Pic : "geonerd, courtesy Flickr."

Even though the push to create green jobs is getting the lion’s share of business news headlines right now, almost $7 billion of the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act, the stimulus bill President Obama signed into law earlier this year, has been allocated to help businesses reduce their environmental footprints in any number of ways. 

For starters, the stimulus package rewards businesses (as well as individuals) for investments in energy efficiency—that is, for doing more with less power. The federal government has extended its tax credit program for energy efficient business improvements—whereby 30 percent of qualified expenses up to $1,500 can be credited against your tax bill—through 2010. No one knows yet if the program will be extended beyond that, so 2010 could be a great time to finally go for that upgrade you've been putting off.  

Qualifying upgrades include the installation of central air conditioners, heat pumps, furnaces, boilers, windows, doors and roofing that meet efficiency standards set by the government’s Energy-Star program. Likewise, the costs of upgrading to code-appropriate insulation and sealing as well as installing solar water heaters and biogas or biomass stoves also qualify for the tax credit. Business owners beware, though, that they can only claim a maximum of $1,500 combined for all efficiency-related upgrades. 

Stimulus money—some $2.3 billion over the next 10 years—is also available to businesses, institutions and government agencies that green up their vehicle fleets and/or take steps to encourage or subsidize employees to go green with their commutes. Companies that install alternative fuel (ethanol, biodiesel or hydrogen) pumps on site can qualify for tax credits for between 30 and 50 percent of installation costs through 2010. Likewise, businesses that buy electric or plug-in hybrid cars or trucks for their fleets can score credits of between $2,500 and $7,500 per vehicle depending on battery size and fuel efficiency. 

Another way businesses can make use of tax credits is to install on-site wind or solar power systems. The federal government will pay up to 30 percent of the set-up cost. Congress has also allocated $1.6 billion for Clean Renewable Energy Bonds (CREBs) to help finance construction of renewable energy facilities run by public utilities, electric cooperatives and city, state and tribal governments. 

Businesses that qualify for any of the aforementioned tax credits should be sure to file IRS Form 5695 with their tax returns and keep all relevant receipts and copies of manufacturer certifications and Energy-Star labels where applicable. Tax advisors can provide more details on how to qualify for these federal incentives, and can also advise as to what additional incentives might be available from states. Be sure to check out the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE), which provides a continuously updated list of both state and federal ways for both businesses and homeowners to save cash by going green. 

CONTACTS: American Recovery & Reinvestment Act, www.recovery.gov; DSIRE, www.dsireusa.org.

Dear EarthTalk: I ride my bike to work along busy urban streets. Should I be worried about inhaling pollutants from vehicle emissions and other sources? -- J. Kaufman, San Francisco, CA

Pic courtesy: Getty Images (edited by kidsfreesouls)

The short answer is, yes, probably. Cars, trucks and buses emit considerable amounts of airborne pollution as they make their ways along city streets and highways. The fine particles, nitrogen dioxide and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) spewing out of tailpipes have been linked to a wide range of human health problems, from headaches to respiratory illness to cancer. Though Australian researchers found that exposure to these pollutants is actually higher while riding inside a vehicle than while riding a bike, turning your handlebars in the direction of back roads might still be a good idea, for safety’s sake as well.

Western Washington University Geophysicist Bernie Housen, concerned about the air quality on his own bicycle commute along busy Bellingham roads, recently launched a study of the magnetism in local trees to gauge air quality along his route and elsewhere in his region. The magnetism in a tree’s leaves is created by tiny particles of iron oxides and other pollutants that drift through the air, emanating primarily from eroding vehicle brake pads and diesel exhaust. The particles are small enough to pass through our nasal passages and get lodged in our lungs. Housen and his colleagues found 10 times as much magnetism on urban roadside tree leaves as on their rural counterparts that contend with little traffic.

Housen has also altered his own bike route to campus to avoid the more polluted thoroughfares. “One underlying concern is that if you are riding your bike, you are being more physically active; you are breathing deeper and breathing more air in, and so if you are doing that in an area where there is a concentrated elevation of this material it might not be such a good thing,” he added.

Ironically, many cities that offer dedicated bike lanes often lay them out right next to busy bus lanes, unintentionally ensuring that bicyclists breathe in as much diesel exhaust as possible. “I ride along one of these high-traffic bus routes,” Housen says, “and … there was between two and five or six times more magnetic fine particulate matter along the bus route than [on less-busy streets].” Housen would like to expand his research so it could be used by urban planners to better design bike and pedestrian routes so as not to intermingle so much diesel transit and pedestrian/bicycle traffic.

Of course, there are other ways to track urban pollution levels. In the UK, for instance, researchers from the government-funded Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council have created the Urban Pollution Monitoring Project, which builds and distributes GPS-enabled mobile pollution sensing systems that can be carried by hand or placed on a bike rack. The group is using data gleaned from the sensors to map where and when pollution levels are at their highest around London and other UK cities, and hopes to use its research to influence the way roads and urban areas are planned in the future as well.

Those who want or need to keep on riding through polluted areas should consider wearing an anti-pollution respiratory mask, many of which can filter out upwards of 95 percent of particulate pollution before it enters the human lung. Some leading manufacturers include Totobobo, G-Flow and Respro.

CONTACTS:  Urban Pollution Monitoring Project, www.equator.ac.uk/index.php/articles/563; Totobobo, www.totobobo.com; G-Flow, www.gflowmask.com; Respro, www.respro.com.

Dear EarthTalk: What do organizers hope to accomplish at the upcoming (December 7-18, 2009) United Nations Climate Change Conference being held in Copenhagen? -- F. Rojas, Oakland, CA

Pic courtesy: Getty Images (edited by kidsfreesouls)

The upcoming COP15 meeting in Denmark—so named because it is the 15th such international gathering of the Conference of the Parties (COP) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—is the world's next big chance to take decisive multi-lateral action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough to ward off cataclysmic climate change.

Negotiators from all over the globe hope to come to terms on a binding agreement regarding emissions reductions that both developed and developing nations can agree to. The stakes are high: This conference represents the final step in negotiations years in the making—and the results could chart a course toward success or failure in human efforts to control the carbon beast we set free in the industrial revolution.

Officially, the stated goal of COP15, according to United Nations organizers, is "to stabilize the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that prevents dangerous man-made climate changes." They add that "this stabilization must occur in such a way as to give the ecosystems the opportunity to adapt naturally" without compromising food safety or hindering sustainable social and economic development around the world. Organizers, delegates and a wide range of other participants—some 10,000 people are expected to attend—are still holding out hope for the establishment of an ambitious, legally binding global emissions reduction agreement to take effect beginning in 2012. That is when initial commitments made under the Kyoto Protocol, an earlier international climate treaty that the U.S. refused to join, expire.

One sticking point is whether or not the Obama administration will risk agreeing to major emissions reductions without the prior consent of Congress. The most promising U.S. climate legislation, the so-called Kerry-Boxer Bill, is currently under consideration in the Senate but likely won’t be voted on until February 2010 or later; traditionally the American government likes to iron out its policy legislatively at home before agreeing to international commitments. But bi-partisan backers of the bill in the Senate say they can agree on terms now that will be acceptable to enough to their colleagues for later passage, enabling American negotiators at Copenhagen to have some guidelines at the COP15 bargaining table.

China and much of the developing world would like to see industrialized countries cut their greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, but analysts say such drastic cuts are unlikely to fly with U.S. politicians. Climate champion Al Gore is urging COP15 delegates to create a binding legal framework where commitments can be ratcheted up with time as governments begin to realize the benefits of switching to larger amounts of renewable energy and participating in the development of green technology.

Beyond the big question of U.S. participation, COP15 negotiators will be trying hard to forge a consensus on a wide range of related issues, including: what year should be set as the baseline against which specific reduction targets will be measured; the duration of the emissions reduction commitment period; whether or not to call for curbs on deforestation, especially in developing countries’ tropical rainforests; and whether or not to tighten rules governing the methods used to reduce emissions.

CONTACT: COP15, www.cop15.dk

Dear EarthTalk: I recently heard the term “living building.” Can you explain?
- Rebecca Gordon, Seattle, WA

Pic courtesy: “Omega Center for Sustainable Living.”

Over the past couple of decades, architects and builders looking to green their projects turned to the addition of various piecemeal elements to save water here or cut down on electricity there. Those who added more than a few green touches could apply for and get certified by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) under its Leadership in Energy and Efficient Design (LEED) program. While these efforts have been laudable—essentially launching the green building industry as we know it today—they represent merely the infancy of what green building might someday become.

The concept of the “living building” has now emerged as a new ideal for design and construction. The Cascadia Region Green Building Council (CRGBC)—the Pacific Northwest chapter of the USGBC—defines a living building as a structure that “generates all of its own energy with renewable non-toxic resources, captures and treats all of its water, and operates efficiently and for maximum beauty.” The group has been pushing for adoption of the concept by construction industries here at home, and also helped to launch the International Living Building Institute to promote the concept internationally.

“We view our role as the organization that is meant to ask the really tough questions, to push the boundaries as far as possible,” says Jason McLennan, CEO of CRGBC. To this end, in 2006 the group launched its Living Building Challenge (LBC), a “call to the design and construction community to pursue true sustainability in the built environment.” So far 60 different projects around North America are vying to meet the high standards of the LBC, which exceed even the highest status of LEED certification.

The first building to be completed for consideration under the LBC program is the Omega Center for Sustainable Living, in Rhinebeck, NY. The 6,200 square-foot, one-level building, which serves as headquarters for the Omega Institute for Holistic Studies, features a geothermal heating and cooling system, solar panels, rain gardens that direct water run-off to irrigate plantings, a 4,500-square-foot greenhouse that helps filter wastewater for reuse, “daylighting” design that brings natural light indoor to minimize electric light usage, and eco-friendly building materials all around. It was designed—per LBC criteria—to be “net-zero,” meaning it uses no more energy than it generates itself. Once the building has been in operation for a full year next summer, CRGBC will audit it to see if its performance lives up to the green hype. Dozens of other LBC contenders around North America will be audited as well.

Of course, the costs of creating a living building today are very high. Achieving net-zero can be especially costly, and stands out as one of the biggest obstacles to greater interest in the living building concept. Another challenge is finding materials that meet LBC standards, since many common building materials—such as PVC piping for wastewater transport—off-gas chemicals and have other hazardous attributes. LBC also expects builders to source locally as many materials as possible to boost local economies and make efficient use of nearby natural resources. McLennan remains confident that costs will come down as green materials, technologies and methods become more commonplace within the general building industry.

CONTACTS: USGBC, www.usgbc.org; CRGBC, www.cascadiagbc.org; International Living Building Institute, www.ilbi.org; Omega Institute, www.eomega.org.

Dear EarthTalk: Can you enlighten on the environmental impact of the fashion industry? As I understand it, the industry overall is no friend to the environment.  -- Tan Cheng Li, Malaysia

Pic Courtesy : "Martin LaBar, courtesy Flickr."

According to the non-profit Earth Pledge, today some 8,000 synthetic chemicals are used throughout the world to turn raw materials into textiles. Domestically, the U.S. Department of Agriculture reports that one-quarter of all pesticides used nationwide go toward growing cotton, primarily for the clothing industry. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considers many domestic textile manufacturing facilities to be hazardous waste generators; and lax standards and enforcement in developing countries, where the majority of textiles are produced, means that untold amounts of pollution are likely being deposited into local soils and waterways in regions that can hardly stand further environmental insult.

Luz Claudio, writing in Environmental Health Perspectives, considers the way Americans and Europeans shop for clothes as “waste couture”: Fashion is low-quality and sold at “prices that make the purchase tempting and the disposal painless.” Yet this sort of so-called “fast fashion” leaves a pollution footprint, with each step of the clothing life cycle generating potential environmental and occupational hazards.

According to Technical Textile Markets, a quarterly trade publication, demand for man-made fibers such as petroleum-derived polyester has nearly doubled in the last 15 years. “The manufacture of polyester and other synthetic fabrics is an energy-intensive process requiring large amounts of crude oil,” reports Claudio. In addition, she says, the processes emit volatile organic compounds and solvents, particulate matter, acid gases such as hydrogen chloride, and other production by-products into the air and water.

“Issues of environmental health and safety do not apply only to the production of man-made fabrics,” says Claudio, citing subsidies to the pesticide-laden cotton industry that keep prices low and production high.

In an effort to green up the industry, Earth Pledge launched its FutureFashion initiative in 2005 to promote the use of renewable, reusable and non-polluting materials and production methods. Besides putting on its own FutureFashion showcases, the group organized the January 2008 New York Fashion Week, encouraging designers to create and showcase greener clothing on their runway models. Green-leaning designers can also pick through Earth Pledge’s library of 600 sustainably produced textiles, including organic cotton as well as exotic materials such as sasawashi, pina, bamboo, milk protein, and sea leather.

Another effort underway to speed the fashion industry into a carbon-constrained future is the Ethical Fashion Forum, which provides a variety of tools and resources and runs training sessions and networking events to help facilitate moving the industry towards more sustainable practices.

One stumbling block to the greening of fashion is that only a small number of consumers—some analysts say less than one percent—will pay more for a greener shirt. But if the industry itself can improve its footprint from the inside and drive the costs of more eco-friendly materials and processes down, the benefits will trickle down to consumers, whether they are bargain-conscious or fashion-conscious.

CONTACTS: Environmental Health Perspectives, www.ehponline.org; Earth Pledge, www.earthpledge.org ; Ethical Fashion Forum, www.ethicalfashionforum.com

Dear EarthTalk: It has been said that global warming will bring a new ice age. Is this true or only fiction?  
- Nitisha Jain, Delhi, India

While no one can be sure what and how severe the effects of global warming will be, it is entirely possible that one outcome of our profligate use of fossil fuels could be an ice age. The theory goes that a warming-induced influx of cold, fresh water into the North Atlantic from melting polar ice caps and glaciers could shut down the Gulf Stream, an underwater channel of warm ocean water that winds its way north from the Caribbean and moderates temperatures in the northeastern U.S. and Western Europe. 

The result, some scientists speculate, would be a return to ice age conditions. In the extreme, glaciers and freezing temperatures would render large swaths of the civilized world uninhabitable and would kill off untold numbers of species unable to move or adapt. A less dire version would still cause bitterly cold winters, droughts, worldwide desertification and crop failures, and trigger resource wars across the globe. 

Of course, over the history of geological time the planet has endured vast shifts in temperature and many ice ages and subsequent warm-ups. The last major ice age peaked about 20,000 years ago, when extensive ice sheets covered large parts of what we now call North America, Europe and Asia. Many climate scientists believe the planet oscillates between warmer and colder periods without human intervention due to various factors related to its orbital path and also variations in heat output from the Sun on a millennial scale—and that we are naturally heading toward another ice age, regardless of greenhouse gas emissions, over the next several dozen millennia. 

But others believe those very emissions might just save us from the freezing throes of another ice age. In a study published in the September 4, 2009 issue of the Science magazine, researchers report that human-induced climate change is quite possibly fending off what had been presumed to be an inevitable descent into a new ice age based on data collected across various Arctic regions in recent years.  

The study found that after a slow cooling of less than half a degree Fahrenheit per millennium as a result of a cyclical change in the orientation of the North Pole and the Sun, the Arctic warmed by some 2.2 degrees just since 1900, with the decade from 1998 to 2008 the warmest in 2,000 years. Without human intervention, researchers would expect summer temperatures in the Arctic to cool for another 4,000 years or so as the North Pole gets further from the Sun, but in fact, researchers believe, global warming is reversing this trend. 

“The slow cooling trend is trivial compared to the warming that’s been happening and that’s in the pipeline,” reports the study’s lead author Darrell S. Kaufman of the University of Arizona. Of course, only time will tell whether our relatively short-term flood of pollutants will have a pronounced long-term effect on the planet’s geological-scale warming/cooling dynamic. In the meantime, most responsible individuals and governments are working to lower their carbon footprints to try to take man back out of the climate equation once and for all. Hopefully our grandkids’ grandkids will be around to thank us.

CONTACT: Science Magazine, www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/325/5945/1236.

Dear EarthTalk: Celebrities and billionaires are shelling out big bucks for cutting edge green-friendly cars like the Tesla Roadster. But what are the rest of us—who live in the budget-constrained real world—to do about buying a new car that does right by the environment? - M.G., Stroudsburg, PA

Pic courtesy : "Honda/Hyundai/BMW."

With so many new energy efficient cars in showrooms today, there’s never been a better time to go green with your next car purchase. A few years ago the Toyota Prius was the go-to model for those with an environmental conscience and up to $30,000 to pay for the privilege of getting 35-40 miles per gallon (mpg) in the city and 45-55 on the highway. But today there is such a wide selection of fuel efficient and low-emissions vehicles that even those on a budget can afford to go green.

To wit, Honda’s new Insight is the first hybrid gasoline-electric car available new for less than $20,000 (starting at $19,800). With fuel efficiency ratings of 40 miles per gallon (mpg) in the city and 43 on the highway, the Insight surely won’t cost much to operate either. 

There are plenty of other hybrids to choose from today, too, though most cost at least a few thousand dollars more than equivalent non-hybrid models. Toyota’s Prius, which is only available as a hybrid, still leads the pack as the world’s top selling and most fuel efficient hybrid. Its cost has dropped some, now starting at $22,400, and the “3rd generation” Prius 10 now claims an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) combined city/highway rating of 50 mpg. This most recent edition even features a whimsical solar panel on the roof to power a ventilation system that keeps the interior of the car cool even on scorching hot days. Hybrid versions of Honda’s Civic ($23,800), Nissan’s Altima ($26,780), Ford’s Fusion ($27,625) and Escape SUV ($31,500), Mercury’s Milan ($31,590) and Mariner SUV ($29,995), Toyota’s Camry ($26,150) and Highlander SUV ($34,700) are also in showrooms in dealerships across the U.S. 

Many smaller cars with regular gasoline engines also get great mileage with low emissions for even less money. Some examples include the Corolla ($15,350), Matrix ($16,550) and Yaris ($12,355) from Toyota, Honda’s Fit ($14,900), the Mazda 3 ($16,045), Chevy’s Aveo ($11,965) and Cobalt ($14,990), the Hyundai’s Accent ($9,970) and Elantra ($14,145), Pontiac’s G3 ($14,335), the Kia Rio ($11,495), the MINI Cooper ($19,500), Ford’s Focus ($15,995), and the Smart Car ForTwo ($11,990). 

Diesel fuel is now cleaner than ever, and a few automakers are going down that road. Volkswagen’s Jetta TDI ($22,660), Audi’s A3 TDI ($29,950) and BMW’s 335d ($43,900) are three examples of high performance vehicles with solid green credentials regarding fuel efficiency and emissions. An added bonus is that such cars can run on carbon-neutral biodiesel as well as petroleum-based diesel fuel. 

Consumers just starting their search for a new ride should check out GreenCar.com, which provides detailed information on the many greener vehicles available today as well as those on the horizon. Also, the federal government’s website FuelEconomy.gov provides detailed mileage and emissions information on dozens of new cars every year, and provides users with an easy and free way to compare different vehicles along the lines of environmental impact. 

CONTACTS: GreenCar.com, www.greencar.com ; FuelEconomy.gov, www.fueleconomy.gov

Dear EarthTalk: I recently had a tissue mineral analysis indicating that my levels of the nutritional element, molybdenum, were off the chart.  I believe this may be leaching from my stainless steel cookware. Is this element toxic to my body?  - Barbara, Fruitland Park, FL

Pic courtesy :"Getty Images."

Having trace amounts of molybdenum in our bloodstreams is not only normal but beneficial. The element piggybacks onto bacteria to help us metabolize proteins and grow new cells, and also helps keep our vertebrae and tooth enamel strong. But too much of it can indeed be toxic. 

Health care practitioners worry more about miners exposed to molybdenum dust on a daily basis than they do about everyday folks with occasional and incidental exposure via cookware and ingested foods. Few if any cases of acute toxicity in humans have been documented, though animal studies have shown that ingesting small but frequent amounts can lead to diarrhea, growth retardation, infertility, low birth weight and even gout. It has also been shown to negatively affect the lungs, kidneys and liver. 

But most of us need not fear, as the amount of molybdenum we get naturally from eating foods like green beans, eggs, sunflower seeds, wheat flour, lentils and cereal grain is not enough to cause any severe health reactions, and, again, is an important building block component of our diets. In fact, a deficiency of molybdenum in one stretch of northern China—where the element does not occur naturally in the region’s soils—has been linked to a higher-than-normal rate of esophageal cancer. 

Additional amounts of molybdenum could be getting into your foods from stainless steel cookware, but manufacturers insist that if their products are not dinged and pocked from overuse or abused with abrasive brushes or detergents during clean-up they shouldn’t leach much of anything into the food cooking inside. 

Of all the elements used to make stainless steel, molybdenum is one of the most able to tolerate high heat without expanding, softening or otherwise breaking down. That’s largely why it is approved for use in food-grade products by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Incidentally, its heat tolerance is also why it is used in the making of missiles, aircraft, rifle barrels, light bulb filaments and furnace components. 

While it is unlikely that the amount of molybdenum in a normal human diet is enough to cause severe health reactions, no one would fault someone with reason for concern to take precautions. For starters, if you do have too much molybdenum in your systems, add some tungsten (sodium tungstate) into your diet, which naturally reduces the concentration of molybdenum in human tissues. 

With regard to cookware, switching away from stainless steel might be a good idea for anyone with high molybdenum levels in their bloodstreams. No cookware is perfect, but cast iron and anodized aluminum seem to be the top choices today for cooks concerned about leaching elements. While cast iron is known to leach some iron into food, iron deficiencies were far less common before World War II when most of our grandparents cooked with it. And anodized aluminum is an ideal non-stick, acid- and scratch- resistant surface which locks-in aluminum that could otherwise leach into food. 

CONTACTS: International Molybdenum Association, www.imoa.info

Dear EarthTalk: Apparently boxed wine (instead of bottled) is becoming all the rage for environmental reasons. What are the eco-benefits of boxed wine over bottled?- Justin J., Los Angeles, CA

Pic courtesy :"Bota Box"

With more and more wineries offering organic varieties to lower their eco-footprint, it’s no surprise that they’re looking at the environmental impacts of their packaging as well. The making of conventional glass bottles (and the corks that cap them) uses significant quantities of natural resources and generates considerable pollution. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the process of manufacturing glass not only contributes its share of greenhouse gas emissions but also generates nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and tiny particulates that can damage lung tissue when breathed in. 

Beyond manufacturing, the transport of wine in glass bottles across the country and around the world also takes its environmental toll. According to wine writer Tyler Colman, upwards of 90 percent of American wine is produced on the West Coast, but then shipped to the East Coast where the majority of wine consumers live. Trucking all these heavy glass bottles generates a much larger carbon footprint, ounce-for-ounce than the transportation of much lighter boxed wine. Almost half the weight of an ordinary case of wine comes from the bottles; about 95 percent of the weight of a case of boxed wine is the wine itself. 

“A standard wine bottle holds 750 milliliters of wine and generates about 5.2 pounds of carbon-dioxide emissions when it travels from a vineyard in California to a store in New York,” reports Colman, who blogs at DrVino.com. “A 3-liter box generates about half the emissions per 750 milliliters.”  He concludes that switching to wine in a box “for the 97 percent of wines that are made to be consumed within a year” would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about two million tons, or the equivalent of removing 400,000 cars from the roads. 

According to the Wine Group, the third largest wine company in the world by volume and a big advocate for switching away from glass bottles, there are other advantages to boxed wine (which typically includes a plastic bag within a cardboard box). The vacuum packaging of boxed wines allows the contents to stay fresh for up to six weeks in the fridge once the seal is broken and the first glass has been poured. The Wine Group has launched the “Better Wines Better World” website in an attempt to curry public favor for technologically advanced, environmentally friendly and economically practical boxed wines. 

Still, despite the benefits, boxed wine may still be a tough pill to swallow for many wine connoisseurs still bent on tradition. “Even those traditionalists who are coming around to the idea that maybe screw caps are fine for some wines, balk at the idea of a cellar full of cardboard boxes,” says wine writer and vineyard owner Lee Asbell. “It is difficult to imagine how wine service at fine-dining establishments would handle such a change.” For now, boxed wine is still the domain of cheaper brands. But that could all change as more and more wine makers and drinkers take up the mantle of saving the Earth. 

CONTACTS: Better Wines Better World, www.betterwinesbetterworld.com. DrVino, www.drvino.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Do you have current facts and figures about how much rainforest is being destroyed each day around the world, and for what purpose(s)? - Teri, via e-mail

Pic courtesy :"Getty Images."

Pinning down exact numbers is nearly impossible, but most experts agree that we are losing upwards of 80,000 acres of tropical rainforest daily, and significantly degrading another 80,000 acres every day on top of that. Along with this loss and degradation, we are losing some 135 plant, animal and insect species every day—or some 50,000 species a year—as the forests fall. 

According to researcher and writer Rhett Butler, who runs the critically acclaimed website, Mongabay.com, tropical rainforests are incredibly rich ecosystems that play a key role in the basic functioning of the planet. They help maintain the climate by regulating atmospheric gases and stabilizing rainfall, and provide many other important ecological functions. 

Rainforests are also home to some 50 percent of the world’s species, Butler reports, “making them an extensive library of biological and genetic resources.” Environmentalists also point out that a quarter of our modern pharmaceuticals are derived from rainforest ingredients, but less than one percent of the trees and plants in the tropics have been tested for curative properties. Sadly, then, we don’t really know the true value of what we’re losing as we slash, burn, and plant over what was once a treasure trove of biodiversity. 

According to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), overall tropical deforestation rates this decade are 8.5 percent higher than during the 1990s. While this figure pertains to all forests in the world’s tropics, researchers believe the loss of primary tropical rainforest—the wildest and most diverse swaths—has increased by as much as 25 percent since the 1990s. 

Despite increased public awareness of the importance of tropical rainforests, deforestation rates are actually on the rise, mostly due to activities such as commercial logging, agriculture, cattle ranching, dam-building and mining, but also due to subsistence agriculture and collection of fuel wood. Indeed, as long as commercial interests are allowed access to these economically depressed areas of the world, and as long as populations of poor rural people continue to expand, tropical rainforests will continue to fall. 

Some scientists see light at the end of the tunnel. Joseph Wright of the Panama-based Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute says the tropics now have more protected land than in recent history, and believes that large areas of tropical forest will remain intact through 2030 and beyond: “We believe that the area covered by tropical forest will never fall to the exceedingly low levels that are often predicted and that extinction will threaten a smaller proportion of tropical forest species than previously predicted.” 

Only time will tell whether Wright’s optimistic predictions ring true, or whether a more doomsday scenario will play out. To stay informed and be part of the solution, stay tuned to the websites of Rainforest Action Network, Rainforest Alliance, the Rainforest Site and, of course, Mongabay.com. 

CONTACTS: Mongabay, www.mongabay.com ; Rainforest Alliance, www.rainforestalliance.org ; Rainforest Action Network, www.ran.org ; Rainforest Site, www.rainforestsite.com ; FAO, www.fao.org

Dear EarthTalk: What would you recommend as a non-toxic/non-lethal way to keep squirrels, gophers and groundhogs away? - Faye Gillette, Coarsegold, CA

Pic courtesy :"Tom Brakefield, Getty Images."

Keeping unwanted critters away can be tricky business, and options are somewhat limited. For starters, make sure exterior garbage, recycling and compost containers are shut tight, and pick up and remove any fallen fruit that your apple, pear or plum trees may have discarded. Of course, these measures will go only so far in deterring unwelcome critters, so you may need to employ a repellent or more proactive strategy. 

One favorite repellent sold at plant nurseries is Bonide’s Organic Repels-All, a concoction of dried blood, putrescent whole egg solids and garlic oil. The stuff, which can be sprayed on plants, grass, walkways and buildings without causing damage, smells terrible, and thus provides a natural barrier to unwanted animal visitation. Another top choice is Shake-Away Organic Animal Repellent, which comes in various natural formulas targeted to whichever type of critter you’re trying to deter. The active ingredient in the product is the urine of a feared predator; Shake-Away’s Small Animal Repellent, for example, uses fox urine. These solutions can last for weeks in dry climates, but will need to be re-applied regularly following precipitation. 

If Repels-All or Shake-Away don’t do the trick, flowers might. According to gardening expert Bonnie Manion, narcissus bulbs naturally deter gophers. “Any type of narcissus bulb, which includes jonquils, paperwhites and daffodils, will be a deterrent to gophers, rabbits and deer in your garden and property,” she writes on her VintageGardenGal blog. “Bulbs planted in the ground send out a year round message to critters by actually ‘advertising’ a toxicity odor or fragrance.” 

Of course, these deterrents may or may not work in your situation. If squirrels are damaging your trees, you could install aluminum collars around the bases of the trunks to prevent them from climbing; adjacent trees need to be wrapped, too, since jumping from tree to tree is a squirrel’s stock and trade. If squirrels are hogging the bird feeder, there are a number of feeder styles that will deter them, including some with a perch that starts to spin whenever a creature heavier than a bird steps on it, tossing the invader gently off. 

Gophers and groundhogs present a unique problem, as they burrow tunnels in the ground and eat seeds, roots and often your entire garden bounty. And they are particularly difficult to chase away; the common—and often cruel—method of flooding their tunnels will only temporarily deter them. Another approach comes from the old wives’ tale category, but just may work: stuffing dog hair into the holes at the end of their tunnels. Brush some hair off your own pooch or get it from a local dog groomer. 

According to vegetablegardener.com, fencing your garden in is probably the best, though not fool-proof, way to keep the groundhogs out. “The fencing should be at least 3 feet tall and made of tight wire mesh [and] buried in the ground a minimum of 1 foot,” the site recommends. Angling out a section of the underground part of the fence to create an L-shape will deter the animals from digging under it, and curving the top of the fence outward will deter climbing. 

CONTACTS: Bonide, www.bonideproducts.com; Shake-Away, www.shake-away.com; Vegetable Gardener, www.thevegetablegardener.com; VintageGardenGal Blog, www.vintagegardengal.com

Dear EarthTalk - How can I make good use of the rainwater that runs down my roof and into my gutters?
- Brian Smith, Nashua, NH

Pic courtesy : “RainXchange”

For most of us, the rain that falls on our roof runs off into the ground or the sewer system. But if you’re motivated to save a little water and re-distribute it on your lawns or plants—or even use it for laundry, dishes or other interior needs—collecting rainwater from your gutters’ downspouts is a no-brainer.

If it’s allowed in your state, that is. Utah and parts of Washington State have antiquated but nonetheless tough laws banning anyone but owners of water rights from collecting rainwater flowing off privately owned rooftops. Such laws are rarely enforced, however, and one in Colorado was recently overturned. 

According to John C. Davis, writing in E – The Environmental Magazine, just about any homeowner can collect rainwater, given that the roof and gutters do most of the work. And since an inch of rain falling on a 2,000-square-foot roof produces some 1,200 gallons of runoff, one can harvest enough to supply all the water needs of a family of four for about two weeks. Of course, most of us would only use rainwater to irrigate our lawn or garden, and there should be plenty to go around for doing that in all but the most drought stricken areas.  

Plants and grass actually do better when fed rainwater instead of tap water, which is usually treated with softeners that actually inhibit plant growth. And, reports Davis, the lack of minerals in rainwater actually makes it more effective than tap water for shampooing or doing dishes. Using rainwater for plumbing uses can also extend the life of pipes and water heaters, since the salts added to tap water facilitate corrosion. Homeowners should set up a water purification system if they do plan to use rainwater for interior needs. 

Beyond the benefits to individual homeowners, rainwater harvesting can also be good for the local community, as it reduces the erosion, flooding and pollution runoff associated with heavy rainfall, and lessens reliance on public water supplies, alleviating some of the burden on utilities. Given these benefits, some states, including even drought-prone Texas, subsidize residential rainwater collection systems. 

Many varieties of rain barrel systems, starting at just $100, are available for home installation. A typical set-up is simply a rain barrel positioned under a gutter’s downspout. “The barrel is typically fitted with a spigot at its base to fill a watering can or attach a soaker hose (which bleeds out water all along its length, providing effortless drip irrigation), and a filter or screen at its top to prevent a buildup of leaves and other debris,” writes Davis. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a single 100 gallon rain barrel can save up to 1,300 gallons of utility-provided water during the high demand summer months. 

Handy homeowners can make their own water harvesting systems, but buying one pre-made is a lot easier. Most nurseries and garden centers offer a range of choices (as well as advice), but websites such as Aquabarrel, Clean Air Gardening and Rainxchange make it easy to order a system online. 

CONTACTS: Aquabarrel, www.aquabarrel.com, Clean Air Gardening, www.cleanairgardening.com; Rainxchange, www.rainxchange.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I am considering upgrading some older appliances in my home. Where can I find information on which models are the most energy efficient? - Jonathan Duda, Olivebridge, NY

Pic : "EnergyStar."

There has never been a better time to upgrade some of those older creaky appliances that are gobbling up much more energy (or water) than they need to in your home. Fortunately, most of the sifting-through to find the best values has already been done for you.

The first thing to do when shopping for new equipment is to look for models emblazoned with the blue EnergyStar logo. This helps you zero in on those models that have been determined by the federal government—EnergyStar is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy—to be at least 10 to 25 percent more energy-efficient (and often much more) than conventional models.

For dishwashers, for example, EnergyStar qualified models use 31 percent less energy and 33 percent less water than conventional machines while performing as well as or better, according to EnergyStar. With clothes washers, EnergyStar models can cut energy use by over a third and water use by half. EnergyStar-rated refrigerators will cut electrical use in half, compared to older machines made before 1993. With air conditioners, the savings is there, too, though at a more modest 10 percent over conventional models.

EnergyStar, which began in 1992 and first evaluated only computers and monitors, is a great jumping off point for evaluating everything from major appliances to home heating and cooling, lighting, home electronics, office equipment and more. The EPA recently extended the label to cover new homes and commercial and industrial buildings.

After first zeroing in on EnergyStar models, be sure to check out the accompanying yellow EnergyGuide sticker, which gets down to the nitty-gritty and estimates how much energy the appliance uses, compares its energy use to similar products and lists approximate annual operating costs. EnergyGuide labels also appear on appliances not EnergyStar compliant. Visit the EnergyStar website (address below) and immerse yourself.

Another way to help sort through the thousands of appliances out there that are EnergyStar-compliant is by checking out the Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports magazine) free Greener Choices website, which compares a wide range of merchandise according to their relative environmental impact.

Greener Choices provides detailed information on dishwashers, washers and dryers, air conditioners, refrigerators and vacuum cleaners. Each appliance is assessed in comparison to other models via the website’s Green Buying Guides, which can help consumers decide how green they should go. It also offers up a series of calculators to determine the energy use of your current appliances, new or old. By providing the efficiency and price of various models, the site helps consumers decide how much green “bang” they want for a specific amount of bucks.

CONTACTS: Energy Star, www.energystar.gov ; Greener Choices, www.greenerchoices.org .

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that environmental non-profits have been hit hard by the economic downturn, and has this had an impact on their effectiveness? - Bridget W., Bainbridge Island, WA

Pic: "Gregg Carlstrom, courtesy Flickr."

Non-profits of every stripe have been suffering from the economic downturn. In a recent survey of 800 U.S.-based non-profits, 75 percent reported feeling the effects of the downturn, with more than half already experiencing significant cuts in funding from both government and private foundation sources.

According to a recently released report from Civic Enterprises and the Democratic Leadership Council entitled “Quiet Crisis: The Impact of the Economic Downturn on the Nonprofit Sector,” few of these groups have strong reserves to weather the downturn—more than half have less than three months of operating funds on hand, while three-quarters cannot make it six months on existing cash reserves.

And the outlook is not promising. The Chronicle of Philanthropy, which reports on trends in grantmaking, says that foundation assets have declined by some 28 percent following the economy’s nosedive; two-thirds of them expect to have reduced grants significantly by the end of 2009. Many grantmakers have, in fact, suspended grants altogether for the time being.

Despite their funding troubles, many environmental groups continue to provide core services. According to the Environmental Grantmakers Association (EGA), many cash-strapped groups are adapting by using more volunteers to get their work done, and actively seeking partnerships with other groups in order to make the most of limited resources and share overhead costs. And, of course, many green groups have cut costs through hiring freezes, layoffs and forced reductions in pay and hours for existing employees.

To Mark Tercek, president of the non-profit Nature Conservancy, the silver lining in the funding crisis for green groups is that it forces them to operate more efficiently and focus on core priorities: “Non-profits…have to be smart about adjusting to a tougher economic environment, including setting priorities,” he says. “If resources are going to be constrained…then organizations have to ask the questions: ‘What are we really best at? What are we uniquely positioned to do?’” Tercek adds that the recession also provides an “opportunity to connect the economic stimulus to environmental matters.”

And that’s just what the Obama administration hopes to do. By encouraging development of green technologies and services, the federal government aims to leverage environmental progress for an overall economic benefit. Most federal funding will go toward incentives for businesses and homeowners to adopt greener ways, but green groups with related expertise are in a good position to benefit as well.

Another boost for green groups could come if Congress passes the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which aims to flood non-profits with some 250,000 volunteers each year in a program akin to the Peace Corps but on the domestic front. Non-profits are also seeking changes to the federal tax code to further encourage corporate, foundation and individual donations. 

CONTACTS: Quiet Crisis Report, www.civicenterprises.net/pdfs/quietcrisis.pdf ; EGA, www.ega.org ; Serve America Act, www.nationalservice.gov/about/serveamerica

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve heard that hybrid engine technology is now being used to power boats. What’s happening with that?  - D. Smith, Portland, ME

Pic : "John K, courtesy Flickr."

With concerns about climate change and the fate of the world’s imperiled oceans and waterways at an all time high, it makes sense that the boating industry would be looking into greener ways to try to do their part and to attract some of those increasing numbers of environmentally conscious customers.

Americans spend 500 million hours zipping around in recreational boats each year. But until recently the engines on these boats were held to much lower efficiency standards than their automotive counterparts. Last year the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced new more stringent emissions standards for marine engines—both in-board and outboard—that will go into effect in 2010. In fact, several hybrid boats are already on the market, boasting emission ratings well below the new standards.

The 24-foot Endeavor Green Electric Hybrid can run all day on an electric charge that costs only 11 cents and generates no emissions, kicking into a small diesel generator only if the boat’s eight batteries run dry. And when owners can charge the batteries via solar or wind power, the boats have a zero carbon footprint. Florida-based Craig Catamaran Corp. last year launched a hybrid version of its compact catamaran-style speedboat. The sporty little two-seater, which is light enough to be towed by a Mini Cooper or Smart Car, can run for eight hours on less than a gallon of gas, and costs less than $6,000 all in.

For those looking for a larger, more luxurious ride, the 25-foot Frauscher hybrid might be just the ticket. The speedy $155,000 Austrian-built pleasure boat combines an electric engine with a 256 horsepower Steyr diesel motor to allow for emissions-free harbor cruising or high octane speeding across open water. 

If you’re not quite ready to take the plunge on a hybrid boat yourself, check out one in action on your next visit to San Francisco. The recently retrofitted Hornblower ferry to Alcatraz and Angel islands is powered by several alternative energy sources, including a hybrid diesel-electric system powered by solar cells and wind turbines right on deck. Alcatraz Cruises, the private company that runs the service claims the Hornblower is the first hybrid ferry boat in the country. The 64-foot vessel has an advanced power management system that regulates when and how the different power sources are used so it can make best use of its energy and minimize emissions. Passengers can see many of the technological advancements on the vessel, making for not only a fun and scenic but educational ride. 

In another development, the U.S. Navy has reportedly contracted with Solomon Technologies, makers of the famous Zodiac line of rugged inflatable boats, to create a series of hybrid boats where fuel efficiency and stealthy (quiet) passage is of paramount importance. Recreationists, pacifists and Greenpeace anti-whaling activists alike may get the chance to check one out soon, too, as Solomon is already looking into incorporating hybrid technologies into its recreational and commercial product lines as well. 

CONTACTS: Endeavour Green, www.endeavourgreen.com ; Craig Catamaran, www.craigcat.com ; Frauscher Boats, www.frauscherboats.com  ; Alcatraz Cruises, www.alcatrazcruises.com ; Solomon Technologies, www.solomontechnologies.com  

Dear EarthTalk: Hunting seems to be a real controversy among environmental advocates. Can you set the record straight: Is hunting good or bad for the environment?   - Bill Davis, New York, NY

Pic : "David De Lossy, courtesy Getty Images." 

Like so many hot button issues, the answer to this question depends upon who you ask. On the one hand, some say, nothing could be more natural than hunting, and indeed just about every animal species—including humans—has been either predator or prey at some point in its evolution. And, ironic as it sounds, since humans have wiped out many animal predators, some see hunting as a natural way to cull the herds of prey animals that, as a result, now reproduce beyond the environment’s carrying capacity.

On the other hand, many environmental and animal advocates see hunting as barbaric, arguing that it is morally wrong to kill animals, regardless of practical considerations. According to Glenn Kirk of the California-based The Animals Voice, hunting “causes immense suffering to individual wild animals…” and is “gratuitously cruel because unlike natural predation hunters kill for pleasure…” He adds that, despite hunters’ claims that hunting keeps wildlife populations in balance, hunters’ license fees are used to “manipulate a few game [target] species into overpopulation at the expense of a much larger number of non-game species, resulting in the loss of biological diversity, genetic integrity and ecological balance.”

Beyond moral issues, others contend that hunting is not practical. According to the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the vast majority of hunted species—such as waterfowl, upland birds, mourning doves, squirrels and raccoons—“provide minimal sustenance and do not require population control.”

Author Gary E. Varner suggests in his book, In Nature’s Interests, that some types of hunting may be morally justifiable while others may not be. Hunting “designed to secure the aggregate welfare of the target species, the integrity of its ecosystem, or both”—what Varner terms ‘therapeutic hunting’—is defensible, while subsistence and sport hunting—both of which only benefit human beings—is not.

Regardless of one’s individual stance, fewer Americans hunt today than in recent history. Data gathered by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for its most recent (2006) National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, show that only five percent of Americans—some 12.5 million individuals—consider themselves hunters today, down from nine percent in 2001 and 15 percent in 1996.

Public support for hunting, however, is on the rise. A 2007 survey by Responsive Management Inc., a social research firm specializing in natural resource issues, found that 78 percent of Americans support hunting today versus 73 percent in 1995. Eighty percent of respondents agreed that “hunting has a legitimate place in modern society,” and the percent of Americans indicating disapproval of hunting declined from 22 percent in 1995 to 16 percent in 2007.

Perhaps matching the trend among the public, green leaders are increasingly advocating for cooperation between hunters and environmental groups: After all, both lament urban sprawl and habitat destruction. 

CONTACTS: The Animals Voice, www.animalsvoice.com ; HSUS, www.hsus.org  ; National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/fishing.html ; Responsive Management Inc., www.responsivemanagement.com

Dear EarthTalk: What are the pros and cons of feeding babies formula versus breast milk? And if I purchase formula, should I spend the extra money on the organic variety? -- Suzy W., via e-mail

Pic courtesy : "George Doyle, Getty images"

It is generally acknowledged within the medical community that breast milk is the ideal first food for babies, though modern formula brands can get the job done, too. Human breast milk naturally contains the vitamins and minerals a newborn requires. According to the website KidsHealth.org, breastfed infants have less difficulty with digestion than their formula-fed counterparts. And since breast milk is easily digested, breastfed babies have fewer incidences of diarrhea or constipation. 

Also, researchers have found that infants fed with human breast milk have lower rates of hospital admissions, ear infections, diarrhea, rashes and allergies than bottle-fed babies. Meanwhile, a raft of studies suggest that infants who are fed breast milk may have lower incidences of asthma, diabetes, obesity and other health problems later on in life. 

“Human milk is made for human infants, and it meets all their specific nutrient needs,” says Ruth Lawrence, M.D., spokeswoman for the American Academy of Pediatrics and professor of pediatrics and obstetrics at the University of Rochester School of Medicine in New York. “We’ve known for years that the death rates in Third World countries are lower among breast-fed babies,” she adds. “Breast-fed babies are healthier and have fewer infections than formula-fed babies.” 

Another related upside to breast milk is cost savings—both for families and the larger health care system. Mothers who can’t or choose not to breast feed end up spending hundreds if not thousands of dollars per year on formula, and higher incidences of illness and disease down the road means higher costs for all.  

One concern with breast feeding is that toxins present in mom’s bloodstream can make their way into baby. But a 2007 study by Ohio State and Johns Hopkins University researchers found that levels of chemicals in breast milk were far below U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maximum acceptable levels for even drinking water, and that indoor air in typical American homes contains as much as 135 times as many contaminants as mother’s milk. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control maintains that the benefits of breastfeeding far outweigh any chemical exposure risks. “To date, effects on the nursing infant have been seen only where the mother herself was clinically ill from a toxic exposure,” reports the agency. 

Of course, not all mothers are able to breastfeed, and in such cases formula can be a healthy alternative. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates all baby formulas to ensure purity and that they meet nutritional requirements. Parents should know, however, that they may not be avoiding chemical exposure by opting for formula. Non-organic formula can contain the same or higher amounts of chemical residues left over from its raw materials. One way around this is to buy organic formula. Leading makers include Nature’s One, Earth’s Best and Bright Beginnings. Enfamil and Similac also now offer organic varieties. 

CONTACTS: Kids Health, www.kidshealth.org; American Academy of Pediatrics, www.aap.org ; U.S. Food and Drug Administration, www.fda.gov; Consumer Reports, www.consumerreports.org

Dear EarthTalk: Has China been making any progress reducing its output of global warming gases, and/or in tackling other environmental problems?  –Bill W., Saugus, MA

Pic: "Adam Cohn, courtesy Flickr."

Decades of rapid-fire development and lack of government oversight has meant that China now faces some serious environmental challenges. According to research by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, China surpassed the United States as the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases in 2006—and hasn’t looked back. (While the Chinese emit some eight percent more carbon dioxide than their American counterparts, the U.S. still leads the world in greenhouse gas emissions per capita, due to its significantly smaller population size and higher standard of living.) 

Beyond its contribution to global warming, China is also a world leader in other forms of pollution, given its huge population and its ambition to become the next international economic superpower. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), current levels of air pollution in China far exceed international environmental standards. A recent analysis found, for example, that the air in some four dozen Chinese cities contained as much as seven times as much particulate pollution—which can get lodged in human lungs and cause a wide range of health problems—as deemed safe by WHO. 

But critics say blaming China for its rampant pollution is unfair, given all the manufacturing the world’s developed countries outsource to Chinese companies. Qin Gang, China’s foreign ministry spokesman, refers to China as the “world’s factory” and says: “A lot of what you use, wear and eat is produced in China… “On the one hand, you increase production in China; on the other hand you criticize China on the emission reduction issue.” Yang Ailun of Greenpeace China agrees: “All the West has done is export a great slice of its carbon footprint to China and make China the world’s factory.” 

Despite its efforts to go green, China still depends on coal—the dirtiest of all the fossil fuels—for some two-thirds of its energy needs. Chinese officials have strenuously opposed the binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions set by developing countries, arguing that already industrialized nations are to blame for most of the emissions already in the atmosphere. 

According to Isabel Hilton, a journalist with the UK’s Guardian, industrialized countries should feel an obligation to shoulder at least some of the burden of helping China become a greener nation. “This means drastically reducing our own emissions and helping China with the finance and technology required to move to a sustainable, low-carbon economic system.” 

There is progress afoot: Meetings between top Chinese and U.S. officials earlier this year led to the creation of a joint research center to address issues related to clean energy, with each country contributing $15 million to pay for initial research efforts.  

CONTACTS: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, www.pbl.nl; World Health Organization, www.who.int; Greenpeace China, www.greenpeace.org/china

Dear EarthTalk: How are populations of the world’s orca whales faring these days? Are we still in danger of losing them all in the wild? - J. Witham, Bangor, ME

Pic courtesy: "Tom Brakefield, Getty Images."

The largest member of the dolphin family and a major draw at marine parks, orcas (also known as “killer whales”) are highly intelligent and social marine mammals that, because of these traits, have come to be known as ambassadors for nature and marine ecosystems around the world. 

But the fact that people love orcas—most of us only ever see them in captivity—has no bearing on how well they are thriving in the wild. Many of their habits are still a mystery to science, as the great black and white creatures, which can grow to 26 feet and weight six tons, are fast-moving and difficult to track (they are the most widely distributed mammals on Earth, besides humans). 

Given this uncertainty, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), a nonprofit group that maintains a frequently updated global list (the so-called “Red List”) of endangered and threatened wildlife, merely lists the status of orcas as “data deficient.” IUCN is currently involved in an assessment of orca populations around the world to determine what their status should be. 

Orcas may not have a clear-cut conservation status internationally, but the U.S. government is concerned enough about the animals that ply the waters of Washington’s Puget Sound and San Juan Islands (known as the “southern residents”) to put them on the federal endangered species list. Chief among threats to orcas there is loss of food supply, mostly West Coast salmon populations destroyed by hydroelectric dams and other human encroachment. Habitat loss, chemical pollution, captures for marine mammal parks and conflicts with fisheries have also each played roles in the decline of the Northwest’s orcas. 

According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, an arm of the federal National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the southern resident orca population—the best studied wild animal population in the world—has fluctuated considerably since researchers began studying it in earnest some three decades ago. In 1974 the group was comprised of 71 whales, but then spiked to 97 animals by 1996. But since then the population fell below 80 and has remained around that level ever since. 

Due to their voracious appetites and their place at the top of the ocean food chain, orcas are very susceptible to pollution and chemicals and suffer from diseases and reproductive disorders accordingly. For this reason many scientists consider orcas an “indicator species” regarding the health of marine ecosystems in general. That is, if orcas are in decline, the rest of the ocean is likely in big trouble, too. 

Of course, increased concern about the health of marine ecosystems in recent years is good news for orcas, which are dependent on a wide range of fish and marine mammals for sustenance. The preponderance of protected stretches of both ocean and coasts gives orcas a boost in their struggle to stay one step ahead of extinction. If world leaders continue to value marine ecosystems and limit the extraction of seafood species and contamination by pollutants, killer whales will have a fighting chance to keep on as icons of the sea—and those of us onshore and bobbing on boats will continue to be delighted and amazed by them. 

CONTACTS: IUCN, www.iucn.org ; National Marine Fisheries Service, www.nmfs.noaa.gov 

Dear EarthTalk: Since Obama took office, have any new incentives been put in place for homeowners looking to increase energy efficiency and reduce the overall environmental footprints of their homes? 
- Rob Felton, Little Rock, AK

In fact, yes. Homeowners can get up to $1,500 back from the federal government for any number of energy efficiency upgrades at home. If you upgrade to energy efficient insulation, windows, doors, heating, air conditioning or water heaters between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2010, you are eligible for a tax credits of up to 30 percent of product costs. 

The credit is capped at $1,500 combined; meaning it only applies to $5,000 in total costs. More details are available at the website of the Tax Incentives Assistance Project, a coalition of public interest nonprofit groups, government agencies and other organizations focused on energy efficiency. 

Of course, the Obama administration is also thinking long term, and would like to leave its mark in furthering efforts to wean ourselves off foreign oil and increase our production and use of homegrown clean renewable energy. In light of such priorities, tax credits are also available for 30 percent of the cost—with no upper limit—on the installation of renewable energy equipment at home, such as geothermal heat pumps, solar panels, solar hot water heaters, small wind energy systems and fuel cells. 

Homeowners won’t get the money back when they initially pay for equipment or upgrades, but they can add the credit amount to their overall tax refund, or deduct it from what they owe, when filing their federal income tax forms at the end of the year. Unlike tax deductions, which merely lower the total amount of taxable income, tax credits reduce dollar-for-dollar the amount of tax owed. 

Homeowners should know that they can also get federally backed mortgages to pay for a variety of energy efficiency measures, including renewable energy technologies, on their new or existing homes. The federal government supports these loans by insuring them through the Federal Housing Authority or Veterans Affairs programs, allowing borrowers who might otherwise not qualify to pursue upgrades, and securing lending institutions against loan default. 

Don’t own a home? Depending upon make and model, you can get between $250 and $3,400 back from the federal government for buying or leasing a new hybrid or high efficiency diesel automobile. And the automakers themselves—through their own “Automotive Stimulus Plan”—are giving consumers up to $4,500 back on the purchase of a new or used vehicle that gets gas mileage of at least two miles per gallon better than their old model. 

A number of new energy-efficiency incentives are also available at the state level across the country. The Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy website provides up-to-date listings of what may be available in your neck of the woods. With so much encouragement, how could you not want to go green? 

CONTACTS: Tax Incentives Assistance Project, www.energytaxincentives.org; Automotive Stimulus Plan, www.automotivestimulus.org; Database of State Incentives for Renewable Energy, www.dsireusa.org

What’s the story with the Florida Panther these days? Is it still teetering on the brink of extinction, or is it on the rebound?  - Alex T., via email

Pic: "Monica R., courtesy Flickr."

One of more than 20 subspecies of cougar and native to the southeastern United States, the Florida Panther is most certainly still highly endangered. Biologists estimate that less than 100 of the animals are alive in the wild today, hanging on in the southern tip of Florida below the Caloosahatchee River. Their current range represents less than five percent of where they originally roamed across Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and parts of Tennessee and South Carolina.

Perceived as a threat to humans, livestock and game animals, the Florida Panther was persecuted and hunted to near extinction by the mid-1950s. Today, primary threats are habitat loss and fragmentation as a result of human development. According to Defenders of Wildlife, the main culprits in the decline of the animals’ numbers are: urban sprawl; the conversion of once diversified agricultural lands into intensified industrial farming uses; and the loss of farmland to commercial development. Other factors include collisions with automobiles, territorial disputes with other panthers as habitat shrinks, and inbreeding resulting from their isolated population. Additional threats include mercury poisoning from the fallout of coal-fired power plants, parasites, and diseases such as feline leukemia and feline distemper.

Efforts to help the Florida Panther recover have had limited success. Many public agencies and nonprofit groups have worked together to try to bring back the panther—Florida’s state animal—since it was first listed as endangered by the federal government back in 1967. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), panthers require large areas of contiguous habitat: Each breeding unit of one male and two to five females requires some 200 square miles of territory to thrive. Biologists report that a population of 240 panthers requires between 8,000 and 12,000 square miles of habitat and sufficient genetic diversity in order to avoid inbreeding as a result of small population size. The introduction of eight female cougars from a closely related Texas population in 1995 helped mitigate inbreeding problems, but most analysts fear that the effort was too little, too late for the threatened cats.

Since the animals were first listed as endangered, the human population of Florida has more than tripled, meaning that rescue efforts are swimming against the tide. Defenders of Wildlife reports that, since 2004, human-panther encounters have been on the rise, as have documented instances of panthers preying on livestock and pets. In response, the USFWS, the National Park Service and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission have drafted a landmark Florida Panther Response Plan, which guides game managers and law enforcement officials in handling such interactions in ways that ensure public safety while recognizing the need to preserve dwindling Florida Panther populations.

Readers can help by getting educated about the plight of the big cats and pressuring their elected officials to take action. Another way to help is by supporting wildlife groups working on the issue. Defenders of Wildlife’s “Adopt a Panther” program, for one, puts donations into public education, preserving habitat and promoting sound transportation planning to prevent panther deaths on Florida’s roads and highways.

CONTACTS: Defenders of Wildlife, www.defenders.org; USFWS, www.fws.gov; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, www.myfwc.com.

I’d like to know the relative electricity cost of utility scale solar and wind plants versus rooftop residential solar. In other words, how can I know whether to subsidize my utility’s alternative energy plant or renovate my own home?  - Randy Wilson, Flagstaff, AZ

Pic : "ATIS547, courtesy Flickr."

Making such a determination is complex, but you could start with “In My Backyard,” a new online tool by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). You first need to know your electricity usage and what size solar photovoltaic (PV) system or wind turbine you could install. Then, using Google Earth maps and data on the amounts of sunshine and wind at your location, the tool will estimate the electricity you could get from a certain size wind turbine or PV array installed on your property. 

The costs to install renewable energy systems vary greatly by location, warn researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which is supported by the Department of Energy (DOE). And kilowatt hour (kWh) costs vary by utility, as do state and local financial incentives. One piece of good news: The federal Investment Tax Credit was expanded and extended this year. It allows for 30 percent of the cost of your system to be deducted from your federal tax bill, and is good through 2016. 

Comparing the cost of going it alone to that of simply buying green power through your utility is not a simple equation, either. You can support your utility’s renewable power infrastructure by paying a premium on your electric bill, or you can buy renewable energy certificates—also known as green tags—even if your utility does not offer green power (green tags inject renewable energies into the grid even if they don’t come back to you via your own utility). To decide which equation is better for you, compare the costs of those programs over the same time period with the cost of building and maintaining your own system (minus any installation credits and/or revenues from selling your excess electricity back to the utility). That would give you the relative costs and return-on-investment. 

But that’s still not the whole picture: Another question is whether your home system can continue to produce energy more cost-effectively than your utility, as it brings more and more green energy sources into its mix. Lawrence Berkeley says no, essentially. A February 2009 report summarizing the costs of PV from 1998 to 2007 concluded that larger systems averaged a 25 percent lower cost than the smallest ones. 

The same is true for wind power, says the American Wind Energy Association. The group’s February 2005 report calculates that a large wind farm can deliver electricity at a nearly 40 percent lower cost than a small one. It also can take advantage of economies of scale in lower operational and maintenance costs. 

The bottom line is this: Decades ago, when widespread use of alternative energy was still only a dream, building one’s own private source of home power was the only way to get off the carbon-intense grid and ensure that your own energy needs left little footprint. But today, with considerably more renewable energy sources coming online or about to do so in quantum leap measures—and at much greater efficiencies than can be achieved privately—the best bet may well be to forego the go-it alone path and support your utility’s efforts to generate green power not just for your own household but for everyone. 

CONTACTS: NREL’s “In My Backyard” Tool, www.nrel.gov/eis/imby; DOE Green Power Network, http://apps3.eere.energy.gov/greenpower

Dear EarthTalk: I’m sure there are many good environmental reasons to build a rooftop garden. Can you enlighten? And also I’d like to know how to go about creating one and whether or not some municipalities might offer incentives to do so.- Linda, via e-mail

Pic courtesy: "Ruth Rogers, courtesy Flickr."

Indeed there are many good reasons to build a rooftop garden, or a so-called “green roof”—whereby layers of soil and plants on top of homes and buildings provide a host of environmental “services” for the living space below as well as for the surrounding ecosystem. Unlike traditional roofs, green roofs thrive on (and filter) precipitation, decreasing the amount of pollution-laden storm water run-off draining into our waterways. And thanks to the process of photosynthesis, the plantings create oxygen, cleanse the air and absorb carbon dioxide before it gets into the atmosphere and adds to our global warming woes.

Green roofs also provide insulation: All those layers of organic material help keep a structure warm in the winter and cool in the summer, and help cut energy use and costs. Migrating birds and other wildlife have been known to take a shine to green roofs, especially in urban areas where natural habitat options are limited. Likewise, homeowners and building residents tend to view their green roofs as oases of peace and tranquility within otherwise noisy and concrete-laden urban environments.

According to Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, a nonprofit industry association, green roofs are gaining popularity. North Americans added some 3.1 million square feet of them to their buildings in 2008 alone—up 35 percent from 2007. Part of the uptick can be attributed to increasing awareness of the benefits of green roofs among urban planners, building owners and managers, and homeowners, all who have pressured policymakers to ease the burden of zoning and permitting for such beneficial projects.

Chicago now sports some 535,000 square feet of green roofs—the most in North America. Other leading lights in the green roofs movement include Washington, DC, New York City, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Montreal, and Vancouver, British Columbia. Dozens of smaller cities have also embraced green roofs. Grand Rapids. Michigan sports some 75,000 square feet of them, and Princeton, New Jersey and Newtown Square, Pennsylvania each play host to 50,000 square feet citywide. Inquiring at city hall is the best way to see if your city or town offers incentives for creating a green roof or greening an existing one.

Relief for the costs of installing a green roof might be on the way from the federal government. As part of the Clean Energy Stimulus and Investment Assurance Act she authored earlier this year, U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) is calling for residential and commercial property owners who install green roofs or retrofit existing roofs to recoup 30 percent of their costs in the form of a federal tax credit.

Do-it-yourselfers will find a treasure trove of information on how to create and install a green roof at the website Greenroofs.com. The site’s keyword-searchable directory offers links to manufacturers of kits to make installing your own green roof that much simpler, as well as to professional installers across North America and groups working on urban greening issues.

CONTACTS: Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, www.greenroofs.org ; Clean Energy Stimulus and Investment Assurance Act, www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-320 ; www.Greenroofs.com  , www.greenroofs.com

Dear EarthTalk: Where can I locate directories of environmental groups, businesses and jobs so that I can get involved in making a difference? - Jeanette, Carle Place, NY

pic: courtesy: National Wildlife Federation

The most comprehensive directory of environmental groups—from small to large and local to international—is provided for free online by the Washington, DC-based National Wildlife Federation. The group’s Conservation Directory features listings for some 4,200 groups, including conservation-oriented non-profits, commercial businesses, government entities, colleges and universities, zoos, aquariums, museums, grant-giving organizations, and related coalitions.

Each listing includes all contact information, as well as a general description of the group’s work, the issues it focuses on and other relevant information. Users can search by keyword, location, issue and even contact name. Groups that aren’t in the directory can easily add themselves via an online form. NWF reports that new groups are added every day.

EnviroLink, which started as a mailing list in 1991 between 20 students at Carnegie Mellon University, is today one of the best resources for green info on the web. The EnviroLink database has links to thousands of groups and resources across the U.S. and beyond, and is keyword-searchable.

Another old-standby is EcoMall, which has an extensive “activism” section listing various eco groups and their campaigns. The site allows users to search by keyword or to navigate through well-conceived listings by issue topic. While the simple design of the site may bring users back to the early days of the World Wide Web, the listings remain fresh for the most part.

Beyond organizational listings, there are many other sites where you can find various green resources. Those looking for green products or services, for example, need steer their web browsers no further than Coop America’s National Green Pages. The trusted directory lists some 3,000 businesses that have made commitments to sustainable, socially just principles, including support for sweatshop-free labor, organic farms and “cruelty-free” (not tested on animals) products.

Another good online directory of environmental products, services and even related job opportunities is the Eco Business Links Environmental Directory. A couple of other excellent environmental jobs listings include 5 Million Green Jobs and the Green Jobs Network. Meanwhile, EnviroEducation.com also offers job listings, but focuses on helping aspiring students of environmental education, policy and science find graduate- and certificate-level programs to indulge their green learning muses. 

Of course, in this day and age Internet search engines rival these directories for helping people find groups to work or volunteer with. An expertly crafted keyword search on Google  is sure to turn up some promising results. Remember to set key phrases apart by surrounding them with quotation marks to get better results. Navigating through Yahoo’s topic-based Environment and Nature Organizations page is another way to harness the power of the Internet to find environmental groups, information and resources.

Dear EarthTalk: What are some simple low cost improvements I can do to my home to make it greener?   
- Stefan Lonce, via email

According to consumer advocate Remar Sutton, there are many ways to save energy and other resources around the home without spending a lot of money. And taking action sooner rather than later will lead to ongoing savings on utility bills, so a little cash outlay now will more than pay for itself in the long run.

On the energy front, turning your thermostat up in summer and down in winter is one often overlooked way to reduce usage and cost. “For each degree you raise or lower your thermostat, you can save anywhere from one to five percent on your cooling or heating bills depending on where you live,” Sutton reports, adding that programmable thermostats can help greatly to maximize efficiency and cut out waste.

Other ways to save energy include: lowering the hot water heater’s thermostat; getting heating and cooling equipment tuned once a year; insulating hot water pipes and hot water storage tanks; caulking cracks and gaps on walls, including around door and window frames; weather-stripping air leaks around windows and doors; and replacing incandescent light bulbs with more efficient compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs.

Sutton recommends doing an energy audit to identify all the areas around the house where simple, low-cost improvements can make a difference. Your local utility may offer a free or low-cost audit, or you can do-it-yourself via the online calculator at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Home Energy Saver website.

Beyond energy savings alone, Sutton offers a wealth of tips on how to reduce water usage around the house as well: Wash and dry only full loads of laundry and only wash full loads of dishes; fix leaky faucets and toilets; install aerating low-flow showerheads and faucets; turn off the faucet while brushing teeth and shaving; and take short(er) showers and avoid baths altogether. By taking some or all of these measures, you can run a much greener home without spending much at all.

Once you’ve exhausted ways to save energy and water around the house as it is, you might consider taking larger steps to boost efficiency more. According to Harvey Sachs of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, installing or upgrading insulation is a sure-fire way to save money over time, as your heating and cooling equipment won’t have to work so hard maintaining the desired temperature of your home’s interior. Planting shade trees around your home’s exterior will help reduce the need for air conditioning in summer and, if they’re deciduous, they’ll let sunlight through in the winter.

Also, says Sachs, upgrading to more energy efficient appliances—preferably those brandishing the federal government’s EnergySTAR seal of approval—should more than make up for any cost premiums with the energy savings they’ll bring going forward. Replacing older single pane windows with new more efficient double or even triple pane varieties can significantly reduce home energy usage and heating/cooling bills as well. Be sure to get professional help when installing insulation or new windows, as improper installation can negate the benefits you’re trying to obtain.

CONTACTS: DOE Home Energy Saver Website, www.hes.lbl.gov/hes/vh.shtml ; American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, www.aceee.org ; EnergySTAR, www.energystar.gov

Dear EarthTalk: What are some things that children and families can do to be greener (and to provide life lessons for the kids in the process)? - Cynthia Mosher, via email

 Pic :"Sean Dreilinger, courtesy Flickr."

There are many ways to be green around the family that are sure to rub off on the littler ones in your midst—if they don’t beat you to it, that is.

With environmental awareness so widespread among younger people in our society, most kids have learned more about being green from their school teachers and camp counselors than we adults might have gleaned in a lifetime. For one, the environmental “Three R’s”—Reduce, Reuse, Recycle—are followed at many schools nowadays. But just because your kids might hear about it at school doesn’t mean that it is sinking in, and that’s where you come in. By reinforcing such messages at home and on outings—and leading by example—you can be certain that today’s ‘tweens will be tomorrow’s greens.

If you don’t know where to start, look for the metaphorical low-hanging fruit: recycling. Learn what types of items your city or town accepts for recycling and sort accordingly. Teach your kids what goes into the recycling bin, and put them in charge. In many locales, residents must pay for trash hauling but not for recyclables, so diverting more of your waste stream to recycling will also leave more money in your wallet for those outings to the ice cream truck and toy store. Also, raid your recycling bin when the kids want to make arts and crafts; reusing materials for creative endeavors is about as green as you can get.

Another way to teach kids about being green is by talking about the foods we eat, where they come from, and the environmental impact our food choices have. No one wants to cause pollution or eat chemicals, kids included, so sourcing your food from local and organic sources when possible—and explaining why to your children—will benefit not only their development but the health of the Earth as well. Many vegetarians have chosen to avoid meat for environmental reasons, and should make sure their kids know why so they can make informed choices for their own diets accordingly when it’s their turn to decide.

Exploring the outdoors near or far with the family is also a great way to teach kids about appreciating and respecting nature and its wild plant and animal inhabitants. Any tidbits of knowledge you might have about the natural history of the place you’re visiting will be eagerly absorbed and remembered by the kids.

Richard Louv underscores the importance of fostering a connection between children and nature in his book, Last Child in the Woods. In it, Louv traces the evolution of a phenomenon he calls “nature deficit disorder,” whereby kids raised on a steady diet of video games and junk food may not turn into the great stewards of the outdoors we might hope for. His solution? Get them off the couch and into nature, where they will surely be wowed by what they encounter.

Last Child in the Woods has inspired dozens of “Leave No Child Inside” initiatives around the U.S. since its 2005 publication, and Louv has gone on to found the Children & Nature Network, which works with upwards of 50 regional groups across the U.S. that offer programs connecting children and nature. Parents can find events and activities near them via the group’s free online interactive “movement map.” 

CONTACT: Children & Nature Network, www.childrenandnature.org

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve heard that cars can be modified to run on water. How is this possible?
- Diane McMorris, Rockport, ME

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Search for keyword 'greenhouse gases' 'electrolysis' 'gasoline cars' 'cars running on water' 'hybrid car' 'borax for household' 'hydrogen highway' 'NREL' 'borax' 'boron research institute'  in kidsfreesouls Search

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

Pic:  "Will Hardy, courtesy Flickr."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

E Magazine and EarthTalk receive 2009 ECO AWARDS
Nation’s Premier Environmental Publication and its Weekly Column Recognized for Excellence

July 20, 2009 (Norwalk, CT) – The announcement last week of the 2009 Eco Awards demonstrates that E – The Environmental Magazine, the nation’s premier green publication, remains a vital source for in-depth, credible environmental coverage. The ECO Awards recognize outstanding achievement by environmental communications professionals. Out of 174 entries, E received two of the 42 Awards of Merit presented, winning in the categories of “overall print magazine” for E Magazine and “regular column” for its nationally syndicated EarthTalk feature.
 
About E

Founded in 1990 by publisher and executive editor Doug Moss, E Magazine is a nonprofit “clearinghouse” of environmental information, news and resources. E reaches a national audience in a smartly designed full-color format, printed on recycled paper, and currently enjoys a bimonthly readership of 180,000, including subscribers, newsstand/bookstore buyers and libraries.
 
Among its media and environmental colleagues, E has earned an excellent reputation for thorough and balanced reporting and for being “ahead of the curve” and a consistent thought-leader. E was one of the first magazines for general readers to sound the alarm on a number of emerging environmental concerns, including: the observable effects of climate change around the world; the environmental impacts of the bottled water industry; and ecological connections to and avian flu.
 
E’s articles enjoy substantial mainstream media syndication, regularly appearing in the pages of major newspapers and other magazines. Many E stories have also inspired other major media coverage, including an NBC Nightly News report on water issues, a Time magazine cover story on the environmental and health benefits of a vegetarian diet, and a Parade magazine feature entitled, “Make Your Household Healthy.” In addition, green groups use E articles extensively in waging their own public education campaigns.
 
In 2005, E’s editors authored Green Living: The E Magazine Handbook for Living Lightly on the Earth, a comprehensive guide to the environmental lifestyle. From recycling to rainforest protection, Green Living introduces readers to broad categories of issues, and features a compendium of green products and services, from organic foods to non-toxic cleaners to “eco-travel” options. Like E itself, the book is loaded with contact information so readers can conduct further research.
 
About EarthTalk

EarthTalk not only appears in the bimonthly magazine but is also a nationally syndicated weekly question-and-answer feature that is distributed free, and by request only, to over 1,750 newspapers, magazines and websites. The column is also posted by some highly trafficked websites, including MSNBC.com, The New York Times’ About.com, PopSci (the website of Popular Science magazine), Sciam.com (the website of Scientific American), and regional web portals such as Kansas City Infozine. (Also www.kidsfreesouls.com in Gujarat, India)
 
EarthTalk answers reader-submitted questions on a wide range of environmental topics, ranging from “Are my kids breathing in dangerous exhaust fumes by riding the school bus?” to “Where can I recycle my plastic CD jewel cases?” EarthTalk is an effort to reach beyond “the choir” of committed environmentalists and offer highly useful information to sympathetic but uninformed people shown in poll after poll to be ready and even eager for “green” information. In February 2009, Plume (an imprint of Penguin publishing) released a “best of” EarthTalk book that is now available in stores.
 
"As we approach E's 20th anniversary and EarthTalk's 6th, we are heartened by this recognition for our work spreading environmental intelligence to a public increasingly eager to learn about these issues and how they can make a difference," says Moss.
 
To learn more about the Eco Awards, visit www.environmentalcommunicator.com. To learn more about E Magazine and EarthTalk, visit www.emagazine.com

For your Earth Talk Questions - Email, doug@emagazine.com | freesoul@kidsfreesouls.com
 

Dear EarthTalk: If train travel is so much less polluting than driving or flying, why are passenger rail options in the U.S. so limited compared to Europe? And is anything being done to shift more travelers over to American rail lines from cars and planes?   - Jeffrey Orenstein, Bradenton, FL

Pic:"J.P. Mueller, courtesy Flickr"

It’s true that train travel is one of the lowest impact ways to get from point to point short of walking, jogging or bicycling. In the early part of the 20^th century, with car and air travel both in their infancies, taking the train was really the only practical way for Americans to get from city to city. And take the train they did: By 1929 the U.S. boasted one of the largest and most used rail networks in the world, with some 65,000 railroad passenger cars in operation across some 265,000 miles of track. 

But a concerted campaign by U.S. carmakers to acquire rail lines and close them along with a major push in Congress to build the world’s most extensive interstate highway system combined to shift Americans’ tastes away from rail travel and toward cars. As a result, while Europe focused on building its own rail networks, the U.S. became the ultimate auto nation, with more cars per capita than anywhere else in the world. By 1965 only 10,000 rail passenger cars were in operation across just 75,000 miles of track.  

In response to the declining use of America’s rail network, the U.S. government created Amtrak in 1971 to provide intercity passenger train service across the country, running mostly on pre-existing track already in use for freight transport. Today Amtrak runs some 1,500 rail passenger cars on 21,000 miles of track connecting 500 destinations in 46 states. In 2008, upwards of 28 million passengers rode Amtrak trains, representing the sixth straight year of record ridership for the publicly-owned rail line. Despite this growth, the U.S. still has one of the lowest inter-city rail usage rates in the developed world. 

But that may all change soon. In the spring of 2009, President Obama allocated $8 billion of his stimulus package toward development of more high-speed rail lines across the country, citing the need to reduce both greenhouse gas emissions and reliance on foreign oil. Currently only one high-speed rail line exists in the U.S., Amtrak’s Acela Express, which can reach speeds of 150 mile per hour on its Washington, D.C. to Boston route. The success of high-speed, high-efficiency “bullet” trains in Asia and Europe—where train rides can be as fast as flying but without the long waits and security hassles—has helped convince American transportation analysts that the U.S. should also take the high speed rail plunge.  

The first round of federal funding will go toward upgrading and increasing speeds on existing lines, but the majority of it will be used to jump-start construction of new high speed lines in 10 corridors across the country, including in northern New England, across New York State, across Pennsylvania, in and around Chicago, throughout the Southeast, and up and down the length of the west coast. 

A 2006 study by the Center for Clean Air Policy and the Center for Neighborhood Technology concluded that building a high speed rail system across the U.S. (similar in scope to that proposed by Obama) would likely result in 29 million fewer car trips and 500,000 fewer plane flights each year, saving six billion pounds of carbon dioxide emissions—the equivalent of removing a million cars from the road annually. 

CONTACTS: Amtrak, www.amtrak.com; Center for Clean Air Policy, www.ccap.org; Center for Neighborhood Technology, www.cnt.org

Search for keyword ' Amtrek' 'Acela Express' 'Center for clean air policy' 'pollution' 'population' 'UN population fund' 'global population and environment' 'neighborhood technology' in kidsfreesouls Search

Dear EarthTalk: To what extent does human population growth impact global warming, and what can be done about it?   - Larry LeDoux, Honolulu, HI

No doubt human population growth is a major contributor to global warming, given that humans use fossil fuels to power their increasingly mechanized lifestyles. More people means more demand for oil, gas, coal and other fuels mined or drilled from below the Earth’s surface that, when burned, spew enough carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere to trap warm air inside like a greenhouse. 

According to the United Nations Population Fund, human population grew from 1.6 billion to 6.1 billion people during the course of the 20^th century. (Think about it: It took all of time for population to reach 1.6 billion; then it shot to 6.1 billion over just 100 years.) During that time emissions of CO2, the leading greenhouse gas, grew 12-fold. And with worldwide population expected to surpass nine billion over the next 50 years, environmentalists and others are worried about the ability of the planet to withstand the added load of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere and wreaking havoc on ecosystems down below. 

Developed countries consume the lion’s share of fossil fuels. The United States, for example, contains just five percent of world population, yet contributes a quarter of total CO2 output. But while population growth is stagnant or dropping in most developed countries (except for the U.S., due to immigration), it is rising rapidly in quickly industrializing developing nations. According to the United Nations Population Fund, fast-growing developing countries (like China and India) will contribute more than half of global CO2 emissions by 2050, leading some to wonder if all of the efforts being made to curb U.S. emissions will be erased by other countries’ adoption of our long held over-consumptive ways. 

“Population, global warming and consumption patterns are inextricably linked in their collective global environmental impact,” reports the Global Population and Environment Program at the non-profit Sierra Club. “As developing countries’ contribution to global emissions grows, population size and growth rates will become significant factors in magnifying the impacts of global warming.”  

According to the Worldwatch Institute, a nonprofit environmental think tank, the overriding challenges facing our global civilization are to curtail climate change and slow population growth. “Success on these two fronts would make other challenges, such as reversing the deforestation of Earth, stabilizing water tables, and protecting plant and animal diversity, much more manageable,” reports the group. “If we cannot stabilize climate and we cannot stabilize population, there is not an ecosystem on Earth that we can save.” 

Many population experts believe the answer lies in improving the health of women and children in developing nations. By reducing poverty and infant mortality, increasing women’s and girls’ access to basic human rights (health care, education, economic opportunity), educating women about birth control options and ensuring access to voluntary family planning services, women will choose to limit family size. 

CONTACTS: United Nations Population Fund, www.unfpa.org; Sierra Club’s Global Population and Environment Program, www.sierraclub.org/population; Worldwatch Institute, www.worldwatch.org

Environmental Magazine Asks: What’s Hiding in Your Sunscreen?

The July/August 2009 issue of E – The Environmental Magazine (now posted at: http://www.emagazine.com ) looks at how nanotechnology has changed what we eat, wear and apply to our skin­Unfortunately with little regulation and little understanding of the long-term consequences, both to our own health and that of the natural world.

Sunscreens, energy drinks and high-tech clothing are just a few of the 800-plus consumer products made with nanomaterials: those manufactured at the scale of atoms and molecules. Sunscreen that turns clear on the skin contains titanium dioxide, an ordinary UV-blocker in extraordinarily small particles. Odor-eating socks are made with atoms of germ-killing silver. Supplement makers boast of amazing health effects from swallowing nanosolutions that are completely untested for effectiveness or safety.

Nobody -- not even the world’s leading nanoscientists -- knows what nanoparticles do inside the body or in the environment.

Nanotechnology, a fast-growing global industry, is essentially unregulated. “This is basically virgin territory,” says Rutgers University environmental scientist Paul Lio. “The fact that it’s virgin territory is not good for the field, and it should be fixed really quickly.”

Advocates and independent scientists agree that we need to get ahead of the risks before it’s too late. They are worried about unleashing a powerful new technology that could have vast unintended consequences.

Understanding Nano

Nanotechnology describes the ability to manufacture and manipulate minuscule materials into forms such as quantum dots, spherical buckyballs and cylindrical carbon nanotubes. These engineered nanomaterials take on unusual properties -- changing color, for example, or becoming electrically conductive or penetrating cell walls. And they have many uses. Carbon nanotubes, or CNTs -- made by rolling up sheets of graphite just one atom thick -- are extremely light and strong; they show up in high-end tennis rackets and bicycle frames. Nanosilver is used as an antimicrobial agent in everything from paint to toothpaste to teddy bears. Nanometal oxides are blended into ceramics and coatings, making them more durable.

Nanotech offers enormous potential benefits. Medical researchers are investigating ways to use nano materials to target tumors and then deliver tiny amounts of drugs directly inside the cancer cells, sparing the healthy cells. Possible green tech applications include cheaper, more efficient solar panels and water-filtration systems, energy-saving batteries and lighter vehicles that use less fuel.

That’s the upside. But early research on the potential hazards of nanotech is producing major danger signs. Workers handling nanomaterials face the biggest risks. But there are concerns for consumers, too, especially with products -- like cosmetics, food and supplements -- that go directly on or in the body. And with potentially toxic nanomaterials washing down the drain and into the water and soil, there’s reason to worry about environmental damage as well.

Ignoring the Dangers

Studies on nanotech’s downsides are a mere nanospeck compared to the research that’s being done on how this technology can benefit humanity -- and corporate profits. Of $1.5 billion in federal nano spending each year, only between 1% and 2.5% goes toward studying environmental, health and safety risks. Worse, there’s no national strategy for deciding what questions need to be answered, or what to do with those answers as they arrive.

Of the studies that have been done, results are alarming:

Last year, British researchers reported that when long, straight carbon nanotubes -- shaped like asbestos fibers -- were injected into mice, they caused the same kind of damage as asbestos. A follow-up study this year, by this country’s National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), found that when mice inhaled CNTs, the tiny tubes migrated from their lungs to the surrounding tissue -- the very spot where asbestos causes the rare cancer known as mesothelioma.

One reason nanomaterials can cause trouble is simply that they are small enough to evade the body’s defenses. In a University of Rochester study of the accidental nanoparticles known as ultrafine pollution, they bypassed the protective blood-brain barrier and slipped directly into the brain’s olfactory bulb. Other research demonstrates that nanomaterials can penetrate into the deepest parts of the lungs. From there, they cross into the bloodstream and various organs.

Based on evidence like this, the European Union’s occupational health and safety agency issued an expert report in March, citing nanoparticles as the number-one emerging risk to workers. In the U.S., NIOSH has issued a guidance document urging employers to avoid exposing workers to nanomaterials -- for example, by enclosing equipment and using ventilation to reduce dust and fumes. But NIOSH has no regulatory power; it can only suggest.

And concerns continue to grow regarding the ability of nanoparticles to contaminate other people or the environment as they come loose from our sunscreens and clothing. Nanoparticles might also wash down the drain and create dangerously toxic environments for microorganisms -- or inhibit good bacteria in sewage treatment plants from doing their work.

“The take-home message for me is, the behavior of these particles is very complex,” says Cyndee Gruden, a civil engineering professor at the University of Toledo in Ohio. “When you take a nanoparticle and put it into the environment, you have to know how it’s going to behave. And we don',t.”

Dear EarthTalk: What kind of job opportunities might be opened up by the new federal emphasis on green projects?   - Dick Wetzler, St. Paul, MN

Pic: "Dave Worth, courtesy Flickr."

If it’s a U.S. industry that has the potential to be cleaner and greener, chances are the Obama administration has already set aside some stimulus money for it. In February 2009, the new president signed the $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act into law. Besides creating jobs, the bill promises to spur American companies to greener heights through investments totaling over $75 billion. 

According to Environment America, a federation of state-based environmental advocacy groups, the stimulus package includes $32.8 billion for clean energy projects, $26.86 billion for energy efficiency initiatives and $18.95 billion for green transportation. Some of the key green features of the bill include accelerating the deployment of “smart grid” technology (systems of routing power in ways that optimize energy-efficiency), providing energy efficiency funds for schools, offering support for governors and mayors to beef up energy efficiency in private homes and public buildings, and establishing a new loan guarantee program to help renewable energy producers survive in down economic times. 

With the private capital and credit so tight due to the recession, this influx of federal support is vital to help the still fledgling green energy and transportation sectors stay afloat. And most economists agree that it makes good sense to steer away from finite foreign oil toward homegrown renewable energy. Obama has promised the creation of some 500,000 jobs in the nation’s burgeoning clean energy sector alone. 

“The central facts here are irrefutable: Spending the same amount of money on building a clean energy economy will create three times more jobs within the U.S. than would spending on our existing fossil fuel infrastructure,” writes University of Massachusetts economist Robert Pollin in The Nation. “The transformation to a clean energy economy can therefore serve as a major long-term engine of job creation.” Wind turbine engineers, insulation installers, recycling sorters and photovoltaic cell salespeople—along with the businesspersons behind them—can all look forward to bright and potentially lucrative futures.  

This view is shared by the Solar Energy Industries Association, which predicts that the stimulus will help create some 119,000 jobs in the American solar sector alone before the end of 2010. Employers from solar cell manufacturers to green building materials retailers to wind farm maintenance firms to recycling haulers to energy auditors will likewise be looking to swell their ranks of employees with relevant skills.  

The federal government itself is also in on the recovery effort beyond doling out the money. According to the official Recovery Act website, the General Services Administration’s Public Building Service will invest $5.55 billion in federal building projects, “including $4.5 billion to transform federal facilities into exemplary high-performance green buildings, $750 million to renovate and construct new federal offices and courthouses, and $300 million to construct and renovate border stations.” About $1 billion worth of projects will be undertaken—a boon for everyone in the building industry, including construction workers, electricians, plumbers, air conditioning mechanics, carpenters, architects and engineers. 

CONTACTS: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, www.recovery.gov; Environment America, www.environmentamerica.org; Solar Energy Industries Association, www.seia.org

Dear EarthTalk: What effects do fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides used on residential lawns or on farms have on nearby water bodies like rivers, streams—or even the ocean for those of us who live near the shore? - Linda Reddington, Manahawkin, NJ

Pic: "Roger Smith, courtesy Flickr."

With the advent of the so-called Green Revolution in the second half of the 20^th century—when farmers began to use technological advances to boost yields—synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides became commonplace around the world not only on farms, but in backyard gardens and on front lawns as well. 

These chemicals, many of which were developed in the lab and are petroleum-based, have allowed farmers and gardeners of every stripe to exercise greater control over the plants they want to grow by enriching the immediate environment and warding off pests. But such benefits haven’t come without environmental costs—namely the wholesale pollution of most of our streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and even coastal areas, as these synthetic chemicals run-off into the nearby waterways. 

When the excess nutrients from all the fertilizer we use runs off into our waterways, they cause algae blooms sometimes big enough to make waterways impassable. When the algae die, they sink to the bottom and decompose in a process that removes oxygen from the water. Fish and other aquatic species can’t survive in these so-called “dead zones” and so they die or move on to greener underwater pastures. 

A related issue is the poisoning of aquatic life. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Americans alone churn through 75 million pounds of pesticides each year to keep the bugs off their peapods and petunias. When those chemicals get into waterways, fish ingest them and become diseased. Humans who eat diseased fish can themselves become ill, completing the circle wrought by pollution. 

A 2007 study of pollution in rivers around Portland, Oregon found that wild salmon there are swimming around with dozens of synthetic chemicals in their systems. Another recent study from Indiana found that a variety of corn genetically engineered to produce the insecticide Bt is having toxic effects on non-target aquatic insects, including caddis flies, a major food source for fish and frogs. 

The solution, of course, is to go organic, both at home and on the farm. According to the Organic Trade Association, organic farmers and gardeners use composted manure and other natural materials, as well as crop rotation, to help improve soil fertility, rather than synthetic fertilizers that can result in an overabundance of nutrients. As a result, these practices protect ground water supplies and avoid runoff of chemicals that can cause dead zones and poisoned aquatic life. 

There is now a large variety of organic fertilizer available commercially, as well as many ways to keep pests at bay without resorting to harsh synthetic chemicals. A wealth of information on growing greener can be found online: Check out OrganicGardeningGuru.com and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Alternative Farming System Information Center, for starters. Those interested in face-to-face advice should consult with a master gardener at a local nursery that specializes in organic gardening. 

CONTACTS: CDC, www.cdc.gov; Organic Gardening Guru, www.organicgardeningguru.com; USDA’s Alternative Farming System Information Center, www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/ofp/ofp.shtml

Dear EarthTalk: As I understand it, “clean” coal really isn’t—yet the Bush Administration gushed strongly for it. What is Obama’s take on it?  - John Zippert, Eutaw, AL

Pic copyright: Getty Images

Barack Obama and George W. Bush differ in many ways, but both have embraced so-called “clean coal” for providing an ongoing supply of cheap and readily available energy for electricity generation.  

The term “clean coal” is loosely defined as coal that is washed or processed to remove pollutants, so as to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the leading greenhouse gas, when the coal is burned. Coal-burning plants emit 40 percent of U.S. CO2 pollution—half of our electricity comes from coal—so reducing the industry’s carbon footprint in any way possible would be a big win for the environment. 

Luckily for clean coal advocates, the White House has been and continues to push for its development. George W. Bush’s support for clean coal dates back to his first term in office, when he stated that such technologies should be encouraged as a means of reducing dependence on foreign oil. And since taking office, the Obama administration has committed $3.4 billion in stimulus dollars to clean coal projects. 

But green groups continue to question the wisdom of relying on coal at all. Coal wreaks environmental havoc, from the coal mines that pollute rivers and streams, to the premature deaths of coal miners from accidents and lung diseases, to the release of greenhouse gases, mercury and other toxins at power plants. 

According to Greenpeace, burning coal emits 29 percent more CO2 than does burning oil or natural gas. And coal-fired power plants are the world’s largest sources of atmospheric mercury, a known neurotoxin that disperses quickly throughout the environment and into the food chain. Greenpeace says that clean coal technologies will not address this problem, and that there are “no commercially available technologies to prevent mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.” Also, the group says, clean coal will do nothing to mitigate coal mining’s damage to wildlife habitat and drinking water sources. 

“There is no such thing as ‘clean coal’ and there never will be,” Dan Becker of the Sierra Club told the Grist.org website. “It’s an oxymoron.” The Reality Coalition, a group of nonprofits that includes the Sierra Club, has been running TV ads seeking to debunk industry claims that coal can be clean. Green groups also worry that pushing clean coal will only delay the transition to a truly cleaner and greener energy infrastructure based on solar, wind and other emissions-free renewable energy sources. 

In April of 2009, environmental lawyer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. questioned the motivations of Obama and other politicians who back clean coal. “The coal industry and the carbon industry in general are the largest contributors to the political process,” Kennedy told ABC News. “You don’t have politicians representing the American public, but rather the people who finance their campaigns.” 

Of course, Obama’s support for clean coal doesn’t negate the fact that he has proposed spending much more on further development of alternative energy sources. He has called for getting 10 percent of U.S. electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 25 percent by 2025, and has committed upwards of $32 billion of stimulus dollars to the cause, according to an analysis by the nonprofit Environment America. 

CONTACTS: Greenpeace, www.greenpeace.org; Reality Coalition, www.thisisreality.org

Search for keyword 'Clean coal' 'Barrack Obama clean coal'  'clean coal power plants' green peace' 'clean coal CO2' 'eco clean coal' 'clean coal campaign' 'organizing for America'  in kidsfreesouls Search

Dear EarthTalk: Don’t some scientists point to sunspots and solar wind as having more impact on climate change than human industrial activity?  David Noss, California, MD

Pic copyright: Getty Images

Sunspots are storms on the sun’s surface that are marked by intense magnetic activity and play host to solar flares and hot gassy ejections from the sun’s corona. Scientists believe that the number of spots on the sun cycles over time, reaching a peak—the so-called Solar Maximum—every 11 years or so. Some studies indicate that sunspot activity overall has doubled in the last century. The apparent result down here on Earth is that the sun glows brighter by about 0.1 percent now than it did 100 years ago.  

Solar wind, according to NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, consists of magnetized plasma flares and in some cases is linked to sunspots. It emanates from the sun and influences galactic rays that may in turn affect atmospheric phenomena on Earth, such as cloud cover. But scientists are the first to admit that they have a lot to learn about phenomena like sunspots and solar wind, some of which is visible to humans on Earth in the form of Aurora Borealis and other far flung interplanetary light shows.  

Some skeptics of human-induced climate change blame global warming on natural variations in the sun’s output due to sunspots and/or solar wind. They say it’s no coincidence that an increase in sunspot activity and a run-up of global temperatures on Earth are happening concurrently, and view regulation of carbon emissions as folly with negative ramifications for our economy and tried-and-true energy infrastructure. 

“[V]ariations in solar energy output have far more effect on Earth’s climate than soccer moms driving SUVs,” Southwestern Law School professor Joerg Knipprath, writes in his ‘Token Conservative’ blog. “A rational thinker would understand that, especially if he or she has some understanding of the limits of human influence. But the global warming boosters have this unbounded hubris that it is humans who control nature, and that human activity can terminally despoil the planet as well as cause its salvation.” 

Many climate scientists agree that sunspots and solar wind could be playing a role in climate change, but the vast majority view it as very minimal and attribute Earth’s warming primarily to emissions from industrial activity—and they have thousands of peer-reviewed studies available to back up that claim.  

Peter Foukal of the Massachusetts-based firm Heliophysics, Inc., who has tracked sunspot intensities from different spots around the globe dating back four centuries, also concludes that such solar disturbances have little or no impact on global warming. Nevertheless, he adds, most up-to-date climate models—including those used by the United Nations’ prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)—incorporate the effects of the sun’s variable degree of brightness in their overall calculations.  

Ironically, the only way to really find out if phenomena like sunspots and solar wind are playing a larger role in climate change than most scientists now believe would be to significantly reduce our carbon emissions. Only in the absence of that potential driver will researchers be able to tell for sure how much impact natural influences have on the Earth’s climate. 

CONTACTS:  NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, www.solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov ; Token Conservative Blog, www.tokenconservative.com ; IPCC, www.ipcc.ch

Search for keyword 'Green notes' 'earthquakes' 'wind solar energy' 'solar wind' 'sun spots' 'NASA' 'Intergovernmental panel on climate change' 'IPCC' 'solar science'  in kidsfreesouls Search

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

Pic: "Frank Wouters, courtesy Flickr."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pic: "daviz2, courtesy Flickr."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pic copyright: Getty Images

It is true that trace amounts of birth control and other medications—as well as household and industrial chemicals of every stripe—are present in many urban and suburban water supplies around the country, but there is considerable debate about whether their levels are high enough to warrant concern.

In 2008 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) tested water in nine states across the country and found that 85 man-made chemicals, including some medications, were commonly slipping through municipal treatment systems and ending up in our tap water. Another report by the Associated Press found trace amounts of dozens of pharmaceuticals in the drinking water supplies of some 46 million Americans.

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

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

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

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

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

CONTACTS:  USGS Water Resources, water.usgs.gov; Sierra Club, www.sierraclub.org/watersentinels; NSF International, www.nsf.org; Natural News, www.naturalnews.com

Dear EarthTalk: Are plans to mine uranium near the Grand Canyon, as proposed by the Bush administration in 2008, still underway?- Denton Chase, Half Moon Bay, CA

Copyright: “John Foxx, Getty Images.”

The Obama administration has been quick to overturn several anti-environmental moves ushered in during the 11th hour of George W. Bush’s presidency, but halting uranium exploration and mining near the Grand Canyon has not been one of them. 

Last fall, Bush’s Secretary of the Interior, Dirk Kempthorne, circumvented a prohibition on mining activities by authorizing uranium exploration within a million acre buffer zone around Grand Canyon National Park. Recent spikes in the price of uranium—perhaps due to renewed interest in nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels as global warming makes its presence felt—have led to a surge in applications for new uranium mining permits on otherwise protected federal lands. 

Green groups fear that once mining starts near the Grand Canyon, similar destructive plans will also get the green light in and around other protected areas, including Arches National Park, Capitol Reef National Park, Canyonlands National Park and the proposed Dolores River Canyon wilderness area. 

When Kempthorne first proposed opening up the land to uranium mining, several concerned parties—including dozens of elected officials, public utilities and Native American tribes—complained about potential threats to surface and ground water from such activities. They fear that uranium mining in the area could lead to the release of radioactivity and heavy metals like selenium into the Colorado River and its watershed, including within Grand Canyon National Park. 

In lieu of federal action on the issue, green groups have taken up the cause. Some, like the Pew Environment Group, are lobbying President Obama to overturn the mining allowances; others are working the judicial angle. Three organizations—the Center for Biological Diversity, Grand Canyon Trust and Sierra Club—filed suit in federal court in October 2008 to block the Bureau of Land Management, which manages the area, from allowing uranium mining in what they consider risky and nationally significant areas. “This is an agency in dire need of leadership from the new administration,” says Taylor McKinnon, public lands program director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The Grand Canyon deserves it.” 

The battle over uranium mining near the Grand Canyon sheds light on an even larger issue: the 1872 Mining Law, enacted under President Ulysses S. Grant and still in effect today. Long a bone of contention along partisan lines, the law has so far opened up of some 350 million acres of public land across the western U.S. to virtually unchecked mining. Green groups maintain that the law, put in place to encourage westward expansion, no longer makes sense in the modern era of dwindling natural resources.  

“Current federal policy that allows the mining industry to operate next to America’s national icons and against the will of local communities must be changed,” said Jane Danowitz, Pew’s U.S. public lands program director. “It’s time to modernize the nation’s 1872 mining law.”  

CONTACTS: Center for Biological Diversity, www.biologicaldiversity.org; Sierra Club, www.sierraclub.org; Pew Environment Group, www.pewtrusts.org

Search for keyword'Grand canyon' 'uranium' 'Derk Kempthorne' 'green groups' 'center for biological diversity' 'pewtrust' 'gasoline electric hybrids' 'calcars' 'toyota' 'plug in priuses' 'European road rally'   in kidsfreesouls Search

Dear EarthTalk: With plug-in hybrid and electric cars due to hit the roads sometime soon, will there be places to plug them in besides at home? And if so, how much will it cost to re-charge?- Nicole Koslowsky, Pompano Beach, FL

Copyright:“geognerd, courtesy Flickr".

Gasoline-electric hybrids, like the Toyota Prius, are all the rage due to their fuel efficiency, and consumers have been clamoring for carmakers to up the ante and give these vehicles a plug. This way the batteries can be charged at home and not just by the gas engine and other on-board features, thus greatly reducing the need for gas except for long trips. And purely electric cars, like the Tesla Roadster already on the market, will be making more appearances on the streets as greater production brings the costs down. 

So what’s an electric or plug-in hybrid driver to do when they need a charge and they’re nowhere near home? Plug-ins are expected to reach up to 60 miles on a charge (great for a commute but not for a longer trip); and though the Tesla reportedly went 241 miles on a charge in a recent European road rally, its everyday stop-and-go efficiency will likely be less and drivers will need “pit stops” far from home. 

A few forward-thinking large companies have installed electric outlets accessible to employee parking, but most plug-in hybrid and electric car drivers will be looking for help well beyond the scope of their commutes. In the U.S., several cities in California, as well as Seattle, Chicago, Phoenix and others are now setting up recharging infrastructures. Paris, where Toyota is testing plug-in hybrids, already has over 80 recharging stations throughout the city and suburbs. Across the channel, London is working with the nonprofit Environmental Defense to install upwards of 40 electric recharging stations around town. 

According to the California Cars Initiative (CalCars), which promotes plug-in hybrids, Americans recharging their plug-ins via a regular 120V outlet should expect to pay about $1 per gallon equivalent. “Using the average U.S. electricity rate of nine cents per kilowatt-hour (kWh), 30 miles of electric driving will cost 81 cents,” the group maintains. “If we optimistically assume the average U.S. fuel economy is 25 miles per gallon, at $3.00 gasoline this equates to 75 cents a gallon for equivalent electricity.” 

For its part, Toyota has already released a few hundred plug-in Priuses in the U.S. to university and commercial fleet customers. The company will monitor the vehicles’ performance and use the data to tweak the design for a consumer-friendly version sometime after 2010. Pricing on the vehicles, which get 65 miles per gallon or more in combined gas/electric mode and can run on electricity alone, is as yet undecided. But chances are the car will command a premium of several thousand dollars over the cost of a regular hybrid Prius. The fact that such a feature might obviate the need for gasoline entirely—save for long trips away from charging facilities—may well make it worth the extra up-front cost for some buyers.  

Those unwilling to wait for a mass-market plug-in can have their existing Prius or Ford Escape hybrid converted accordingly by any of several “aftermarket” companies at a cost of $6,000 and up. CalCars provides a comprehensive listing of vendors across the U.S. and elsewhere that can do the conversions, and also offers its own instructions for those engineering-savvy hybrid owners who can do it themselves. 

CONTACTS: Tesla Motors, www.teslamotors.com; Environmental Defense, www.edf.org; California Cars Initiative, www.calcars.org; Toyota, www.toyota.com

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that military sonar exercises actually kill marine wildlife?
- John Slocum, Newport, RI

Pic courtesy: “U.S. Navy."

Unfortunately for many whales, dolphins and other marine life, the use of underwater sonar (short for sound navigation and ranging) can lead to injury and even death. Sonar systems—first developed by the U.S. Navy to detect enemy submarines—generate slow-rolling sound waves topping out at around 235 decibels; the world’s loudest rock bands top out at only 130. These sound waves can travel for hundreds of miles under water, and can retain an intensity of 140 decibels as far as 300 miles from their source. 

These rolling walls of noise are no doubt too much for some marine wildlife. While little is known about any direct physiological effects of sonar waves on marine species, evidence shows that whales will swim hundreds of miles, rapidly change their depth (sometime leading to bleeding from the eyes and ears), and even beach themselves to get away from the sounds of sonar. 

In January 2005, 34 whales of three different species became stranded and died along North Carolina’s Outer Banks during nearby offshore Navy sonar training. Other sad examples around the coast of the U.S. and elsewhere abound, notably in recent years with more sonar testing going on than ever before. According to the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which has campaigned vigorously to ban use of the technology in waters rich in marine wildlife, recent cases of whale strandings likely represent a small fraction of sonar’s toll, given that severely injured animals rarely make it to shore. 

In 2003, NRDC spearheaded a successful lawsuit against the Navy to restrict the use of low-frequency sonar off the coast of California. Two years later a coalition of green groups led by NRDC and including the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW), the League for Coastal Protection, Cetacean Society International, and Ocean Futures Society upped the ante, asking the federal courts to also restrict testing of more intense, harmful and far ranging mid-frequency types of sonar off Southern California’s coastline. 

In filing their brief, the groups cited Navy documents which estimated that such testing would kill some 170,000 marine mammals and cause permanent injury to more than 500 whales, not to mention temporary deafness for at least 8,000 others. Coalition lawyers argued that the Navy’s testing was in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act. 

Two lower courts upheld NRDC’s claims, but the Supreme Court ruled that the Navy should be allowed to continue the use of some mid-frequency sonar testing for the sake of national security. “The decision places marine mammals at greater risk of serious and needless harm,” says NRDC’s Joel Reynolds. 

Environmental groups are still fighting the battle against the sonar, lobbying the government to curtail testing, at least during peacetime, or to at least ramp up testing gradually to give marine wildlife a better chance to flee affected areas. “The U.S. Navy could use a number of proven methods to avoid harming whales when testing mid-frequency sonar,” reports IFAW’s Fred O'Regan. “Protecting whales and preserving national security are not mutually exclusive.” 

CONTACTS: NRDC, www.nrdc.org ; IFAW, www.ifaw.org

Search for keywords 'sonar' 'marine life' 'US Navy' 'Navy Sonar training' 'NRDC' 'National  Environmental Policy Act' 'protecting whales' 'iFaw' 'microwave' 'energy star program' 'treehugger' 'bluejay'   in kidsfreesouls Search

Dear EarthTalk: How does the microwave compare in energy use, say, to using a gas or electric stove burner to heat water for a cup of tea? -- Tempie, Dexter, MI

Pic copyright: Getty Images

The short answer is that it depends upon several variables, including the price of electricity versus gas, and the relative efficiency of the appliances involved. Typically, though, a microwave would be slightly more efficient at heating water than the flame on a gas stove, and should use up a little less energy. The reason: The microwave’s heat waves are focused on the liquid (or food) inside, not on heating the air or container around it, meaning that most if not all of the energy generated is used to make your water ready. 

Given this logic, it is hard to believe that a burner element on an electric stovetop would be any better, but an analysis by Home Energy Magazine found otherwise. The magazine’s researchers discovered that an electric burner uses about 25 percent less electricity than a microwave in boiling a cup of water. 

That said, the difference in energy saved by using one method over another is negligible: Choosing the most efficient process might save a heavy tea drinker a dollar or so a year. “You’d save more energy over the year by replacing one light bulb with a CFL [compact fluorescent lightbulb] or turning off the air conditioner for an hour—not an hour a day, one hour at some point over the whole year,” says consumer advocate Michael Bluejay. 

Although a microwave may not save much energy or money over a stove burner when heating water, it can be much more energy-efficient than a traditional full-size oven when it comes to cooking food. For starters, because their heat waves are concentrated on the food, microwaves cook and heat much faster than traditional ovens. According to the federal government’s Energy Star program, which rates appliances based on their energy-efficiency, cooking or re-heating small portions of food in the microwave can save as much as 80 percent of the energy used to cook or warm them up in the oven. 

The website Treehugger.com reports that there are other things you can do to optimize your energy efficiency around the kitchen when cooking. For starters, make sure to keep the inside surfaces of your microwave oven clean so as to maximize the amount of energy reflected toward your food. On a gas stovetop, make sure the flame is fully below the cookware; likewise, on an electric stovetop, make sure the pan or kettle completely covers the heating element to minimize wasted heat. Also, use the appropriate size pan for the job at hand, as smaller pans are cheaper and more energy-efficient to heat up. 

Despite these tips for cooking greener, Bluejay reiterates that most of us will hardly put a dent in our overall energy use just by choosing one appliance over another. According to his analysis, for someone who bakes three hours a week the cheapest cooking method saves only an estimated $2.06/month compared to the most expensive method. 

“Focusing on cooking methods is not the way to save electricity [at home],” says Bluejay. “You should look at heating, cooling, lighting and laundry instead.” 

CONTACTS: Home Energy Magazine, www.homeenergy.org ; Treehugger, www.treehugger.com ; Michael Bluejay, www.michaelbluejay.com

Dear EarthTalk: What is "nanotechnology?" I’ve heard that nanoparticles are already in consumer products, yet we haven't really studied their potential health impacts.- Dan Zeff, San Francisco, CA

Pic copyright: Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Search 'nano technology' 'nano car' 'nano particles' 'environment' 'nano technology articles' 'nano technology jobs' 'nanotechnology food' 'nanotechnology video'  in kidsfreesouls Search

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

"celestria, courtesy Flickr."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Thomas and Dianne Jones, courtesy Flickr."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear EarthTalk: I don’t understand why there are many European diesel cars with very high mileage ratings that are not available in the U.S. Can you enlighten? -- John Healy, Fairfield, CT 

Image Courtesy: "cafemama, courtesy Flickr."

Different countries do have differing standards in regard to how much pollution gasoline and diesel automobile engines are allowed to emit, but the reason you see so fewer diesel cars in the U.S. is more of a choice by automakers than the product of a decree by regulators on either side of the Atlantic. 

Since the advent of the automobile age in the U.S., gasoline has been king of the road; today upwards of 95 percent of passenger cars and light trucks on American roads are gas-powered. And the federal government has done its part to keep it that way, taxing diesel at a rate about 25 percent higher than gasoline. A recent assessment by the American Petroleum Institute, an oil industry trade group, found that federal taxes accounted for 24.4 cents per gallon of diesel but only 18.4 cents per gallon of gasoline. 

In Europe, where in many regions about half of the cars on the road run on diesel, these tax incentives are flip-flopped, with diesel drivers reaping the economic benefits accordingly.  

But according to Jonathan Welsh, who writes the “Me and My Car” Q&A column for The Wall Street Journal, interest in diesels—which typically offer better fuel efficiency than gas-powered cars—has gained significant momentum in the U.S. in recent years given the uptick in gasoline prices. The popularity of diesels also surged, albeit briefly, in the mid-1970s after the U.S. suffered its first “oil shock” that sent gas prices through the roof. But gas prices settled down and so did American fervor for diesels at that point. 

Today, though, with so much emphasis on going green, diesel cars—some of which boast similar fuel efficiency numbers as hybrids—are on the comeback trail in the U.S. Recently passed regulations require diesel fuel sold in the U.S. today to have ultra low emissions, which appeals to those concerned about their carbon footprints and other environmental impacts. Also, the increased availability of carbon-neutral biodiesel—a form of diesel fuel made from agricultural wastes that can be used in place of regular diesel fuel without any engine modifications—is convincing a whole new generation of American drivers to consider diesel-powered cars. Right now only Volkswagen, Mercedes and Jeep sell diesel-powered cars in the U.S., but Ford, Nissan and others plan to launch American versions of diesel models already successful in Europe within the next year. 

Meanwhile, the U.S. Coalition for Advanced Diesel Cars, a trade group that represents several automakers as well as parts and fuel suppliers, would like to see the U.S. government increase incentives for American drivers to choose diesel-powered engines by leveling the fuel taxation field—so gasoline and diesel could be competing fairly at the pump—and by boosting tax breaks on the purchase of new, more fuel efficient diesel vehicles. One hurdle is the relative lack of filling stations across the U.S. with diesel pumps, but as such vehicles become more popular, filling stations that don’t already offer them can relatively easily add a diesel pump or two.  

CONTACTS: American Petroleum Institute, www.api.org; U.S. Coalition for Advanced Diesel Cars, www.cleandieseldelivers.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Is there really such a thing as “sun-protective clothing?” If so, does it mean I can dispense with oily sunscreens once and for all?  - John Sugarman, San Diego, CA

Pic courtesy: Sun Grubbies

While there will always be a place for high-quality sunscreen on body parts exposed to the sun, covering up elsewhere—ideally with clothing designed to absorb or shield the sun’s damaging ultraviolet (UV) radiation—can minimize a person’s skin cancer risk significantly. 

With recent news about the inadequacy of many sunscreens—the nonprofit Environmental Working Group found that four out of five name brand sunscreens offer inadequate protection from the sun or contain potentially carcinogenic ingredients—covering up instead of smearing is looking better and better to many people. A handful of clothing manufacturers are responding to the increased demand for shirts, pants, dresses and hats bearing “SPF” (sun protection factor) ratings with stylish sun-protective duds. 

The granddaddy of them all just might be Sun Precautions Inc., which was started 15 years ago by avid downhill ski racer and outdoors enthusiast Shaun Hughes after he was diagnosed with skin cancer at age 26. The company’s Solumbra line of sun-protective casual and outdoors clothing blocks upwards of 97 percent of all UVA and UVB radiation it encounters, and is recommended by thousands of dermatologists. 

To test that its product line offers the kind of protection the company advertises, Sun Precautions subjects all of its Solumbra clothing to 500 laundry cycles, then snips out fabric samples which are exposed to the equivalent of 500 days of UV rays. If the samples pass muster, the line can be shipped.  

Another leader in the fast growing field is Coolibar, which boasts a 50+ SPF rating for all of its garments. Its clothing, including wide-brimmed hats and long-sleeved bathing suits among many other items, is crafted from a proprietary tight-weave yet breezy fabric it calls Suntect. Another top purveyor is Sun Protective Clothing, which makes its casual and sporting clothes from a proprietary fabric blend called Solarweave, which fends off UVA and UVB rays yet maintains a light cottony “summerweight” feel. 

Some hardcore environmentalists shun sun-protective clothing because it is usually made from polyester, Lycra or nylon—all which are petroleum-derived and are can contain some nasty chemicals. But Marta Phillips of SunGrubbies.com feels that it is better to wear the clothes than to smear chemicals directly onto your skin via sunscreen. That’s why her company sells a wide variety of sun-protective pants, jackets and hats, as well as specialty items such as cover-ups, sun gloves, sun sleeves and nose scarves. 

If getting a whole new wardrobe of sun-protective clothing is out of the question, washing your existing clothes with Rit’s SunGuard, a product that treats fabric with a compound that imparts 96 percent UV protection through about 20 washings, might be the way to go. Also, sun lovers shouldn’t forget about protecting their eyes. A good pair of 100 percent UV protection sunglasses doesn’t cost an arm and a leg anymore; everyone in your family needs a pair. 

CONTACTS: Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org; Coolibar, www.coolibar.com; Sun Precautions, www.sunprecautions.com; Sun Protective Clothing, www.sunprotectiveclothing.com; SunGrubbies.com, www.sungrubbies.com; SunGuard, www.sunguardsunprotection.com.

Pic copyright: Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear EarthTalk: If you have an electric or plug-in hybrid car, you’re paying for electricity rather than gasoline all or most of the time. How does that cost compare to a gas-powered car’s cost-per-mile? And since the electricity may be generated from some other polluting source, does it really work out to be better for the environment? - Kevin DeMarco, Milford, CT

 Pic courtesy: qviri," courtesy Flickr."

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear EarthTalk: What is the “green cities” movement? - John Moulton, Greenwich, CT

Pic courtesy: “Astrodyum, courtesy Wikipedia."

Best described as a loose association of cities focused on sustainability, the emerging “green cities movement” encompasses thousands of urban areas around the world all striving to lessen their environmental impacts by reducing waste, expanding recycling, lowering emissions, increasing housing density while expanding open space, and encouraging the development of sustainable local businesses. 

Perhaps the archetypal green city is Curitiba, Brazil. When architect and urban planner Jamie Lerner became mayor in 1972, he quickly closed six blocks of the city’s central business district to cars, delighting residents and business owners alike. Today the pedestrian-free zone is three times larger and serves as the heart of the bustling metropolis. Lerner also put in place a high-tech bus system, greatly reducing traffic, energy usage and pollution; the move also encouraged density around transit hubs and thus preserved open space in other areas that would have likely turned into suburbia. Today the bus system still goes strong, and three-quarters of the city’s 2.2 million residents rely on it every day. 

Another green cities leader is Rekyjavik, Iceland, where hydrogen-powered buses ply the streets and renewable energy sources—geothermal and hydropower—provide the city’s heat and electricity. London, Copenhagen, Sydney, Barcelona, Bogota and Bangkok, not to mention Sweden’s Malmo, Ecuador’s Bahía de Caráquez and Uganda’s Kampala, also score high for their green attributes and attitudes. 

Green cities abound in North America, too. In 2005, Portland, Oregon became the first U.S. city to meet carbon dioxide reduction goals set forth in the landmark (if ill-fated) Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement forged to mitigate the threat of global warming. Seattle, Washington also committed to meeting Kyoto’s goals and has persuaded 590 other U.S. cities to do the same under the U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. And Vancouver, British Columbia draws 90 percent of its power from renewable sources while its metro area boasts some 200 parks and more than 18 miles of accessible waterfront. 

San Francisco is a leader in green building, energy efficiency and alternative energy, and has been on the forefront of the battle to reduce plastic usage. Austin, Texas is fast becoming a world leader in solar equipment production and has made great strides in preserving open space. Chicago has invested hundreds of millions of dollars revitalizing its parks and neighborhoods, and has built some of America’s most eco-friendly downtown buildings. It is also working to provide affordable clean power to low-income families. Of course, many would argue that New York City—with its densely packed housing, reliance on mass transit and walking, and recent green policy moves by Mayor Bloomberg—may be the greenest of all. 

While there is no formal green cities organization, per se, many groups have sprung up to help urban areas achieve their sustainability goals. GreenCities Events, for one, hosts conferences around the U.S. at which local experts, policymakers and business leaders share ideas for greening their region. And International Sustainable Solutions takes urban planners, developers and elected officials on tours so they can check out some of the world’s greenest cities to glean first-hand what works and what can be applied back home.

CONTACTS: Mayors Climate Protection Center, www.usmayors.org/climateprotection; GreenCities Events, www.greencities.com; International Sustainable Solutions, www.i-sustain.com.

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

Pic copyright: Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear EarthTalk: What’s happening with wild populations of cheetahs, the fastest land animals on Earth?
- Eduardo Ramirez, Braintree, MA

Pic copyright: Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image “sakraft1, courtesy Flickr."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear EarthTalk: What is “microfinance” and how does it help poor countries and preserve the environment?  - Eliza Clark, Seattle, WA

Image courtesy: "Wikipedia."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve heard that most of the big car rental companies have gone “green” lately. What’s the story? - Ari Zucker, New York, NY 

Pic courtesy: "dpriddy, courtesy Flickr."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear EarthTalk: Which parts of the United States are or will be hardest hit by global warming?
- Aliza Perry, Burlington, VT 

“celestria, courtesy Flickr."

It’s difficult to predict which areas of the U.S. will suffer the most from global warming, but it’s safe to say that no regions will be unaffected. Scientists already point to increased severity of hurricanes on the East Coast, major Midwest floods, and shrinking glaciers in the West as proof of global warming’s onset. 

Of course, America couldn’t have asked for a better poster child in the fight to stave off global warming than Alaska, which is undergoing dramatic landscape changes as a result of warming-induced temperature increases, glacial melting and sea level rise. Even Alaska’s conservative elected officials can no longer deny that human-induced warming is affecting their state. The picture isn’t looking too rosy in the western continental U.S. either, which is already facing some of the country’ largest temperature increases. The signature glaciers in Montana’s Glacier National Park may be all gone within just two decades. 

A recent report by two leading nonprofits, the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization and the Natural Resources Defense Council, details how the 11 U.S. western states together have experienced an increase in average temperature during the last five years some 70 percent greater than the global average rise. The hottest part of the region has been drought-stricken Arizona, where average temperatures have risen some 2.2 degrees Fahrenheit—120 percent greater than the global rise—between 2003 and 2007. Researchers also found that the West has experienced more frequent and severe heat waves, with the number of extremely hot days increasing by up to four days per decade since 1950. 

In the Midwest, seemingly minor increases in temperature have already wrought major effects. In 2006 Lake Erie didn’t freeze for the first time in history, which led to “lake effect” snowfalls as more evaporating water was available for precipitation. Likewise, changes in the lake’s water temperature have begun to alter fish populations, which in turn affect birds and their migratory patterns. Despite localized heavier snowfalls, though, the region is generally suffering from a drying trend. Farmers worry that the result will be lower crop yields and thus more expensive food for American consumers. 

On the east coast, coral reef bleaching, heat waves and increased hurricane intensity are just some of the warming-related hazards Floridians have had to deal with in recent years. Washington, DC’s famous cherry trees are now blossoming earlier due to temperature increases. Further north, milder-than-typical winter temperatures have been linked to subtle changes in ocean currents. In New York City, the average temperature has increased about four degrees Fahrenheit since 1880, and could get 10 degrees hotter by 2100, according to a study commissioned by the federally funded U.S. Global Change Research Program.  

But the bigger problem for New York City, as well as other low-lying areas around the nation’s coasts, will be sea level rise: Climate models predict that sea level around the Northeast is expected to rise between ¾ inch and 3 ½ feet over the course of this century. 

CONTACTS: Rocky Mountain Climate Organization, www.rockymountainclimate.org; Natural Resources Defense Council, www.nrdc.org; U.S. Global Change Research Program, www.usgcrp.gov.

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

Copyright : "Getty Images."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EarthTalk
Questions and Answers About Our Environment
A Weekly Column - Doug Moss, Publisher
******************************************************
c/o E/The Environmental Magazine
***A nonprofit publication***
28 Knight Street, Norwalk, CT 06851
PHONE: (203) 854-5559/(X106) - FAX: (203) 866-0602
E-mail: earthtalkcolumn@emagazine.com

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

Join Kidsfreesouls Mission
Spread the Message of Luv, Faith, Peace & Unity among Human Beings Save our Environment, Save Mother Earth!