electrical systems. It will utilize rooftop photovoltaic arrays and wind-generated energy. “When sustainable design principles are at the center of a development project, that project can become a great learning tool and example for the surrounding community,” says Stephen Newbold, the project manager on Plymouth Rock Studios for Gensler. “The opportunity, for us to have that kind of impact with such a highly anticipated development is tremendous.”

The new studio complex will be part of the rapidly growing Massachusetts film industry. The state offers lofty tax exemptions to attract business in the same way it did to bring high-technology firms (and the accompanying jobs) to the state in the 1990s.

“Massachusetts has been telling the stories of America for hundreds of years. As a home to the arts, it has a rich and vibrant history that has given us some of the greatest original minds in American literature including Herman Melville, author of Moby Dick, Ralph Waldo Emerson, author of the famous essay ‘Nature” and Henry David Thoreau, author of Walden and the essay ‘Civil Disobedience,’” says the studio’s website. And the Massachusetts scenery has proven perfect for a wide range of big-screen movies. Stephen Spielberg filmed Jaws on Martha’s Vineyard in 1975; Ben Affleck and Matt Damon shot Good Will Hunting in the greater Boston area, as well as Affleck’s more recent Gone Baby Gone.

Since tax incentives went into place, more major productions have popped up, including Martin Scorcese’s Shutter Island, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Ben Kingsley, The Surrogates, directed by Jonathan Mostow and starring Bruce Willis, and Ricky Gervais’s and Matt Robinson’s This Side of the Truth.

In addition to its green features, the studio aims to be one of the most technologically advanced ever built, incorporating wireless networking throughout and voice- and fingerprint-activated locks. The former 240-acre golf course will feature 14 sound stages, a multipurpose theater, a hotel and office buildings.

Nearly 400 years old, Plymouth is a charming small town in southeastern Massachusetts that has strived to maintain a 17th century feel as the arrival site for the pilgrims on the Mayflower. The town has also signed on to the state’s Community Preservation Act, which allows communities to float bonds and receive matching funds from the state for preservation and conservation activities.

No links connecting specific human illnesses to chemicals oozing out of baby bottles have been proven definitively. Nonetheless, many parents are heeding the call of scientists to switch to products with less risk. A 2008 report by American and Canadian environmental researchers entitled “Baby’s Toxic Bottle” found that plastic polycarbonate baby bottles leach dangerous levels of Bisphenol-A (BPA), a synthetic chemical that mimics natural hormones and can send bodily processes into disarray, when heated.

All six of the leading brands of baby bottles tested-Avent, Disney/The First Years, Dr. Brown’s, Evenflo, Gerber and Playtex-leaked what researchers considered dangerous amounts of BPA. The report calls on major retailers selling these bottles-including Toys “R” Us, Babies “R” Us, CVS, Target, Walgreens and Wal-Mart-to switch to safer products.

According to the report, BPA is a “developmental, neural and reproductive toxicant that mimics estrogen and can interfere with healthy growth and body function.” Researchers cite numerous animal studies demonstrating that the chemical can damage reproductive, neurological and immune systems during critical stages of development. It has also been linked to breast cancer and to the early onset of puberty.

So what’s a concerned parent to do? Glass bottles are a tried-and-true chemical-free solution, and they are widely available, though very breakable. To the rescue are several companies making BPA-free plastic bottles (out of either PES/polyamide or polypropylene instead of polycarbonate). Some of the leaders are BornFree, thinkbaby, Green to Grow, Nuby, Momo Baby, Mother’s Milkmate and Medela’s. These brands are available at natural foods stores, directly from manufacturers, or from online vendors.

Most of the major brands selling BPA-containing bottles are now also offering or planning to offer BPA-free versions of their products. Consumers should read labels and packaging carefully to make sure that any product they are considering buying says unequivocally that it does not contain the chemical.

Unfortunately, switching to a BPA-free bottle is no guarantee the chemical won’t make its way into your baby’s bloodstream anyway. BPA is one of the 50 most-produced chemicals in the world. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), it is used in everything from plastic water jugs labeled #7 to plastic take-out containers, baby bottles and canned food liners. It is so omnipresent that the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) has found that 95 percent of Americans have the chemical in their urine.

Also, nursing mothers-especially those who haven’t discarded their old BPA-containing Nalgene water bottles-may be passing the chemical along through their breast milk. And if that weren’t enough, BPA is also used in the lining of many metal liquid baby formula cans. The nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) has posted email links to the consumer affairs offices of the major formula manufacturers so concerned parents can ask them to remove BPA from their product offerings and packaging.

CONTACTS: Baby’s Toxic Bottle Report, www.chej.org/documents/BabysToxicBottleFinal.pdf; NRDC, www.nrdc.org; CDC, www.cdc.gov; EWG, www.ewg.org.

Dear EarthTalk: How much “old growth” forest is left in the United States and is it all protected from logging at this point? — John Foye, via e-mail

As crazy as it sounds, no one really knows how much old growth is left in America’s forested regions, mainly because various agencies and scientists have different ideas about how to define the term. Generally speaking, “old growth” refers to forests containing trees often hundreds, sometimes thousands, of years old. But even when there is agreement on a specific definition, differences in the methods used to inventory remaining stands of old growth forest can produce major discrepancies. Or so complains the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry (NCSSF) in its recent report, “Beyond Old Growth: Older Forests in a Changing World.”

In 1991, for example, the U.S. Forest Service and the nonprofit Wilderness Society each released its own inventory of old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest and northern California. They both used the Forest Service’s definition based on the number, age and density of large trees per acre, the characteristics of the forest canopy, the number of dead standing trees and fallen logs and other criteria. However, because each agency used different remote sensing techniques to glean data, the Forest Service came up with 4.3 million acres of old-growth and the Wilderness Society found only two million acres.

The NCSSF also studied the data, and they concluded that 3.5 million acres (or six percent) of the region’s 56.8 million acres of forest qualified as old growth-that is, largely trees over 30 inches in diameter with complex forest canopies. By broadening the definition to include older forest with medium-diameter trees and both simple and complex canopies, NCSSF said their figure would go up substantially.

In other parts of the country, less than one percent of Northeast forest is old growth, though mature forests that will become old growth in a few decades are more abundant. The Southeast has even less acreage-a  1993 inventory found about 425 old growth sites across the region, equaling only a half a percent of total forest area. The Southwest has only a few scattered pockets of old-growth (mostly Ponderosa Pine), but for the most part is not known for its age-old trees. Old-growth is even scarcer in the Great Lakes.

It is hard to say whether the remaining pockets of scattered old-growth in areas besides the Pacific Northwest will remain protected, but environmentalists are working hard to save what they can in northern California, Oregon and Washington. The outgoing Bush administration recently announced plans to increase logging across Oregon’s remaining old-growth reserves by some 700 percent, in effect overturning the landmark Northwest Forest Plan of 1994 that set aside most of the region’s remaining old growth as habitat for the endangered spotted owl.

Protecting remaining old-growth is important for many reasons. “These areas provide some of the cleanest drinking water in the world, critical salmon and wildlife habitat, world-class recreational opportunities and critical carbon storage in our fight against global warming,” says Jonathan Jelen of the nonprofit Oregon Wild, adding that as much as 20 percent of the emissions related to global warming can be attributed to deforestation and poor forest management. “A growing body of evidence is showing the critical role that forests-and old-growth forests in particular-can play in mitigating climate change.”

CONTACTS: NCSSF, http://ncseonline.org/NCSSF/; Oregon Wild, www.oregonwild.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.

Greening your school is a great idea. It will not only benefit the environment but the student body as well. According to the “Greening America’s Schools” report, sponsored in part by the non-profit U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), green buildings provide a better study and learning environment for students. Improved lighting, air quality and acoustics are estimated to improve learning abilities and test scores by as much as five percent. And what better way to teach young people about the importance of environmental stewardship than starting right in the schools where they spend the majority of every weekday?

Since every school is different, there is no universal formula for calculating how much money going green will cost. Switching over to recycled paper, for instance, will not necessarily be cheap. A recent spot-check at a national office supply chain showed that the price for a ream (500 sheets) of 30 percent recycled copy paper was 20 percent higher than a ream with no recycled content. If you chose 100 percent recycled content, you would pay 35 percent more per ream. But prices can vary widely depending upon where you buy paper, and bulk purchasers like schools may be able to negotiate much better prices.

The best way to offset the added costs of switching to recycled paper is to cut paper usage at the same time. Start a program to educate students about how they can reduce paper waste by printing on both sides of a sheet and by not printing as many drafts, for example. You can also encourage your school to switch to e-newsletters instead of paper ones and find other ways to reduce administrative paper use.

Switching to recycled paper is definitely a big win for the environment. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reports that 40 cases of 30 percent recycled copy paper (400 reams) will save more than seven trees, 2,100 gallons of water, 1,230 kilowatt-hours of electricity and 18 pounds of air pollution.

You can calculate this impact for your school. Ask your school purchaser how much printer/copier paper is purchased, and calculate its weight in pounds or tons. Then go to the Environmental Defense Fund’s online Paper Calculator. Enter the weight and type of paper you use and you can determine the amount of wood, energy, water, solid waste and greenhouse gas emissions you’ll save by switching to recycled.

As for lighting, many schools already use a lot of fluorescent lighting. If your school still uses incandescent bulbs, consider that for every 60-watt incandescent bulb switched to a 13-watt compact fluorescent, the school could save 75 percent in energy use-an average of $45 over the life of each bulb.

Ambitious schools can also put in occupancy sensors that turn lights off when rooms are vacant, or install task lighting to further reduce energy usage. Such add-ons might seem like luxuries for already strapped schools, but it just may be worthwhile anyway given the energy that can be saved and the lessons learned.

CONTACTS: EnergyStar, www.energystar.gov; U.S. Green Building Council, www.usgbc.org; Natural Resources Defense Council, www.nrdc.org; Green Schools Initiative, www.greenschools.net; Environmental Defense Fund’s Paper Calculator, www.papercalculator.org.

Dear EarthTalk: With all the talk of desalinization of ocean water for drinking, what do we know about the impacts this might have on climate, ocean salinity and other natural processes? – Fred Kuepper, via e-mail

Due to its high cost, energy intensiveness and overall ecological footprint, most environmental advocates view desalinization (or desalination)-the conversion of salty ocean water into fresh water-as a last resort for providing fresh water to needy populations. Sourcing fresh water from streams, rivers, lakes and underground aquifers and adhering to strict water conservation measures are much more viable for both economic and environmental reasons in most situations, although some desert regions with thirsty and growing populations may not have many such options.

The relationship between desalinization and climate change is complex. Global warming has increased droughts around the world and turned formerly verdant landscapes into near deserts. Some long held fresh water sources are simply no longer reliably available to hundreds of millions of people around the world.

Meanwhile, expanding populations in desert areas are putting intense pressure on existing fresh water supplies, forcing communities to turn to desalinization as the most expedient way to satisfy their collective thirst. But the process of desalinization burns up many more fossil fuels than sourcing the equivalent amount of fresh water from fresh water bodies. As such, the very proliferation of desalinization plants around the world-some 13,000 already supply fresh water in 120 nations, primarily in the Middle East, North Africa and Caribbean-is both a reaction to and one of many contributors to global warming.

Beyond the links to climate problems, marine biologists warn that widespread desalinization could take a heavy toll on ocean biodiversity; as such facilities’ intake pipes essentially vacuum up and inadvertently kill millions of plankton, fish eggs, fish larvae and other microbial organisms that constitute the base layer of the marine food chain. And, according to Jeffrey Graham of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography’s Center for Marine Biotechnology and Biomedicine, the salty sludge leftover after desalinization-for every gallon of freshwater produced, another gallon of doubly concentrated salt water must be disposed of-can wreak havoc on marine ecosystems if dumped willy-nilly offshore. “For some desalinization operations,” says Graham, “it is thought that the disappearance of some organisms from discharge areas may be related to…the salty outflow.”

Of course, as supplies of fresh water dwindle, the economic cost of desalinization-especially in coastal areas with easy access to ocean water-begins to look competitive with traditional water sourcing. To date there are about 300 desalinization plants in the United States, with 120 in Florida and less than 40 each in Texas and California. Some 20 additional plants are planned for the coast of California in the coming years, unless environmentalists extolling the virtues of conservation and wielding low-flow shower heads and toilets prevail.

CONTACT: Scripps’ Center for Marine Biotechnology and Biomedicine, www.cmbb.ucsd.edu.

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.

Bamboo has a long history of economic and cultural significance, primarily in East Asia and South East Asia where it has been used for centuries for everything from building material to food to medicine. There are some 1,000 different species of bamboo growing in very diverse climates throughout the world, including the southeastern United States.

Bamboo’s environmental benefits arise largely out of its ability to grow quickly-in some cases three to four feet per day-without the need for fertilizers, pesticides or much water. Bamboo also spreads easily with little or no care. In addition, a bamboo grove releases some 35 percent more oxygen into the air than a similar-sized stand of trees, and it matures (and can be replanted) within seven years (compared to 30-50 years for a stand of trees), helping to improve soil conditions and prevent erosion along the way. Bamboo is so fast-growing that it can yield 20 times more timber than trees on the same area.

Today, heightened consumer environmental awareness has given sales of bamboo flooring, clothing, building materials and other items a huge boost.

As an attractive and sturdy alternative to hardwood flooring, bamboo is tough to beat. According to Pacific Northwest green building supplier Ecohaus, bamboo-one of the firm’s top selling flooring options-is harder, more moisture resistant and more stable than even oak hardwoods. Ecohaus carries both the EcoTimber and Teragren brands of bamboo, and ships worldwide.

Bamboo is also making waves in the clothing industry as an eco-chic and functional new fabric. Softer than cotton and with a texture more akin to silk or cashmere, bamboo clothes naturally draw moisture away from the skin, so it’s great for hot weather or for sweaty workouts. It also dries in about half the time as cotton clothing.

Some critics point out that the process of converting bamboo to fabric can take a heavy environmental toll, with the most cost-effective and widespread method involving a harsh chemical-based hydrolysis-alkalization process followed by multi-phase bleaching. The Green Guide counters, though, that bamboo still has a much lower environmental impact than pesticide-laden conventional cotton and petroleum-derived nylon and polyester fabrics. Consumers interested in trying out bamboo clothing should look for the Bamboosa and EcoDesignz labels, two of the leaders in the fast-growing sector of green fashion.

Bamboo is also making inroads into the paper industry, though there are fears that too fast a transition there would threaten ecologically diverse bamboo forests across Southeast Asia and elsewhere. The Earth Island Institute, among other groups concerned about forest loss due to paper consumption, would instead like to see more research into using agricultural waste to make paper instead of wood pulp or bamboo. Regardless, bamboo in all its forms might one day soon be one of the most important plants in the world.

Dear EarthTalk: It is starting to get colder and I’m eager to try out the fireplace in our new home, but we don’t want to create health or environmental problems. Are there materials that would be more eco-friendly to burn in a fireplace than regular firewood? — Emily Eidenier, Durham, NC

Burning wood may be humanity’s oldest way of generating heat-and in the home it definitely creates a nice ambience. But it has its downside. According to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, wood smoke “contains toxic carbon monoxide, smog-causing nitrogen oxides, soot, fine particles, and a range of other chemicals and gases that can cause or worsen serious health problems, particularly among children, pregnant women, and people with breathing difficulties.”

The Children’s Health Environmental Coalition (CHEC) concurs, citing a raft of studies that show how children living in wood-burning households experience “higher rates of lung inflammation, breathing difficulties, pneumonia, and other respiratory diseases.” For its part, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warns that those with congestive heart failure, angina, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, emphysema or asthma should avoid wood smoke if possible. Wood smoke is also bad for the outdoors environment, contributing to smog, acid rain and other problems.

One greener alternative to burning firewood in a fireplace is to burn wood pellets, which are made from sawdust and other lumber byproducts that would have otherwise been landfilled and gone to waste. These specially formulated tiny logs burn very efficiently and almost completely-largely because there is little moisture content-so there are fewer pollutants to escape into the air inside or out. You need a pellet stove to burn wood pellets, though, or a fireplace insert to handle them safely. (Such an insert employs an igniter to fire the pellets, a blower to fan the fire, and an augur that pours pellets into the flames. Together they obviate the need to open the stove doors-and let pollutants into your living room-to feed the fire.)

Another way to reduce emissions from an existing fireplace is to go for a gas insert, which would burn either liquid propane (from a swappable tank) or piped-in natural gas. These inserts draw in air to oxygenate the fire and channel smoke outside, either up the chimney or through a vent. CHEC warns, though, that hearth fires, even with an insert, cannot heat large spaces as efficiently as free-standing wood, pellet or gas stoves. Given, then that fireplaces are typically of more value for aesthetic purposes than heating efficiency, it might not be worth investing time and money into an insert. Using the primary heat source for your home (your furnace) and burning a candle or three in your fireplace might be the most efficient way to stay warm but still enjoy the ambience of live flames in your fireplace.

If none of these alternatives make sense for you, remember to get your fireplace checked regularly for backdrafts, leaks or cracks that could bring extra pollution into your home. Also, make sure to get a chimney sweep in every few years to make sure your chimney isn’t blocked up with creosote which could lead to increased indoor air pollution. And if you’re putting in a new fireplace-or an insert-make sure to get a qualified professional to do the work, as proper set-up could be the difference between sickness and health as you and your loved ones cozy up around the fire this holiday season.

CONTACTS: Massachusetts DEP, www.mass.gov/dep/; Children’s Health Environmental Coalition (CHEC), www.checnet.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.

This, in one fell swoop, took away the interviewee’s credibility as an advocate for a cleaner, greener Toronto.  The guy doesn’t even recycle.  Why am I going to listen to him tell me why other Torontonians should?  Talk about hypocrisy.

I didn’t include his testimony in my article, even though several of his quotes were very, very good.  It just didn’t feel right to include his advice.

After talking to him, I walked down the tiny halls to talk to someone else.  She was just as nice and helpful, however, she too had no recycling bin in her office. As if that wasn’t bad enough, she too had recyclable materials in her waste bin.

After interviewing her, I went to the lobby and sat on one of the couches, which was made of organic fabrics.  As I waited for my next interview with one of the executives at the organization, I asked the receptionist why there were no recycling bins in some of the offices on the floor.

“Well, we haven’t gotten around to picking them up yet.  It is high up on our list of things to do,” she said.

“When do you think you will be getting them in?” I asked.

“Maybe a week or two,” she answered.

“How long have you been at this location?” I asked.  I could tell my questions were making her uncomfortable.  But hey, I’m a journalist.  It’s what I do.

“We’ve been here for about a year,” she answered, very reluctantly.

I looked at her for a second, thanked her and walked back to the couch.  I sat down for about a minute before the executive came out.

I asked him about the bins and he gave me the same answer.  I also asked him why there were recyclable materials in the garbage bins in some of the offices.  He just smiled and said “you journalists.”  He got up, thanked me and walked away.

I find it funny that this guy tried to turn the blame on me.  He’s the one in charge of an environmental awareness organization that throws recyclable materials in the trash. And I’m the bad guy.  Sure.

Many of us have little or no use for phonebooks anymore. While such directories are helpful for that occasional look-up of a service provider or pizza place, consumers and businesses increasingly rely on the Internet to find goods and services. Directory publishers usually do make their listings available online nowadays, too, but the books are still money-makers for them as prints ads fetch top dollar even though their effectiveness is waning and much harder to track.

According to the nonprofit YellowPagesGoesGreen.org, more than 500 million phone directories-nearly two books for every American-are printed and distributed every year in the U.S., taking with them some 19 million trees. Upwards of 1.6 billion pounds of paper are generated to produce the books from these felled trees, while 7.2 million barrels of oil are churned through in creating them (not including the gasoline used for local deliveries). Producing the directories also uses up 3.2 billion kilowatt hours of electricity and generates 268,000 cubic yards of solid waste that ends up in landfills (not including the books themselves, many of which eventually end up in landfills in areas where recycling is not available or convenient).

Unfortunately, there is no centralized way for consumers to opt-out of receiving the big books like the National Do Not Call Registry for telemarketing. Most individual yellow and white page publishers have “no deliver” lists they can add you to, but they will not be held accountable if the books show up anyway. The YellowPagesGoesGreen.org website will find your local/regional directory pages publishers and ask them not to deliver on your behalf. The site warns, though, that there are no guarantees with this either.

For their part, directory publishers insist they have made great strides in recent years to operate in an environmentally responsible manner. The Yellow Pages Association (YPA) and the Association of Directory Publishers (ADP) have collaborated on formal guidelines calling for source reduction in the production of directories, environmentally sensitive manufacturing practices and enhanced recycling programs. About 90 percent of industry members have adopted the guidelines so far. Examples in practice include the use of water soluble inks and recycling-friendly glues, not to mention forsaking the use of virgin trees in their books (many books are made from recycled old phonebooks, mixed with scrap wood; see a previous column that discussed this: www.emagazine.com/view/?3651).

Because of widespread and increasing use of the Internet, many sources of information-from newspapers and magazines to newsletters and, yes, directories-are forsaking print for online placement. So it is really just a matter of time before phone directories follow that lead. In the meantime, asking to be removed from the delivery list of your local directory publisher can only help to hasten that inevitability.

CONTACTS: YellowPagesGoesGreen.org, www.yellowpagesgoesgreen.org; Yellow Pages Association (YPA), www.ypassociation.org; Association of Directory Publishers (ADP), www.adp.org.

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve noticed a lot of beach erosion along the eastern U.S. coast. Beaches are virtually non-existent in places. Is this a usual cycle that will self-correct, or are these beaches permanently gone from sea level rise or other environmental causes? – Jan Jesse, Morristown, TN

Unfortunately for beach lovers and owners of high-priced beach-front homes, coastal erosion in any form is usually a one-way trip. Man-made techniques such as beach nourishment-whereby sand is dredged from off-shore sources and deposited along otherwise vanishing beaches-may slow the process, but nothing short of global cooling or some other major geomorphic change will stop it altogether.

According to Stephen Leatherman (”Dr. Beach”) of the National Healthy Beaches Campaign, beach erosion is defined by the actual removal of sand from a beach to deeper water offshore or alongshore into inlets, tidal shoals and bays. Such erosion can result from any number of factors, including the simple inundation of the land by rising sea levels resulting from the melting of the polar ice caps.

Leatherman cites U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that between 80 and 90 percent of the sandy beaches along America’s coastlines have been eroding for decades. In many of these cases, individual beaches may be losing only a few inches per year, but in some cases the problem is much worse. The outer coast of Louisiana, which Leatherman refers to as “the erosion ‘hot spot’ of the U.S.,” is losing some 50 feet of beach every year.

Of particular concern is the effect climate change, which not only causes sea levels to rise but also increases the severity and possibly the frequency of harsh storms, has on beach erosion. “While sea level rise sets the conditions for landward displacement of the shore, coastal storms supply the energy to do the ‘geologic work’ by moving the sand off and along the beach,” writes Leatherman on his DrBeach.org website. “Therefore, beaches are greatly influenced by the frequency and magnitude of storms along a particular shoreline.”

Besides collectively lowering our greenhouse gas emissions substantially, there is little that individuals-let alone coastal landowners-can do to stop beach erosion. Building a bulkhead or seawall along one or a few coastal properties may protect homes from damaging storm waves for a few years, but could end up doing more harm than good. “Bulkheads and seawalls may accelerate beach erosion by reflecting wave energy off the facing wall, impacting adjacent property owners as well,” writes Leatherman, adding that such structures along retreating shorelines eventually cause diminished beach width and even loss.

Other larger scale techniques like beach nourishment may have better track records, at least in terms of slowing or delaying beach erosion, but are expensive enough as to warrant massive taxpayer expenditures. In the early 1980s, the city of Miami spent some $65 million adding sand to a 10-mile stretch of fast-eroding shoreline. Not only did the effort stave off erosion, it helped revitalize the tony South Beach neighborhood and rescue hotels, restaurants and shops there that cater to the rich and famous.

CONTACTS: Stephen Leatherman, www.drbeach.org; National Healthy Beaches Campaign, www.ihrc.fiu.edu/nhbc.

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.

Starting an environmental club at school is a great way to get students energized about taking care of the Earth and helping their community while learning about some of the most important issues facing the world in the 21st century.

EarthTeam, a non-profit environmental network for teens, teachers and youth leaders, offers many tips on how to start an environmental club. First and foremost is to make sure there are at least a half dozen or so other students interested in forming such a club to begin with, and then also finding a teacher, community leader or parent who is willing to serve as an adult sponsor. The sponsor’s role is to provide advice along the way and to help ensure the stability of the group from year-to-year given that all of the students, even the founders of the club, will eventually graduate, or move on to other interests or endeavors.

Once the core membership and adult sponsor have been established, EarthTeam suggests all sitting down together to decide on the club’s vision (”Why are we here?”) and to brainstorm about possible activities or projects to undertake (”What do we want to accomplish?”). Once these questions have been answered, it’s time to hold the club’s first official meeting, which should be advertised as widely as possible to other students who may be interested in finding out what the group is about and how they can get involved, too.

The next step, according to EarthTeam, is to forge an action plan that focuses on one group-oriented, year-long project that has measurable benefits to the school or community and that can keep the interest of the student members-who will no doubt be spending long hours volunteering. Whatever project(s) the group decides on, members should develop a timeline that clearly lists goals, dates and responsibilities.

In addition to undertaking the one major project, clubs can also host or sponsor special events for extra visibility. EarthTeam suggests getting students outside for a river or beach clean-up, a tree planting day, or a field trip to a local wetland, zoo or nature reserve. Another popular idea is to hold an Environmental Awareness Day to educate the entire student body about relevant green issues.

EarthTeam is also a networking platform so clubs can work together and share experiences with each other to help get a sense of the bigger picture beyond one individual school’s locale, given the global nature of most environmental issues. Another great networking resource is the Greenspan website, which lists clubs in 21 different U.S. states as well as in Australia, Canada, Japan, Ghana and Malaysia.

Another great resource for those starting up new or managing existing school environmental clubs is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Student Center website, which offers dozens of ideas for projects that both stimulate and enlighten participants while helping the local community. The website also provides links to several partner non-profit groups with club-worthy activities.

CONTACTS: EarthTeam, www.earthteam.net; Greenspan Environmental Club Network, www.greenspanworld.org/environmental_club_network.htm; U.S. EPA Student Center, www.epa.gov/students.

“Teens want to be current,” said Navita Dyal, a second-year student at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario.  She believes saving the environment has become more of a trend for younger people than a true passion.

“What’s more current than global warming?  Celebrities are all over the Internet and TV hawking their opinions and their message.  How can the youths, who look up to these people, not follow?” she said.

Dyal believes the Hollywood stars and starlets, who endorse environmental campaigns like Global Cool and Earth Hour, do so with the intent to spark a cultural change.

“There are actors like Rosario Dawson and Josh Hartnett who support Global Cool,” she explains.  “Celebrities of that magnitude can endorse anything and legions of teens follow.  That’s the point, they know they have so much influence.”

Earth Day Canada President Jed Goldberg believes that while teens don’t want to be left out of the current cultural shift, some participate because they truly worry about the current state of the world.

“Generation Y, and the latter part of generation X, have the opportunity now to save the planet from environmental destruction,” he said.  “There is a genuine concern about the consequences of climate change.”

Josh Garfinkel, a senior campaigner at Earthroots, a grassroots campaign committed to protecting Ontario’s environment, says youths make up a large part of the “go green” movement, especially here in Toronto.  They participate and volunteer with his organization and many like it more now than ever before.

“In particular it’s the 15 to 30-year-old volunteers that are very are keen on reversing that typical trait of apathy among our government,” he said.

That “apathy” is the current Canadian government’s disregard for environmental reform, especially their indifferent attitude toward the Kyoto Protocol, something with which Garfinkel says Earthroots volunteers are “very irritated.”

“They are kind of annoyed with how some people just don’t understand the effect that little things can have on the environment,” Garfinkel said of his volunteers, who are also fed up with the uninterested attitudes of everyday citizens.

“People don’t really get what it means when a chunk of ice the size of Manhattan breaks off an ice shelf.  Nor do they understand its impact.”

Dyal is also irritated with ordinary Canadians.

“Some of the people who participate in Earth Hour drive around on a daily basis in big SUV’s.  If they truly cared about the environment they wouldn’t be driving Cadillac Escalades, tearing it apart,” she said.   “It’s a bit of an oxymoron.  They think shutting the lights off for a day justifies their lifestyle.  It doesn’t.”

Much of the problem lies in education.  Goldberg believes that while global warming is a hot topic, society doesn’t really understand its potential impact because of ignorance on the parts of the school system and the media around the world.

“People don’t really get what it means when a chunk of ice the size of Manhattan breaks off an ice shelf.  Nor do they understand its impact,” he said.  “People just think it’s unbelievable that one piece of ice that big can suddenly crack off.  And that’s the extent of their interest.”

Dyal agrees that people don’t know enough about the issue itself.

“People need to be more educated on what the actual problem is.  All we hear is global warming this and global warming that, but it’s not often that we hear specifics,” she said.  “I think that would help but if people want to do things like drink fair trade coffee just because of Jennifer Aniston then so be it.”

Regardless of all the factors that influence youths and others to help out, Goldberg is just thankful people are actively involved in environmental campaigns.

“I don’t care what their motivation is.  The important thing is that there are actually people out there who are engaged and dedicated to helping,” he said. “There are many apathetic youths, but when I see teens with a genuine care for the environment, it makes me happy.  Helping the environment, no matter what the cause, is all that matters.”

Eco-villages are essentially designed communities intending to be socially, economically and ecologically sustainable. Environmentalist Joan Bokaer developed the vision for the first eco-village, which would eventually be built on the outskirts of Ithaca, New York, while on a continent-wide walk for sustainability across the United States in 1990. In Context magazine publisher Robert Gilman helped refine the concept through his research, writing and speaking on the topic. In 1996, the first residents moved into the EcoVillage at Ithaca, and a movement was born. According to the nonprofit Global Ecovillage Network, some 420 eco-villages exist in both urban and rural settings around the world today. 

The defining characteristics of an eco-village, according to Robert Gilman’s seminal 1991 article, “The Eco-Village Challenge,” include “human-scale, healthy and sustainable development, full-featured settlement, and the harmless integration of human activities into the natural world.” Gilman also said that eco-villages should limit their populations to 150 individuals, which is the maximum size for any working social network according to the teachings of sociology and anthropology. 

While the term eco-village did not come into common usage until the 1990s, the concept may in fact be older. Arcosanti, a self-described “experimental town” in the high desert of Arizona, 70 miles north of Phoenix, has been under construction since 1970 and eventually will be the home of some 5,000 forward-thinking residents. In keeping with the concept of clustered development so as to maximize open space and the efficient use of resources, the large, compact structures and large-scale solar greenhouses of Arcosanti occupy a small footprint-only 25 acres-within the community’s 4,000-acre “land preserve.” 

Italian architect Paolo Soleri designed Arcosanti according to his concept of “arcology” (architecture + ecology), whereby, in his words, “the built and the living interact as organs would in a highly evolved being.” Underpinning the concept is that “many systems work together, with efficient circulation of people and resources, multi-use buildings, and solar orientation for lighting, heating and cooling.” 

Those interested in learning more can attend a four-week workshop at Arcosanti to study building techniques and arcological philosophy, while getting a chance to contribute to the city’s ongoing construction. To date, some 5,000 participants have all had a hand in the construction of Arcosanti. 

Some other “intentional communities” designed with sustainability in mind around North America include Cobb Hill in Vermont, Vegan in Hawaii, Dancing Rabbit in Missouri, Maitreya in Oregon, Dreamtime in Wisconsin, Paz in Texas, Earthaven in North Carolina, Prairie’s Edge in Manitoba and Kakwa in British Columbia. For information on these and other eco-villages, the Ecovillage Network of the Americas as well as the Global Ecovillage Network offer extensive resources for free online. 

CONTACTS: EcoVillage at Ithaca, www.ecovillage.ithaca.ny.us; Robert Gilman’s “The Eco-Village Challenge,” www.context.org/ICLIB/IC29/Gilman1.htm; Arcosanti, www.arcosanti.org; Ecovillage Network of the Americas, ena.ecovillage.org; Global Ecovillage Network, gen.ecovillage.org. 

Dear EarthTalk: How can I determine if it is more eco-friendly to fly or drive somewhere? – Christine Matthews, Washington, DC 

The simple answer is that driving in a relatively fuel efficient car (25-30 miles per gallon) usually generates fewer greenhouse gas emissions than flying. In assessing the global warming impact of a trip from Philadelphia to Boston (about 300 miles), the environmental news website Grist.org calculates that driving would generate about 104 kilograms of carbon dioxide (CO2)-the leading greenhouse gas-per typical medium-sized car, regardless of the number of passengers, while flying on a commercial jet would produce some 184 kilograms of CO2 per passenger. 

What this also means, of course, is that while even driving alone would be slightly better from the standpoint of greenhouse gas emissions, carpooling really makes environmental sense. Four people sharing a car would collectively be responsible for emitting only 104 kilograms of CO2, while the same four people taking up four seats on a plane would generate some 736 kilograms.  

Journalist Pablo Päster of Salon.com extends the comparison further to a cross country trip, and comes to similar conclusions. (Differences in the math are attributable to the use of slightly varying assumptions regarding fuel usage and source equations.) Flying from San Francisco to Boston, for example, would generate some 1,300 kilograms of greenhouse gases per passenger each way, while driving would account for only 930 kilograms per vehicle. So again sharing the drive with one or more people would lower each individual’s carbon footprint from the experience accordingly. 

But just because driving might be greener than flying doesn’t mean it always makes the most sense. With current high gas prices, it would cost far more in fuel to drive clear across the United States in a car than to fly non-stop coast-to-coast. And that’s not even factoring in the time spent on restaurants and hotels along the way. Those interested in figuring out driving fuel costs can consult AAA’s nifty online Fuel Cost Calculator, where you can enter your starting city and destination as well as the year, make and model of your car to get an accurate estimate of what filling ‘er up will cost between points A and B. 

Once you’ve made your decision whether to drive or fly, consider purchasing carbon offsets to balance out the emissions you are generating with cash for renewable energy development. TerraPass, among others, makes it easy to calculate your carbon footprint based on how much you drive and fly (as well as home energy consumption), and then will sell you offsets accordingly. (Monies generated through carbon offsets fund alternative energy and other projects, such as wind farms, that will ultimately take a bite out of or eliminate greenhouse gas emissions).  

Of course, an individual’s emissions from riding a bus (the ultimate carpool) or a train (many of which rely solely on electric power generated by their own motion) would be significantly lower. Paster adds that a cross-country train trip would generate about half the greenhouse gas emissions of driving a car. The only way to travel greener might be to bicycle or walk-but the trip is long enough as it is. 

CONTACTS: Grist, www.grist.org, Salon, www.salon.com; AAA Fuel Cost Calculator, www.fuelcostcalculator.com; TerraPass, www.terrapass.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.