Recycling and re-use have many environmental benefits, including reducing the amount of waste we bury in already overcrowded landfills and burn in polluting incinerators, like the one pictured here. (Thinkstock)

Recycling, which turns materials that would otherwise be incinerated or become landfill-clogging waste into valuable resources, has become second nature for many Americans. As many as four out of five U.S. households already take the time to separate recyclables from trash. Those hold-outs not yet willing to bother should consider the benefits to their household and society at large.

First and foremost for consumers is saving money. Many municipalities across the U.S. today don’t charge customers for curb-side pickup of recyclables but continue to charge for garbage pick-up, so recycling is a way to reduce a household’s overall waste expense. Otherwise, consumers who collect large amounts of recyclables may be able to find a local company willing to buy them in bulk. Some municipalities operate drop-off centers where consumers can trade in aluminum cans and other scrap metal (copper, steel, etc.) for cash. Yet another way to recycle and make some cash is to sell your old stuff in a yard sale. Likewise, shopping at yard sales and second-hand stores will also prevent the manufacture of new items altogether.

And there are many benefits to recycling beyond each household’s own bottom line. Recycling saves resources. By recycling paper we save oxygen-providing, carbon-sequestering trees from the axe. By recycling plastic, we save petroleum, contributing (however slightly) to national security. By recycling metals, we take a bite out of energy-intensive mining. And recycling anything saves large amounts of energy and water that would otherwise be expended in making new goods from virgin materials. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adds that recycling “protects and expands U.S. manufacturing jobs and increases U.S. competitiveness.”
Yet another benefit of recycling is reducing the amount of waste we send to overcrowded landfills and polluting incinerators. At the other end of the consumer loop, buying products made out of recycled rather than virgin materials is another way to save money, as they are often less costly and just as good quality.

Beyond recycling, reducing our consumption of goods that are heavily packaged (often with materials not recyclable themselves) is another important part of any effort to spare bulging landfills and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And the re-use of materials that would otherwise end up in landfills is yet another way to conserve resources. It’s not difficult to think of many ways that used boxes, packaging, paper and plastic bags can be re-purposed to extend their usefulness and spare the garbage (or recycling) man. Also, composting food scraps—either at home or as part of a community effort—helps reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills and incinerators.

With world population still growing and developing countries now fully embracing an American-style consumer culture, recycling and other waste reduction techniques take on an increasingly important role in efforts to protect the environment. Indeed, there’s no time like the present to step up reducing, re-using, recycling and composting. To find out where to recycle just about anything near you, visit the Earth911 website, where you can search by entering your zip code along with the item you’re looking to unload.

CONTACTS: EPA, www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/rrr/recycle.htm; Earth911, www.Earth911.com.

Only 10 U.S. states have "bottle bills" requiring deposits on some beverage containers so consumers will return them. Those states recycle 70 percent of their bottles and cans, 2.5 times more than states without bottle bills. The beverage industry has spent millions fighting bottle bill legislation, even though beverage containers make up 5.6 percent of the U.S. waste stream. (Media credit/Mr. T in DC via Flickr)

So-called bottle bills, otherwise known as container recycling laws, mandate that certain types of beverage containers require a small deposit (usually five or ten cents) at checkout beyond the price of the beverage itself. Customers can return the empty containers later and reclaim their nickels and dimes. The idea is to provide a financial incentive for consumers to recycle and to force industry to re-use the raw materials.

According to the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), a California-based non-profit which encourages the collection and recycling of packaging materials (and runs the website BottleBill.org), the benefits of bottle bills include: supplying recyclable materials for a high-demand market; conserving energy, natural resources and landfill space; creating new businesses and green jobs; and reducing waste disposal costs and litter. The 10 U.S. states that currently have container recycling laws recycle at least 70 percent of their bottles and cans; this amounts to a recycling rate 2.5 times higher than in states without bottle bills.

Beverage containers make up a whopping 5.6 percent of the overall U.S. waste stream, so every bottle and can that gets recycled counts toward freeing up landfill space. And CRI reports that beverage containers account for some 20 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from landfilling municipal solid waste and replacing the wasted products with new ones made from virgin feedstock. So by promoting more recycling, bottle bills indirectly reduce our carbon footprints.

The 10 U.S. states with bottle bills are California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon and Vermont. Delaware’s legislature repealed its bottle bill after almost three decades on the books last year as the state’s bottle recycling rate had dropped to just 12 percent due to more and more retailers refusing to deal with the hassle of accepting returned containers. In place of its bottle bill, Delaware enacted a $0.04/bottle recycling fee that will help defray the costs of starting up a curbside recycling pickup system to service the entire state.

“We are extremely disappointed they chose to repeal their law, rather than enforce it,” reported CRI’s Susan Collins, adding that the new fee places a burden on consumers only. “Consumers will be subsidizing the producers and that is unfair.” CRI supports “extended producer responsibility” where producers and consumers together pay for the life cycle costs of product packaging.

Beyond Delaware, the main reason bottle bills haven’t caught on is because of opposition to them by the beverage industry, which doesn’t want to bear the costs of recycling and claims that the extra nickel or dime on the initial cost of the beverage is enough to turn potential customers away. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG) found that the beverage industry and its representatives spent about $14 million in campaign contributions aimed at defeating a national bottle bill between 1989 and 1994. Meanwhile, members of a Senate committee who voted against national bottle bill legislation in 1992 received some 75 times more in beverage-industry PAC money than those who voted in favor of the bill.

CONTACTS: Container Recycling Institute, www.container-recycling.org; USPIRG, www.uspirg.org.

There is no documented proof that recycled PET plastic carpet fibers are dangerous if ingested in small amounts, but it is advisable to stay safe by keeping them out of our mouths and noses by vacuuming often. Pictured: PET bottles headed for recycling. (Media credit/Twicepix via Flickr)

The jury is still out as to whether PET plastics can leach contaminants into our systems, but most reputable consumer advocates seem to think the stuff is relatively benign. That said, it can’t be good to ingest carpet fibers of any kind, and a 2009 study by German scientists found that some PET water bottles contained trace amounts of chemicals that could mimic hormones if ingested. So while there is no documented proof that PET carpet fibers are bad for you, why risk it? Stay safe by keeping them out of your mouths and noses. Also, frequent vacuuming (once a week or more often) should help to contain the problem, and is recommended for general maintenance anyway.

Overall, PET carpet—which is indeed made from recycled soda and water bottles and is sold under the name brands Resistron and Permalon, among others—is a pretty green choice. Buildings in several national parks have used PET carpet in lobbies and other high-traffic areas with minimal need for maintenance and excellent results. PET fibers are naturally stain resistant and do not require the chemical treatments used on most nylon carpets, and they retain color and resist fading from exposure to the sun or harsh cleaning. PET carpet advocates report that because plastic beverage containers are made with top quality resins as required by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, recycled PET is superior to lower grades of virgin synthetic fibers used in making other brands of polyester carpet yarns.

Also, old PET carpet can live another day when it is “down-cycled” for use in other applications such as car parts, insulation, and even furniture stuffing. PET carpet advocates brag that their products keep plastic soda and water bottles out of the landfill, but who knows how many of those sacrificed bottles could have lived on as more bottles instead of other end of the line products.

GreenAmerica, publisher of the popular yearly-published National Green Pages, recommends the 100 percent post-consumer recycled PET carpets for sale on Liberty Carpet One’s GreenFloors.com website. Liberty Carpet One claims that every square yard of PET carpeting they sell keeps 40 water or soda bottles out of landfills. The company also reports that its dyeing method is less polluting and requires less energy to produce than other flooring options, and that all of their carpets have been tested and meet indoor air quality standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Of course, if you’re starting from scratch, good old natural fibers such as wool, sisal, jute and seagrass may be the greenest and healthiest carpet choices out there, especially when paired with pads made from cotton or rag (not petroleum). Other than GreenFloors PET carpeting, GreenAmerica also vouches for natural fiber offerings from the likes of Contempo Floor Coverings and Natural Home. And besides carpeting, there is a whole world of harder flooring choices that meet environmentalists’ strict criteria, from sustainably harvested hard woods to bamboo to cork.

CONTACTS: “Plastic Water Bottles May Pose Health Hazard,” Discovery News, dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/28/water-bottles-health.html; Go Green Flooring, www.gogreenflooring.com; GreenAmerica, www.greenamerica.org.

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that environmental factors could be playing a role in the increasing number of prostate cancer cases in the U.S. and elsewhere? – Joshua Gordon, New York, NY

Prostate cancer is a growing problem for men in the U.S. as well as in other developed nations around the world. Some 40,000 American men lose their battle with prostate cancer every year—the only cancer more deadly for U.S. men is skin cancer. Age is the primary “risk factor” for developing prostate cancer. One out of every six American men over the age of 40 will develop prostate cancer, while four out of five over 80 years old will get it. Of course, genes also play a big role. The American Cancer Society reports that a man’s prostate cancer risk doubles if his father or brother has suffered from the disease. Researchers believe a genetic predisposition accounts for as many as 10 percent of all cases of the disease in the U.S.

Beyond age and genetics, though, environmental factors do likely play a role. WebMD reports, for instance, that prostate cancer occurs about 60 percent more often in African American men than in white American men, and when diagnosed is more likely to be advanced. But interestingly enough, prostate cancer rates for African men living in their native countries are much lower. When native Africans immigrate to the U.S., however, prostate cancer rates increase sharply.

According to WebMD, the reason for these differences are not fully understood, but an environmental connection—possibly related to high-fat diets, less exposure to the sun, exposure to heavy metals, infectious agents, or smoking—might be to blame. Some new research suggests that a switch to a diet high in fat could be a significant contributing factor in these cases. “The disease is much more common in countries where meat and dairy products are dietary staples,” adds WebMD.

The take-away for men concerned about prostate health is to eat healthier. Several studies suggest that a diet high in lycopene (an antioxidant found in high levels in tomatoes, pink grapefruit, watermelon and some other fruits and veggies) could lower an individual’s risk of developing prostate cancer significantly.

Researchers have also found links between other environmental factors and prostate cancer. Dr. Matthew Schmitz, a prostate cancer specialist at Boston’s Massachusetts General Hospital and the prostate cancer “guide” at About.com, reports that exposure to high levels of cadmium (a naturally occurring element used in industrial processes and present in cigarette smoke) as well as dioxins (chemicals widely used in herbicides and other applications) have been linked to increased prostate cancer risk. Other researchers have noticed that men who take calcium supplements and multi-vitamins regularly may be at higher risk. Schmitz says that more research is needed to learn how risky such exposures really are.

For those who do get prostate cancer, some promising new treatments will be undergoing clinical trials soon. Dr. Marianne Sadar of the BC Cancer Agency in Vancouver, Canada, has used an experimental drug adapted from sea sponges to shrink cancer tumors in mice. It will be a year before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration permits trials of the new drug on humans, but prostate patients and their doctors are holding out hope that this and other new treatments can obviate the need for many surgeries.

CONTACTS: American Cancer Society, www.cancer.org; WebMD, www.webmd.com; About.com, www.about.com; U.S. Food and Drug Administration, www.fda.gov.

Dear EarthTalk: Given the environmental and economic benefits, why doesn’t the U.S. have a federal law mandating recycling nationwide? – N. Koslowsky, Pompano Beach, FL

Just a few decades ago, Americans recycled less than 10 percent of their solid waste. Today, Americans recycle some 32 percent of the 350 million tons of refuse they generate annually (Media credit/Tom Magliery via Flickr)

The U.S. government has historically relied on state and local governments to handle waste management in all of its forms, including recycling. Although there have been a few attempts to push legislation through Congress to mandate minimum national recycling rates, none have made it out of committee hearings. Federal lawmakers are loathe to take waste management regulatory powers away from individual states which have vastly different needs from one another. For instance, less populous western states with lots of extra land for siting landfills might not be as inclined to push for higher recycling rates as those crowded eastern states with less room to store their trash.

According to Chaz Miller, Director of State Programs at the National Solid Wastes Management Association, America’s very first federal solid waste law, 1965’s Solid Waste Disposal Act—itself an amendment to the original Clean Air Act—didn’t even mention recycling. “Eleven years later, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which remains the cornerstone of federal solid waste and recycling legislation,” reports Miller. RCRA abolished open dumps and required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to create guidelines for solid waste disposal and regulations for hazardous waste management, but had little to say about recycling except to call for an increase in federal purchases of products made with recycled content. The EPA also published manuals and workshops on implementing curbside recycling programs, although funding for such programs dried up by 1981.

Nevertheless, the seed had taken root. Pioneering programs in Massachusetts and elsewhere led to the development of curbside recycling programs in more than 600 municipalities throughout the U.S.—mostly in the Northeast and on the West Coast—by the mid-1980s. In addition, 10 states introduced “bottle bill” laws to encourage recycling of beer and soft drink containers. Two states, Rhode Island and New Jersey, both being small, densely populated and short on landfill space, implemented comprehensive approaches to recycling. They began requiring local jurisdictions to pick-up residents’ and businesses’ paper, metal and glass, and helped towns and cities set-up systems for pick-up, sorting and materials recovery. Most of the 8,600-plus municipal recycling programs in existence today are modeled on these early efforts.

Just a few decades ago, Americans recycled less than 10 percent of their solid waste. Multi-material and curbside collection programs were non-existent, paper was only collected sporadically when a local scout troop or similar group organized a paper drive, and family-owned scrap dealers would occasionally buy paper and metal scrap based on limited market demand for additional raw materials.

Today, the EPA estimates that Americans recycle some 32 percent of the 350 million tons of refuse they generate annually. While it still has no federal platform for doing so, the EPA, through its Resource Conservation Challenge program, is pushing for Americans to up that rate. Forty-two states now have their own recycling or waste diversion goals, and 18 are trying to divert upwards of half their waste via recycling or composting.
CONTACTS: National Solid Wastes Management Association, www.environmentalistseveryday.org; EPA Resource Conservation Challenge, www.epa.gov/osw/rcc.

By 2015, the European Union will be throwing out 750,000 tons of flat screen devices per year, to say nothing for the American and Asian need, according to estimates.

That’s a lot of broken televisions and computer monitors getting chucked.

A Gothenburg, Sweden-based group has developed a process for taking all this electronic junk and recycling it.

Stena Metall Group believes it has the answer.

“The degree of recycling is high and there are major environmental benefits. Moreover, we are able to move away from manual dismantling,” said Staffan Johansson, managing director for GRIAG Glasrecycling, part of the Stena Metall Group.

Johansson said that more than 100 million flat screens were sold in Europe in 2008, but there hasn’t been a recycling process that is effective and environmentally sound. The products contain mercury, which makes dismantling the discarded screens even more difficult.

In the automated process, iron, other metals, plastics, circuit boards as well as glass with liquid crystal are separated. There is a closed process that removes the mercury.

“It is easy for mercury lamps to break during manual handling. This gives rise to health risks for those carrying out the dismantling,” said Snorre Kolseth, manager
of research and development.

For more information, visit stenametall.com.

Across most of Major League Baseball (MLB), teams are turning greener than the outfield grass, reports the June 2009 issue of E – The Environmental Magazine (now posted at www.emagazine.com/view/?4664). They’re reducing energy consumption, extending recycling efforts, and taking the first steps into renewable energy. So far, four parks, including Fenway Park in Boston, the nation’s oldest, draw some of their power from solar energy.

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 20‚­about 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 Council‚­which has partnered with MLB‚­and the teams. All four of the solar installations at MLB parks‚­at the homes of the Colorado Rockies, the San Francisco Giants, the Boston Red Sox and the Cleveland Indians‚­were 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTACT: CleanScapes, www.cleanscapes.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear EarthTalk: Where do the leading presidential candidates stand on the issue of climate change and other environmental issues? – Max S., Seattle, WA

The outcome of the 2008 presidential election could very well have a big impact on a wide range of environmental issues, especially climate change.

All of the Democratic candidates—Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Dennis Kucinich—support reducing carbon dioxide emissions nationally upwards of 80 percent by 2050 in order to stave off global warming. Likewise, each would like to see fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks raised to at least 40 miles per gallon within the next few decades. Meanwhile, only one of the major Republican contenders, John McCain, has even articulated a position on the issue of global warming, with most favoring expanding our base of greenhouse gas-spewing coal-fired power plants.

As for specific track records, Clinton has an impressive record of introducing pro-environment legislation into Congress, and for her time in the Senate scores a 90 (out of 100) on green voting from the nonprofit, non-partisan League of Conservation Voters (LCV). Obama is newer to the politics of the environment, but scored a 96 for his two years in the Senate from LCV, and has garnered kudos from environmental leaders for the aggressive climate and energy plan he unveiled in October 2007.

Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich wants to launch a Works Green Administration similar to the Works Progress Administration of the Great Depression, only this time to benefit the environment through the development of alternative energy technologies and infrastructures. Bill Richardson, who served as Secretary of Energy under Bill Clinton and more recently as governor of New Mexico, wants to be the "energy president," and has an 82 lifetime rating from LCV to back it up. He has proposed the most ambitious carbon reduction plan of any of the candidates (90 percent by 2050). John Edwards was the first candidate to make his campaign carbon neutral in March 2007, and greens consider him perhaps the most progressive of all the Democrats on the climate issue.

On the Republican side, the environmental bright spots are few and far between. McCain is really the only choice with any declared concern for the environment. In 2003 he co-sponsored the first Senate bill aimed at mandatory economy-wide reductions. While the bill didn’t garner enough votes to pass, it set the stage for future iterations that could put the U.S. on par with European nations as leaders in the fight to cut carbon emissions. McCain is also the only Republican candidate specifically opposed to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Mike Huckabee scores some points with greens for his willingness to consider a specific increase in automotive fuel efficiency standards and for his (limited) embrace of alternative energy. Mitt Romney is willing to consider a cap on emissions, but only if enacted on a global basis (including China and India, that is). The remaining Republicans (Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Ron Paul) have best been non-committal on climate change and environmental issues in general.

CONTACT: For more detailed information on specific candidates’ positions and track records on environmental issues, check out the League of Conservation Voters’ Voter Guide, www.lcv.org/voterguide.

Dear EarthTalk: Most of us know how to recycle paper, plastic and glass, but how do we find out about recycling the many other items we use that eventually break or die out, such as light bulbs, disposable batteries, portable electronics, and so on? — Elizabeth Lauer, via e-mail

It’s true that recycling items other than paper, plastic and glass is still no easy task. But if you’re committed to unloading something without adding it to a landfill, a little research can go a long way. Fortunately there are some great resources out there to help.

One of the best is a May 2006 article published in E — The Environmental Magazine by Sally Deneen entitled “How to Recycle Practically Anything.” Besides debunking myths about the ineffectiveness of municipal recycling programs, Deneen outlines where and how to recycle dozens of different types of household items not typically picked up by the recycling truck at your curbside.

Regarding compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs)—which shouldn’t be thrown in the trash as they contain trace amounts of the toxic heavy metal mercury—Deneen recommends first checking with your local household hazardous waste disposal facility to see if they will take them for recycling. If not, many hardware stores will take back spent CFLs. If none of these options pans out, a free online listing of companies that recycle CFLs can be found at the lampecycle.org website.

As for disposable batteries, Deneen says they, too, can usually be dropped off at municipal hazardous waste facilities, where they will be disassembled and their parts recycled for use in other products. If such facilities in your area won’t take them, some local or national retailers (such as Walgreen’s in some areas and Batteries Plus nationwide) may—just call and ask. Another option is to pay for the privilege by sending them to Battery Solutions, a mail-order company that will recycle them for 85 cents per pound.

Another common question is how to recycle (or at least responsibly dispose of) portable electronics—cell phones, video games, MP3 players, etc.—given that they usually contain heavy metals and chemicals that can pollute soils and groundwater. Deneen recommends dropping them off at your local Staples, Office Depot or Radio Shack store, which should take them back free of charge even if you didn’t buy them there. Another option would be shipping the worn out items to CollectiveGood (4508 Bibb Boulevard, Tucker, GA 30084), which will recycle them and donate the proceeds to the charity of your choice.

If you’re stumped about how or where to recycle an item, check out the Earth911.org website. It offers a free keyword-searchable, zip code-based database of municipal and commercial recycling and hazardous waste disposal facilities across the United States. The frequently updated database, which is funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as well as state governments and several non-profits, can also direct you to the proper municipal facility or local business to off-load potentially toxic items, like old tires or unused paint, in a safe and responsible manner. If you don’t have handy Internet access, give Earth911′s toll-free telephone hotline a call at 1-800-CLEANUP.

CONTACTS: “How to Recycle Practically Anything,” www.emagazine.com/view/?3172; LampRecycle.org, www.lamprecycle.org; Battery Solutions, www.batteryrecycling.com; CollectiveGood, www.collectivegood.com; Earth911.org, www.earth911.org.

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

Dear EarthTalk: Please help settle the debate about whether or not my cats should stay in or go out. My neighborhood is relatively safe for cats, vis- -vis car traffic, and I think it is more natural for them to be outside and not always inside. They do kill wildlife, including birds, but aren’t they just taking the place of natural predators that once did the same? — Bill Thomson, Bangor, ME

Most environmental advocates believe that keeping cats indoors is better for both the health of the felines themselves and for their prey. Scientists estimate that the typical free-roaming housecat kills some 100 small animals each year. This means that the 90 million domestic housecats living in the U.S. alone are killing hundreds of millions if not billions of birds, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians every year. And while housecats on the prowl may serve to replace the natural predators long ago extirpated by humans, their popularity as pets puts their population density far ahead of those that came before them.

"Cat predation is an added stress to wildlife populations already struggling to survive habitat loss, pollution, pesticides and other human impacts," says the American Bird Conservancy (ABC), which in 1997 launched its controversial Cats Indoors! campaign to educate animal lovers about the benefits of keeping Tabby inside. ABC also points out that free-roaming cats are exposed to injury, disease, parasites and collisions with cars, and can get lost, stolen or poisoned. Cats can also transmit diseases and parasites such as rabies, cat-scratch fever and toxoplasmosis to other cats, wildlife or people. To help drive its point home, ABC produces a wide range of educational materials (including a brochure, "Keeping Cats Indoors Isn’t Just For The Birds") and public service announcements in the service of their ongoing campaign.

Nonetheless, many cat lovers believe that it is inhumane to confine felines indoors, since they have evolved as hunters and thrive on the natural stimulation only available outside. To help soften the blow and wean your cat off of the outdoors slowly, ABC suggests gradually curtailing your cat’s out-of-doors time over the course of a few months until it is eventually not let out at all. In doing so, you will need to provide your cat with a lot of attention and play indoors. New scratching posts and toys are a good bet as they may entertain cats that ordinarily occupy themselves chasing birds and rodents. ABC suggests hiding various toys around the house so cats can sniff them and not miss so much the thrill of the hunt outdoors.

One last bit of important advice: Many fear that confining their cats indoors will lead to more shredded upholstery. But de-clawing your cat should never be an option. According to Veterinarian Dr. Christianne Schelling, cats’ claws are a vital part of their anatomy. De-clawing is not simply fingernail trimming but the removal of the last joint in a cat’s "toes." It is a painful procedure and can lead to serious physical, emotional and behavioral complications.

Alternatives to de-clawing include providing scratching posts in various locations around the home, and trimming your cats nails occasionally. This involves trimming only the clear tip of the nail (never the pink or dark fleshy parts, which are skin) and should be done only upon first consulting with a veterinarian. Another option is a product called Soft Paws, lightweight vinyl caps that you apply over your cat’s own claws. They have rounded edges, so your cat’s scratching doesn’t damage your home and furnishings.

CONTACTS: Cats Indoors! www.abcbirds.org/cats/; Declawing Cats: More Than Just a Manicure, www.hsus.org/ace/11780; Soft Paws, www.softpaws.com.

Dear EarthTalk: The hospital I work at doesn’t recycle at all, not even plastic bottles and cans or food service trays. I was wondering how to get the facility to start up some kind of recycling system? – Adrianna Schultz, via e-mail

Getting a large institution or corporation on board with recycling is no easy job, especially when you are starting from scratch. A good place to begin is to get permission from higher-ups to solicit bids from waste haulers and recyclers interested in new business. Such service providers can provide you with both the supplies needed to gather recyclables as well as regular weekly or daily pick-ups, depending on needs.

If convincing your employer to look into recycling in the first place is a stumbling block, there are many resources available to help turn that tide. The Rhode Island Resource Recovery Corporation (RIRRC), a state agency dedicated to helping Ocean State businesses manage solid waste in environmentally sound ways, publishes "In the Workplace," a print and online pamphlet that outlines the steps for setting up a workplace recycling and reduction program. According to RIRRC, wannabe workplace recyclers need to start by securing organizational support and commitment and educating fellow employees about the importance of recycling. The pamphlet also includes useful tips about reducing waste altogether.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s "Recycling Works" program offers a similar set of guidelines specifically for recycling at hospitals and health care institutions. Additionally, New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation publishes a free guide showing health care facilities how to evaluate their performance in preventing waste and pollution and identify opportunities for recycling and for cutting back resource use.

Another good resource for information on hospital recycling is the website of the nonprofit Waste Reduction Resource Center, which offers case studies detailing how several small and large health care facilities coast-to-coast have launched successful and money-saving recycling and waste reduction programs. Examples include a Vermont hospital with no budget for recycling that set up a self-sustaining, money-saving system for organics collection and composting, and a Pennsylvania hospital that now saves $150,000 a year due to the implementation of its recycling program.

Those looking to reduce waste in hospitals should be sure to consult the "Plan-Do-Check-Act" section of the Sustainable Hospitals website. The summary provides useful tools for getting management approvals and enlisting the support of employees in both recycling and lowering disposable product consumption. It also has a section on how to reduce energy usage.

Implementing recycling and waste reduction programs at hospitals makes sense not only for local ecology and for institutional bottom line, but also for the examples that can be set for the millions of patients and workers that pass through the health care system every day.

CONTACTS: Waste Reduction Resource Center, http://wrrc.p2pays.org; RIRRC "In the Workplace," www.rirrc.org/documents/10221%20Workplace%20Brochure3.pdf; "Recycling Works," www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/airwaste/wm/RECYCLE/Recywrks/recywrks1.htm; Sustainable Hospitals, www.sustainablehospitals.org/HTMLSrc/PlanDoCheckAct.html.

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.