Sea level rise, and the accompanying loss of shoreline, promises to be one of the most devastating results of global warming. A recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of leading atmospheric scientists, forecasts a global sea level rise of between seven and 23 inches by 2100. This they foresee due to the greenhouse gases we have already pumped into the atmosphere—even if we start cutting back now. Such dire but realistic predictions are based on computer models that factor in the heating and expansion of the ocean, the melting of polar ice sheets, and storm surges that can affect tides by a foot or more.

What does this mean for shorelines around the world? Simply put, existing shorelines, especially in low-lying areas, will become submerged—a sea level rise of less than half an inch can cause shoreline retreat upwards of four feet—forcing inhabitants to relocate their homes, businesses and ways of life. Perhaps the most striking example of this type of upheaval is already underway in Bangladesh, a low-lying country of 140 million people. According to the World Bank, an international lending and development agency, sea level rise will likely inundate as much as 20 percent of the country’s habitable land, affecting as many as 30 million people already living on the edge of survival. As much as a third of the country’s rice crop will be lost, and natural treasures like the Sundarbans mangrove forest will be reduced to just a memory.

With about a third of the world’s people living within 60 miles of a shoreline, and 13 of the world’s 20 largest cities located on coasts, people are bracing for the worst beyond Bangladesh as well. Scientists fear that sea level rise, especially when combined with intense storms, could deliver a knock-out blow to areas already devastated by 2004’s Indian Ocean tsunami. China, India and Egypt are also expected to experience major flooding. One result could be a humanitarian crisis as millions of so-called “climate refugees” could seek higher ground, perhaps across national borders where they are not welcome.

Here in the U.S., scientists fear rising sea levels could put a recovered New Orleans back under water, but this time permanently. In New York, stronger and more frequent hurricanes, also thanks to global warming, could combine with rising sea levels to essentially put most of Manhattan and outlying areas under water, wreaking untold havoc for millions of people in the region. And in the San Francisco Bay Area, according to a report by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and summarized in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle in February 2007, San Francisco’s sewage-treatment facility on Islais Creek and both San Francisco and Oakland airports could be under water.

With scientists uncertain about the amount of sea level rise to anticipate, municipal officials are working to get their cities ready in a number of ways, including “nourishing” beaches with additional sand and building overlapping layers of levees and sea walls. But engineers warn that already strained municipal budgets have no room for the staggering costs of buttressing entire cities against sea level rise, so planners will be forced to pick and choose to hopefully avert disaster. For the rest of us, it might be a good time to sell that waterfront vacation property that has appreciated so much in value in recent years.

CONTACTS: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, www.ipcc.ch; World Bank-Bangladesh, www.worldbank.org/bd.

Dear EarthTalk: What would be the feasibility of having hybrid cars run on E85 or biodiesel? Wouldn’t this solve multiple problems? -Bob Pendergrass, Broken Arrow, OK

Copyright: Getty Images

Environmental advocates would love to see carmakers mass-produce a biofuel-electric hybrid. From a technology standpoint, it’s a no-brainer: Major automakers already turn out vehicles that can run on E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol, derived from corn and other crops, and 15 percent standard gasoline. Ford’s light duty F-series pickups are examples of such “flex fuel” vehicles. And gasoline-electric hybrids, like Toyota’s Prius, are all the rage and beginning to be ubiquitous on the roads.

Cost, however, is an issue, says Jim Kliesch of the website greenercars.org. Traditional cars and trucks powered by diesel, biodiesel or ethanol cost more to manufacture than equivalent gasoline-power vehicles. And gas-electric hybrids also cost more than conventional cars, largely because their market share is still small and economies of scale have not yet kicked in. Thus combining two costly technologies in a biofuel-electric hybrid would constitute “a double-whammy,” says Kliesch, “limiting the vehicles to a very small slice of the market.”

Nonetheless, Ford last year unveiled a prototype of its popular Escape Hybrid SUV that runs on E85. Like the gas-electric hybrids now on the road, the E85-electric hybrid Escape maximizes fuel economy by alternating between its internal combustion and electric engines. And it never needs to be plugged in because its high-capacity batteries store electricity generated from braking and other processes in-car.

Ford estimates that if only five percent of U.S. vehicles were powered by ethanol-electric hybrids oil imports could be reduced by 140 million barrels a year. Such vehicles would also produce about 25 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2)—a chief contributor to global warming—than traditional cars and trucks. What’s holding up mass production, says Ford, is a lack of E85 fueling outlets—only 1,200 exist across the U.S.

Not to be outdone, General Motors (GM) has its own ethanol-electric hybrid in the works via its Sweden-based Saab subsidiary, which unveiled a prototype in 2006. The company claims that, whereas Toyota’s gas-electric Prius emits 104 grams of CO2 per kilometer, their E85-based hybrid should emit just 15-20 grams. Industry insiders don’t expect to see such a vehicle available to the public until 2010 or later.

With regard to diesel-electric hybrids, though diesel spews particulates and other nasty ground level pollutants into the environment, it contributes significantly less CO2 to the atmosphere than gasoline. And biodiesel, a form of the fuel derived from plants, is both carbon-neutral (burning it contributes no additional carbon to the atmospheric balance of the pollutant) and cleaner burning in regard to particulates. It can be used interchangeably with regular diesel in most diesel engines. Thus combining biodiesel with an electric motor in a hybrid car or truck would yield one of the cleanest burning engines on the road.

GM and Chrysler have already collaborated on developing a diesel-hybrid platform that combines dual electric motors with a diesel engine to offer unparalleled fuel efficiency. But whether such vehicles ever see the showroom floor—and whether consumers will be able to even afford them—is anybody’s guess.

CONTACTS: GreenerCars.org, www.greenercars.org; E85vehicles.com, http//e85vehicles.com.

Dear EarthTalk: OK, once and for all, which is more environmentally friendly: paper or plastic at the grocery checkout? And didn’t I just hear that San Francisco has banned plastic bags? - Brian, Santa Clara, CA

Copyright: Getty Images

Yes the city of San Francisco did just recently ban plastic bags. Large supermarkets and pharmacies there must eliminate plastic shopping bags by early 2008 in favor of bags made from either paper or compostable and biodegradable cornstarch. The city’s Board of Supervisors cited the fact that plastic bags are a challenge to recycle and as a result occupy much-needed landfill space, while causing litter problems by easily blowing into trees and waterways, where they can kill birds and marine life.

But just because San Francisco has outlawed plastic bags doesn’t mean that all indications point to paper bags being more green-friendly than plastic. A landmark 1990 study by the research firm Franklin Associates—which factored in every step of the manufacturing, distribution and disposal stages of a grocery bag’s usable life—actually gave the nod to plastic bags.

Franklin’s employed two critical measures in reaching their conclusion. The first was the total energy consumed by a grocery bag. This included both the energy needed to manufacture it, called process energy, and the energy embodied within the physical materials used, called feedstock energy. The second measure used was the amount of pollutants and waste produced.

The Franklin report concluded that two plastic bags consume 13 percent less total energy than one paper bag. Additionally, the report found that two plastic bags produce a quarter of the solid waste, a fifteenth as much waterborne waste and half the atmospheric waste as one paper bag.

Of course, many environmentalists still side with paper as a better choice than plastic at the checkout, mostly for the reasons cited by San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors. Plastic is not biodegradable, it litters our waterways and coastal areas, and has been shown to choke the life out of unsuspecting wildlife. A recent survey by the United Nations found that plastic in the world’s oceans is killing more than a million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals and sea turtles each and every year. According to the California Coastal Commission, plastic bags are one of the 12 most commonly found items in coastal cleanups. Paper bags do not cause such after-the-fact problems, and are inherently easier to recycle.

But to the non-profit Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment, “paper versus plastic?” is not the question we should be asking ourselves, since the answer is really “neither.” After all, energy and waste issues aside, the manufacture of paper bags brings down some 14 million trees yearly to meet U.S. demand alone, while at the same time plastic bags use up some 12 million barrels of oil each year.

The group urges consumers to “just say no” to both options and instead bring their own re-usable canvas bags, backpacks, crates or boxes to haul away the groceries. Some supermarkets, such as the Albertson’s and Wild Oats chains, even offer a small discount (around five cents) to those who do so. Another benefit of bringing your own, of course, is setting a good example so that other shoppers might do the same.

CONTACTS: Institute for Lifecycle Environmental Assessment, www.ilea.org.

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that anti-bacterial soaps are no better at preventing infections than plain soaps and that they are actually harmful to the environment? - Avery Bicks, New York, NY

Copyright: Getty Images

University of Michigan researchers reviewed numerous studies conducted between 1980 and 2006 and concluded that antibacterial soaps that contain triclosan as the main active ingredient are no better at preventing infections than plain soaps. Further, the team argued that these antibacterial soaps could actually pose a health risk, because they may kill beneficial bacteria and also reduce the effectiveness of some common antibiotics, such as amoxicillin. The study was published in the August 2007 issue of the peer-reviewed journal, Clinical Infectious Diseases.

These findings concur with earlier research conducted by Tufts University’s Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics. The Tufts study concluded that overuse of triclosan could cause new strains of bacteria to develop, thus “changing the kind of bacteria in our houses to those that may actually be harmful or resistant to antibiotics…” said Tufts’ Dr. Stuart Levy.

According to the non-profit group Beyond Pesticides, laboratory studies have found a number of different strains of mutated bacteria that are resistant to triclosan and to certain antibiotics. The organization also cites reports of triclosan converting into a carcinogenic class of chemicals known as dioxins when exposed to water and ultraviolet radiation. Besides cancer, dioxins have been linked to weakening of the human immune system, decreased fertility, altered sex hormones and birth defects.

If antibacterial hand soap is not effective at reducing infections, consumers may wonder about whether alcohol-based hand sanitizers may do a better job. Combing through different studies on the topic yields mixed conclusions. According to one study conducted at Colorado State University, alcohol-based hand sanitizers were as much as twice as effective as either regular soap or antibacterial soap at reducing germs on human hands.

A Purdue University study, however, contradicts these findings, concluding that while alcohol-based hand sanitizers may kill more germs than plain or triclosan-based soaps, they do not prevent more infections that make people sick. Instead they may kill the human body’s own beneficial bacteria by stripping the skin of its outer layer of oil.

The best advice might just come from a study published in the journal Dairy, Food and Environmental Sanitation back in 1998, which concluded that washing hands thoroughly for 20 seconds or more with plain soap and warm water is by far the most effective way to reduce harmful bacteria, and as such remains our best defense against getting sick.

CONTACTS: Clinical Infectious Diseases, www.journals.uchicago.edu/CID/; Tufts’ Alliance for the Prudent Use of Antibiotics, www.tufts.edu/med/apua/; Beyond Pesticides, www.beyondpesticides.org.

Dear EarthTalk: What is the issue with the Gulf Stream in relation to global warming? Could it really stop or disappear altogether? If so, what are the ramifications of this?  - Lynn Eytel, Clark Summit, PA

Part of the Ocean Conveyor Belt—a great river of ocean water that traverses the saltwater sections of the globe—the Gulf Stream stretches from the Gulf of Mexico up the eastern seaboard of the U.S., where it splits, one stream heading for Canada’s Atlantic coast and the other for northern Europe and Greenland. By taking warm water from the equatorial Pacific Ocean and carrying it into the colder North Atlantic, the Gulf Stream warms up the eastern U.S. and northwestern Europe by about five degrees Celsius, making those regions much more hospitable than they would otherwise be.

Among the greatest fears scientists have about global warming is that it will cause the massive ice fields of Greenland and other locales at the northern end of the Gulf Stream to melt rapidly, sending surges of cold water into the ocean system and interrupting the flow of the Ocean Conveyor Belt. One doomsday scenario is that such an event would stop or disrupt the whole Ocean Conveyor Belt system, plunging Western Europe into a new ice age without the benefit of the warmth delivered by the Gulf Stream. “The possibility exists that a disruption of the Atlantic currents might have implications far beyond a colder northwest Europe, perhaps bringing dramatic climatic changes to the entire planet,” says Bill McGuire, a geophysical hazards professor at University College London’s Benfield Hazard Research Centre.

Computer models simulating ocean-atmosphere climate dynamics indicate that the North Atlantic region would cool between three and five degrees Celsius if Conveyor circulation were totally disrupted. “It would produce winters twice as cold as the worst winters on record in the eastern United States in the past century,” says Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution’s Robert Gagosian.

The slowing of the Gulf Stream has been directly linked with dramatic regional cooling before, says McGuire. “Just 10,000 years ago, during a climatic cold snap known as the Younger Dryas, the current was severely weakened, causing northern European temperatures to fall by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit,” he says. And 10,000 years earlier—at the height of the last ice age when most of northwestern Europe was a frozen wasteland—the Gulf Stream had just two-thirds of the strength it has now.

A less dramatic prediction sees the Gulf Stream slowing down but not stopping entirely, causing the east coast of North America and northwestern Europe to suffer only minor winter temperature dips. And some scientists even put forth the optimistic hypothesis that the cooling effects of a weakened Gulf Stream could actually help offset the higher temperatures otherwise caused by global warming.

To McGuire, these uncertainties underscore that fact that human-induced global warming is “nothing more nor less than a great planetary experiment, many of the outcomes of which we cannot predict.” Whether or not we can trim our addiction to fossil fuels might just be the determining factor in whether global warming wreaks havoc around the world, or just causes us minor annoyances.

CONTACTS: University College London’s Benfield Hazard Research Centre, www.benfieldhrc.org/climate_change/index.htm ; Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, www.whoi.edu

Dear EarthTalk: What is the status of the land mines issue popularized by Princess Diana and Paul McCartney’s ex-wife, Heather Mills? How many mines have been removed? How many are left? What is being done? - Jonas Schultz, via e-mail

Copyright: Getty Images

Land mines were first widely used in World War II and have since been used in Vietnam, the Korean War, the first Gulf War, and in about a half dozen conflicts around the world today. Initially, mines were used for defensive purposes, to guard certain areas and keep the enemy out. Today they are used for more insidious reasons such as to terrorize civilians and limit their movement. And, of course, many remain behind from past wars and continue to unintentionally kill or maim civilians, including many children.

Today, an estimated 110 million mines are still scattered around the world in 78 countries, injuring or killing upwards of 26,000 people each year. According to a recent United Nations (UN) study, the countries most affected by mines are Afghanistan, Angola, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Cambodia, Croatia, Eritrea, Iraq, Mozambique, Namibia, Somalia, Nicaragua and Sudan. The landmines in these countries make up almost 50 percent of all mines deployed in the world today.

Stats like these have prompted outcries from concerned people all over the world. Organizations such as the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and Adopt a Minefield work to both rid the world of these weapons and to aid those injured by them. In the last decade, such organizations have spearheaded the destruction of as many as 30.5 million mines. Their work has also led to such a dramatic decrease in the mine trade worldwide that, since 2003, the manufacture and sale of mines has essentially ended (or at least no evidence exists that any trade in mines is still going on). In addition, Costa Rica, Djibouti, El Salvador, Kosovo and Moldova have all been declared “mine safe” as of 2004.

The UN itself does more than conduct studies and issue reports. Some14 different UN departments, agencies and programs work on de-mining efforts in some 30 countries. The actual work is done by non-governmental organizations and various military entities employing commercial contractors. Many intergovernmental and charitable organizations also support the UN’s efforts with financial assistance.

Many rather low-tech methods are used to detect and destroy mines. In Denmark, for instance, scientists have genetically modified Thale cress, a fast-growing green plant from the mustard family, to turn red whenever its roots are exposed to nitrogen dioxide, a gas released into soil by degrading mines. The Danish company Aresa Biodetection works with governments around the world to sow fields with the plant in areas plagued by mine problems. In another example, Colombian researchers have trained rats to freeze when they encounter mines in the ground. Since rats weigh so little, they don’t trigger explosions

In December 1997 an international conference held in Ottawa, Ontario yielded the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, otherwise known as the Mine Ban Treaty. The treaty was formalized in March 1999 when 122 countries became signatories. The international treaty works to prevent mine use, production and trade, assist victims and to destroy existing mines.

CONTACTS: Adopt a Minefield, www.landmines.org; International Campaign to Ban Landmines, www.icbl.org; Mine Ban Treaty; www.icbl.org/treaty.

Dear EarthTalk: How can we get schools to offer healthier and more eco-friendly cafeteria food to our kids? I don’t have time to bag a healthy lunch every day. - Leslie Morris, Richmond, VA

Copyright: Getty Images

Now that many schools have stopped selling sodas and other unhealthy vending machine items to their students, improving the nutritional quality of cafeteria food is on the agenda of many parents and school administrators. And luckily for the environment, healthier food usually means greener food.

Some forward-thinking schools are leading the charge by sourcing their cafeteria food from local farms and producers. This saves money and also cuts back on the pollution and global warming impacts associated with transporting food long distances. And since many local producers are turning to organic growing methods, local food usually means fewer pesticides in kids’ school lunches.

Alarmed by childhood obesity statistics and the prevalence of unhealthy foods offered to students in schools, the Center for Food and Justice (CFJ) in 2000 spearheaded the national Farm to School lunch program. The program connects schools with local farms to provide healthy cafeteria food while also supporting local farmers. Participating schools not only obtain food locally, they incorporate nutrition-based curriculum and provide students with learning opportunities through visits to the local farms.

Farm to School programs now operate in 19 states and in several hundred school districts. CFJ recently received significant support from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation to expand the program to more states and districts. The group’s website (link below) is loaded with resources to help schools get started.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) also runs a Small Farms/School Meals program that boasts participation in 400 school districts in 32 states. Interested schools can check out the agency’s “Step-by-Step Guide on How to Bring Small Farms and Local Schools Together,” which is available free online.

Other schools have taken the plunge in their own unique ways. In Berkeley, California, noted chef Alice Waters holds cooking classes in which students grow and prepare local organic fruits and vegetables for their peers’ school lunch menus. And as documented in the film, “Super Size Me,” Wisconsin’s Appleton Central Alternative School hired a local organic bakery that helped transform Appleton’s cafeteria fare from offerings heavy on meat and junk food to predominantly whole grains, fresh fruits and vegetables.

Of course, parents can ensure that their children eat well at school by forgoing the cafeteria offerings altogether and sending their kids to school with healthy bag lunches. For on-the-go parents unable to keep up with a daily lunch making regimen, innovative companies are beginning to sprout up that will do it for you. Kid Chow in San Francisco, Health e-Lunch Kids in Fairfax, Virginia, New York City’s KidFresh and Manhattan Beach, California’s Brown Bag Naturals will deliver organic and natural food lunches to your kids for about three times the price of a cafeteria lunch. But prices should change for the better as the idea catches on and more volume brings costs down.

CONTACTS: Farm to Schools, www.farmtoschool.org; USDA Small Farms/School Meals Initiative, www.fns.usda.gov/cnd/Lunch/Downloadable/small.pdf; Kid Chow, www.kid-chow.com, Brown Bag Naturals, www.brownbagnaturals.com; Health e-Lunch Kids, www.healthelunchkids.com; Kidfresh, www.kidfresh.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I read that hybrid cars are actually less green-friendly than even Hummers, because they have two motors and very environmentally damaging batteries. Is this true?- Renee Sweany, Indianapolis, IN

Copyright: Getty Images

The claim you read about was from “Dust-to-Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles from Concept to Disposal,” a controversial study by researcher Art Spinella of Oregon-based CNW Marketing. It ranks more than 300 vehicles for their energy use over their entire lifecycles—from raw materials extraction and manufacturing, to driving and burning fuel, to the recycling and disposal of parts. What surprised even Spinella was how the Toyota Prius, the world’s most successful gasoline-electric hybrid car, stacked up against General Motors’ behemoth Hummer, the modern poster child for unsustainable transportation.

“The Hummer over the lifetime of the vehicle ends up being less of a drain of energy on society in general than does the Prius,” wrote Spinella in his report. A key-determining factor was the hybrid battery’s use of nickel extracted from a Sudbury, Ontario mine that has emitted so much sulfur dioxide that acid rain has turned a once healthy nearby forest into a bleak landscape. That mine, however, which supplies nickel for many industrial purposes and not just hybrid batteries, has cut pollution 90 percent since the 1970s.

Another common criticism of hybrids is that their batteries will be a pollution threat once they land in the junkyard. But hybrid advocates insist that the nickel-metal hydride batteries found in the Toyota Prius, Honda Insight and other hybrids contain far fewer pollutants than the lead-acid varieties used in traditional cars. And initial worries that hybrid batteries would need replacement every few years have not borne out; Toyota says the batteries should go for 150,000 miles, which they predict to be the car’s life expectancy.

Spinella pegs the life of the typical Prius bought new today at only 100,000 miles, and contrasts that against a predicted 300,000 for Hummers—meaning that, though Hummers burn more gas and emit more pollutants, they will last much longer. Additionally, Spinella factors in the added production costs of including two separate engines in the Prius—one that runs on gas and the other on electricity.

Most environmentalists challenge Spinella’s conclusions. Jim Kliesch, research analyst with the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), which publishes a yearly rating of the “Greenest and Meanest” cars, says the CNW study contradicts many other studies, including those conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Carnegie Mellon, Argonne National Labs, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others that place the green-friendliness of the Prius and other hybrids head and shoulders above many other vehicles and certainly the Hummer.

Spinella is “way off the mark,” says Kliesch, and scolds CNW for not having “Dust-to-Dust” peer-reviewed for accuracy. “If you do some back-of-the-envelope calculations on their claims,” he says, “you’ll find that it takes about $286,500 in energy to produce and assemble a Prius, [which is] absurd.”

Toyota itself also disputes CNW’s findings. In a short rebuttal published in the Washington Post, Toyota vice-president Irv Miller said that the increased energy requirement to build a hybrid with two engines under the hood “is overwhelmingly made up for in the driving stage.”

CONTACTS: “Dust to Dust,” cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/; ACEEE, www.aceee.org.

Dear EarthTalk: What tax or other government incentives are there out there for buying green—for individuals as well as businesses?                                   -- Sarah Rafferty, New York, NY

Copyright: Getty Images

There has never been a better time than now to tap into a laundry list of tax rebates and other financial incentives designed to encourage individuals and businesses to go the greener mile. At the federal level in the U.S., individuals can reap the rewards of no less than eight different financial incentives ranging from tax credits and home loans for replacing windows and installing insulation around the house to tax rebates for purchasing a hybrid car or hooking up a solar hot water heater.

Besides these federal incentives, nearly every U.S. state has additional state or local incentives available. Many require utilities to rebate consumers who save electricity. Some utilities even offer “net metering,” whereby consumers who generate some of their power through rooftop solar panels or other technologies can sell electricity back to the utility, thus reducing or zeroing out their electric bill—even earning money.

Many financial incentives are in place for businesses, as well. At the federal level, examples include an energy-efficient commercial buildings tax deduction, a business energy reduction tax credit, an energy-efficient appliance tax credit for manufacturers, and a new energy-efficient tax credit for green-savvy builders. 

At the state level, many are eager to attract renewable energy companies to their region, and offer tax breaks to get them there. Washington State, for example, charges no sales tax on renewable energy equipment produced or sold there. And some forward-thinking cities are beginning to offer “density bonuses” and green building incentives to developers and builders to encourage sustainable land use.

The best place to look for what’s available is to steer your web browser to the free online Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE), a comprehensive source of information on state, local, utility and federal incentives that promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. DSIRE is a federally funded project of the Interstate Renewable Energy Council, whose membership includes state and local government agencies, national laboratories, renewable energy companies and advocacy groups.

In Canada, the Office of Energy Efficiency at Natural Resources Canada offers a slate of federal grants and incentives under its ecoENERGY Retrofit program to homeowners, businesses, large industries and public institutions to help them invest in energy- and pollution-saving upgrades. The agency also administers the High Efficiency Home Heating System Cost Relief program, which will contribute up to $300 to homeowners who upgrade their old oil or gas furnace or boiler to a new high-efficiency model. And low-income households might qualify for additional federal financial assistance for energy retrofits. Another Canadian program, the Vehicle Efficiency Incentive (VEI) rewards those who buy fuel-efficient cars or trucks with rebates of up to $2,000 each. Beyond these federal programs, selected provincial and municipal entities across Canada also offer incentives to those looking to save energy and the environment.

CONTACTS: Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE), www.dsireusa.org; Natural Resources Canada ecoEnergy Retrofit Program, www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/corporate/incentives.cfm.

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: How do I find a Styrofoam recycler in my area? My company receives huge sheets of the stuff on a regular basis and it just gets thrown straight into the trash. What can a business do to get this stuff recycled economically and efficiently? - S.R.M., Mesa, AZ


Copyright: Getty Images

Known within the packaging industry as expanded polystyrene (EPS) and usually bearing the “#6” recycling symbol, Styrofoam (which is actually the trademark name for Dow Chemical’s product) has long been an environmental bugaboo, as it is contains chemicals known to cause central nervous system damage and other health problems for workers regularly exposed to it. And since it is difficult and expensive to recycle, EPS tends to clog landfills already teeming with toxic garbage.

But EPS has proven to be one of the lightest and least costly forms of packaging material, so the industry has worked hard to make recycling it more cost-effective and convenient. More than 80 packaging manufacturers, polystyrene suppliers and equipment makers joined together in 1991 to form the Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers (AFPR). The Maryland-based industry association works to facilitate recycling between EPS manufacturers and the companies that buy from them. It currently boasts of overseeing the recycling of 10-12 percent of the post-consumer EPS packaging produced every year.

Member companies, which provide drop-off services at their facilities, reprocess up to 60 percent of the EPS foam collected and incorporate it directly into new packaging. Some of the material is reformulated and used in a wide variety of durable plastic products. Currently, more than 110 plant locations serve as collection centers which together receive upwards of 50 million pounds of post-consumer EPS packaging each year. AFPR provides a comprehensive list of EPS drop-off locations from coast-to-coast on its website. While companies sending the EPS in for recycling must bear the shipping or drop-off costs, they may save money over paying for disposal fees at the landfill.

One caveat: AFPR does not get involved in the recycling of the foam “peanuts” so often used as packaging filler. Most “pack-and-ship” shops (like UPS stores) will accept used but otherwise clean foam peanuts to reuse in their own shipments. Otherwise, the Plastic Loose Fill Council, another trade group, runs a free web-based database where users can find a local drop-off center by simply punching in their zip code.

Also, food service managers should bear in mind that recycling of soiled food-grade EPS is more difficult and expensive due to issues of bacterial contamination. Most EPS packaging recycling centers will not accept such tainted foam. Many food service companies have followed the lead of McDonald’s and phased-out their use of EPS containers for disposable dishware and to-go orders.

Companies that don’t find it convenient to recycle or otherwise dispose of large amounts of EPS (food-grade or otherwise) might want to consider purchasing one or more StyroMelt machines from UK-based Purex. The technology uses a thermal compaction process to reduce the volume of EPS by up to 95 percent. The resulting solid EPS “briquettes” are dense enough to make for good recycling fodder, and also take up much less room than the foam they started out as if they end up in the landfill.

CONTACTS: Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers, www.epspackaging.org ; Plastic Loose Fill Council, www.loosefillpackaging.com ; Purex Styromelt, www.styromelt.com

Dear EarthTalk: Aside from the obvious benefits to mankind of reducing poverty, how would promoting more economic equality around the world benefit the environment? -Steele Shapiro, Seattle, WA

Copyright: Getty Images

Research has shown that in countries with a wide disparity between rich and poor, environmental protection tends to be a lower priority. The inverse is also true: Countries with greater economic equality assign higher priority to safeguarding their environment.

The main determining factor seems to be that lower income people tend to vote against spending tax dollars on what are deemed costly or discretionary environmental projects. In countries with less disparity between rich and poor, such as throughout Scandinavia, environmental protection is assigned a higher priority and governments have enacted more stringent regulations and policies accordingly.

University of Rochester researchers Laura Marsiliani and Thomas Renstrom reviewed hundreds of academic studies of linkages between economic equality and environmental protection and found plenty of evidence to suggest that “poorer individuals tend to prefer less stringent environmental policy.” Previous research also supports their hypothesis that greater income inequality causes lower environmental taxes, regulation and spending around the world.

On a related front, a team of McGill University researchers uncovered a connection between growing economic inequality and an increase in the number of plant and animal species threatened with extinction. Dr. Greg Mikkelson of McGill’s School of Environment led the study, which looked at income inequality and biodiversity loss on two different scales: among 45 countries worldwide; and among 45 U.S. states. The researchers found that the same general trend is evident in both cases: Societies with more unequal distribution of income experience greater losses of biodiversity.

While there is often a trade-off between economic growth and environmental quality, says Mikkelson, his study suggests that there is also synergy between removing or reducing poverty and greater conservation of biological diversity. If the U.S. were to achieve levels of income parity comparable, say, to Sweden, some 44 percent fewer plant and animal species in the U.S. would be in danger of extinction. “Our study,” adds Mikkelson, “suggests that if we can learn to share economic resources more fairly with fellow members of our own species, it may help us to share ecological resources more fairly with other species.”

One group working to help the environment by bridging the economic equality gap is the Poverty Reduction and Environmental Management (PREM) program at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Holland’s Vrije Universiteit. Formulated by Dr. Pieter van Beukering and Kim van der Leeuw, the program has lined up researchers in 16 developing nations to develop case studies showing how sustainability-oriented natural resource management can lead to economic development for poorer people. The researchers hope that their work in the field will help show policymakers the way toward enlightened regulatory practices that encourage both economic equality and environmental protection.

CONTACTS: “Inequality, Environmental Protection and Growth,” Laura Marsiliani and Thomas Renstrom, http://ideas.repec.org/p/roc/wallis/wp35.html ; “More Inequality Means Less Biodiversity,” McGill Reporter, www.mcgill.ca/reporter/39/17/inequality ; PREM Program, www.prem-online.org

Dear EarthTalk: I am considering buying Honda’s natural gas Civic. What exactly comes out of a natural gas vehicle’s tailpipe, and how harmful to the environment is natural gas extraction and refinement? Which is greener, a hybrid or natural gas car? -- Alex Neal, San Diego CA

Copyright: Getty Images

Honda’s natural gas Civic GX, which debuted in 2006 in California but is now becoming available in other parts of the country, just may be the cleanest mainstream car on the road. At least the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) thinks so. The nonprofit group publishes an annual Green Book listing the greenest (and meanest) cars of the year, and put the Civic GX at the top of its 2007 environmentally friendly car list, edging out Toyota’s hybrid Prius.

Although neither car is a slouch when it comes to fuel economy and reduced emissions, the natural gas-fueled Civic scored slightly better than the Prius on both counts in ACEEE’s battery of tests. It also scored better in terms of the pollution generated in the manufacturing processes.

Natural gas is the cleanest burning of all fossil fuels. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the burning of natural gas emits 117,000 pounds per billion (ppb) BTUs of carbon dioxide as compared to gasoline’s 164,000. Its 92 ppb of nitrogen oxide emissions are considerably lower than gasoline’s 448, and its mere one ppb of sulfur dioxide emissions is dwarfed by gasoline’s 1,122. Natural gas also emits just seven ppb of particulates compared to 84 for gasoline, and it emits no mercury whatsoever against the trace amounts emitted by gasoline-burning engines. Natural gas combustion does generate slightly more carbon monoxide than gasoline, at 40 ppb versus 33, but the difference is negligible.

The big trade-off for Civic GX owners is the car’s limited 220-mile range between fuelings. The gasoline-powered Civic can go 350 miles on a tank; the Prius, even with just an 11-gallon tank, can go considerably further operating at as much as 55 miles per gallon in highway driving. While a few dozen natural gas refueling stations have popped up around the U.S., they are few and far between. For those who need to make longer trips but still value a greener ride, a hybrid may be the best bet, as it will produce only marginally worse emissions while taking advantage of the ubiquity of gas stations out on the road.

Those who already use natural gas for home heating can pay $5,000 for a car fueling system installed in their garage or driveway. While that cost may seem high, owners can save about $1 per gallon over gasoline and can also get a federal $1,000 tax rebate. (Also, like the Prius, the purchase of the Civic GX itself qualifies for a federal tax break of $2,000 as well as up to another $2,000 in state and local incentives where applicable.) Some Honda dealers lease home systems for between $34 and $79 monthly. Honda pegs the fuel cost at 3.75 cents/mile, compared to 8.8 cents/mile for the gasoline-powered Civic.

Regarding the extraction and distribution of natural gas, the fuel is often sourced along with or near oil reserves, and involves similarly invasive drilling methods. Accidents do happen from time to time and, though natural gas does not spill like oil and cause ground and sea-level ecosystem disturbances, it rises into the atmosphere where it contributes directly to global warming.

CONTACTS: Database for State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency, www.dsireusa.org ; ACEEE’s Green Book, www.greenercars.com ; Honda Civic GX, http://automobiles.honda.com/civic-gx .
 

Dear Earth Talk: Artificial turf has been popular on sports fields for decades for a variety of reasons, but is it also a good environmentally friendly option for residential lawns?- Sharon Chinchilla, Ft. Lauderdale, FL

Copyright: Getty Images

The use of artificial turf for residential lawns is a growing trend across America, notably in regions where water supplies have a tough time keeping up with demand. Advocates of artificial turf point out, for example, that a whopping 56,000 gallons of water are applied each year to the average residential lawn.

Statistics also show that the mowing, watering and fertilizing of natural grass contribute as much as two percent to U.S. overall fossil fuel consumption. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, lawn care activities also account for about 10 percent of hazardous air pollution coast-to-coast. And studies on Long Island in New York State have shown that up to 60 percent of the synthetic nitrogen applied to lawns there ends up contaminating local ground water supplies.

But given the choice between real or artificial turf, most environmental advocates still prefer real grass. Besides helping to create the oxygen we breathe through photosynthesis, plants (including grass) are an integral part of any living ecosystem. They filter water and sunlight down into the soil where worms, insects and moisture work in concert to hold the soil firm. And they prevent flooding while providing habitat and nourishment for birds, bees and other wildlife.

In contrast, synthetic turf is made out of petroleum-derived plastic. In cases where fake turf is installed improperly, chemicals from the plastic can seep into the ground below and potentially contaminate groundwater. Some formulations of synthetic turf require infill such as silicon sand or granulated rubber, either of which may contain potentially toxic heavy metals that can leach into the water table below. The granules have also been known to produce a distinctly unpleasant odor at times. And consumers trying to reduce their carbon footprints should keep in mind that manufacturing and shipping artificial turf, like any synthetic product, generates large amounts of greenhouse gas emissions.

Nonetheless, because of concerns about water usage, some municipalities are trying to encourage homeowners to switch to synthetic turf. Back in 2002 city managers in drought-ridden Las Vegas began offering homeowners rebates of $1 per square foot to replace their thirsty natural grass lawns with synthetic turf. And in July 2007 board members of southern California’s Metropolitan Water District, which serves 18 million people across six counties, initiated a similar program to try to make a dent in outdoor water use in the region, 50 to 70 percent of which is devoted to the watering of residential lawns.

Of course, installing artificial turf isn’t the only way to minimize the environmental impact of one’s yard. Converting grass lawns over to less resource intensive landscaping—known as “xeriscaping”—is also catching on. Drought-tolerant native shrubs, plants and ornamental grasses don’t require large amounts of water, fertilizer or pesticides to survive. Many groundcover plants naturally hold back weeds and contribute to the health of the soil. Even rock gardens are attractive and essentially maintenance-free. Given all the natural alternatives, homeowners need not convert their back yards over to fake turf.

CONTACTS: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California’s BeWaterWise, www.bewaterwise.com

Dear EarthTalk: What alternatives are there to traditional fertilizers and other chemicals typically used on golf courses? What other actions can be taken to make golf courses kinder to the environment?  
-Kathy McGuire, PGA National Resort, Palm Beach Gardens, FL

Copyright: Getty Images

Although golf courses are large areas of open space, certainly more desirable ecologically than equivalent amounts of paved highway or polluting industrial operations, they are less “green” than they appear. Golf maintenance operations use significant amounts of synthetic fertilizer and pesticides (more, acre-for-acre than farms in some cases), which can contaminate nearby lakes and streams as well as local groundwater.

A typical golf course uses about a half ton of chemical pesticides each year, at least some of which runs off into nearby groundwater sources. With nearly 20,000 courses now in operation across the United States and Canada, such problems affect just about every community from coast-to-coast. Luckily several institutions and organizations have been working to minimize the environmental impacts of golf courses.

According to researchers at New York’s Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI), there are many ways to create and maintain golf courses that remain attractive to golfers without excessive use of toxic chemicals. Examples include: selecting turf grasses that match local environmental conditions so as to reduce susceptibility to pests; mowing less often as longer grass increases natural pest resistance; using slow-release and natural organic fertilizers; taking into account pest forecasts to be better prepared for potential infestations; and introducing the natural enemies of problem pests and natural bacteria-based fungicides.

More information and tips are available for free via the website of the Environmental Institute for Golf, which publishes an informative series of best management practices for golf course managers looking to improve their facilities’ eco-footprint. Some tips include: planting vegetative buffers around golf course water bodies to prevent the transmission of fertilizers and pesticides into the water; leaving grass clippings and leaves on the ground where possible to serve as natural compost in low-maintenance areas; and timing the application of fertilizer to minimize loss from rainfall and maximize uptake by grasses.

One of the nation’s leaders in green golf course management is San Francisco’s Harding Park, where course managers eschew conventional pesticides and fertilizers in favor of microbes to kill pests and soap to get rid of weeds. They also hand-pluck weeds, flush out moles with hoses, use traps to catch harmful insects, and choose native plants wherever possible. Beneficial insects such as ground beetles, ladybugs, fireflies, praying mantis, spiders and wasps help keep harmful insects at bay and also pollinate plants and decompose organic matter that serves as natural fertilizer. These and other alternative management methods make the course one of the greenest stops on the Professional Golfers Association (PGA) tour. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also taking steps. EPA’s Wetlands Division consulted with several leading nonprofits and golf institutions on the creation of a booklet, “The Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States,” outlining the environmental responsibilities of golf courses. It is posted at the website of the United States Golf Association (USGA).

CONTACTS: Environmental Institute for Golf, www.eifg.org; Environmental Principles for Golf Courses in the United States, www.usga.org/turf/articles/environment/general/environmental_principles.html

Dear EarthTalk: Bottled water companies would have us all believe that tap water is unsafe to drink. But I’ve heard that most tap water is actually pretty safe. Is this true?
- Sam Tsiryulnikov, Los Angeles, CA

Copyright: Getty Images

Tap water is not without its problems. The nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) in 2005 tested municipal water in 42 states and detected some 260 contaminants in public water supplies, 140 of which were unregulated chemicals, that is, chemicals for which public health officials have no safety standards for, much less methods for removing them.

EWG did find over 90 percent compliance on the part of water utilities in applying and enforcing standards that exist, but faults the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for failing to establish standards on so many of the contaminants—from industry, agriculture and urban runoff—that do end up in our water.

Despite these seemingly alarming stats, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which has also conducted extensive municipal as well as bottled water tests, says: “In the short term, if you are an adult with no special health conditions, and you are not pregnant, then you can drink most cities’ tap water without having to worry.” This is because most of the contaminants in public water supplies exist at such small concentrations that very large quantities would need to be ingested for health problems to occur.

NRDC does caution, however, that pregnant women, young children, the elderly, people with chronic illnesses and those with weakened immune systems can be especially vulnerable to the risks posed by contaminated water.” The group suggests that anyone at risk obtain a copy of their city’s annual water quality report (they are mandated by law) and review it with their physician.

As for bottled water, it is first important to know that 25 to 30 percent of it comes straight from municipal tap water systems, despite the pretty nature scenes on the bottles that imply otherwise. Some of that water goes through additional filtering, but some does not. NRDC has researched bottled water extensively and has found that it is “subject to less rigorous testing and purity standards than those which apply to city tap water.” Bottled water is required to be tested less frequently than tap water for bacteria and chemical contaminants, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration bottled water rules allow for some contamination by E. coli or fecal coliform, contrary to EPA tap water rules which prohibit any such contamination.

Similarly, NRDC found that there are no requirements for bottled water to be disinfected or tested for parasites such as cryptosporidium or giardia, unlike more stringent EPA rules regulating tap water. This leaves open the possibility, says NRDC, that some bottled water may present similar health threats to those with weakened immune systems, the elderly and others they caution about drinking tap water.

The bottom line is that we have invested considerably in highly efficient municipal water delivery systems that bring this precious liquid straight to our kitchen faucets anytime we need it. Instead of taking that for granted and relying on bottled water instead, we need to make sure our tap water is clean and safe for all. 

CONTACTS: Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org/tapwater/findings.php; EPA Local Drinking Water Information, www.epa.gov/safewater/dwinfo.htm; NRDC, www.nrdc.org/water.

Dear EarthTalk: I visited New York City recently and could not believe the number of taxicabs on the streets. Are there any efforts to “green up” these vehicles? They must be real gas-guzzlers, considering all the idling and stop-and-go traffic they face.  - Justin Grant, Berkeley, CA

Copyright: Getty Images

Just this past May, as part of a larger effort to make New York the “greenest major metropolis on the planet,” Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced an ambitious plan to switch over the city’s 13,000-vehicle taxi cab fleet from gas guzzling traditional cars to (comparatively) fuel-sipping gasoline-electric hybrids.

So far, 375 New York City cabs are hybrids, but Bloomberg wants that to rise to 1,000 by the end of 2008, with an additional 20 percent of the cab fleet going hybrid each year thereafter. The reason taxis are an ideal fit for hybrid technology is that they spend much time idling in traffic and while waiting to load passengers. Hybrid cars, which pair a conventional gas engine with an electric motor, essentially shut down when they are idling, minimizing emissions significantly. New York’s plan, once fully realized, is expected to reduce carbon dioxide emissions of the city’s taxi fleet by over 215,000 tons yearly.

And even though cabbies will have to pay a premium to replace their existing vehicles with hybrids, most are behind the move, as it will save them about $10,000 yearly in fuel costs alone. According to The New York Times, 90 percent of the city’s cab fleet is now made up of Ford Crown Victorias, which get only 10-15 miles per gallon (mpg) in city traffic. Ford’s own Escape hybrid would improve that to 34 mpg. 

“I have been wanting to drive a hybrid taxi for years now,” says Kwame Corsi, a cabbie from the Bronx. “Once this law allows us to drive hybrids, our gas mileage will skyrocket and our expenses will plummet. We pollute less and make more money—who can argue against that?” New York cabbies now ready to take the plunge can choose from any one of six different hybrid models, including the Ford Escape, Toyota’s Prius and Highlander, the Lexus RX 400H, and Honda’s Accord and Civic.

New York is not the first to go hybrid with its cab fleet. San Francisco took the plunge in 2005 when 40 Ford Escape hybrid taxis hit the streets there. San Francisco is also home to 140 Ford Crown Victoria cabs retrofitted to run on cleaner-burning compressed natural gas (CNG), which has been shown to reduce ozone-forming emissions by 80 percent as compared to traditional gasoline. The city’s goal is to have half its taxi fleet—some 600 vehicles—powered by cleaner-energy sources (either hybrids or CNG) by 2008.

And Chicago’s Carriage Cab Company just welcomed its first hybrid, also a Ford Escape. It is joined in the city by just one other hybrid, that of an independent operator who began taking fares in June in his Toyota Prius. Chicago has ordered taxi firms with over 50 cabs to add at least one hybrid to their fleets. The cities of Denver, Colorado and Boston, Massachusetts are also looking to make the transition.

And while hybrid taxis may be all the rage in San Francisco and New York now, such vehicles have been plying the streets of Vancouver, British Columbia since 2000, when cabbie Andrew Grant first started offering taxi rides in his Toyota Prius there. Today about a third of all the taxis in Vancouver are hybrids and local lawmakers recently announced that the city would approve only eco-friendly vehicles when handling applications for new taxi companies or additions to existing fleets.

CONTACTS: Andrew Grant’s “Hybrid Taxi Driver” Blog, http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/taxi;New York City’s Taxi & Limousine Commission, www.nyc.gov/html/tlc/html/home/home.shtml

Dear EarthTalk: How do I learn how to build an all-around “eco-home?” My wife and I have some land in Delaware and would like to build a state-of-the-art green home on the site. - Zachary Jahnigen, Frankford, DE

Copyright: Getty Images

There are many ideas as to what constitutes an “eco-home,” depending upon how pure one wants to be. But certain common elements—such as energy efficiency, responsible materials sourcing and minimal landscape disruption—must be in place to meet most environmentalists’ criteria. And with technologies improving and prices coming down, eco-homes are no longer the domain of the wealthy, as even a modest building can incorporate green features.

According to the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), a non-profit network of practitioners of environmentally friendly construction, a green home “uses less energy, water and natural resources; creates less waste; and is healthier and more comfortable for the occupants.” The organization is continuously updating its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) guidelines, which help realtors, developers, architects and builders create high performance green buildings of every stripe.

USGBC recently launched a special set of benchmarks—LEED for Homes—devoted specifically to the design and construction of residential buildings. Builders or owners can evaluate every step of the home design and construction process according to standards set forth under these guidelines, which aim for sustainably sourced materials, lower energy and water usage, reduced greenhouse gas emissions and less exposure to mold and other indoor toxins. USGBC research indicates that the net cost of owning a LEED home is comparable to that of owning a conventional home. Since LEED for Homes was launched in 2005, more than 375 builders representing 6,000 homes across the U.S. have built according to its standards.

Other organizations also weigh-in on what constitutes an “eco-home.” Juliet Cuming, of the Vermont-based nonprofit Earth Sweet Home Institute, lays out several criteria that anyone can use when planning the design and construction of an environmentally-friendly home: Does the home plan reduce energy and resources? Does it re-use existing resources? Are materials used recyclable or biodegradable once no longer usable? Is the home healthy to producers and occupants and also to the installers of the materials? Is the plan affordable and available? Will the resulting home be durable?

“The ideal eco-home would be built in a place where it will have as little negative impact as possible on the plants, wildlife and humans in the area,” says Cuming. “The home will be sited and designed to take advantage of shade in the summer and sun in the winter.” She adds that a true eco-home should be crafted out of materials derived from local sources.

Those looking to learn more about eco-homes have lots of information to wade through online and in print. A good place to start is Environmental Building News, a monthly newsletter on green design and construction published by Building Green, Inc. It features comprehensive, practical information on a wide range of topics—from renewable energy and recycled materials to land-use planning and indoor air quality.

CONTACTS: LEED for Homes, www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=147; Earth Sweet Home Institute, www.earthsweethome.com; Environmental Building News; www.buildinggreen.com.
-Kidsfreesouls Spanish Blog

Dear EarthTalk: I’m moving in eight weeks and am trying to find some “green guidance” for making my relocation as eco-friendly as possible.  Any tips?   
- Holly, Elizabethtown, PA

Copyright: Getty Images

Moving may be inherently unfriendly to the environment given that carting stuff around means expending lots of fuel and emitting a lot of pollutants, but there are ways to “relocate responsibly.” For starters, the less stuff we accumulate in the first place the less we have to pick up and move elsewhere—so fighting the pack-rat urge and minimizing trips to shopping malls in the first place are good prerequisites.

Beyond what may already be too late to undo, though, one can lessen their environmental footprint when moving by first giving away or selling any non-essential items. Neighborhood yard sales and giveaways are one way to go, while websites like Ebay, Craig’s List and Freecycle provide virtual ways to unload unwanted stuff. Books can be donated to local libraries, and most schools will be happy to make use of old computers. And Goodwill and other charities will gladly take old clothes for resale in thrift outlets.

While all that’s going on, the environmentally-conscious mover would also want to be hoarding bubble wrap, cardboard boxes, padded envelopes and other packing materials instead of going out and buying them new. Many liquor, grocery, hardware and other retail stores are happy to give away large cardboard boxes they no longer need and would have to otherwise discard or recycle. Calling around first will save the headache and the emissions of driving around to individual stores one-by-one to ask them.

As to the move itself, if you’re fortunate enough to be relocating within Orange County, Los Angeles one green option is to rent “RecoPack” moving boxes from Earth Friendly Moving. The company, which has plans to expand nationwide over the next five years, provides five different stackable sizes of durable moving cartons made from recycled plastic bottles. The rental cost is just a dollar per box per week—and the company’s biodiesel-powered trucks will drop-off and pick-up the boxes before and after the move.

Not in southern California? Rent-a-Crate, which has 13 U.S. locations coast to coast, also rents re-usable (though not recycled) plastic moving crates that they’ll deliver to and pick up from any location. The company works extensively in the office relocation business, too, and rents other reusable accessories such as dollies for rolling heavy crates and crates for delicate items like computers and even medical x-ray films.

And remember, there is more to moving green than just moving. Use only eco-friendly cleaning products when scrubbing down the old place. If you live in the Washington, DC or Baltimore, MD area, a crew from Green Clean will send a professional crew that uses only nontoxic, biodegradable cleaners. Otherwise, health food stores all carry green cleaners that you can use yourself or instruct the hired help to use.

A tip from the Care2 “Green Moving Guide”: File a temporary change of address with your post office rather than a permanent one to cut down on junk mail at the new place. The U.S. Postal Service sells lists of permanent address changes to direct marketers, but doesn’t bother doing so with temporary addresses.

CONTACTS: Rent-a-Crate, www.rentacrate.com, 800-427-2832; Earth Friendly Moving, www.earthfriendlymoving.com/recopack.php; Green Clean, www.greencleanUSA.org; Care2 Green Moving Guide, www.care2.com/greenliving/green-moving-guide.html.
- Kidsfreesouls Spanish Blog

Dear EarthTalk: How much pollution do motorcycles generate? Are there efforts to make them more eco-friendly?                           
- Matt Lackore, Rochester, MN

Copyright: Getty Images

Motorcycles typically get about double the gas mileage of even the most fuel-efficient cars—but that doesn’t mean they are green. Despite getting 60-70 miles per gallon, motorcycles are not subject to the same rigorous emissions standards as cars and light duty trucks, even though they spew up to 15 times more pollution per mile, mostly in the form of smog-causing hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.

Increasingly stringent regulations in Europe and the U.S. have forced automakers to make their engines cleaner, but motorcycle manufacturers have not been held to such high standards and have therefore been slow to implement similar advances. According to the European Commission, motorcycles—despite only accounting for about three percent of total traffic volume in Europe—are expected to generate as much as 14 percent of that continent’s total hydrocarbon emissions by 2010.

But there is light at the end of the tunnel, thanks in large part to the state of California, which in 2004 passed legislation to green up motorcycles sold and ridden in that state. California’s new standards dictate that hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions from motorcycles top out at only 0.8 grams per kilometer (g/km), down from 1975-set standards of between 5.0 and 14.0 g/km (depending on engine size)

And in 2005, the United Nations’ World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations, which works internationally to set vehicle emissions standards, issued a new set of motorcycle emissions testing guidelines that will make it easier for manufacturers to design more green-friendly motorcycles.

In the wake of these developments, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established new federal rules that require motorcycle makers to reduce their products’ emissions by 50 percent. In place since the beginning of the 2006 model year, these new rules are expected to cut combined hydrocarbon and nitrogen oxide emissions from motorcycles by about 54,000 tons a year, while also saving approximately 12 million gallons of fuel annually by preventing it from escaping from fuel hoses and fuel tanks.

Many manufacturers are rising to the challenge. Honda, already a world leader in the development of greener cars, is putting the finishing touches on its new “idling stop system” that cuts fuel consumption and exhaust emissions by turning off the engine instead of idling at stop lights and in traffic jams. And Intelligent Energy, a British company, is developing an Emissions Neutral Vehicle (ENV), a motorcycle powered by a detachable hydrogen-powered fuel cell. The vehicle can reach speeds topping 50 miles per hour while making virtually no noise, and can run for up to four hours without refueling. Bigger, faster and longer running versions of the ENV are currently in the works, and should become widely available in Europe, the U.S. and elsewhere within a few years.

CONTACTS: California’s “New Standards for On-Road Motorcycles,” www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/motcycle/onrdmc.htm; EPA’s Motorcycle Emissions Info, www.epa.gov/otaq/roadbike.htm; Honda Motorcycles, http://powersports.honda.com/the_story/environment; Intelligent Energy, www.intelligent-energy.com.

Dear EarthTalk: What is the status of Sea Turtle protection efforts? Don’t many of them die in fishnets and, as a result, are threatened with extinction?        
- Matthew Lieberman, Wellesley, MA

Copyright: Getty Images

Given their tenuous existence, sea turtles are considered by many environmentalists as ambassadors for the world’s troubled oceans. They have graced the seas for more than 200 million years and survived whatever catastrophe befell the dinosaurs. But they are now facing a sharp decline in numbers around the world due mainly to human threats such as the alteration of beach nesting habitat, the harvesting of eggs for food, entanglement in fishing nets and pollution of ocean waters.

Found in all the warm ocean waters of the Earth, sea turtles generally remain at sea, returning to the surface for air and only coming ashore to lay eggs and nest. The five species of sea turtles found in and around North America are the leatherback, green turtle, hawksbill, Kemp’s ridley and loggerhead.

Sea turtles are protected in and around U.S. waters under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which lists the hawksbill, leatherback, Kemp’s ridley and green turtle as “endangered,” while the loggerhead is listed as “threatened.” (A species is considered endangered when it is on the brink of extinction; if it is experiencing serious threats that may eventually lead to its extinction, but the situation is not yet critical, it is classified as threatened.) Harming, harassing, killing, importing, selling or transporting any sea turtle, hatchling or eggs is considered a violation of federal law punishable by a stiff fine and jail time.

Outside the U.S., many other countries have similar laws designed to protect the world’s remaining and beloved sea turtles. And the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), an international agreement signed by 169 countries and designed to prevent the trade in endangered wild animals and their parts, also protects sea turtles. But such measures often look much better on paper; enforcement efforts are often inadequate and as a result sea turtle populations continue to plummet.

According to the Florida-based Caribbean Conservation Corporation (also known as the Sea Turtle Survival League), present goals for protecting sea turtles include: cracking down on the illegal international trade in turtles and turtle products; forcing fishing boats to use “turtle excluder devices” in their nets to decrease turtle deaths; establishing more coastal refuges to keep development from encroaching on turtle nesting beaches; decreasing artificial light near nesting beaches (light scares turtles away); enforcing laws to minimize the dumping of pollutants and solid waste into the ocean and near-shore waters; and stepping up turtle monitoring activities so conservation efforts can stay focused where they are most needed.

Individuals can do their part by steering clear of sea turtles when they are laying eggs on beaches, making sure to never remove or handle a turtle egg in any way, and keeping house lights (and even flashlights and camera flashes) off at night on or near nesting beaches. Concerned persons can also help by joining and supporting organizations working to protect sea turtles, such as the Caribbean Conservation Corporation, the Sea Turtle Restoration Project and the National Save the Sea Turtle Foundation.

CONTACTS: Caribbean Conservation Corporation’s “Information on Sea Turtles and Threats to Their Survival,” www.cccturtle.org/sea-turtle-information.php; Sea Turtle Restoration Project, www.seaturtles.org; National Save the Sea Turtle Foundation, www.savetheseaturtle.org.

Dear EarthTalk: Are mothballs safe to use? If not, are there any environmentally friendly alternatives?  - Anna Wiener, Dearborn, Michigan

Even though they are not as popular as they once were, mothballs are still used by many people to keep stored clothes, furniture and carpets free of hungry pests like moths. But the very ingredients that make mothballs so effective as household pesticides—namely naphthalene or paradichlorobenzene (PDB)—also make them dangerous to any person or animal who breathes the fumes or ingests them directly. Such chemicals are often listed as primary offenders when household air is tested for indoor air pollution.

Exposure to naphthalene or PDB can induce relatively minor human health problems such as nausea, vomiting, headache, coughing, burning eyes and shortness of breath. The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer considers both naphthalene and PDB to be hazardous carcinogens as well. These chemicals, which are also found in some dry cleaning agents as well as household air fresheners and solid toilet-bowl deodorizers, have been found to nearly double the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma—a cancer of the blood—for those who come into frequent contact with them. 

So what’s a conscientious homemaker to do? For starters, removing all mothballs and their flakes from the home is a good first step. Experts suggest donning gloves and even perhaps a mask before manually removing intact mothballs. Affected clothing can be machine-washed and dried several times, preferably on high heat settings. If the smell of mothballs continues to linger, any such clothes can be ironed—also with high heat settings, which tend to break down the active chemicals quicker. Sunlight also breaks down naphthalene and PDB, so leaving any affected items outside on hot sunny days may also help. 

Carpets and upholstery co-mingled with mothballs should be vacuumed thoroughly, with vacuum cleaner bags containing mothball traces emptied immediately outdoors. If the mothball smell lingers after vacuuming, a professional cleaning might do the trick, although such services can introduce other harmful chemicals, such as the carcinogen perchloroethylene, into the household as well. (ChemDry and Zoots both offer in-home carpet and upholstery cleaning services that do not rely on harmful chemicals.) After any kind of mothball removal effort, the cleaned house or closet should be aired out, ideally with one or more fans blowing as much fresh outdoor air through as possible.

As to alternatives for keeping moths and other critters away from clothes and other valuable fabrics, Care2.com’s green home guru and author Annie Berthold-Bond suggests using home-made sachet pillows filled with a dried herb mixture combining two parts each of rosemary and mint, one part each of thyme and ginseng, and eight parts whole cloves. The herbs can be mixed and combined in the center of a bandana or handkerchief that is then tied with a ribbon and placed among the stored items. Also, Richards Housewares makes “Moth-Away Herbal Moth Repellant,” a pre-packaged product that makes use of a similar formula. It’s available from planetnatural.com and other online environmental product websites. 

CONTACTS: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Napthalene page, www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/naphthal.html; PlanetNatural Moth-Away page, www.planetnatural.com/site/moth-away.html.

pic copyright: getty images

Dear EarthTalk: Why do some people complain about fluoride in drinking water and toothpaste? I thought it was beneficial for dental health?
- Becky Johnston, Shoreline, WA

Communities began adding fluoride to water supplies in the early 1940s after decades of studies into why some Colorado residents were exhibiting a discoloration or “mottling” of the teeth but at the same time very low rates of actual decay. The culprit turned out to be high concentrations of a naturally-occurring fluoride that was running off into the water from Pike’s Peak after rainfalls. Research later concluded that adding small, controlled amounts of fluoride into public water supplies would act as a form of community-wide cavity prevention without causing the undesirable mottling known at the time as “Colorado stain.” 

Today, supporters of fluoridation cite research from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control showing that the very inexpensive fluoridation of drinking water has since correlated to significant reductions in incidences of tooth decay (15-40 percent) in communities across the country. But skeptics worry we may be getting too much of a good thing. While small amounts of fluoride will prevent tooth decay, excessive amounts can lead not only to irreversible tooth discoloration (today called “fluorosis”) but also to other health issues, including an increased risk of bone breakage and osteoporosis. 

The problem, says Fluoride Action Network (FAN), which is opposed to fluoridation, is that the very water supplies that are treated for dental purposes are also used in the making of many common food products—from baby formula and cereal to juices, sodas, wines, beers and even fresh produce. And with most toothpastes also adding fluoride, many people are ingesting far more fluoride than they should. 

The main concern for most people is the discoloration of children’s second teeth once the baby teeth are gone. Besides being embarrassing, there is no cure. And some doctors worry that excessive fluoride may actually be promoting tooth decay rather than preventing it—and harming kids in other ways, particularly as they get older. FAN cites studies showing how low-to-moderate doses of fluoride can lead to eczema, reduced thyroid activity, hyperactivity, IQ deficits, premature puberty and even bone cancer. 

On the other side of the debate, concerns have risen that our increased reliance on non-fluoridated bottled water instead of tap water may be leading to increases in tooth decay (some bottled waters have added fluoride). However, speaking in a May 2002 UPI Science News article, John W. Stamm, dean of the School of Dentistry at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a spokesperson for the American Dental Association, said, “It’s very important to realize that there are many sources for body fluids…The fact that one may be consuming variable amounts of bottled water seems to me to be insufficient reason to be concerned about a fluoride deficient diet.” 

Avoiding fluoride is difficult for those whose local water is fluoridated. And the only filters that can strain fluoride out of water are expensive ones that employ reverse osmosis, activated alumina or distillation. Switching to unfluoridated toothpaste—many varieties are available from natural health retailers—is one way to cut down on fluoride intake, especially for those who swallow toothpaste when they are brushing.

Dear EarthTalk: What is the population status of Africa’s large mammals, such as elephants, lions, rhinos, and hippos? Are they all headed for extinction?    
-Elias Corey, Seattle, WA

pic copyright: getty images

Overall, the variety and abundance of wildlife in Africa, as elsewhere around the world, is shrinking fast as human population grows and encroaches ever more on once wild and pristine landscapes. While illegal hunting (known in Africa as “poaching”) still runs rampant despite government crackdowns, the spread of logging and agriculture contributes even more to the decline of many species of large mammals. 

The population of the continent’s biggest mammal, the African elephant, has declined by more than 99 percent since the 1930s, when as many as 10 million of the great creatures roamed free there. At last count, biologists estimated that only about 600,000 elephants are left in all of Africa.

Elephant populations are thriving in areas of southern Africa, thanks to massive government conservation efforts, including a ban on the ivory trade as part of the 144-nation strong Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which limits trade in wild animals and their parts and accords varying degrees of protection to more than 33,000 species of plants and wildlife.

Africa’s hippopotamus population is also suffering, partly because of the very ban on ivory. Bullied out of the ivory trade, many African poachers have turned to hippo teeth, which measure as long as 24 inches and have become a valuable substitute for ivory. A 2003 census of the hippos of Virunga National Park in the African Republic of Congo, for example, found only 1,300 animals, down from an estimated 29,000 in a previous count three decades earlier. In neighboring Burundi, another recent census found that two thirds of that country’s hippo population—some 200 animals—had disappeared in just a five-year period.

As for rhinos, only 10,000 individuals exist around the world, down 85 percent since just 1970. Poaching has been the main culprit in the decimation of these animals, with a single pair of black rhino horns—coveted by Arabs in oil-rich Yemen who collect them as symbols of wealth and status—fetching as much as $50,000 on the black market. Of the two rhino species in Africa, the white rhino is faring slightly better and has rebounded from near extinction but isn’t quite in the clear yet. The black rhino, down to only about 2,500 animals, is still considered critically endangered, however. Where it once roamed across the entire African continent, the black rhino is barely hanging on in just a few East African countries.

Lions may be faring a little better, but not much. The nonprofit African Wildlife Foundation reports that the continent’s lion population has fallen off by half since the early 1950s when an estimated 40,000 “kings of the jungle” ruled. Besides contending with habitat loss to ever expanding human settlement, Africa’s lions have also had to deal with hunting and poisoning by livestock ranchers. 

Although limited conservation efforts within Africa and internationally are helping some of these species remain barely viable, fighting extinction is an uphill battle, especially when expanding human population and sputtering economies force people to occupy previously wild lands and generate income by any means necessary. Individuals can help by donating money and time to organizations committed to saving these magnificent animals. With the extinction clock ticking fast, there’s no time to waste.

CONTACTS: African Wildlife Foundation, www.awf.org; Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), www.cites.org

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve been noticing a lot of organic wines lately in the supermarket. Is this going to be a continuing trend? -- Peter Toot, via email

pic copyright: getty images

The recent upsurge of interest in organic foods has indeed not escaped the wine business and, yes, organic wines are more popular and more readily available than ever.

According to the Organic Trade Association, an industry group representing organic food producers and distributors, U.S. sales of wines made with organic grapes reached $80 million in 2005, a 28 percent increase over the previous year. Such sales represent little more than one percent of the total U.S. domestic wine market, but the association expects organic wine sales to grow about 17 percent a year through 2008, mirroring growth across all sectors of organic agriculture.

There are two types of organic labeling on wines. The vast majority of wines made with organically grown grapes do not qualify for the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) white-and-green “certified organic” label. This is because, like many conventional wines, they include added sulfite preservatives to prevent oxidation and bacterial spoilage.

While trace amounts of sulfites occur naturally in wines during the fermentation process, most producers add more, later in the winemaking process, to prolong shelf life. An estimated one percent of consumers, primarily those with asthma, report sensitivity to wines with larger amounts of sulfites. Symptoms can include a quickened pulse, lung irritation, skin redness and rashes. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) banned the use of sulfites on fruits and vegetables in 1986 after 13 consumer deaths were linked to them.

Current USDA rules allow wines containing fewer than 10 parts per million (ppm) of sulfites and made from organic grapes to carry the “certified organic” label. But organic wines may only advertise that they are “made from organic grapes” if they contain more than 10 ppm and up to 100 ppm of sulfites. Some organic grape growers consider it unfair that the addition of sulfites—which occur naturally and are not synthetic chemicals—should disqualify their wines from “certified organic” standing.

Moving beyond organic, a handful of vineyards have adopted so-called “biodynamic” (BD) grape growing methods, adding to organic methods the practice of cultivating, pruning and harvesting on a strict calendar in sync with lunar cycles. Many view such practices skeptically; nonetheless, proponents claim that BD wines taste better and remain drinkable longer. The website Wine Anorak (“anorak” is British slang for “geek” or “nerd”) lists biodynamic wine labels from around the world.

Some leading organic (and low-sulfite) wines include varieties from Ceago, Frey, LaRocca, Bonterra and Organic Wine Works. Meanwhile, the California-based Organic Wine Company sources and distributes organic wines from around the world. Additionally, California Certified Organic Farmers (CCOF), a trade group representing that state’s organic agriculture industry, provides a free online directory of California organic products and services, including the state’s many purveyors of organic and biodynamic wines.

CONTACTS: Wine Anorak, www.wineanorak.com/biodynamic3.htm; Ceago, www.ceago.com, Frey Vineyards, www.freywine.com; Bonterra, www.bonterra.com; Organic Wine Company, www.theorganicwinecompany.com; CCOF Organic Directory, www.ccof.org/directories.php.

Dear EarthTalk: What is “Sick Building Syndrome?” 
-- Annie Sundberg, New York, NY

The term “sick building syndrome” was coined in the 1970s to describe a phenomenon whereby occupants of a building would become ill without explanation, and then symptoms would appear to decrease or go away altogether once they left the building.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), those afflicted usually experience symptoms such as headaches; eye, nose or throat irritation; dry cough; dry or itchy skin; dizziness and nausea; difficulty concentrating; fatigue; and extra sensitivity to odors. Usually sick building syndrome is associated with commercial buildings, but residential homes can also trigger symptoms. And, according to the U.S. Green Building Council, more than half of all U.S. schools have sick building syndrome.

Ironically, improvements in building design and energy efficiency may be major contributors to the problem, as airtight indoor space is not as well ventilated as areas cleansed by fresh air breezes. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health indoor air pollution, biological contaminants such as bacteria and mold and inadequate ventilation have all contributed to a rise in SBS in recent years.

Adhesives, upholstery, carpeting, copiers, manufactured wood products, cleaning agents and pesticides are all sources of indoor air pollution, as are many of the chemical smells and other odors present in manufacturing and service settings. Also, according to the EPA, outdoor pollutants such as car exhaust can enter buildings through poorly located air intake vents and windows and become trapped indoors.

It’s no wonder that cases of sick building syndrome have been on the rise in recent years: People are spending more and more time indoors, and building materials, furniture and equipment contain many more synthetic chemicals than they did 50 years ago. Buildings operated or maintained in ways they were not originally designed for can create problems, as can occupant activities such as smoking or the use of colognes and perfumes.

Not everyone is convinced that on-the-job illnesses are associated with a building’s environmental factors. In a study conducted by Dr. Mai Stafford, M.D. of the University College London Medical School, symptoms were instead strongly linked to other factors such as job stress and lacking social support at work. Dr. Stafford and colleagues concluded, “…if sick building syndrome is reported in a building, management should consider causes beyond the physical design and operation of the workplace and should widen their investigation to include the organization of work roles and the autonomy of the workforce.”

A combination of measures can help reduce sick building syndrome, including increasing ventilation and air distribution, removing known pollutants, replacing water-stained ceiling tiles and carpets, introducing air filtration—and educating management and maintenance personnel. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning systems, at a minimum, should meet local building code ventilation standards. And time should always be allowed for new building materials to off-gas chemical contaminants before occupancy.

CONTACTS: EPA Sick Building Syndrome page, www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/sbs.html .

Dear EarthTalk: I know of issues associated with the Earth’s ozone layer, but what is “ground level ozone” and why is that a problem?  -- D. Goetz, Palm Beach, FL

Ozone (O₃) is a colorless gas formed when three atoms of oxygen bond together. About 90 percent of the Earth’s ozone forms naturally in the stratosphere, dozens of miles above ground. It forms the protective layer that shields us from overexposure to the sun’s radiation, and is therefore considered “good” ozone.

The rest of the ozone found on Earth occurs at ground level, and forms when nitrous oxides and various “volatile organic compounds’ (VOCs)—originating with car exhaust, industrial emissions, chemicals and gasoline vapors, as well as some natural sources—bond together in the presence of sunlight. 

Ground level ozone, or “bad” ozone, is a key component of smog, which wreaks havoc on human health and the environment, especially in urban areas. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that exposure to even relatively low concentrations of ground-level ozone for extended periods (several hours) can significantly reduce lung function and cause respiratory inflammation in normal, healthy people. Symptoms can include chest pain, coughing, nausea and congestion. For people with asthma and other respiratory illnesses, exercising in ozone-rich air can be deadly. Repeated exposure to high levels of ozone for several months or more can produce permanent structural damage in the lungs. 

Beyond its effects on our health, the EPA estimates that pollution from ground-level ozone is responsible for nearly $2 billion in agricultural crop yield losses in the U.S. alone each year. The pervasive gas has also been shown to damage forests in California and the eastern U.S. and to contribute to global warming. 

Under the mandate of the Clean Air Act, the EPA is charged with monitoring and limiting the amount of ground-level ozone in urban areas, and issuing warnings when smog levels are above its standard of 0.12 parts per million. But new studies indicate that ground-level ozone causes adverse health effects at even lower concentrations. And, according to the EPA, even rural areas suffer increased ozone levels, because wind carries ozone and the pollutants that form it hundreds of miles away from their original sources. As a result, the EPA is reviewing whether revisions to ozone standards and policies are warranted. 

High concentrations of ground-level ozone are not as common in Canada, but three urban regions—British Columbia’s Lower Fraser Valley, the Windsor-Québec City Corridor and the Southern Atlantic Region that includes New Brunswick and Nova Scotia—do suffer several “bad air days” each year. The Canadian government, through its own Clean Air Act, has even stricter standards for exposure to ground-level ozone than in the U.S., though enforcement is not as big a priority given the smaller scope of the problem there. 

To help minimize ground-level ozone, avoid car trips and the use of power lawn equipment during especially hot or windless days. Paints and solvents, most which off-gas VOCs that create ozone and form smog, are also best to steer clear of with hot summer temperatures coming on strong. Those concerned about their respiratory health should follow local weather sources, most which post smog alerts.

CONTACTS: U.S. EPA Ground-Level Ozone Information, www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution; Canada’s Clean Air Act, www.ec.gc.ca/cleanair-airpur/Home-WS8C3F7D55-1_En.htm.

BRINGING UP BABY:
E – The Environmental Magazine on Raising an Earth-Friendly Child

When it comes to raising a natural baby, it’s not always easy being green, E – The Environmental Magazine reports in its May/June 2007 cover story, “Natural Baby, Toxic World” (now posted at www.emagazine.com ).

The average baby poops and pees through some 8,000 diapers before potty training. Then there are the baby food jars, the formula cans, the plastic containers of wipes, the scented disposable diaper bags, the plastic swings and teething rings and the crib with all its trimmings. Of course, green varieties of every baby product are available on-line and on supermarket shelves: from non-toxic cleaners to chlorine-free diapers and organic cotton crib mattresses. But is buying eco-versions of baby products enough?

A new trend, E reports, is “Attachment Parenting,” which includes modeling traditional cultures by wearing the baby in a wrap, “co-sleeping” and regular breast feeding as opposed to cribs, carriers, swings and bottles. Some have even taken that philosophy to the next “natural” conclusion -­ going diaper free.

“For me it was the missing link,” says Melinda Rothstein, co-founder of DiaperFreeBaby. She has used the method with her son, Samuel, since he was eight months old and with her daughter Hannah since birth. The practice consists of making observations of the child’s facial expressions and verbalizations (like squirming and grunting) whenever they have to go. Then the parent can use any container that holds liquid to catch the waste, and the contents get flushed down the toilet.

“It’s consistent with responding to the baby’s needs in a very proactive way,” Rothstein says. “I nursed my son until he was three, but he was out of diapers at 11 months. That’s considered backwards in our society.” DiaperFreeBaby has grown to include chapters in 35 U.S. states and 11 countries. The group Rothstein helped found for other interested mothers in Boston has grown to 20 members.

Of course 90 percent of American parents continue to use disposable diapers. The diaper service industry enjoyed a heyday in the early 1990s, but now, says Jack Shiffert, executive director of the National Association of Diaper Services, it’s nearly out of business. But disposables are made with a bevy of chemicals, including chlorine bleaching agents and volatile organic compounds such as toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene and dipentene, which have been linked to cancer and brain damage. And 3.5 million tons of disposable diapers are sent to landfills each year. About 38,000 are tossed every minute in the U.S.

A company called gDiapers thinks they've found the green solution. Founders and parents Jason and Kim Graham-Nye created a diaper liner made of sustainable tree-farmed fluff pulp and other flushable materials. The liners contain no elemental chlorine, no perfumes or dyes, no plastic layer and no latex. What’s more, gDiapers fully decompose and the company actually encourages users to put their wet liners into compost piles, where they will “provide a rich source of nitrogen and organic matter.”

Meanwhile, the organic foods industry has been growing at a rate of 20 to 24 percent annually over the last few years, and the baby food aisle of local supermarkets has seen a substantial increase in organic selections from companies like Gerber’s and Earth’s Best.

But the biggest advances in organic meals for baby are happening in the supermarket freezer. Shazi Visram launched the Brooklyn-based company, Happy Baby, on Mother’s Day 2006, joining other frozen baby food lines by makers like Plum Organics. Happy Baby’s frozen meals come in individual cubes in flavors like “Smarter Squash and Wiser Apple,” and “Baby Dahl and Mama Grain.”

“In our country,” Visram says, “babies are started on processed food.... to attain shelf stability for up to three years they cook the food at high temperatures. It creates a seal but it cooks the flavor and nutrients out.” Quoting her company’s motto Visram says she wants parents to start "thinking outside the jar.”

And what about “child-proofing” the home? In its Blue Butterfly Campaign, the Children’s Health Environment Coalition suggests “Five Easy Steps” to a child-safe home. These are: avoiding pesticides and insecticides; using nontoxic cleaners; cleaning indoor air; eating more organic foods; and using plastic products more wisely. Vinyl bath toys and plastic teethers and bottles could contain phthalates and Bisphenol A (BPA), which have been shown to disrupt the reproductive systems of lab animals. While legislation to ban these substances is under review, until then consumers can use the recycling codes to determine content. If it’s marked #7, it’s polycarbonate plastic and contains BPA; if it's marked #3, it’s PVC plastic and contains potentially harmful phthalates.

As concerns about household toxins grow, companies are eagerly pushing their “green” versions of traditional cleaning products. And scientific findings are supporting their cause. Well, sort of. A University at California Berkeley study in April 2006 found that many commonly used household cleaners emit toxic pollutants that could lead to health problems. Of particular concern were products containing glycol ethers or terpenes, compounds found in pine, lemon and orange oils.

Unfortunately, says William Nazaroff, a UC Berkeley professor of environmental engineering and the study’s lead author, terpenes “appear in conventional products as well as some products that are marketed as green.”

But parents can take precautions regardless of the cleaners they use. They can dilute them, rinse surfaces after use, thoroughly wash sponges after cleaning and/or store used cloths in a sealed receptacle, and make sure the space that is being cleaned is well ventilated during and several hours after cleaning.

(E – The Environmental Magazine distributes 50,000 copies six times per year to subscribers and bookstores. E is also the publisher of EarthTalk, a nationally syndicated environmental Q&A column distributed free to over 1,300 newspapers, magazines and websites throughout the United States and Canada
( www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek ). Single copies of E’s May/June 2007 issue are available for $5 postpaid from: E Magazine, P.O. Box 2047, Marion, OH 43305. Subscriptions are $19.95 per year, available at the same address. E is also on the web at www.emagazine.com)

Dear EarthTalk: Are we making progress in cleaning up America’s rivers?  -- Maria B., via e-mail

pic copyright: getty images

When the Cuyahoga River caught fire in downtown Cleveland in June of 1969, a nation already becoming more aware of environmental problems took note. Across the country, people were fed up with bans on swimming and fishing due to growing pollution levels. And rampant logging was clogging many a remote river system with soil and debris, making them uninhabitable by the fish that had evolved there for eons.

In 1972, in response to such concerns, Congress passed the landmark Clean Water Act, which regulates the discharge of pollution into America’s waterways. This important law has worked well to curtail pollution and keep development in check, but it does little to restore already damaged river ecosystems.

Luckily, a large array of local governments, nonprofit organizations and ad hoc citizen groups has risen to the challenge, making the United States the world’s nexus for river restoration work. The National River Restoration Science Synthesis Project, a 2005 survey conducted by leading river scientists, identified 37,000 different river restoration projects either completed or underway across the U.S.

According to the survey, American taxpayers and foundations have invested nearly $15 billion in U.S. river restoration projects—or about $1 billion yearly—since 1990. Projects include: reforesting riverbanks to curb erosion; recreating natural river channels to reduce downstream flooding; removing dams to allow fish to migrate more freely; and restoring wetlands to better do their jobs at naturally filtering pollution.

Some specific high profile examples include Native Americans and farmers working together to bring wild salmon back to Oregon’s Umatilla River, and the creation of natural habitat and buffer zones along Texas’ San Antonio River. And General Electric finally complied with state and federal mandates to begin removal of the PCBs they had dumped in New York’s Hudson River for years.

“It’s no mystery why river restoration is booming,” says Andrew Fahlund of the nonprofit American Rivers, a leading rivers advocacy group. “Rivers in good condition more readily meet the needs of the surrounding community than polluted and degraded rivers.”

A new House budget resolution calls for increased spending on programs to reduce the amount of raw sewage going into American streams and to better manage the nation’s 168 designated “wild and scenic” rivers. The resolution also calls for allocating funds for removing obsolete dams that could rupture and threaten nearby communities with potentially catastrophic flash floods.

Despite the positive trends, not all rivers are doing well. American Rivers’ annual list of “America’s Most Endangered Rivers” highlights river ecosystems across the U.S. that are still in disrepair or under threat. Those on the 2007 list include New Mexico’s Santa Fe, New York’s Upper Delaware, Washington’s White Salmon, Texas’s Neches, Wisconsin’s Kinnickinnic, North Carolina’s Neuse, Alaska’s Chuitna, Iowa’s namesake Iowa River, Arkansas and Oklahoma’s Lee Creek, and California’s San Mateo Creek.

CONTACTS: The National River Restoration Science Synthesis Project, nrrss.nbii.gov; American Rivers, www.americanrivers.org.

Dear EarthTalk: Every time I visit my local print shop, I am overwhelmed by the smell of chemicals, and wonder if the health of the workers there is affected. Is exposure to such chemicals known to cause human health problems, and what can be done to clean up the printing process? -- Bill W., Norwalk, OH

pic copyright: getty images

That smell in your printer’s production facility no doubt comes from the cocktail of hazardous chemicals typically used in the printing process: inks, cleaning solvents, waste water and sludge that “off-gas” volatile organic compounds associated with eye and lung irritation, dizziness, headaches and even cancer.

But just because your printer uses such chemicals does not mean that all do. According to the Printer’s National Environmental Assistance Center, printers can take several steps to clean up their acts, such as avoiding alcohol-based solvents, abandoning mineral oil based inks in favor of vegetable-based inks and substituting chlorinated glues with water-based alternatives. Along with using fewer chemicals and more eco-friendly products, printers can go even greener by using recycled materials and renewable energy.

Despite a printer’s good intentions, though, it can be a daunting task to become more environmentally friendly. Most print shops are small businesses and may not be able to afford to upgrade their equipment or pay a premium for cleaner alternatives to some of the chemicals and supplies they have been using for years. Also, navigating the labyrinth of air, hazardous waste and industrial wastewater treatment regulations may be more work than a small company struggling to make payroll can undertake.

A few programs have arisen to address these issues. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s PrintSTEP (Printers’ Simplified Total Environmental Partnership) program, in pilot phase in Missouri and New Hampshire, aims to make environmental and worker health and safety regulations clearer and simpler. The program is designed to help individual states streamline the regulatory process so that printers can spend time greening their operations instead of wading through thousands of pages of arcane regulatory gibberish just to see if their current practices meet the letter of the law.

Another pilot program, the Great Printer Environmental Initiative, is underway in Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin. This joint initiative of Environmental Defense’s Pollution Prevention Alliance, the Printing Industries of America and the Council of Great Lakes Governors encourages printers to minimize their impact on human health and the environment beyond what is required by government regulatory agencies in environmental, health and safety compliance. And in doing so, they can use their membership as a marketing tool to attract customers interested in cleaner, greener printing.

Print buyers can do their part by choosing firms that have implemented environmentally friendly practices. Ask your printer about their health and safety programs that go beyond the minimum requirements. And work with your printer to develop your printed materials in ways that minimize environmental impact, such as by using recycled paper and soy-based inks. If you are located in one of the pilot states for the Great Printer Environmental Initiative, be sure to choose a company that participates.

CONTACTS: Printer’s National Environmental Assistance Center, www.pneac.org; PrintSTEP, www.epa.gov/compliance/assistance/sectors/printstep.html.

Cleaner Cars are Coming...
Interest in cleaner and greener auto technology is exploding, according to a comprehensive article in the March/April 2007 issue of E – The Environmental Magazine. From fuel cells to plug-in hybrids, the industry is showing more research and development zeal than at any time since the halcyon days of 1900, when gasoline, steam and electric vehicles (EVs) were competing in the marketplace.

With seesawing gasoline prices and uncertainty about the future of oil, consumers are finally focusing on fuel economy and looking beyond big SUVs for their next vehicle. A consumer survey by the influential J.D. Power and Associates last summer found that an amazing 57 percent of respondents would consider buying a hybrid car for their next vehicle, and 49 percent would consider a car powered by E85 ethanol. Another survey, by Frost & Sullivan, found that 80 percent are more concerned about fuel prices than they were a year ago.

Despite these numbers­and the fact that cars like the Toyota Prius are proliferating on U.S. roads­hybrids still made up slightly more than one percent of the market in 2006. But by 2013, J.D. Power predicts they'll have taken five percent. This year, expect to see a wide range of new hybrids on the market, from the compact Honda Fit Hybrid (with fuel economy in the mid-50s) to the Toyota Sienna seven-seat minivan (approximately 40 mpg). You'll even be able to buy a hybrid version of the Chevy Tahoe (though expect only a 25 percent improvement over the SUV’s 17 mpg).

Indeed, after a protracted period of sticker shock at the pumps, the public is showing interest in a range of cleaner automotive technologies, from hybrids to fuel cells, battery vehicles, plug-in hybrids and cars that run on biodiesel. Still, consumers remain quite confused about both the potential and the timetable for these technologies, and much of what they think they know is wrong. For instance, it is still commonly believed that hybrid vehicles need to be plugged in. Here’s some of what’s happening:

Hybrids

Although hybrid sales slowed somewhat at the end of 2006 as gas prices eased and the federal credit was halved (it went, for example, from $3,150 for the top-selling Toyota Prius to $1,575), 2006 was still a banner year, with 251,803 hybrids sold. There are now more than 550,000 on U.S. roads. More than 200,000 hybrids were sold in 2005, doubling the 88,000 sold in 2004. A plethora of new hybrid models are on the way.

Diesel

Diesel vehicles are largely anathema to environmentalists and California clean air regulators, but they’re becoming a majority on the roads of Europe (where green consciousness is almost a given) and they deserve a second look in the U.S., where their numbers can only go up. The good news for diesel partisans is the federally mandated low-sulfur (below 15 parts per million) diesel fuel that went on the market at up to 76,000 American filling stations late last year. It’s the cleanest diesel fuel in the world.

Biodiesel

There are several forms of bio fuel, and the categories can confuse the novice. Biodiesel, in blends with standard diesel of five to 100 percent, has been refined to work without modification in any newer diesel vehicle. With a kit from companies like Greasecar, diesels can burn 100 percent vegetable oil, which can be sourced and filtered from restaurants for a wholly recycled fuel. Biodiesel, which offers both improved emissions and the opportunity to thumb your nose at fossil fuel, is still largely a grassroots enterprise, with enthusiasts banding together in co-ops.

The Future with Batteries and Fuel Cells

If any one technology can replace the internal-combustion engine, it’s the fuel cell, which doesn't burn anything but instead converts hydrogen (stored in a tank as liquid or gas) to electricity. And its only tailpipe emission is water vapor. Fuel cells were invented in the mid-19th century and have since provided electric power on NASA space missions, but they’re only now becoming practical for ground transportation. And Electric vehicles (EVs) are showing promise, especially with the advent of high-output, lightweight lithium-ion (li-ion) batteries.

In 2007, America’s auto fleet is hardly green, but it’s getting greener.

E – The Environmental Magazine distributes 50,000 copies six times per year to subscribers and bookstores. E is also the publisher of EarthTalk, a nationally syndicated environmental Q&A column distributed free to over 1,200 newspapers, magazines and websites throughout the United States and Canada ( www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/aboute.html ). Single copies of E’s March/April 2007 issue are available for $5 postpaid from: E Magazine, P.O. Box 2047, Marion, OH 43305. Subscriptions are $19.95 per year, available at the same address. E is also on the web at www.emagazine.com

Dear EarthTalk: My local recycler won’t take my old phonebooks. What should I do with them?  -- Jake, Westport, CT

Many recyclers won’t accept telephone books because the fibers used to make the books’ lightweight pages are too short to be reformulated into new paper. In fact, mixing old phonebooks in with other waste paper can even contaminate the batch, hindering the recyclability of the other paper fibers.

Nonetheless, phonebook papers are 100 percent recyclable and are used primarily to—you guessed it—make new phonebooks! In fact, most phonebooks distributed today are made from re-fabricated old phonebook pages mixed with some scrap wood to strengthen the fibers for re-use. Old phonebooks are also sometimes recycled into insulation materials, ceiling tiles and roofing surfaces, as well as paper towels, grocery bags, cereal boxes and office papers. In fact, in a gesture both symbolic and practical, Pacific Bell/SBC now includes payment envelopes in its bills created from old Smart Yellow Pages phonebooks.

According to Los Gatos, California’s Green Valley Recycling, if all Americans recycled their phonebooks for a year, we would save 650,000 tons of paper and free up two million cubic yards of landfill space. Modesto, California’s Parks, Recreation & Neighborhoods Department, which lets city residents include phonebooks with their regular curbside pickup, says that for each 500 books recycled, we save 7,000 gallons of water, 3.3 cubic yards of landfill space, 17 to 31 trees and 4,100 kilowatts of electricity, enough to power an average home for six months.

Consumers trying to do the right thing should find out when and how their town or phone company will accept phonebooks for recycling. Some will only take phonebooks back at certain times of year, often when new books are being distributed. Some schools, echoing the “newspaper drives” of bygone days, run contests in which students bring old phonebooks to school where they are then collected and sent off to recyclers.

But those whose towns won’t accept phonebooks at all and who can’t find anywhere else to drop them need not fret. Old phonebooks have many practical uses. Their pages make excellent fire starters in a wood-burning fireplace or outdoor fire pit. Balled up or shredded phonebook pages also make nice packaging filler in place of problematic polystyrene “peanuts.”

Phonebook pages can also be shredded and used as mulch to keep weeds down in your garden. The paper is biodegradable and will eventually return back to the soil. Those with an artistic bent can use old phonebooks to make flipbook style animated drawings, as described by animator Robert Truscio on his “Drawings That Move” instructional website.

There are also a number of telephone book collectors; some who make money selling their stock to those with a historical interest or who are researching family genealogies. Lifelong collector Gwillim Law sells old phonebooks from all 50 U.S. states as well as from most Canadian and Australian provinces.

CONTACTS: Drawings That Move, http://home.att.net/~RTRUSCIO/DRAWMOVE.htm ; Gwillim Law’s Old Telephone Books website, www.oldtelephonebooks.com .

Dear EarthTalk: Is there any theme for Earth Day this year, and what can I do to participate? -- Adele Davies, Seattle, WA

The non-profit Earth Day Network, which organizes and coordinates annual Earth Day celebrations around the U.S. and beyond, is partnering this year with Step It Up 2007, a nationwide campaign organized to demand bold federal action on climate change. 

As part of the build-up to Earth Day itself (April 22), Step It Up 2007 has organized hundreds of rallies to take place a week earlier on April 14, including major events at or near “meaningful, iconic” places that are already reeling from the impacts of global warming. These include: New Orleans, where Hurricane Katrina wreaked destruction in 2005; Mt. Rainier in Washington state, where the volume of glaciers shrank by nearly 25 percent over the last century; and Key West, Florida, where increased ocean temperatures are causing the region’s living coral reefs to turn white (bleach) and die.

Step It Up rallies are already planned for nearly 800 U.S. locations, where thousands of concerned citizens will call on Congress to force industry to cut emissions of carbon dioxide, the leading culprit in the onset of unprecedented global warming. Earth Day Network representatives and volunteers will then spend the following week on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, lobbying Congress directly. Then on Earth Day itself, April 22, millions of Americans will participate in hundreds of celebrations co-sponsored by Earth Day Network coast-to-coast, seeking to raise public awareness about our climate crisis. 

Says Earth Day Network, “We all possess the tools and know-how to reduce our own environmental impacts and carbon footprints, but lack a united voice to tell our leaders what to do. Earth Day 2007 will bring together millions of Americans concerned about global warming to call on our elected officials to take immediate and effective action to deal with global warming.” 

Those interested in joining the effort can do so by first participating in one of the Step It Up rallies taking place around the nation on April 14 (an event locator can be found at the group’s website)--or by organizing a local event. Participants are encouraged to “show their green colors” by foregoing car travel that day and “hiking, biking, climbing, walking, swimming, kayaking or canoeing” to a rally near them. 

Following the April 14 rallies, individuals can join Earth Day Network’s week-long lobbying effort in Washington—or participate virtually over the Internet by first completing an online form at the group’s website. The Earth Day Network website also offers an Earth Day event locator for those wishing to attend an event. 

Earth Day 2007 is the kick-off to a three-year “Climate Change Solutions Campaign” intended to educate and motivate all levels of the global community, including K-12 and college students, governments, corporations and religious institutions. Earth Day Network is making available an “Earth Day in a Box” kit, which includes an organizers guide for those seeking to plan an event, as well as tips, ideas and resources on various simple actions individuals can take that can make a difference for the environment.  

CONTACTS: Earth Day Network, www.earthday.net ; Step It Up 2007, www.stepitup2007.org 

Dear EarthTalk: Alternative energy sources like wind power, hydrogen and biofuels are getting a lot of headlines these days, but what about efforts to generate electricity from the ocean’s waves?   -- Tina Cook, Naples, FL

As any board or body surfer will tell you, the ocean’s tidal currents pack considerable wallop. So why wouldn’t it make sense to harness all that formidable power, which is not too unlike that of the rivers that drive hydropower dams or the wind that drives wind turbines, to make energy?

The concept is simple, says John Lienhard, a University of Houston mechanical engineering professor: “Every day the moon’s gravitational pull lifts countless tons of water up into, say, the East River or the Bay of Fundy. When that water flows back out to sea, its energy dissipates and, if we don’t use it, it’s simply spent.” According to Energy Quest, an educational website of the California Energy Commission, the sea can be harnessed for energy in three basic ways: using wave power, using tidal power, and using ocean water temperature variations in a process called “ocean thermal energy conversion” (OTEC).

In harnessing wave power, the back-and-forth or up-and-down movement of waves can be harnessed, for example, to force air in and out of a chamber to drive a piston or spin a turbine that can power a generator. Some systems in operation now power small lighthouses and warning buoys. Harnessing tidal energy, on the other hand, involves trapping water at high tide and then harnesses its energy as it rushes out and drops in its change to low tide. This is similar to the way water makes hydroelectric dams work. Already some large installations in Canada and France generate enough electricity to power thousands of homes.

An OTEC system uses temperature differences between deep and surface waters to extract energy from the flow of heat between the two. An experimental station in Hawaii hopes to develop the technology and someday produce large amounts of electricity on par with the cost of conventional power technologies.

Proponents say that ocean energy is preferable to wind because tides are constant and predictable and that water’s natural density requires fewer turbines than are needed to produce the same amount of wind power. Given the difficulty and cost of building tidal arrays at sea and getting the energy back to land, however, ocean technologies are still young and mostly experimental. But as the industry matures, costs will drop and some analysts think the ocean could power nearly two percent of U.S. energy needs.

Several companies now work at the cutting edge of ocean power technology. Scotland’s Ocean Power Delivery Ltd. has a wave system called Pelamis that it hopes to install in waters off of California’s wave-battered central coast. And Seattle, Washington’s Aqua Energy has installations off the coasts of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia and is in talks with utilities about providing the Pacific Northwest with hundreds of megawatts of ocean energy within the next decade.

Tidal energy pioneers are also hard at work on the U.S. Atlantic coast. The New Hampshire Tidal Energy Company is developing tidal power in the Piscataqua River between New Hampshire and Maine. And a company called Verdant Power is providing Long Island City, New York with electricity through tidal river turbines and has begun installation of tidal power systems in New York City’s East River.

CONTACTS: Ocean Power Delivery Ltd., www.oceanpd.com ; Aqua Energy (Finavera Renewables), www.finavera.com/wave ; Verdant Power, www.verdantpower.com

pic copyright: getty images

Dear EarthTalk: There has been so much attention paid to designing environmentally friendly cars. Is there a similar effort to replace gas-guzzling boats? -- Brita B., via e-mail

The U.S. has been regulating fuel economy and emissions in cars and trucks for decades but got a late start addressing similar issues with boats. In 1996, though, recognizing a growing problem of boat engine pollution, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new rules to “bring forth a new generation of marine engines featuring cleaner technology and providing better engine performance to boat owners.”

Even small quantities of fuel and exhaust discharged by boats can disrupt the balance of nutrients, oxygen and clean water in both freshwater and marine ecosystems. Indeed, the cumulative effect of millions of inefficient motorboats plying our waterways has been devastating to marine life and our water supplies. Under the new EPA regulations, which will phase in over the next 30 years, new marine engines will burn gas much more efficiently and generate much less pollution than most models out on the water today.

According to the EPA, traditional two-stroke boat engines waste significant amounts of gasoline and oil, spilling as much as 30 percent of their fuel into the water and air either unburned or partially unburned. In the water, unburned hydrocarbons increase concentrations of benzene, methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MBTE) and other toxic substances that pollute water ecosystems. In the air, they help form smog, which causes a host of health problems and disrupts visibility everywhere from our cities to our national parks.

Those looking to buy a boat today should choose one with a four-stroke or direct fuel injection (DFI) two-stroke engine. These pollute about 75 percent less than their traditional two-stroke predecessors and use as much as 50 percent less gas and oil. They cost more than traditional two-stroke engines, but owners soon make up the difference in fuel and oil savings. They are also easier to start and maintain, and are quieter.

New generations of electric boat motors are also coming on line, and promise to significantly cut pollution if adopted widely. Wooden, sport and leisure boats are now all available with electric engines that are quite comparable to traditional engines in performance and looks. They are also non-polluting, quiet and can cruise where gas motors are not permitted. Some leading makers include Beckman, Budsin, Cobalt Marine, Electric Launch, Duffy, Electracraft, Griffin Leisure, Pender Harbour and Spincraft.

The only catch is that the energy that powers the batteries for electric boats most likely comes from a coal-burning power plant that spews mercury, carbon dioxide and other pollutants into the skies and waterways. A handful of manufacturers--such as Australia’s Solar Sailor and Canada’s Tamarack Lake--now make solar-powered or solar-assisted electric boats to help overcome this environmental hurdle.

Of course, the ultimate energy source for any recreational activity is elbow grease. But for those who need more than a canoe or kayak to get around, Nauticraft hybrid boats employ human pedal power to augment a small electric motor. And the Italian-made Shuttle Bike puts a new spin on pedal boats: Owners affix two inflatable pontoons to their mountain bikes, and they can then pedal around their local lake or harbor.

CONTACTS: EPA: Shipshape Shores and Waters: A Handbook for Marina Operators and Recreational Boaters, www.epa.gov/owow/nps/marinashdbk2003.pdf 

Dear EarthTalk: What are the fast-food chains doing to cut back on--or at least recycle--the huge amount of paper, plastic and foam they use daily? Are there any laws or regulations to force them to be good environmental citizens?        -- Carol Endres, Stroud Township, PA

pic copyright: getty images

Currently there are no federal laws or regulations in the U.S. specifically aimed at getting fast food chains to reduce, reuse or recycle their waste. Businesses of all kinds must always obey local laws pertaining to what must be recycled versus what can be discarded. And a small number of cities and towns have local laws specifically designed to force businesses to do the right thing, but they are few and far between.

There have been some strides in the fast food business with regard to packaging materials and waste reduction, but it has all been voluntary and usually under pressure from green groups. McDonald’s made headlines back in 1989 when, at the urging of environmentalists, it switched its hamburger packaging from non-recyclable Styrofoam to recyclable paper wraps and cardboard boxes. The company also replaced its bleached paper carryout bags with unbleached bags and made other green-friendly packaging advances.

Both McDonald’s and PepsiCo (owner of KFC and Taco Bell) have crafted internal policies to address environmental concerns. PepsiCo states that it encourages “conservation of natural resources, recycling, source reduction and pollution control to ensure cleaner air and water and to reduce landfill wastes,” but does not elaborate on specific actions it takes. McDonald’s makes similar general statements and claims to be “actively pursuing the conversion of used cooking oil into biofuels for transportation vehicles, heating, and other purposes,” and pursuing various in-store paper, cardboard, delivery container and pallet recycling programs in Australia, Sweden, Japan and Britain. In Canada the company claims to be the “largest user of recycled paper in our industry” for trays, boxes, carry out bags and drink holders.

Some smaller fast food chains have garnered accolades for their recycling efforts. Arizona-based eegee’s, for instance, earned an Administrator’s Award from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for recycling all paper, cardboard and polystyrene across its 21-store chain. Besides the positive attention it has generated, the company’s recycling effort also saves it money in garbage disposal fees every month.

Despite such efforts, though, the fast food industry is still a large generator of waste. Some communities are responding by passing local regulations requiring recycling where applicable. Seattle, Washington, for example, passed an ordinance in 2005 prohibiting businesses (all businesses, not just restaurants) from disposing of recyclable paper or cardboard, though violators only pay a nominal $50 fine.

Perhaps policymakers in the U.S. and elsewhere could take a lead from Taiwan, which since 2004 has required its 600 fast-food restaurants, including McDonald’s, Burger King and KFC, to maintain facilities for proper disposal of recyclables by customers. Diners are obliged to deposit their garbage in four separate containers for leftover food, recyclable paper, regular waste and liquids. “Customers only have to spend under a minute to finish the trash-classification assignment,” said environmental protection administrator Hau Lung-bin in announcing the program. Restaurants that don’t comply face fines of up to $8,700 (U.S.).

CONTACTS: eegee’s, www.eegees.com; Taipei Times, “Restaurants set the new recycling trend,” www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2004/01/02/2003086025.  

Dear EarthTalk: Are the recent cyclones and droughts in Australia and elsewhere more evidence of global warming? --Billy Hulkower, Los Angeles, CA


pic copyright: getty images

Scientists can't blame individual storms or droughts on climate change, but many believe that human-induced global warming is increasing the severity and frequency of such weather “anomalies.” Indeed, on February 2, 2007 scientists with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a long-awaited 21-page report confirming “with 90 percent certainty” that increases in man-made greenhouse gases since the mid-20th century are raising the planet’s temperature and destabilizing the climate.

Besides hurricanes like Katrina that have affected the northern hemisphere, a number of high-impact tropical cyclones and typhoons have occurred around the world in just the last few years, with Australia’s mammoth Cyclone Larry topping the list in terms of intensity. That March 2006 storm battered the northern Queensland coast with 180 mile-per-hour winds, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in property damage and virtually wiping out Australia’s banana crop. Thanks to Australia’s top-notch weather forecasting and emergency preparedness, however, unlike Katrina, Larry claimed no human lives.

Meanwhile, higher global temperatures have at least worsened if not outright caused drought conditions around the world, and Australia has been no exception. A 2003 report by the Australia chapter of the World Wildlife Fund found global warming to be a key factor in the severity of the country’s 2002 drought, one of four especially harsh droughts in just the last 50 years. The 2002 drought, which many scientists consider to be still in effect, was particularly memorable as Australians endured higher daytime temperatures than had ever been recorded during any March-November winter season. Besides causing countless bush fires in the Australian Outback, the drought has led to a significant drop in agricultural production, causing hundreds of millions of dollars in economic losses, according to government data.

An original 1997 signatory to the landmark Kyoto Protocol calling for reduced greenhouse gas emissions, Australia’s government nevertheless has refused to ratify and adhere to the terms of the treaty. Prime Minister John Howard has taken a position similar to that of U.S. President George W. Bush, who considers the terms of Kyoto bad for industry.

But just because Australia hasn't ratified Kyoto doesn't mean it has refused to acknowledge the potential environmental impacts of global warming. The country has pledged $300 million over three years to implement various strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It has also signed onto the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, an agreement with India, Japan, China, South Korea and the U.S. to develop technology that helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Whether such an agreement has enough teeth to take a bite out of global warming is anybody’s guess, but it and other endeavors to fight global warming will undoubtedly pick up momentum with the release of the landmark IPPC report.

CONTACTS: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, www.ipcc.ch ; World Wildlife Fund Australia drought report, www.wwf.org.au/publications/drought_report ; Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, www.asiapacificpartnership.org  

Dear EarthTalk: What is an “urban heat island” and does it have anything to do with global warming?-- Max, via e-mail


pic copyright: getty images

An urban heat island is a metropolitan area that is significantly warmer than its surrounding rural areas. Unlike global warming, which entails a worldwide rise in temperatures, heat islands occur at the local level. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), many cities and suburbs have air temperatures up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than their neighboring areas.

Heat islands form as cities replace their natural land cover with pavement, buildings and other infrastructure. These changes contribute to higher urban temperatures in a number of ways. For one, displacing trees and removing soil and vegetation takes away the natural cooling effects that shading and water evaporation from soil and leaves ordinarily provide. Meanwhile, tall buildings and narrow streets can heat the air trapped between them and reduce airflow. And waste heat from vehicles, factories and air conditioners adds warmth to the surroundings, further exacerbating the heat island effect.

The intensity of a heat island will also depend upon its topography, its proximity to water bodies, and local weather and climate. Urban heat islands can also impact local weather, altering local wind patterns, spurring the development of clouds and fog, increasing the number of lightning strikes, and influencing the rates of precipitation.

And although urban heat islands are distinctly different from the phenomenon of climate change, during the summer months they can contribute to global warming. The increased use of air conditioning and refrigeration needed to cool indoor spaces in a heat-island city, for example, results in the release of more of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases that cause global warming. Furthermore, the poor air quality that results from this increased energy usage can affect our health, aggravating asthma and promoting other respiratory illnesses.

Costs are impacted, too. The Heat Island Group, a research and advocacy organization that works to educate the public and policy makers about the heat island effect, estimates that the city of Los Angeles spends about $100 million per year in extra energy costs to offset its heat island effect.

The heat island effect can be reduced through the use of white and light-colored construction materials (including white roofing materials) in buildings, which will work to reflect the sun’s heat skyward rather than absorb it, as dark surfaces tend to do. Also, preserving or creating pockets of green space and vegetation help to cool areas naturally. A national program called Cool Communities, coordinated by American Forests and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, encourages building owners and local policy makers to adopt just such practices. Another useful practice is the creation of “green roofs” or rooftop gardens, in which roofs are partially or completely covered with vegetation and soil, or a growing medium, planted over a waterproofing layer.

CONTACTS: EPA Heat Island Effect Information, www.epa.gov/heatislands ; Heat Island Group, eetd.lbl.gov/HeatIsland; American Forests, www.americanforests.org .

Dear EarthTalk: Does environmental education figure prominently in classrooms these days? By that I mean not just science but an understanding of key issues and environmental stewardship. -- Mary Swan, Framingham, MA


pic copyright: getty images

Environmental education has long struggled for legitimacy alongside more traditional disciplines within the liberal arts and sciences. But “environmental literacy” studies in the late 1980s revealed that schoolchildren lacked basic knowledge about the natural environment. This convinced the U.S. Congress to take action, and in 1990 they passed the National Environmental Education Act, forcing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to strengthen and expand environmental education nationwide through education and teacher training and the administration of grants to exemplary programs.

While many of the programs since developed by the EPA have been lauded as exemplary, a lack of funding has prevented many ideas from moving forward. According to a National Environmental Education Advisory Council report, between 1991 and 1996 the EPA received 10,000 environmental education grant applications totaling $300 million, but was only able to fund 1,200 totaling $13 million. Continued shortfalls at the EPA under the current Bush administration have forced further cutbacks.

With such a lack of federal resolve, the onus for teaching kids about the environment has fallen on local schools and individual teachers. According to the President’s Council on Sustainability, because environmental education is multi-disciplinary, it is hard for teachers to work it into their narrowly defined lesson plans. Also, most teachers are not trained in environmental subjects. As a result, non-governmental organizations have become increasingly involved with classroom environmental education efforts.

One such organization is the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE), a network of volunteers that provides guidelines and resources for educators and parents who want environmental education for their K-12 students. According to NAAEE’s Mary Ocwieja, the group takes a “cooperative, non-confrontational and scientifically-balanced approach” to education about environmental issues. NAAEE’s website, EE-Link, lets users find resources on just about any environmental topic.

Another organization, the National Environmental Education & Training Foundation, which was chartered by Congress in 1990, sponsors ClassroomEarth.org, a free website that calls itself “the best of the best” collection of environmental education programs and resources for K-12 teachers, parents and students. The site helps educators, after-school programs and home-schooling parents find up-to-date information on the most successful, well-tested and effective national environmental education programs available today.

According to NAAEE, their work and that of similar organizations is starting to pay off. Some 61 percent of U.S. K-12 teachers surveyed in 1999 claimed that they include environmental topics in their curriculum, with some devoting hundreds of hours of classroom time annually to environmental issues.

CONTACTS: NAAEE, www.naaee.org ; ClassroomEarth, www.classroomearth.org .

Dear EarthTalk: Which trees are best to plant to help combat global warming?
-- Tim C., Perrineville, NJ

pic copyright: getty images

Trees are important tools in the fight to stave off global warming, because they absorb and store the key greenhouse gas emitted by our cars and power plants, carbon dioxide (CO2), before it has a chance to reach the upper atmosphere where it can help trap heat around the Earth’s surface.

While all living plant matter absorbs CO2 as part of photosynthesis, trees process significantly more than smaller plants due to their large size and extensive root structures. In essence, trees, as kings of the plant world, have much more “woody biomass” to store CO2 than smaller plants, and as a result are considered nature’s most efficient “carbon sinks.”