It’s a known fact that our oceans are becoming more acidic as a result of the increasingly large load of human-generated carbon dioxide (CO2) entering our atmosphere. About 25 percent of all the CO2 we send skyward out of our tailpipes and smokestacks ends up in the world’s oceans, where it triggers chemical reactions in the water column that lead to increased acidification. Researchers estimate that the acidity of our seas has increased 29 percent since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. If we do not slow down the pace of greenhouse gas emissions, our oceans could be two to three times as acidic in 2100 as they already are today, which could prove disastrous to marine ecosystems and the world’s food chain.

“When carbon dioxide is absorbed by seawater, chemical reactions occur that reduce seawater pH, carbonate ion concentration and saturation states of biologically important calcium carbonate minerals,” reports the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These calcium carbonate minerals, typically abundant in areas where most marine life congregates, are the building blocks for the skeletons and shells of many marine organisms, from oysters to coral. “However, continued ocean acidification is causing many parts of the ocean to become undersaturated with these minerals, which is likely to affect the ability of some organisms to produce and maintain their shells,” adds NOAA. The process will not only wreak havoc on the shellfish we eat, but also on smaller marine organisms that are key components on the lower end of the marine food chain.

Ocean acidification is likely to affect the ability of some shellfish to produce and maintain their shells. This process will not only wreak havoc on the shellfish we eat, but also on smaller marine organisms that are key components of the lower end of the marine food chain. (Thinkstock)

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading green group, coral reefs around the world may face an even greater risk than shellfish because they require very high levels of carbonate to build their skeletons. “Acidity slows reef-building, which could lower the resiliency of corals and lead to their erosion and eventual extinction,” they write. This would be an unmitigated environmental disaster, given that an estimated one million marine species depend on healthy coral reefs for survival.

“Such losses would reverberate throughout the marine environment and have profound social impacts, as well—especially on the fishing and tourism industries,” NRDC reports. “The loss of coral reefs would also reduce the protection that they offer coastal communities against storms surges and hurricanes—which might become more severe with warmer air and sea surface temperatures due to global warming.”

Researchers are working on strategies to protect aquaculture farms from further losses due to acidic water, but any large-scale effort to address ocean acidification will require the slowing down or phasing out of fossil fuels. Powering our cars, heating our homes and running our machines and appliances all require burning fossil fuels which generate greenhouse gas emissions and in turn cause acidification. Cutting back on our consumption of oil, gas and coal and switching to renewable energy sources—solar, wind, biomass and others—will be a necessary part of the strategy to counteract ocean acidification.

We can all help by driving less and walking/biking more; upgrading our vehicles, light bulbs and appliances to more energy efficient versions; patronizing companies that work to reduce their carbon footprints; and pushing our state and federal governments to enact binding reductions in CO2 pollution.

CONTACTS: NOAA, www.noaa.gov; NRDC, www.nrdc.org.

Some 60 percent of our household indoor water usage happens in the bathroom. Toilets are the biggest water hogs, with older models using as much as eight gallons per flush. A shower, even with a low-flow shower head, can use up to 40 gallons of water, and a bath can use up to 50-60 gallons. (Thinkstock)

Some 60 percent of our household indoor water usage happens in the bathroom. As such, updating old leaky fixtures and changing a few basic habits could go a long way to not only saving fresh water, an increasingly precious resource, but also money.

Undoubtedly, the toilet is the biggest water hog in the bathroom. Those made before 1993 use up to eight gallons of water per flush, five times what modern toilets use. “It’s a good idea to replace pre-1993 toilets if you can,” says Patty Kim of National Geographic’s Green Guide. (FYI, usually a toilet’s manufacture date is stamped under the lid if you want to check how old it is.) If it is older and you can’t or don’t want to upgrade it, Kim recommends rescuing a two liter soda bottle from the recycling bin and filling it partially with some water and sand or pebbles and then putting it into your toilet’s tank, where it will take up space and force your toilet to use less water every flush. Or get a Toilet Tank Bank for less than two bucks; it hangs in your toilet tank and displaces almost a gallon of water to save water on every flush.

Plumbing leaks account for some 14 percent of the total water usage in an average U.S. home. Toilets are often a major culprit. Kim recommends testing your toilet by putting 5-10 drops of food coloring into the tank, then put the lid back on but don’t flush. Check back in 15 minutes or so to see if any of the colored water leaked down into the bowl. If so, you have a water-wasting leak, and it might finally be time to replace that aging toilet after all. The EarthEasy website reports that replacing an older18 liter per flush toilet with an ultra-low volume (ULV) 6 liter flush model “represents a 70 percent saving in water flushed and will cut indoor water use by about 30 percent.”

The shower can also be problematic as a water-waster, especially if the shower head in question was made before new regulations went into effect in 1992 mandating lower flow. Kim says you can check to see if your shower head is older or not by turning the shower on full blast and catching its output for two minutes in a bucket. If the bucket is overflowing, then your shower head is an older, more wasteful model. Newer low flow shower heads won’t come anywhere near to filling the bucket after two minutes. A new shower head costs around $10 and is a great investment because you can save water and money with every ensuing shower. Regardless of whether or not you have a newer shower head, you can save more water by turning off the shower to soap up, then turning it back on to rinse. Eartheasy reminds us that even with a new shower head, even a moderately short shower can still use between 20 and 40 gallons of water. But that’s nothing compared to a bathtub, which can hold as much as 50-60 gallons of water.

Additional pearls of wisdom in regard to reducing bathroom water waste include turning off the faucet while brushing teeth. Better yet, fill up a glass with just enough water to rinse after brushing. Likewise for shaving, stop up the sink with a little warm water in it and wiggle your razor around in the basin between strokes. And if you suspect your faucet may be spraying harder than it needs to, unscrew the aerator tip where the water comes out and take it into a hardware store for a more stingy replacement.

CONTACTS: The Green Guide, http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/green-guide/; EarthEasy, www.eartheasy.com.

One out of three counties across the contiguous U.S., says a recent study commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council, should brace for water shortages by mid-century as a result of human induced climate change. (Media credit/Comstock)

Climate change promises to have a very big impact on water supplies in the United States as well as around the world. A recent study commissioned by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading environmental group, and carried out by the consulting firm Tetra Tech found that one out of three counties across the contiguous U.S. should brace for water shortages by mid-century as a result of human induced climate change. The group found that 400 of these 1,100 or so counties will face “extremely high risks of water shortages.”

According to Tetra Tech’s analysis, parts of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas will be hardest hit by warming-related water shortages. The agriculturally focused Great Plains and arid Southwest are at highest risk of increasing water demand outstripping fast dwindling supplies.

While the mechanisms behind this predicted dwindling of water supplies is complex, key factors include: rising sea levels and encroaching ocean water absorbing lower elevation freshwater sources; rising surface temperatures causing faster evaporation of existing reservoirs; and increasing wildfires stripping terrestrial landscapes of their ability to retain water in soils.

Researchers have already begun to notice dwindling water supplies across the American West in recent years, given less accumulation of snow in the region’s mountains as temperatures rise. According to a 2008 study out of the Scripps Institute for Oceanography and published in the journal Science, Western snowpack has been melting earlier than it did in the past thanks to global warming, leading to markedly longer dry periods through the late spring and summer months in states already suffering from extended droughts. Given that the length and strength of these changes over the last 50 years cannot be explained by natural variations, researchers believe human induced climate change is the culprit.

The upshot of these changes is that Americans of every stripe need to curtail their water usage—from farmers irrigating their crops to homeowners watering their lawns to you and I taking shorter showers and turning off the tap while brushing our teeth. Even more important, water and resource policy managers need to conceive of new paradigms for the management of freshwater reserves to make the most of what we do have. And all of us need to work together to cut down on the emissions of greenhouse gases that have led to global warming in the first place.

Analysts also worry that warming-related water shortages could erupt into conflict, especially in parts of the world where one country or group controls water resources needed by others across national borders, such as the Middle East where already five percent of the world’s population relies on just one percent of the world’s fresh water. Parts of Africa, India and Asia are also at risk for water-related conflicts. American policymakers hope that the situation won’t get that dire in the U.S., but only time will tell.

CONTACTS: NRDC, www.nrdc.org; Tetra Tech, www.tetratech.com; Scripps Institute for Oceanography, www.sio.ucds.edu.

Researchers have identified traces of pharmaceutical drugs -- including antibiotics, hormones, contraceptives and steroids -- in the drinking water supplies of some 40 million Americans. (Stockbyte)

Pharmaceutical drug contamination in our groundwater, rivers, lakes, estuaries and bays is a growing problem. Millions of us are flushing unused medications down the toilet and discharging them in our body waste—even though sewage treatment plants and septic systems were never designed to deal with such contaminants. Additional discharges by healthcare facilities exacerbate the problem. As a result, researchers have identified traces of pharmaceutical drugs in the drinking water supplies of some 40 million Americans.

A nationwide study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1999 and 2000 found low levels of pharmaceuticals—including antibiotics, hormones, contraceptives and steroids—in 80 percent of the rivers and streams sampled. According to Citizens Campaign for the Environment (CCE), the effects of constant, low-level exposure of pharmaceuticals on ecosystems and humans are uncertain, though “possible health concerns include hormone disruption, antibiotic resistance and synergistic effects.” And antidepressants, says CCE, can “alter the behavior and reproductive functions of fish and mollusks.”

CCE cites a recent Stony Brook University study showing that some fish species in New York’s Jamaica Bay are experiencing “feminization”—the ratio of female to male winter flounder was 10 to one in the studied area—likely a result of flushed pharmaceuticals that can act as “hormone mimics” and cause such effects. New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation concurs, citing a number of other studies underscoring the impacts on aquatic life. What irks CCE about the problem is that almost all known sources of drugs in the environment first pass through wastewater treatment plants where they could be filtered out, but these facilities are not required to be equipped with pharmaceutical filter devices.

In light of the problem, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in 2007 established its first set of guidelines for how consumers should dispose of prescription drugs. First and foremost, consumers should follow any specific disposal instructions on a drug’s label or the patient information that accompanies the medication—and shouldn’t flush the drugs down the toilet. If there are no disposal instructions, the FDA recommends finding out from your municipality if any take-back programs are in place. Also, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration sponsors National Prescription Drug Take Back Days across the country at various sites a few times a year.

“If no instructions are given on the drug label and no take-back program is available in your area, throw the drugs in the household trash, but first take them out of their original containers and mix them with an undesirable substance, such as used coffee grounds or kitty litter,” says the FDA. This will make them less appealing to children, pets or people who may intentionally go through your trash, says the agency, which adds that a final step is to put the medication into a sealed bag or other container to prevent leaks.

CONTACTS: CCE, www.citizenscampaign.org; National Prescription Drug Take Back Days, www.nationaltakebackday.com; FDA’s “How to Dispose of Unused Medicines,” www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/BuyingUsingMedicineSafely/UnderstandingOver-the-CounterMedicines/ucm107163.pdf.

A new bill, passed by the House of Representatives and awaiting vote in the Senate, aims to strip the EPA of its authority over individual states' water quality. Pictured: The Cuyahoga River on fire in 1952. When it happened again in 1969 it helped kick start the modern environmental movement including the establishment of the Clean Water Act and the founding of the EPA. (Media credit/Wikipedia)

The Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act of 2011 (H.R. 2018), passed the House of Representatives this past July with strong support from Republicans and will likely be voted on by the Senate in the Fall. It aims to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA) in order to give authority over water quality standards back to the states.

The bill’s backers—including most House Republicans and lobbyists for the mountaintop coal mining industry and factory animal farms—claim it will bring jobs to Appalachia and other distressed regions of the country where they say economic growth has been crippled by stringent environmental regulations. The bill would prevent the EPA from overruling decisions made by state regulatory agencies.

“By second-guessing and inserting itself into the states’…standards and permitting decisions, EPA has upset the long-standing balance between federal and state partners in regulating the nation’s waters, and undermined the system of cooperative federalism established under the CWA in which the primary responsibilities for water pollution control are allocated to the states,” says GOP.gov, the website of the Republican majority in Congress. “EPA’s actions have created an atmosphere of regulatory uncertainty for the regulated community, and have had a chilling effect on the nation’s economy and job creation.”

But those opposed to the bill, including the White House and many Congressional Democrats, say that its provisions would undermine stringent federal water quality protections some four decades in the making.

“H.R. 2018 could limit efforts to safeguard communities by removing the Federal Government’s
authority to take action when State water quality standards are not protective of public health,” said the White House after the bill passed in the House by a count of 239-184. Such changes, they added, could adversely impact public health and the environment through increased pollution and degradation of water bodies that provide drinking water, recreation and tourism opportunities, and habitat for fish and wildlife.
For their part, environmental groups couldn’t agree more. “Make no mistake: This bill would take the environmental cop off the beat and put at risk drinking water for millions of people, the habitat for scores of wildlife, and the jobs and economic growth that depends on a safer, cleaner environment,” said Larry Schweiger of the non-profit National Wildlife Federation, adding that, if enacted, the bill would take us “back to a time when rivers caught fire because of rampant pollution.”

Environmentalists are optimistic that backers won’t have enough Senate votes to pass the bill. Meanwhile, President Obama has pledged to veto any such legislation that does make its way across his desk. But political winds shift quickly inside the Beltway, and only time will tell if the bill will gain enough support to withstand a veto. The quality of the nation’s water supply hangs in the balance.

CONTACTS: H.R. 2018, www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-2018; U.S. EPA, www.epa.gov; GOP.gov, www.gop.gov; National Wildlife Federation, www.nwf.org.

Perhaps the most infamous U.S. dead zone is an 8,500 square mile swath of the Gulf of Mexico, not far from where the nutrient-laden Mississippi River, which drains farms up and down the Midwest, lets out.

So-called dead zones are areas of large bodies of water—typically in the ocean but also occasionally in lakes and even rivers—that do not have enough oxygen to support marine life. The cause of such “hypoxic” (lacking oxygen) conditions is usually eutrophication, an increase in chemical nutrients in the water, leading to excessive blooms of algae that deplete underwater oxygen levels. Nitrogen and phosphorous from agricultural runoff are the primary culprits, but sewage, vehicular and industrial emissions and even natural factors also play a role in the development of dead zones.

Dead zones occur around the world, but primarily near areas where heavy agricultural and industrial activity spill nutrients into the water and compromise its quality accordingly. Some dead zones do occur naturally, but the prevalence of them since the 1970s—when dead zones were detected in Chesapeake Bay off Maryland as well as in Scandinavia’s Kattegat Strait, the mouth of the Baltic Sea, the Black Sea and the northern Adriatic—hints at mankind’s impact. A 2008 study found more than 400 dead zones worldwide, including in South America, China, Japan, southeast Australia and elsewhere.

Perhaps the most infamous U.S. dead zone is an 8,500 square mile swath (about the size of New Jersey) of the Gulf of Mexico, not far from where the nutrient-laden Mississippi River, which drains farms up and down the Midwest, lets out. Besides decimating the region’s once teeming shrimp industry, low oxygen levels in the water there have led to reproductive problems for fish, leading to lack of spawning and low egg counts. Other notable U.S. dead zones today occur off the coasts of Oregon and Virginia.

Fortunately, dead zones are reversible if their causes are reduced or eliminated. For example, a huge dead zone in the Black Sea largely disappeared in the 1990s following the fall of the Soviet Union, after which there was a huge spike in the cost of chemical fertilizers throughout the region. And while this situation was largely unintentional, the lessons learned have not been lost on scientists, policymakers and the United Nations, which has been pushing to reduce industrial emissions in other areas around the globe where dead zones are a problem. To wit, efforts by countries along the Rhine River to reduce sewage and industrial emissions have reduced nitrogen levels in the North Sea’s dead zone by upwards of 35 percent.

In the U.S., dead zones have also been reduced in the Hudson River and San Francisco Bay following clean-up efforts. Hypoxic conditions continue to plague the Gulf of Mexico, however, with matters made worse by pollution unleashed by Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill, as well as by a federal push to increase Midwest corn production, which effectively loads even more algae-inducing nutrients into the already overloaded system. The Mississippi Basin/Gulf of Mexico Water Nutrient Task Force, a coalition of federal, state and tribal agencies, has been busy monitoring the dead zone and recommending ways to reduce it since its formation in 1997. But with industrial and agricultural activity throughout Gulf and Midwestern states only increasing—and Mother Nature not making the job any easier—the task force has an uphill battle on its hands to say the least.

CONTACT: Mississippi Basin/Gulf of Mexico Water Nutrient Task Force, www.epa.gov/owow_keep/msbasin.

Buying this lavender-scented candle is just one of the ways you can help

Next time you suds up, shave and relax in the tub, remember this: Taking just one bath uses, on average, over 40 gallons of water, while many people in the world have access to fewer than eight gallons of water a day. Nearly 900 million people around the world struggle to obtain clean water, and over 3.5 million people die each year from water-related diseases, according to Water.org. But despite the grim statistics, there is hope. This month, Aveda celebrates its 12th Earth Month Campaign in the effort to raise $4 million to bring clean water to those who need it. The best part? You can help!

Aveda, known for its high-end skincare, haircare and makeup products made with plant-based, organic ingredients, has raised over $18 million for environmental organizations since 1999.

“Environmentalism and social activism are Aveda’s heritage; they are part of our culture, they are in our DNA,” said Katie Galloway, Aveda’s Earth Fund manager. “We believe it is our responsibility to care for the world and communities where we do business.”

This year, all of the money raised by the Earth Month Campaign will go to the Global Greengrants Fund, which gives grants to grassroots organizations working to provide clean water to impoverished communities around the world.

“Water is a fundamental human right and a global issue,” said Galloway. “Whether pollution or scarcity, this is a problem in everyone’s back yard.” Galloway continues, “We all have a role to play in preserving biodiversity and protecting the health of the planet for future generations. It’s a question of sustainability; we cannot continue to ignore environmental degradation without understanding its detriment to all life forms —plants, animals and humans.”

How you can make a difference

Relax with aromatherapy. One hundred percent of the purchase price ($12) of Aveda’s soy Light The Way Earth Month Candles will be donated to the campaign. The limited-edition candle is scented with 100 percent certified organic lavender, lavandin and clary sage essential oils and is packaged with recycled materials.

Go for a walk. During the week of April 22, join the Walk for Water event at participating salons and spas. Raise awareness by walking 3.7 miles, the average distance women in developing countries must walk in order to collect water every day.

Get your hair done. Make an appointment at a participating salon or spa and a portion of the service fee will be donated to the campaign. If you use Foursquare or Facebook to check in at that location, Aveda will donate $1.

Go shopping. Shop at Aveda.com and donate $1 at check-out to support organizations working to improve water quality for disaster victims in Japan.

For more information or to find out which salons and spas are participating in Aveda’s Earth Month Campaign, go to www.aveda.com or Facebook.com/Aveda.

A 2009 World Health Organization and UNICEF study found that 24,000 children in developing countries die each day (one every three-and-a-half seconds) from preventable causes like diarrhea resulting from polluted water. Pictured. An Ethiopian girl drinks water from a newly-installed hand pump. (Water.org)

In July 2010 the United Nations (UN) agreed to a new resolution declaring the human right to “safe and clean drinking water and sanitation.” One hundred twenty-two nations voted in favor of the resolution; 41 (primarily developed) countries abstained; and there were zero “no” votes. The agreement comes on the heels of a protracted effort on the part of Bolivia and 30 other (mostly developing) nations determined to improve access to clean water and proper sanitation systems for the poorer human residents of the planet.

Bolivia’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Pablo Solon, cheered passage of the resolution that he had campaigned hard for, and stressed the need to recognize access to safe drinking water and sanitation as a human right as global supplies of fresh water get fewer and farther between. “Approximately one out of every eight people does not have drinking water,” Solon told reporters. “In just one day, more than 200 million hours of the time used by women is spent collecting and transporting water for their homes.” According to the declaration, approximately 884 million people lack access to safe drinking water.

“The lack of sanitation is even worse, because it affects 2.6 billion people [or] 40 percent of the global population,” Solon said, citing a 2009 World Health Organization and UNICEF study which found some 24,000 children in developing countries were dying each day from preventable causes like diarrhea resulting from polluted water. “This means that a child dies every three-and-a-half seconds,” added Solon.

The resolution itself carries no regulatory weight, but backers view it as important to raising awareness of the problem and engendering support for solutions. “We are calling for actions…in communities around the world to ensure that the rights to water and sanitation are implemented,” said Anil Naidoo of the Council of Canadians, a group that has been crucial in the international struggle for the right to clean water. “Governments, aid agencies and the UN must take their responsibilities seriously,” he added.

Some developed countries—including the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand and several European nations—tried to block passage of the resolution in hopes of minimizing their future obligations. As one official from the United Kingdom put it, these countries “don’t want to pay for the toilets in Africa.” Also, six African countries (Botswana, Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Tanzania and Zambia) and two in the Caribbean (Guyana and Trinidad/Tobago)—all former European colonies—joined efforts to try to kill the declaration. But when it was time to vote, these nations abstained so as not to go on record as opposing it.

“This matters because we are a planet running out of water,” said Maude Barlow, an expert affiliated with the Council of Canadians as well as the Blue Planet Project and Food and Water Watch. Indeed, a still-growing human population, global warming and other factors combine to make fresh water supplies scarcer around the world. A recent World Bank study predicted that demand for fresh water will exceed supply by some 40 percent within just two decades. While the UN resolution may not move any mountains, it is a step in the right direction for the world’s increasing number of have-nots.

CONTACTS: United Nations, www.un.org; Council of Canadians, www.canadians.org; Blue Planet Project, www.blueplanetproject.net; Food and Water Watch, www.foodandwaterwatch.org.

Mine effluent is typically a stew of hazardous acid-generating sulphides, toxic heavy metals, waste rock impoundments and water. When this waste drains into local streams and aquifers, it can kill living organisms and render formerly pristine local waters unsafe to swim in or drink. (Media credit/Courtesy of ilovemountains.org)

Mining disasters have grabbed a lot of headlines of late, but mines pose another insidious threat that tends to get little press attention: pollution of the nearby environment which, in turn, threatens the health of the people who live nearby. Environmentalists are particularly concerned about water pollution from mines.

Mining operations use large amounts of fresh water to process recovered ore; the resulting mine effluent is typically a stew of hazardous acid-generating sulphides, toxic heavy metals, waste rock impoundments and water—and it is often deposited nearby in large free-draining piles where it can pollute land and water supplies for decades to come. When this waste water drains into local streams and aquifers, it can kill living organisms and render formerly pristine local waters unsafe to swim in or drink.

Increased soil erosion around mines also leads to excessive sedimentation of nearby waterways. This reduces the productivity of fisheries while limiting the availability of irrigation sources.

“Mining by its nature consumes, diverts and can seriously pollute water resources,” reports the nonprofit Safe Drinking Water Foundation (SWDF). “…mining has become more mechanized and therefore able to handle more rock and ore material than ever before,” reports SWDF. “Therefore, mine waste has multiplied enormously.” The group warns that “as mine technologies are developed to make it more profitable to mine low grade ore, even more waste will be generated in the future.”

Here in the U.S., increasing recognition of the water (and other types of) pollution problems caused by various forms of mining led the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue much more stringent guidelines in April 2010 regarding how and where mines on American soil must dispose of waste.

In January 2011 the EPA got the opportunity to walk its talk when it vetoed a permit that would have allowed the largest “mountaintop removal” mining operation in the history of West Virginia coal mining to go forward. Mountaintop removal is an aggressive form of coal mining that strips a mountain bare of vegetation and then blasts off the top of the mountain with explosives. It is the most destructive and polluting form of mining. Environmentalists praised the EPA for not only standing up to industry but also for saving some 2,000 forested mountaintop acres and nearly seven miles of riparian habitat while sparing surrounding communities from the effects of polluted land and water.

Meanwhile, environmentalists have been pushing Congress to pass the Clean Water Protection Act, a bill first introduced in 2009 that aims to protect fresh water supplies from mining contamination by sharply curtailing mountaintop removal. Green groups including Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, Appalachian Voices and the Sierra Club are lobbying Congress heavily to consider the bill sooner rather than later.

CONTACTS: SDWF, www.safewater.org; Appalachian Voices, www.appvoices.org; Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, www.kftc.org; Sierra Club, www.sierraclub.org.

Bottled water has been a big-selling commercial beverage around the world since the late 1980s. According to the Worldwatch Institute, global bottled water consumption has more than quadrupled since 1990. Today Americans consume over 30 billion liters of water out of some 50 billion (mostly plastic) bottles every year. The Beverage Marketing Association reports that in 2008 bottled water comprised over 28 percent of the U.S. liquid refreshment beverage market. The only bottled drinks Americans consume more of are carbonated sodas like Coke and Pepsi.

And frankly, yes, it is a ridiculous waste that we obtain so much of our drinking water this way when it is free flowing and just as good if not better for you right out of the tap. According to the Earth Policy Institute (EPI), some 2.7 million tons of petroleum-derived plastic are used to bottle water around the world every year. “Making bottles to meet Americans’ demand for bottled water requires more than 1.5 million barrels of oil annually, enough to fuel some 100,000 U.S. cars for a year,” says EPI researcher Emily Arnold. And just because we can recycle these bottles does not mean that we do: The Container Recycling Institute reports that 86 percent of plastic water bottles in the U.S. end up as garbage or litter.

The financial costs to consumers are high, too: According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), bottled water costs up to 1,900 times more than tap water. And the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reports that 90 percent or more of the money consumers shell out for it pays for everything but the water itself: bottling, packaging, shipping, marketing, other expenses—and, of course, profits.

EWG is particularly appalled at the lack of transparency by leading bottled water sellers as to the sources of their water and whether it is purified or has been tested for contaminants. According to a recent survey by the group, 18 percent of the 173 bottled waters on the U.S. market today fail to list the location of their source; a third disclose nothing about the treatment or purity of the water inside their plastic bottles.

“Among the ten best-selling brands, nine—Pepsi’s Aquafina, Coca-Cola’s Dasani, Crystal Geyser and six of seven Nestlé brands—don’t answer at least one of those questions,” reports EWG. Only Nestlé’s Pure Life Purified Water “discloses its specific geographic water source and treatment method…and offers an 800-number, website or mailing address where consumers can request a water quality test report.”

EWG recommends that consumer resist the urge to buy bottled water and go instead for filtered tap water. “You’ll save money, drink water that’s purer than tap water and help solve the global glut of plastic bottles,” the group advises, adding that it supports stronger federal standards to enforce consumers’ right to know about what’s in their bottled water besides water. Until that day comes, concerned consumes should check out EWG’s Bottled Water Scorecard, a free website that provides information on various bottled water brands, where they originate and whether and how they are treated to remove contaminants.

Around the world, communities that cannot afford to keep fresh water supplies clean, safe and accessible have increasingly turned over management to private companies. (Media credit/Kris Krug)

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that some countries have turned over public water supplies to private companies, effectively denying local communities much-needed access? — J. Johnson, Lancaster, PA

Water is such an important part of life that it has long been regarded as a public good worth entrusting only to public entities. But given the mixed track record of municipal, regional and national governments to properly manage water resources, outsourcing to private companies is becoming more common. But critics of such privatization point out that the end result for consumers is not always so positive.

Perhaps the best known example transpired in Bolivia in the 1990s, when water systems in poor regions were put up for sale to private investors at the urging of development agencies intent on steering poor countries away from state control of industries and toward free market systems. Bolivia hired U.S.-based Bechtel Corporation to take over and manage water in the Cochabamba region there. Bechtel made good on its pledge to provide water to many previously underserved Cochabamba areas, but it also raised prices significantly. "Many were unable to pay such high rates, and even though water was now available to them, they couldn’t access it because they couldn’t afford it," reports the non-profit World Savvy.

In 2000 riots erupted in Cochabamba as hundreds of residents filled the streets, angry that a private, foreign entity was preventing them from accessing water. "The violence shook the confidence of the local government and international investors," says World Savvy. "Bechtel was forced out, resulting in not only chaos in water delivery in the area, but also in a serious blow to foreign investment in the country." Similar conflicts have played out in other parts of Bolivia as well as in Ghana, Uruguay and the United Kingdom.

In the U.S., the federal government ensured the protection of waterways and drinking water in the 1970s through passage of the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, which among other benefits increased funding for community water systems to help cities and towns maintain high standards and inexpensive access to fresh water. "However, since the 1980s, the federal government has been cutting back funding to communities for water infrastructure, with assistance falling to historic lows under the Bush administration," reports the non-profit Food & Water Watch. Without federal funding, communities that can’t afford to keep fresh water supplies clean and safe are increasingly turning to private companies.

But at what cost? Food & Water Watch cites dozens of examples from across the country where water privatization has gone woefully bad: "[H]igh rates and bad service plague communities who transfer control of their water service to the hands of corporations." Common complaints include skyrocketing rates, sewage flooded basements, broken pipes, bad water quality, and cost overruns. "The water barons prioritize stockholder returns over public wellbeing and leave municipalities to clean up the mess."

Not everyone thinks water privatization is all bad, especially when governments can’t efficiently manage the sourcing, sanitizing and distribution of life’s most vital resource. "There is evidence that privatization may work when the cost of water is subsidized for poorer populations," reports World Savvy. Regardless, the debate will rage on as more and more governments turn to water privatization as stress over accessing water becomes more commonplace in a quickly warming and increasingly drought-stricken world.

CONTACTS: World Savvy, www.worldsavvy.org; Food & Water Watch, www.foodandwaterwatch.org.

Dear EarthTalk: As far as I know, genetically modified foods are not required to be labeled so. Why is this? Don’t we have a right to know what our food is made of? – Rebecca Webster, via e-mail

Unbeknownst to most Americans, a majority of the processed foods available in grocery stores today are derived from genetically modified (GM) sources—whereby genes have been taken from one species and insert into another to obtain specific traits or characteristics. Given how new GM technology is—scientists first began tinkering with it in the 1970s but only recently began utilizing it on a wide scale across the food sector—the jury is still out as to whether such products can cause health or environmental problems.

In light of such uncertainties the European Union and dozens of other regions around the world, including Australia and Japan, now require food producers to label GM products clearly so consumers can decide for themselves whether or not to take the risk. Neither the U.S. nor Canada has any such requirements.

GM’s critics say that food companies have lobbied hard to ensure that U.S. regulators don’t require producers to distinguish GM from traditional foods: "…if a GM crop looks like its non-GM equivalent and grows like it, then it is assumed to be the same, and no safety testing is needed before people eat it," reports the blog, Food Democracy. Corn, for example, may contain antibiotic-resistant genes or a built-in insecticide—but to the U.S. government "it looks and grows like maize, so it is safe to eat."

The result, says Food Democracy, is widespread ignorance among consumers about what kinds of strange genes may have been inserted into the otherwise mundane foods they are purchasing and eating. "Keeping consumers in the dark has prevented them from making real choices about the food they eat," says Food Democracy. "Without labels the principles of supply and demand are no longer in effect as consumers can’t send a message to farmers and manufacturers about what they do, and don’t, want to eat."

According to a survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53 percent of Americans would not eat GM foods if given the choice, while 87 percent believe GM foods should be labeled as such regardless. But since the federal government has no plans to require any such labeling, consumers must take matters into their own hands. To wit, the non-profit Institute for Responsible Technology recently released a free iPhone app called ShopNoGMO which provides consumers with a handy resource they can access right from the grocery aisle for identifying non-GM brand choices across 22 grocery categories.

In addition, leading natural food retailers launched the ‘Non-GMO Project’ in 2005 to develop an independent certification system to help consumers identify non-GM foods where they shop. Whole Foods, Seeds of Change, Nature’s Way and 400 other U.S. and Canadian firms now support the campaign, and today several thousand grocery products sport the easy-to-recognize "Non-GMO" seal. The project also has an ingredient database to help food producers find non-GM ingredients to use in their processed foods. Project leaders hope their work can help prevent new GM crops from gaining a foothold and build a strong non-GM food sector across the country, despite like of federal intervention.

CONTACTS: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, www.people-press.org; Food Democracy Blog, fooddemocracy.wordpress.com; Institute for Responsible Technology, www.responsibletechnology.org; Non-GMO Project, www.nongmoproject.org.

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

Edited August 22, 2010

The floods in Pakistan have killed up to 1,500 and left six million homeless, the BBC reports. Death tolls will likely rise as officials expect the continuation of monsoon season to worsen Pakistan’s most severe flooding in more than 80 years.

Many men, women and children are still waiting for aid as groups struggle to traverse land submerged in muddy water.

If aid doesn’t reach some areas soon, the death toll could rise sharply because of an influx in the spread of water-borne illnesses. Dehydration is common, but can be avoided, if aid organizations start handing out filter bottles, like those made by Lifesaver.

Now I don’t have any connection to Lifesaver. But these floods reminded me of a TED lecture I watched late last year. In it, Lifesaver CEO Michael Pritchard pours a combination of dreadful bacteria-laden objects into a fish tank full of water. He then mixes it around to create a brown sludge, a color of water familiar to anyone who has either been to fresh water-lacking areas of our globe, or has seen them on TV.

Pritchard then scoops the water into his water bottle, pulls out a pump from its base and pushes and pulls it back and forth a few times. He then pops the cap and voila; crystal clear water. He even drinks it just to prove its safety. The audience reaction is priceless.

How does it work? Well, Pritchard says the advanced nanotech and carbon filters in the bottle are 15 nanometres, which can filter out 99.9 percent of viruses, chemicals and bacteria, including polio. The individual bottles have a lifespan of about  6,000 litres. The jerrycan can last 20000 litres.

Then there’s the Lifestraw, which a person can just pop into a pool of water and suck through. It’s good for about 700 litres. When the filter no long works, Pritchard says the filter shuts down on its own.

There are, of course, other systems like this in place, and they are no doubt being used to some degree by aid organizations. But they definitely can be used more. Lifesaver sent more than 1,000 bottles down to Haiti, and they’ve been helping a lot.

Access to clean water for Pakistan’s displaced is key to saving lives and reducing the number of illnesses. If aid organizations can just scoop up stagnant water and seconds later use it to hydrate a child or clean a mother’s wound, the situation could become less severe.

Even if it doesn’t have a huge impact, something isn’t nothing, and Pakistan could use the help.

I am a pro at living without water. When I grew up in the backwoods of Pennsylvania, we had a well, so in the winter when we had a bad ice storm and the power went out the water stopped running too. It was loads of fun, and helped me prepare for situations like the boil water advisor now in place for most of Boston.

Trust me I know the "I can’t drink the water and that’s all I can think about doing" feeling. Here are a few wonderful options to make your day healthy and hydrated.

Go to the beach: The sun is shining. The temperature is climbing. And we all know the ocean water is not safe to drink, so why not head over to the beach. Bring a towel, don’t forget the sunscreen, and listen to the waves come crashing in. If you’re heading over there you might as well make a day of it. Pack a meal and don’t forget bottled water.

Spa Day: Nothing says spa more than pots of boiling steaming water. If you have it, throw some lavender in one of the pots and carefully lean over the it while it’s steaming. — You should probably make sure it isn’t boiling when you try to do this — The steaming water will open your pores. Make a sugar scrub by adding granulated sugar to your favorite soap and massaging it into your face. Rinse it off with some cooled boiled water if you especially worried about water quality.

Smores: Camping, roughing it, living like people lived thousands of year ago. Ok so we still have electricity, but everyone knows nothing makes a bad day better quite like smores. If you have a gas stove, you can toast the marshmallows right over the stove using a fork to stick it. Top it with chocolate and graham cracker sandwich. Just be careful. If your stove is electric make a smore casserole by layering a glass pan with graham crackers, Hershey’s milk chocolate, and marshmallows. Make sure the top layer is marshmallows. Bake at 350 F for 20 minutes, or until everything is gooey. If you like the marshmallows a little more toasty pop it under the broiler for a few minutes. Smores go best with a nice cold glass of milk, so this is definitely a no-water-needed kind of treat.

Make Iced Tea: Boiling pots of water give me such an iced tea craving. After you’ve boiled the water for 2 minutes — just to be safe — throw in a few tea bags. Get creative.  Jasmine and black tea make a very tasty iced tea. Allow the pot to cool. Taste it. If it seems a little strong add some water you boiled to dilute it.  Refrigerate and the next time you get the urge to drink something pour yourself a glass.

Try Something New: We all know soda is terrible for us and most juice is filled with sugar, but you can’t drink the water unless you boil it so I think that’s a more than reasonable excuse to try some new beverages. Trader Joe’s is now selling a Trader Joe’s brand of soda made with cane sugar. It comes in a few different flavors, and would be terribly refreshing on a nice hot day like today.

And finally as my mother would say, "This is how people live every day.  Aren’t you grateful for what you have?" Remember as you’re boiling water to be thankful for the stove that conveniently boils water fairly quickly and for the luxury of being able to buy bottled water. Not everyone is so lucky.

Here is a list of the communities ordered to boil their drinking water after a 10-foot pipe, which supplies water from reservoirs to the Boston metro area, burst in Weston:

Arlington
Belmont
Boston
Brookline
Canton
Chelsea
Everett
Lexington
Lynnfield Water District
Malden
Marblehead
Medford
Melrose
Milton
Nahant
Newton
Norwood
Quincy
Reading
Revere
Saugus
Somerville
Stoneham
Stoughton
Swampscott
Wakefield
Waltham
Watertown
Winchester
Winthrop

In the wake of the recent crisis in Haiti, celebrities have been holding telethons and media corporations have been flying correspondents to the heart of the disaster area. But Sunday, the locals in East Boston found a creative way to combat the catastrophe.

Susan Brauner, owner of local real estate company Parker Associates, lives next to the Boston Harbor Shipyard in East Boston. Brauner was aware that there was a boat that traveled a couple of times a month between Haiti and the shipyard.

After the earthquake hit, Brauner spoke with Dan Noonan, the shipyard manager, and the two came up with the idea to fill the boat, which normally carried clunker cars, with crates of water.

Brauner petitioned help from the surrounding community by sending out e-mails, Facebook messages and flyers. “I just simply hit a few computer strokes,” Brauner said, “”¦before you know it, we had now filled up not one, but two boats.”

East Boston’s Excel Academy participated by having a dance where one bottle of water was required for admittance. Brauner recounted a touching tale of an encounter in a convenience store: “I went into a convenience store and asked if I could put up one flyer,” Brauner said, “and someone standing in line said he wanted to buy the water right then and there and take it right down to the docks — and he did!”

This past Sunday’s event was the second of two gatherings to send water to Haiti on the boats. East Boston business owner Rob Pyles found out about the first event through a friend. “(He) called me up and said, ‘Hey, get your butt down here and help me move water onto a boat going to Haiti.’ And it wasn’t like just watching it on the news, and just hearing about the tragedy and all the devastation and feeling bad — this was a friend telling me something constructive and actionable that I could do to help Haiti right away. So I was in.”

Pyles joined an “army of helpers” who got to work loading thousands of crates of water into old cars and trucks bound for Haiti. “We had a brigade passing water back and forth,” Pyles said. “Just piling them into the back seats, the front seats, the trunk,anywhere water could fit, we stuffed it in. It was grunt work, but it felt good to come together with friends and neighbors to do this. It made me feel good to take time out for this cause, not just donate money but to donate time, effort, water and labor. I hope it helps.”

Boston Harbor Shipyard manager Dan Noonan said that Haiti was struggling long before the earthquake, and that this tragedy is a blessing in disguise that will offer an opportunity for Haiti to rebuild. He also pointed out that this event will actually make a tangible difference in the lives of Haitians, whereas money donations just seem to evaporate.

“There’s been a lot of money pumped into Haiti over the years, and they have nothing to show for it,” said Noonan. “Haiti looks the same except for”¦ a couple of resort areas. It just seems to me, money, when it’s poured into Haiti, just doesn’t get there.”

Brauner and Noonan said they hope to continue sending water and other needed items to Haiti, as long as there is a need. “The East Boston community had done an excellent job of rising to the humanitarian occasion,” Brauner said.

Boston is known for being a city of many great institutes of higher education. Perhaps you, the lucky reader, have recently moved to this wonderful metropolis to begin your own bit of graduate studies. If this is so, you’re probably on a budget of some sort. Not to worry. I happen to have a few tricks up my sleeve to help you save money in your new city of choice.

You know you’re not going to be saving money on the weekends. New city, new bars, new beers (reader, meet Sam Adams. Sam Adams, meet the reader. I trust you will have a long and lasting relationship). No way can you cut corners in that area. And there is no point in going out to those bars and clubs if you aren’t wearing something fabulous, so don’t expect to save money by not shopping for some new shirts and weekend jeans. Plus, you have to make a great impression on your new classmates, which means some weekday jeans and some serious but stylish shirts to match. And of course the new haircut to go with the new wardrobe. Clearly, this is starting to add up to some serious cash. So, where do we save money? One word: groceries. That’s right. Every week you can save money on your food bill if you just follow some simple ideas.

Buy one good box and one store box. (Media credit/nemoorange/Flickr)

First things first: cereal. It’s not just for breakfast, you know. When buying cereal, buy one box of the good brand and one bag of the store brand. The store brand is terrible and dirt cheap — your perfect drunk food. You’re going to want to save the better, expensive cereal for breakfast, when you are actually aware of what you are eating. So before you start drinking, make sure you hide the real brand somewhere safe. Back of the closet, under the bed, or — and I think this may be the best way to go — inside your school bag. There’s always the chance someone might fall into the closet or stumble under the bed. But mess around with a school bag? Umm I doubt it. And your deadened taste buds will never know the difference.

If you wanted to try my “Pro” plan, you could simply mix the good brand and the store brand together. This way, you have twice the cereal for way less money. You could always soak them in milk but well, milk is expensive and you can only siphon off so much of your roommate’s carton before he/she starts to notice the watered-down taste.

Let’s talk liquids. And by liquids, I mean water, because that’s what you’re going to be imbibing during the week from henceforth. Water is your best friend. Why? Because it is free, right from your faucet. Don’t listen to all that talk about dirty water. If it’s clear, it’s clean. Brown water? Well, then you might have a problem. But until then, go ahead and drink up. Doctors say you need 64 ounces a day, right? I mean, at one point or another, every legit health magazine on the newsstands has published that little disclaimer. Plus, water fills you up, so you’ll want to eat less solid food, which means fewer trips to restock your refrigerator. So the more water you consume, the more cash that stays in that fancy wallet you splurged on at the mall.

Limes have more than one use. (Media credit/flm's/Flickr)

Tired of plain water? Understandable problem. The stuff is as plain as it gets, after all. So here is my solution: buy a lime. A tiny piece of the tart citrus fruit is enough to add flavor to even the most metallic tasting water. And you’re a grad student, so you’re going to need the limes for the Coronas you’re buying this weekend anyway, so it’s not as if the rest of the lime is going to waste. Plus, the peel of the lime can be used as a festive decoration. Limes: the fruit that keeps on giving.

Live near a Whole Foods or Joe’s? That’s great. They have some of the freshest produce you can find in a grocery store. Now, walk away, sit down in front of your computer, and find the nearest "Market Basket." Sure, you’re giving up a lot of your organic options, but this is about budgeting, not living a healthy lifestyle.

Now, you’re probably thinking, "But everyone needs some fruit and veggies in their life." And you’d be right. But the operative word here is some. So go buy that bright, juicy apple. Next, cut it in half. Now you have two apples. Sometimes, it’s all about how you look at things.

Some fruit is okay, other fruit is not. How to know what types of fruit is acceptable is really quite simple. Apples: fine. Bananas: sure thing. Watermelon: heck no. For goodness sake, the fruit has the word "water" in it! We already talked about this: if you want water, find the nearest faucet. Do not pay for a five pound oval ball of liquid and seeds.

When it comes to “real” food, I have two words for you: rotisserie chickens. Seriously, those fully cooked little guys are the best invention ever. I get nearly a whole week’s work of meals out of one. Grab the chicken and a package of tortilla wraps and you’re good to go. Sure, it’s not the most varied menu. But I’m just a graduate student, not Martha "every meal is four courses" Stewart.

Just in case you are someone that likes a little variety, here’s a little recipe for your perusal. Salsa chicken is reasonably healthy, fairly easy to make, and, most importantly, only has three ingredients besides chicken breast. Just hit up that Market Basket you found and grab some salsa, taco seasoning and shredded cheese. Bake the chicken with the taco seasoning and the salsa and thrown on the cheese before you eat it.

You'd be surprised what you can find for free in a food court, like the one in the Prudential Center in Boston. (Media credit/seahills1/Flickr)

Got a mall near your apartment? If yes, then you have a nice light meal anytime of the day. Two words for you: Food Court. You know you love those samples. Just grab a couple samples from each "restaurant," and you’ll be full in no time. BJ’s Wholesale or Costo will work in a pinch, but those are for members only and memberships cost money. If samples are your only option and you haven’t eaten in say, 24 hours, it will taste delightful. That’s a promise.

Now girls, you may or may not like my next idea. But if you are serious about saving money on food, get out there and date. Mostly first dates, since there’s pretty much no worry about having to split the bill or anything like that. Dating: fun, flirty and free food.

Other food to give up:

100 calorie packs of anything. They should rename these little suckers "rip-offs in a bag." Way more expensive than a big box or bag of the same thing, plus you get less.

Any smaller size food item. Always go for the economy size. With everything you are giving up, whatever you can afford in economy size, you will need.

Ice cream. That is, give up buying ice cream. Feel free to go to every ice cream shop in a ten-mile radius to get your fix of free samples. Personally, I think it’s even better than buying a big thing of ice cream because then you get the variety. And those mini sample spoons are really cute.

Things to give up in favor of food:

Heavy duty trash bags. You live in an apartment now, so your trash is behind the building, not in your garage. As long as you can get the overstuffed, dripping bag of yuckiness out to the Dumpster without it ripping completely, you’re good to go. With so much smelly trash all mucking up together, no one’s going to know the rotten egg smell is coming from your bag of messy goo. The cheap trash bags are definitely good enough.

Real Solo cups. Store brand ones are just as good. I have done extensive interviews and surveys on the subject. Please take my word for it and spend the saved money on something worthwhile. Like oatmeal. I know, who eats oatmeal besides babies and Gramps? Well, you should. Relatively cheap, fairly healthy, and — keyword here — filling. You won’t need to eat for hours. That’s clutch because as we all know, snacks are essentially expensive, unsatisfying, and unnecessary. Note: tell yourself this 100 times a day until you believe it

So, do you feel ready to tackle the world of budget grocery shopping yet? Don’t stress out, you’ll be fine! Seriously, calm down, you’re looking a little peckish. Just grab a beer and chill out. That’s where all your money will be going anyway.

As the lowest link on the marine food chain, plankton—that tiny aquatic plant, animal and bacterial matter floating throughout the world’s oceans—is a vital building block for life on Earth. Besides serving as a primary food source for many fish and whales, plankton plays a crucial role in mitigating global warming.

Indeed, the ocean is the world’s largest "carbon sink": As much as one-third of man-made CO2 emissions are stored in the oceans and therefore do not contribute to global warming. This is because its plant component, phytoplankton (its animal component is called zooplankton), pulls massive amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) out of the atmosphere as it photosynthesizes.

But various environmental factors are taking their toll on plankton the world over. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported recently that marine phytoplankton is declining across the oceans. Even Canadian cod fishermen are noticing that the plankton-feeding fish they catch are often nearly starving as a result of lack of this crucial food source.

A 2007 study published in the scientific journal “Nature” found that human-caused increase in CO2 pollution is altering the pH (acidity) levels in the oceans. This change in chemistry is expected to have adverse effects on the entire ecosystem. More acidic ocean water inhibits the ability of shell-forming marine organisms—from plankton to mollusks to corals—to form properly. Smaller and less healthy populations of plankton would be bad news for all the other creatures above it on the ocean’s food chain.

Higher water temperatures, also attributable to our fossil fuel addiction, can also have a devastating effect on plankton. A recent report in the Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom noted that, in the Adriatic Sea cooler winter conditions — which are less frequent in a warmer world — are needed for plankton production and nutrient availability. Furthermore, warmer sea temperatures can cause "blooms" of other sea life (such as happens with algae), resulting in oxygen starvation in the water, a condition that is devastating to plankton and other marine creatures and organisms.

In other situations, blooms of phytoplankton themselves—the tiny plants can gorge on the nutrients from the run-off from farms and lawns on land—can lead to oxygen — starvation in the water. "The decomposition of these multitudes of phytoplankton removes oxygen from seawater, creating oxygen-poor ‘dead zones’ where fish cannot live," reports Carly Buchwald, a researcher at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

Satellite imagery shows that these "dead zones" are expanding. Some scientists are advocating "iron fertilization" — the spreading of large amounts of iron across the world’s seas—to spur plankton growth. But others worry that such tinkering with complex ecosystems could have potentially harmful effects.

Boston purchased land on the banks of the Charles River to protect the city from possible future flooding.

Today Boston was named one of the top communities for protecting clean water and the public health with green solutions. The report by American Rivers comes at a time when congress is debating sections of a climate bill that will help communities prepare for natural disasters including waterborne diseases and droughts.

“We are at a transformational moment for our nation’s rivers and water infrastructure, and Boston is forging the path to a healthier, more secure future” said Rebecca Wodder, president of American Rivers.

To prevent floods and water damage to the city, Boston followed a plan drafted by the Army Corps of Engineers to purchase and preserve about 8,000 acres of wetlands along the upper Charles River. Instead of building an extensive system of levees, dams, and plumbling, the city was able to protect itself from future flooding and protect a very diverse ecosystem at the same time.

These are the hallmarks of green solutions, and in an economy where state budgets are tighter than ever, these measures add up to saving close to $40 million in flood damage every year. Considering that rebuilding New Orleans’ levees had a price tag of around $10 billion, purchasing a little bit of land seems like a really good deal.

The American Rivers group stresses that preserving floodplains, grasslands, and forests is one of the most cost-effective solutions to preventing flooding and protecting environments to recharge the rivers and aquifers that supply our drinking water, and here in Boston, we seem to be doing our part.

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve heard that cars can be modified to run on water. How is this possible?

– Diane McMorris, Rockport, ME

There are a number of online marketing offers of kits that will convert your car to “run on water” but these should be viewed skeptically. These kits, which attach to the car’s engine, use electrolysis to split the water (H₂O) into its component molecules”"hydrogen and oxygen”"and then inject the resulting hydrogen into the engine’s combustion process to power the car along with the gasoline. Doing this, they say, makes the gasoline burn cleaner and more completely, thus making the engine more efficient.

But experts say the energy equation on this type of system is not, in reality, efficient at all. For one, the electrolysis process uses energy, such as electricity in the home or the on-board car battery, to operate. By the laws of nature, then, the system uses more energy making hydrogen than the resulting hydrogen itself can supply, according to Dr. Fabio Chiara, research scientist in alternative combustion at the Center for Automotive Research at Ohio State University.

Moreover, Chiara says, the amount of greenhouse gases produced by the vehicle “would be much larger, because two combustion processes [gasoline and hydrogen] are involved.” Finally, there is a safety consideration for consumers who add these devices to their cars. “H₂ is a highly flammable and explosive gas” he says, and would require special care in installation and use.

The electrolysis process could be viable in saving energy if a renewable, non-polluting energy source such as solar or wind could be harnessed to power it, although capturing enough of that energy source on board the car would be another hurdle.

Researchers today put more focus on using hydrogen to power fuel cells, which can replace internal combustion engines to power cars and emit only water from the tailpipe. And though hydrogen is combustible and can power an internal combustion engine, to use hydrogen in that way would squander its best potential: to power a fuel cell.

Hydrogen fuel cell cars are gaining traction, but commercialization of hydrogen fuel has not yet been accomplished. “The potential benefits of fuel cells are significant” say researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). “[H]owever, many challenges must be overcome before fuel cell systems will be a competitive alternative for consumers.”

The state of California operates a “Hydrogen Highway” program that supports development of hydrogen fuel cell technology and infrastructure. And many companies are working on ways to produce, store and dispense hydrogen. Cars powered by fuel cells are in prototype stages now, nearing production.

While we all wait to see how that shakes out, the best choice today for high mileage and low emissions is still the gasoline/electric hybrid car.

CONTACTS: Center for Automotive Research, http://car.eng.ohio-state.edu; NREL, www.nrel.gov; California Hydrogen Highway, www.hydrogenhighway.ca.gov.

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve heard so much about using Borax for green housecleaning.‚  But if this mineral has to be mined, doesn’t that negate some of its “green-ness?” – Elsa, Lincoln, Nebraska

Mining for minerals such as boron (the key ingredient in the “Borax” we use for cleaning, pest control and other household tasks) is an activity that typically leaves behind a big environmental footprint. Mining degrades the local landscape and destroys wildlife habitat, while polluting both air and water. It also usually consumes large amounts of water, which can be taxing in already arid regions, such as the Mojave Desert, one of two regions of the world (along with parts of Turkey) with large boron deposits.

Typically, boron is extracted in open-pit mines by drilling, blasting, crushing and hauling”"all activities fueled by petrochemicals. The refining process then uses a significant amount of water. Finally, the waste product”"known in the industry as “tailings””"is deposited in man-made ponds where further refining is done before the water is then discharged into the local watershed.

The mining industry has long been criticized as an environmental baddie, but the leading company that mines Borax, Rio Tinto, has actually been given high marks for environmental stewardship. Jared Diamond’s 2005 book, “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed” called the British mining giant the exception in its industry. Due to “a strongly supportive CEO and British stockholders” he wrote, the company moved forward with the 2002 environmental recommendations of the mining industry’s Mining Minerals and Sustainable Development project that were for the most part ignored by the rest of the industry. “Rio Tinto foresaw business advantages to being seen as an industry leader in social responsibility” said Diamond. “Its Borax mine in Death Valley, California is now perhaps the most cleanly operated mine in the U.S.”

Boron, oxygen and sodium make up sodium tetraborate, which is sold as “20 Mule Team Borax” (the name comes from the teams of 18 mules and two horses that would haul large wagons of processed borax from mines in the late 1800s to the nearest railroad spur). The powdered detergent is considered a least-toxic recipe as a natural disinfectant and household cleaner. Beyond cleaning formulations, boron is also used in a wide variety of other products, including the manufacture of fiberglass and Pyrex.

Pest control is another use. One boron compound is used to treat wood to prevent fungal decay and repel carpenter ants, roaches and termites. Boric acid is included on the national list of allowed substances for structural pest control in organic food production (as long as there is no direct contact with food or crops). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has determined that pesticide products containing boric acid and its salts are of low toxicity. (However, ingesting it or applying large amounts to the skin can cause acute poisoning, so parents should be vigilant about where they store and use products containing Borax.)

Emerging uses of boron, and new ways to recycle its waste, may make this mineral even more valuable. A Turkish researcher notes that borax waste added to red bricks and cement products increases strength and lifespan. And at the National Boron Research Institute in Turkey, it is being studied as an element to produce fuel cells and to aid in cancer treatment.

CONTACTS: Rio Tinto, www.riotinto.com, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov; Turkey’s National Boron Research Institute, www.boren.gov.tr/en.

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

Dear EarthTalk: How can I recycle my old mattress if the place I buy a new one from doesn’t take it? What do mattress companies do with old mattresses when they do take them? Do they recycle any of the material? – J. Belli, Bridgeport, CT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Elizabeth Yerkes, via email

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear EarthTalk: With all the talk of rising seas, what could happen to the rivers that flow into the oceans? Will they reverse flow? Will rising seas back up into fresh water lakes? And what happens to our groundwater should saltwater flow backwards into it? – Sandy Smith, concerned Michigander

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear EarthTalk: I saw a cover line on a magazine that said, “The next world war will be over water.” Tell me we’re not really running out of water!‚ – Nell Fox, Seattle, WA‚ 

Today fully one-sixth of the world’s human population lacks access to clean drinking water, and more than two million people-mostly kids-die each year from water-borne diseases. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), an independent organization that provides economic, development and humanitarian assistance around the world in support of the foreign policy goals of the United States, predicts that by 2025, one-third of all humans will face severe and chronic water shortages.‚ 

Needless to say, water is of primary importance to our survival, and protecting access to and the quality of fresh water supplies will likely become more and more of a challenge in the coming years. According to the non-profit World Water Council, the 20th century saw a tripling of the world’s population while freshwater use grew by a factor of six. With world population expected to increase as much as 50 percent over the next half century, analysts are indeed worried that increasing demand for water, coupled with industrialization and urbanization, will have serious consequences both for human health and the environment. Access to freshwater is also likely to cause conflicts between governments as well as within national borders around the world.‚ 

According to USAID, the world’s “water crisis” is not so much an issue of scarcity as it is of poor management and inequitable distribution. The hardest hit regions have been countries in the Middle East, North Africa and sub-Saharan Africa. Worldwide demand for water is presently doubling every 21 years.‚ 

Water-related problems are not the sole purview of the developing world though. We here in North America have polluted and diverted our fresh water supplies far beyond nature’s capacity to restore the flows, notably in the West where sprawling, thirsty metropolises have grown up in deserts where the only way water can be provided is to siphon it from other regions.‚ 

So how do we fix the world’s water woes? The key lies in using water more efficiently-especially in agriculture and industry, which together account for over 90 percent of the world’s total freshwater use. But changing the practices of millions of farmers and businesses around the world is a Herculean task.‚ 

Irena Salina, director of the award-winning documentary film, FLOW, about the world’s dwindling water supplies, thinks it can be done if world leaders, international banks, the United Nations and other governmental organizations establish cooperative agreements for the use of bodies of water, including groundwater, and economic mechanisms to make sure those who need access to water can get it.‚ 

As for the developed world-where we use 10 times the water as do developing countries-Salina remains pessimistic. “If our own leaders were serious about solving problems, we would not allow corporations to discharge pollutants into our water sources,” she says. “Instead of spending billions on technologies that clean up pollution, we would be using resources to prevent water pollution in the first place.”‚ 

CONTACTS: World Water Council, www.worldwatercouncil.org; USAID, www.usaid.gov; Flow the Film, www.flowthefilm.com.‚ 

Dear EarthTalk: There has been a lot of news about lead-tainted children’s toys being recalled. Where are these toys ending up and are they creating pollution problems there?‚ – Michael O’Laughlin, Tigard, OR‚ 

The biggest problem with the recall of millions of lead-tainted toys over the last few years has been getting shops and consumers to comply. According to Mattel-which has issued dozens‚ of recalls in recent years, including some 2.2 million Chinese-made toys contaminated with lead paint-historically only about six percent‚ of recalled toys are‚ returned. For those that do come home to roost, Mattel sells or reuses the zinc and‚ some of the resins they contain, and then recycles as many of the other components as possible, off-loading the lead to companies that specialize in the safe disposal of hazardous materials.‚ 

But what becomes of the 94 percent or so of the recalled lead-tainted toys that don’t make it back to Mattel? Many of them no doubt have found a comfortable home with a child somewhere long before word of the recall-ignored or missed by parents-got out. Of the remaining toys, some of those that were recalled in the summer of 2007 ended up on auction website like eBay and business-to-business sites like Made-in-China.com-and then eventually into the hands of unwitting consumers, many of them overseas. ‚ 

Unfortunately, there is still no federal law or regulation against reselling recalled toys, although some members of Congress are trying to change that. For its part, eBay has agreed to try to keep recalled products off its auction website, but enforcement can be a challenge.‚ 

The fact that these toys got out there for sale in the first place is the real shame, as research has shown that kids who have been exposed regularly to lead or lead paint have lower IQs and may experience learning disabilities as well as behavioral problems.‚ 

The good news might be that recalls are getting more exposure than ever, with better results. Illinois-based RC2 Corporation has already gotten back upwards of 70 percent of the 1.5 million lead-tainted Thomas & Friends wooden railway toys it recalled just last year. While there is still no nationally accepted procedure governing the disposal or recycling of such items, individual companies are bound by the laws of their respective states regarding disposal of the harmful materials. Those who worry about lead leaching out of landfills and into groundwater and soils would like the see the federal government mandate strict safety rules for dealing with lead and other hazardous materials.‚ 

Consumers unsure about whether a particular toy or other item has been part of a recall should check online at the “Recalls and Product Safety” section of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission’s website. If a given product has been recalled, you can probably return it to the store where you bought it and let them deal with the hassle of getting it to the manufacturer. Or if you know an item was recalled for hazardous materials, you can drop it off at your local municipal hazardous waste collection facility. The website Earth911 provides a comprehensive national database of such facilities coast-to-coast.‚ 

CONTACTS: Mattel Product Recalls, service.mattel.com/us/recall.asp; RC2 Recall Information, recalls.rc2.com; U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, www.cpsc.gov; Earth911, 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.

Whether you’re an undergrad headed to the dorm or just moving into your first place, you’re leaving the nest and need stuff.

For the college crowd, by now, you’ve not only had a few awkward Facebook conversations with your new roommate (look to see how many pictures he or she is tagged in that are added by others, not by themselves-that’s how you know they’re cool), but you’ve probably acquired your brand-new comforter and Twin-XL sheets and you’ve got your shower caddy and shower shoes safely packed away. You’ve spent the past few days tinkering with your new Macbook’s iSight camera and you think you’re prepared to face the great beyond of post-high school life.

Well, you’re not. You’ve almost certainly forgotten a few items that will make your college experience a whole lot better, but thankfully for you Blast Magazine has decided to help you out.

10. Organization

Depending on how cheap your university is, they may or may not provide desk drawers or a hutch/bookshelf. And as much as you think you won’t be studying, you’ll still need a place to store your unused hundred-dollar textbooks and to hide your solo cups and ping-pong balls from the wandering eyes of resident assistants. The best (and most flexible) option if you don’t want to actually buy any kind of quality shelving, is stackable cubes or bins-basically, you want them to be small enough to fit in the nooks-and-crannies of exposed space in your dorm room (on the window sill, under your bed, bottom of your closet, etc.) and you want to be able to configure them to fit your needs.

9. Water

In college, you need water for everything. Whether you’re trekking to class, making a cup of tea at 3am in the morning, or you’ve run out of soda on Saturday nights, water is essential. And frankly, it’s not only expensive but incredibly wasteful to burn through 24-packs of Poland Spring. Instead, buy a filtering pitcher like a Brita pitcher to keep in your fridge. It’s also important to have a plastic bottle on hand, both to carry water around and to bring to dining halls so that you can liberate juice and milk.

8. Fan

Even if your dorm room has air conditioning (unlikely), a small fan is essential. It doesn’t matter if you’ve never slept with white noise before, a fan is ideal in order to block out your roommate’s snoring (or to block your snoring for your roommate) and it is also important to keep some air circulation going in your tiny room. Dorm rooms are small, compact places and frankly, it’s in both your interests to have a little breeze here and there. Your best option is probably an oscillating tower fan.

7. Visitor accommodations

The thing about dorm life is that there are always people around. Once you make friends, there’s a good chance that someone besides yourself and your roommate will be hanging out with you. Where do they sit? Some people are uncomfortable either offering their beds or sitting on others’ beds, and so a chair of some kind is a definite plus. The coolest thing I’ve seen is actually a Yoga or Pilates ball that just rolls around your room“"not only are they really fun (and people fight over them!), but they offer a nice break from the monotony of sitting on your ass on a hard, uncomfortable chair (more on that later) and they’re really good for your posture.

6. Comfy clothes

The other thing about dorm life is that everyone sees everyone in their pajamas and ratty old field hockey shirts and so on and so forth. On wet days, you’ll come back to your dorm and get out of your soaked jeans as fast as possible and you’ll probably do your best not to leave your dorm room for the rest of the night. A good pair of sweatpants and a REALLY good pair of slippers are invaluable for times like these (especially if you actually go to your 8ams). You don’t want to walk around bare-footed because dorms are dirty places and no one wants to see your feet, anyway. Personally, I recommend L.L. Bean’s Wicked Good Moccasins (they have male and female versions) and your college bookstore will have a good selection of sweatpants.

5. Lap desk

I don’t care how studious you are, you won’t want to sit at your desk for hours and hours and hours on end. So you’ll move to your bed, bringing your laptop with you, and an hour later the fire alarm will go off thanks to your overheated computer bursting into flames. So a good-sized lap desk that holds your computer and a notebook or two is definitely a good investment.

4. Personal decorations

“But I already bought two awesome posters,” you say. But what you probably bought was yet another Klimt “The Kiss” or Dali”"Narcissus” that everybody and their mom already have tacked up on their wall. Go for something original; if you have a few unique posters on your wall your roommate and your dorm-mates might actually be interested in you. Don’t forget that the whole point of college (besides a degree and stuff) is to unashamedly be yourself. So if you’re an Apple fanboy, fly your true colors. If you’re a die-hard Bond fan, don’t be embarrassed of your Goldfinger movie poster reprint

3. A good backpack

You absolutely need a quality, comfortable back-pack. You might have a cool new shoulder bag or an adorable designer tote, but you’ll use it for one day and then realize that they make back-packs the way they do for a reason. You’ll need a bag big enough to hold your laptop (with sufficient padding for it, too), a notebook, a variety of extra pouches and so on for whatever you might need, and an easy way to carry your water bottle. If you sleep over someone’s room or take a weekend trip, a back-pack is honestly the best solution. Don’t hesitate to spend a significant amount on one, either, especially if it’s high-quality like a North Face or an L.L. Bean (which has a lifetime guarantee).

2. A nice set of speakers

Obviously it depends on your studying methods, but personally I have music on all the time. And laptop speakers just don’t cut it. Whether it’s a weekend night or you’re watching a movie with a friend or studying, a subwoofer makes all situations more fun. There are a lot of good options out there, but you can get a very nice set of two satellites + 1 subwoofer from Logitech for a decent price.

1. A comfortable office chair

I was lucky enough to get this advice before my freshman year and it was honestly one of the best purchases I’ve ever made. A proper rolling office chair lets you bring seating to others’ rooms easily, makes sitting on your ass for long, long hours much more comfortable, and is generally 12462343x better than the terrible hard, wooden chair that the college had mass-produced especially for you. Even though they might be expensive, a good chair is undoubtedly worth it. If you don’t believe me, just go to college and sit at your desk for a week. Then go buy a chair.

There you have it — my ten essential dorm room accessories. Now go forth and be educated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTACTS: Bazura Bags, www.bazurabags.com; Eco Handbags, www.eco-handbags.ca; Ecoist, www.ecoist.com; English Retreads, www.englishretreads.com; Littlearth Productions, www.littlearth.com; Vulcana, www.vulcanabags.com.

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