There are many online websites and blogs that offer green investing strategies and tips as well as news and views on developments in various green business sectors.

Dear EarthTalk: What are some good resources out there for learning about investments that help the environment? — Rob Johnson, Sherman Oaks, CA

The best green investing resources are available online, many for free. One good place to start is the Green Money Journal, which features a wide range of informative and free articles to help the individual investor make sense of the panoply of choices available when it comes to investing with the Earth in mind. Publisher Cliff Feigenbaum, also co-author of the book, Investing With Your Values (New Society, 2000), has been running the publication, first in print and now online, since 1992, and makes sure that each quarterly issue is chock full of tips and strategies for making a statement while making a buck.

Another great resource is SustainableBusiness.com’s online Progressive Investor newsletter. Publisher Rona Fried keeps each issue fresh with advice from leading green portfolio managers and other experts, and reports on trends in renewable energy and energy efficiency, green building, recycling, organic foods, healthy lifestyles, and more. Individual issues cost $21 or subscribers can get five issues for $112.

There are now also many green investing blogs. Tune in regularly to the Green Investing Times, which offers green investing strategies and tips as well as news and views on developments in the so-called "CleanTech" sectors. The Green Chip Stocks website also tracks news about clean and green companies. BusinessWeek‘s Business Exchange blog features a live stream of up-to-the-minute posts pertaining to green business. For another perspective entirely, check out sites like Treehugger.com and Sustainablog, each which has unique takes on the latest and greatest in green technology and trends.

Some of the general finance and investing websites have also put together pretty good sections on green investing. Investopedia‘s special feature on green investing offers dozens of articles, question-and-answer features and commentaries covering the gamut of options when it comes to investing with one’s values. The Motley Fool also runs information regularly pertaining to green investing.

If you don’t want to spend your days tracking the markets, you could leave it to the experts like the portfolio managers at Portland, Oregon-based Portfolio 21 Investments. The firm puts investor dollars to work supporting companies "developing cleaner and more efficient energy solutions, products designed to be reused and rebuilt, and processes that eliminate the need for toxic inputs while producing little or no waste." The firm’s global equity mutual fund is open to individual investors willing to put in at least $5,000, while the minimum on retirement accounts is only $1,000.

There are other green mutual funds out there, too, of course, that screen the stocks they pick according to environmental and social responsibility standards. Domini, Calvert, Sustainable Asset Management, Pax World and MMA Praxis all have offerings targeting specific industries and general green performance.

CONTACTS: Green Money Journal, www.greenmoneyjournal.com; Investopedia, www.investopedia.com/features/green-investing.aspx; Motley Fool, www.motleyfool.com; Progressive Investor, www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/progressiveinvestor.main; Green Investing Times, www.greeninvestingtimes.com; Treehugger, www.treehugger.com; Sustainablog, www.sustainablog.org; BusinessWeek’s Business Exchange Green Investing, http://bx.businessweek.com/green-investing/blogs .

Converting an existing home to solar power can cost upwards of $25,000 and is probably not be a good investment for most people, strictly economically speaking. But if you're building a new home, incorporating a solar system from the get-go is simply a matter of choosing solar over something else and therefore may pencil out much better. (Media credit/Student Design and Experiential Learning Center via Flickr)

Dear EarthTalk: Is it now feasible to provide all of a home’s energy needs—including air conditioning—with solar power alone? If so, why hasn’t solar caught on more, particularly in U.S. "Sun Belt" states from southern California east to Florida? – Tim Douglas, Burlington, VT

It has been possible for years if not decades to provide all of a home’s energy needs with solar power. The technology is here and is only getting more efficient and less obtrusive every day. The only real stumbling block is cost: Solar systems capable of meeting all of an average U.S. home’s energy needs start at around $25,000. Given how inexpensive the grid-based power we now get all across the country remains—and, bear in mind that many utilities are working more and more renewable energy sources, like wind power, into their mix—going solar alone just doesn’t pencil out economically for most people.

Of course, many of us are starting to think beyond our individual bottom lines when it comes to energy usage as global warming nips at our heels. The federal and many state governments feel likewise and have set up generous rebates and incentives to encourage homeowners (and businesses) to embrace alternative renewable energy sources (including solar but also, wind, geothermal, biomass and even tidal power, among other choices). The federal government offers up a 30 percent personal tax credit (with no ceiling) on the cost of photovoltaic or other solar installations. To find a list of what’s available from states, check out the free listings at the website of the Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy (DSIRE).

In the nation’s top solar market, California, residents can cash in on some serious state-funded rebates as well. Thanks to the California Solar Initiative (CSI), a $3.2 billion solar rebate program funded by electric ratepayers, Golden State homeowners can get as much as a third or more off the cost to install a residential solar system. CSI’s website, Go Solar California, provides links to several online calculators that take into account home size and location as well as state and federal incentives to help you do the figuring.

In Arizona, homeowners can get 25 percent back (capped at $1,000 per residence) from the state on the cost of installing photovoltaic panels or other solar harvesters. Some Arizona utilities offer incentives, too. In Texas, homeowners who install solar panels can get a tax credit (capped at $2,000) for 30 percent of the cost of a system. Utilities in the Lone Star State also offer incentives for those who generate their own solar power, and some will buy the power back from customers via a program called "net-metering."

Meanwhile, the state of Florida offers a huge $4/watt rebate (capped at a whopping $20,000 for homeowners and $100,000 for businesses) for purchasers of solar photovoltaic systems there. But the website SolarPowerRocks.com reports that funding is running out and the program could end any day. Like Texas, Florida offers solar customers the ability to sell excess power back to the grid.

Even with such rebates, and the fact that solar energy is essentially free once the equipment to harness it is installed, the costs of converting an existing home to solar power is tough to swallow for most people, given that the cost to instead connect to the existing grid is zero. But if you’re building a new home, incorporating a solar system from the get-go is simply a matter of choosing solar over something else.

CONTACTS: DSIRE, www.dsireusa.org; Go Solar California, www.gosolarcalifornia.ca.gov; SolarPowerRocks.com, www.solarpowerrocks.com.

This won’t be a popular sentiment, but I don’t care, I’m going to say it anyway.

Folks, enough with this whole “going green” gimmick. The planets ecosystem is unfortunately fucked beyond repair, and too many companies are making a quick buck selling “green” products to a guilt ridden public.

I mean, don’t get me wrong, I’m actually all for trying to save the Earth, but I don’t think driving a stupid Prius and using low wattage light bulbs that prevent me from seeing a fucking single thing are the ways to go about it. Hell, as it is, most of these “planet saving products” don’t even do what they advertise!

So with all of that pessimism out of the way, you could probably imagine my eye-rolling and groaning, when I was sent the Novothink Solar Surge for the iPhone 3G and 3Gs.

The Surge is the first Apple approved charging case available to consumers that features a solar-charging option. Think of it as a hybrid (pun intended) external battery and case/solar charger for your iPhone.

Does it make your not so slim iPhone even bulkier? You bet it does.

Still though, I’ll give the Surge this. It is made very well. Within it’s sleek packaging, the Surge boasts a 1500mAh lithium-ion battery that should double your iPhone’s already sub-par battery life. You can charge the battery via a USB 2.0 port, or more importantly, through the solar panels on its backside.

During my testing of the unit, I charged it by leaving it outside to soak up some rays for a few hours. Thanks to the LED battery status indicator below the solar panels, I knew I had successfully charged up the Surge once all four bars were the color … wait for it … green (of course they are.)

Once attached to my increasingly obsolete 3G, I proceeded to use the hell out of my phone more than usual, just to see if the Surge worked as promised. Much to my surprise, it actually did. It seemed to add a good hour or so of extra juice to my iPhone 3G.

I’ll put it to you this way. I normally wake up at 9 a.m., use my phone throughout the day, and I’ll need to charge it up again, usually around 4 p.m. By using the Novothink Surge, I didn’t have to charge up again until almost 6:00 pm. For that alone, I applaud the hell out of this product.

But, does all that extra battery life actually make the Surge worth buying? Well, I guess that depends on your frame of mind. If you’re like me, and you’re either tired of all this “going green” nonsense or, if you couldn’t deal with additional bulkiness added to your iPhone, then I can’t justify paying nearly $70 for this thing.

However, if you’re one of those militant Eco-Nazi types who won’t even let their
house guests use paper napkins (wait, you want me to wipe my mouth with this rag? Gross!) and you’d rather use solar energy while using your iPhone, well, then pick up a Surge. It’s definitely no gimmick.

The Novothink Solar Surge for iPhone 3g and 3GS retails for $69.99.

LYNN — Massachusetts is powering up to become the national leader in energy efficiency, announcing sweeping plans to save residents money and create a more energy-savvy Commonwealth.

Gov. Deval Patrick has made the energy efficiency plan a top priority, saying it will help defray climbing energy costs for state residents and businesses.

“These plans provide a roadmap toward a clean energy future that includes more local jobs in the efficiency sector, a cleaner environment thanks to fewer power plant emissions, and lower electric and natural gas bills for consumers residing in more energy efficient, comfortable homes,” Governor Deval Patrick said in a statement.

Funded in part by the state and in part by the federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), the program, which is an offshoot of the state’s 2008 Green Communities Act, will cost taxpayers $2.1 billion — which includes $580 million in customer incentives, which encourage better home insulation, energy efficient windows and appliances. The return though, according to the program’s supporters, is expected to be far greater: $6.2 billion in savings over a three-year period.

That, and the title of national leader in energy efficiency — ahead of even California, long thought to be on top of the green movement.

The state is calling energy efficiency “the Commonwealth’s ‘first fuel,’” insisting that in order to achieve the $6 billion savings, residents must:

• Re-evaluate their energy use
• Utilize state rebates and incentives

That is, according to the state, the way for residents to minimize their utility bills.

The new law calls for:

• 2.4 percent reduction in electricity over the next three years
• 1.7 percent reduction in natural gas.

In order to achieve this, the Commonwealth has solicited the help of utility companies, NStar, Bay State Gas and Western Mass Electric, who all support the plan. They are stepping up promotion of home and business energy audits The efforts, they say, will compel Commonwealth residents to take part because the cost savings will be too great not to.

“On average, 10 percent of home energy is wasted in Massachusetts,” said Mike Durand, spokesman for NStar. “Open refrigerators, lights on, unchecked thermostats…We want customers to be aware. The more information they have about their energy use, the more wisely they will use it. They’re going to pay less, and their bills are going to go down,” Durand said.

But despite the suspicious logic of utility companies trying to drive down the cost of their own customer’s energy bills, they say it will be good business.
“It benefits everyone,” said Durand. “If a customer is using the bulk of their electricity in the summer, we address that. If we can lower the peak demand, we don’t have to use this peak (expensive) equipment. It’s beneficial to us and the customers. Wiser use of power is a regional, as well as environmental issue.”
Still, the execution of such a grand-scaled plan presents challenges, chief among them how to get residents on board of what is a voluntary program. State officials say they hope the investment is worth the return.

“It’s a $2 billion investment, and we hope everyone will hop on board,” said Lisa Capone, spokeswoman for the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA). “The more you do the more you have the opportunity to save. Energy efficiency is actually the most cost effective way to do it, and it’s a huge step that makes Massachusetts the clear leader,” she said.

According to the state, the energy efficiency plan will achieve savings “comparable to the environmental benefits achieved by taking approximately 1,622,000 cars off the road, by annually sequestering carbon in a pine forest roughly the size of 38 percent of the entire state, or by recycling 3.0 million tons of waste instead of sending it to the landfill.”

Residents are already seeing the rebates at work. The frenzy of the recent appliance exchange rebate program proved successful, at least in interest. In the first two hours alone, 26,500 residents took advantage of the program, changing in their old appliances for new, energy efficient counterparts. In total, the state dolled out nearly $7.7 million to residents looking to cash in on energy savings, paid for by both federal and state programs.

The state’s solar rebate program has also garnered interest, as people increasingly look to drive down their energy bills with renewable energy.
Bill Mellen of Lynn took advantage of the last round of solar rebates put up by the Commonwealth, saying the long-term savings is well worth the initial investment.

“It’s not just for us, it’s for the the future. And it adds value to our home which isn’t taxed and will never be taxed. I don’t think we would have done it without the rebates,” he said of the $45,000 solar panel fixture which sits atop his roof. For more about Mellen’s experience, view video above.

Additionally, the state claims the new initiative will generate 3,100 “green” jobs over the next three years, though it does not specify where the new positions will be created.

Finally, Massachusetts justifies the upfront cost of the incentives and rebates by predicting a far-reaching economic effect.

“One way that energy efficiency affects consumers and businesses is by reducing energy costs, thereby allowing the money saved to be spent elsewhere, thus stimulating the economy.”

This article was reported by Lauren McCombs, Jessica Elford and Pasquale Augustine. It was written by McCombs.

LA JOLLA, Calif. — Power Behind Closed Doors recently interviewed Dana Stewart, an expert in the field of alternative energy and a writer and promoter of green technologies for Alliance BioConversions Corporation.

Why do we seem to be feed only two choices in the energy industry: the economically sound or the ecologically devastating? According to Stewart, we can and should make our own energy, and we should clean it up ourselves.

Wind turbines like this one in Hull might not be the answer (Media credit/dsearls via Flickr)

Take for example, two diametrically opposed energy sources. Stewart says that a recent brouhaha that has erupted over the merits of Wind Farms versus Mountaintop Coal mining. She believes that neither energy sources are real answers to our energy needs and environmental concerns. Instead, these industries spend enormous sums of money to market and convince the general public of the "greenness" of their individual products and processes. She believes that both of these concepts are severely damaging to the overall environment.

Stewart said that destruction of the environment by coal mining of any type is well-known, and sites the history of coal slurry disasters, some of the biggest disasters in the nation’s history. To her, “Clean Coal” doesn’t exist and wind’s not the solution either.

Wind farms, an industry that until recently was viewed as the epitome of ecologically responsible green technology, have efects on the environment in terms of their equipment manufacturing process, field installation and the actual operating experience.

"Take California for example,” said Stewart, "where 4,000 windmills produce less than 1 percent of the energy used — an inefficient manner, causing additional polluting, and of course (it) results in higher energy costs. An overview would indicate that these are the wrong design in the wrong places at the wrong time".

Stewart said it is possible to solve over 95 percent of America’s pollution and energy problems without toxic chemicals. “One of the keys to success is the concept of Point-of-Purchase Power,” she said, “which means building–integrated energy systems, and producing what is needed as closely as possible to where it will be used. I believe that this is the fastest, cheapest, and cleanest way to achieve the U.S. national security objective of energy independence which can be stated as."

Of course, only public opinion can change public policy.

Says Stewart: We need “a 12-step program to prevent the worst hangover from our addiction to fossil fuels that has ever been imagined."

1. Endless Energy Technology has been available for decades, and even centuries and more. It is therefore believed that it is possible to be energy independent from fossil fuels – yesterday.
2. There are two “golden bullets” for Perpetual Power — solar and biomass fuels from wastes.
3. Pay yourself for your power with Point-of-Purchase systems. These power systems can be adapted anywhere, to virtually any home or business. These are home-based, farm-based, business-based energy systems. They include small and safe, viable and sustainable, clean energy generation. This, of course, reduces demand for energy from utilities, and will alleviate grid crashes and brown-outs. It will also significantly reduce the need for more power towers.
4. Individual energy independence is being incentivized. Funding needs to be continued for more to participate. The billions of dollars spent for oil exploration and extraction can be redirected.
5. Biomass fuels were used on farms throughout World War II. They were made from wood and farm wastes. Crop waste disposal is a major expense for farms which can be turned into a profit center. Green and wood wastes from forest fires and hurricane debris can be pelletized for clean electric power fuel in non-polluting facilities.
6. Food is medicine. As of now it takes 9 tons of petroleum to make 1 ton of chemical fertilizer, pesticides, and herbicides. Think of the savings if we use bio-compost! That alone could make us energy independent. Buy organic foods, or compost and grow your own, for safety and for health. Fish and livestock can be raised organically. Vote with your wallets.
7. All water and soil restoration can be accomplished through biological and mechanical means.
8. Stronger fuel standards can be mandated. All energy generation facilities can be made non-polluting. This can happen at wartime speed. And it must.
9. Chemicals have no place in our food and water. The costs of “upstream” manufacturing pollutants, and “downstream” contaminations, must be factored in to perceive, and achieve, the real savings of an energy system. This is where wind farms and nuclear power facilities fail.
10. Environmental technologies can offer millions of more jobs at all skill levels. Renewable resources can provide all of the green building materials we need.
11. Everyone in the world is going to need to do everything they can to make the world healthy.
12. Stay positive.

Stewart said that it is time for a united effort to truly “go green to make green” and to restore the Earth. Power Behind Closed Doors applauds her dedication.

But with all the responsibilities on the shoulders of Americans already, with work and family demands, how can we move ahead?

We need to, as a country, find a feasible way to end our dependence on foreign resources and end the energy crisis. Everyone can agree that we don’t want to pillage the planet. Are any global environmental pacts, including the current Copenhagen Deal, the way to go? Binding agreements set off waves of alarm bells to those against a one-world, one government approach. Giving up sovereignty for the greater good has benefits and costs. Can we ever set a global standard that reflect true progress? Then will we be able to use the most efficient, most economical technologies to peruse this goal?

It is possible, and is being done at the University of California San Diego, the leading college in the country for sustainability. UCSD has also received one of the largest chunks of the solar stimulus plan, because of its proven ability to create change and a profit. Now how does the rest of the country and business turn a goal into a profitable market?

Dana L. Stewart is chairwoman and a writer and promoter of green technologies for Alliance BioConversions Corporation and A Development Alternatives Network and Alliance. She is also the marketing director for Golden State Solar Electric and a board adviser for the Universities Media Alliance. She can be reached at adanacompany@yahoo.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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