EarthTalk
From the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine
This column is updated weekly
Send your questions to: EarthTalk, c/o E/Environmental Magazine, PO Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; Submit your question at www.emagazine.com or email to earthtalk@emagazine.com
**********************************************************************************
Dear EarthTalk : What do you think of those “waste to energy” plants used by cities to generate power? -- Christine Ramadhin, Queens, NY
Waste-to-energy (WtE) facilities, which generate power by burning trash, have been in widespread operation in the U.S. and Europe since the 1970s and are considered by environmental advocates to be a mixed blessing. On the one hand they get rid of garbage without adding to already-stressed landfills and with the added benefit of contributing electricity to the power grid. On the other hand, they do generate toxic pollution, usually as a result of burning vinyl and plastics.
WtE facilities evolved out of basic incinerator technology that simply burns trash and reduces it to ash and smoke. Waste-to-energy plants instead use the garbage to fire a huge boiler. When the garbage “fuel” is burned, it releases heat that turns water into steam. The high-pressure steam turns the blades of a turbine generator to produce electricity.
In the U.S. and Europe, environmental laws regulate WtE plants, typically requiring them to use various anti-pollution devices to keep both harmful gases and particulate pollution (fine bits of dust, soot and other solid materials) out of the air. However, the particles captured are then mixed with the ash that is removed from the bottom of the waste-to-energy plant's furnace when it is cleaned. Environmentalists contend that this toxic ash, which can include dangerous heavy metals, may actually present more of an environmental problem than the airborne emissions themselves, as it usually ends up in landfills where it can leak into and contaminate soil and groundwater.
According to Greenpeace International, WtE facilities are also among the largest sources of dioxin emissions in industrialized countries. Dioxin is a by-product of burning polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and other plastics, and has been linked to cancer and other health problems. Greenpeace advocates for phasing out WtE facilities in favor of improving recycling rates that reduce the waste stream in the first place.
Currently about 600 WtE facilities are in operation around the world. According to the National Solid Wastes Management Association, an industry trade group, the United States is home to 98 such plants operating in 29 states. These facilities manage about 13 percent of America's total trash output. In Canada, where landfill space is more abundant, WtE has failed to catch on, with only a few such facilities across the country. WtE has caught on more so in smaller technologically advanced countries such as Japan, Sweden, Denmark, France and Switzerland, where landfill space is at a premium.
Recent improvements in the energy efficiency and environmental impact of WtE facilities means that the technology promises to play a larger role globally in years to come, especially as crowded developing countries start to jump on the bandwagon.
CONTACTS: National Solid Wastes Management Association, www.nswma.org/ ; Greenpeace Incineration Campaign, www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/toxics/incineration .
Dear EarthTalk : What kinds of home improvements could I do that would make my house healthier and more environmentally friendly? -- Elizabeth Bram, via e-mail
Most homes are not lacking in ways they can be healthier for family and kinder to the environment. For one, indoor air quality is a serious problem affecting millions of homes. Studies show that air within homes can be more seriously polluted than the air outdoors--even in the largest and most industrialized cities.
According to Glenn Haege, a master handyman who hosts a national radio show on home repair, as our homes and apartments have become more energy efficient and airtight, “humidity levels from cooking and breathing tend to increase, causing mold and mildew.” Harmful chemicals, he says, from construction materials, insulation, furniture, carpeting, padding, paints, solvents and household cleaners, drawn by this moist atmosphere, combine to contaminate the indoor air which then stays trapped inside.
The first step in remedying this problem is to test your indoor air. Pure Air and Envirologix, among others, sell inexpensive and easy-to-use indoor-air quality testing kits. Once you get an idea of the contaminants floating around your home, you can get to work replacing the offending sources accordingly. Green superstores such as the Environmental Home Center, Green Building Supply and Oikos offer a wealth of greener and healthier building supplies and materials. Also, BuildingGreen.com offers a free online “GreenSpec” database with detailed listings for over 2,000 environmentally preferable building products.
Materials outside the home can also contribute to health problems. One example is pressure-treated lumber, which contains a form of cyanide to keep pests away. Kids who play on backyard jungle gyms and decks made of such material can develop rashes and skin infections. Cedar wood is a naturally pest-resistant alternative that, while more expensive, is a kinder-gentler option that will stand the test of time.
Other ways to green-up the home include replacing traditional incandescent light bulbs with more energy-efficient compact fluorescents, as well as switching out conventional hot water heaters in favor of solar or on-demand tankless versions. And for saving on water, replacing traditional showerheads and toilets with pressurized low-flow alternatives can save gallons per day while generating cost savings on utility bills. Likewise, capturing rainwater and shower “gray-water” to irrigate the garden is another smart move.
Do-it-yourselfers can find hundreds of websites offering tips on green building and repair. Glenn Haege's MasterHandyman.com and NaturalHandyMan.com both offer a plethora of articles and links and are good resources if you're looking to improve your own handy skills while staying true to your green ideals. Two helpful books are: Green Remodeling by David Johnston and Kim Master; and Green Building Materials: A Guide to Product Selection and Specification by Ross Spiegel and Dru Meadows. For less handy homeowners, finding a handyman well versed in green building issues might be a better way to go. The Natural Handyman Network offers a free online search tool that should offer some promising leads.
CONTACTS: MasterHandyman.com, www.masterhandyman.com ; BuildingGreen.com, www.buildinggreen.com ; Envirologix, www.envirologix.com ; Environmental Home Center, www.environmentalhomecenter.com ; Green Building Supply, www.greenbuildingsupply.com ; Oikos, www.oikos.com ; The Natural Handyman Network, www.naturalhandyman.com .
Dear EarthTalk : I read a disturbing report recently that the long-banned pesticide, DDT, was being used in Mozambique to combat malaria. Malaria is a killer, but isn't a return to DDT even scarier? -- Graeme Campbell, South Africa
Much of the developed world banned the use of DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane) within about 10 years of the 1962 publication of Rachel Carson's book, “Silent Spring.” Carson's book, which is credited by many as having spurred the creation of the modern environmental movement, documented the ecosystem damage caused by DDT crop spraying throughout the United States and linked the pesticide's use to the disappearance of songbirds and raptors.
Health officials at the time also linked DDT exposure to nerve damage in humans, and blamed DDT for causing cancer in people who had applied it recklessly. Today, because of widespread indiscriminate use up through the 1960s, most people have traces of DDT in their bodies. DDT has since become increasingly associated with childhood developmental problems, according to the organization, Beyond Pesticides (BP).
Today, two dozen countries--including Mozambique and nine other African nations--permit the use of small amounts of DDT for controlling specific insect-borne diseases, including malaria. Malaria kills one million people, including 800,000 African children, every year. Dr. Arata Kochi, leader of the World Health Organization's (WHO's) global malaria program, strongly advocates using DDT to fight malaria, claiming that it poses little or no health risk when sprayed in small amounts on the inner walls of people's homes.
“Indoor residual spraying is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes…and presents no health risk when used properly,” agrees Anarfi Asamoa-Baah, WHO's assistant director-general for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. Asamoa-Baah insists that DDT's public health benefits far outweigh its risks.
Jay Feldman, executive director of Beyond Pesticides, disagrees and advocates for techniques that do not rely on pesticides like DDT. “The international community has a social responsibility to reject the use of this chemical and to practice sound and safe pest management practices,” he says. Feldman cites a recent study showing South African women living in DDT-treated dwellings to have 77 times the internationally accepted limit of the chemical in their breast milk. Researchers postulate that large amounts of DDT may have contaminated drinking water, exposing entire villages. “This highlights why no society can be unconcerned with DDT's impact” on health and the worldwide ecosystem, Feldman says.
Feldman is calling for alternative strategies for disease control, including addressing the conditions of poverty that lead to mosquito breeding. We should “no longer treat poverty and development with poisonous band-aids, but join together to address the root causes of insect-borne disease, because the chemical-dependent alternatives are ultimately deadly for everyone,” says Feldman.
CONTACTS Beyond Pesticides, www.beyondpesticides.org ; World Health Organization Malaria Information, www.who.int/topics/malaria/en/ .
Dear EarthTalk : Are there any environmental or human health risks to using nail polish?
-- Deborah Lynn, Milford, CT
Conventional nail polishes dispensed at most drugstores and nail salons contain a veritable witch's brew of chemicals, including toluene, which has been linked to a wide range of health issues from simple headaches and eye, ear, nose and throat irritation to nervous system disorders and damage to the liver and kidneys.
Another common yet toxic ingredient in conventional nail polish is a chemical plasticizer known as dibutyl phthalate (DBP). According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit research and advocacy organization that campaigns to educate consumers about the health risks of cosmetics, studies have linked DBP to underdeveloped genitals and other reproductive system problems in newborn boys.
As such, DBP is banned from cosmetics in the European Union but the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States has taken no such action, even though a recent study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found DBP and other toxic phthalates in the bloodstreams of every person they tested. Further, five percent of women tested who were of childbearing age (ages 20-40) had up to 45 times more of the chemicals in their bodies than researchers had expected to find.
EWG attributes the prevalence of DBP in young women to widespread use of nail polish. “Women of childbearing age should avoid all exposure to DBP when they're considering becoming pregnant, when they're pregnant, or when they're nursing,” says Jane Houlihan, EWG's Vice President for Research.
Luckily, safer nail polishes do exist and are readily available at natural health and beauty supply stores as well as from online outlets such as Natural Solutions and Infinite Health Resources. These products, from such makers as Honeybee Gardens, PeaceKeeper, Jerrie, Visage Naturel and Sante, rely on naturally occurring minerals and plant extracts to beautify nails without the need for toxic ingredients.
Major nail polish manufacturers are also now getting in on the act. According to the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, a coalition of organizations that includes EWG and the Breast Cancer Fund, Avon, Estee Lauder, Revlon and L'Oreal confirmed last year that they would begin removing DBP from products. And leading drugstore brand Sally Hansen has said it is reformulating all of its products to remove DBP and toluene as well as formaldehyde, which is also known to cause cancer and reproductive problems.
Exposure to toxic chemicals is not the only health concern associated with nail salons, where nail fungus and bacteria can lurk on the underside of any emery board. Women's health advocate Tracee Cornforth suggests checking out a salon for cleanliness before signing up for services. She also says to make sure attendants disinfect all tools and equipment between customers, and even recommends bringing in one's own manicure or pedicure kit so as to minimize the transmission of any unsightly or painful maladies.
CONTACTS: Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org ; Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, www.SafeCosmetics.org ; Natural Solutions, www.bewellstaywell.com ; Infinite Health Resources, www.infinitehealthresources.com .
Dear EarthTalk : Why do environmentalists advocate that people “eat locally?” I don't understand the connection between patronizing local food producers and environmental quality. -- Timothy Douglas, Burlington, VT
In our modern age of food preservatives and additives, genetically altered crops and E. coli outbreaks, as with the recent spinach debacle, people are increasingly concerned about the quality and cleanliness of the foods they eat. Given the impossibility of identifying the pesticides used and the route taken to grow and transport, say, a banana from Central America to our local supermarket, foods grown locally make a lot of sense for those who want more control over what they put into their bodies.
John Ikerd, a retired agricultural economics professor who writes about the growing “eat local” movement, says that farmers who sell direct to local consumers need not give priority to packing, shipping and shelf life issues and can instead “select, grow and harvest crops to ensure peak qualities of freshness, nutrition and taste.” Eating local also means eating seasonally, he adds, a practice much in tune with Mother Nature.
“Local food is often safer, too,” says the Center for a New American Dream (CNAD). “Even when it's not organic, small farms tend to be less aggressive than large factory farms about dousing their wares with chemicals.” Small farms are also more likely to grow more variety, too, says CNAD, protecting biodiversity and preserving a wider agricultural gene pool, an important factor in long-term food security.
Eating locally grown food even helps in the fight against global warming. Rich Pirog of the Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture reports that the average fresh food item on our dinner table travels 1,500 miles to get there. Buying locally-produced food eliminates the need for all that fuel-guzzling transportation.
Another benefit of eating locally is helping the local economy. Farmers on average receive only 20 cents of each food dollar spent, says Ikerd, the rest going for transportation, processing, packaging, refrigeration and marketing. Farmers who sell food to local customers “receive the full retail value, a dollar for each food dollar spent,” he says. Additionally, eating locally encourages the use of local farmland for farming, thus keeping development in check while preserving open space.
Portland, Oregon's EcoTrust has launched a campaign, the Eat Local Challenge, to encourage people to eat locally for a week so they can see---and taste--the benefits. The organization provides an “Eat Local Scorecard” to those willing to try. Participants must commit to spending 10 percent of their grocery budget on local foods grown within a 100-mile radius of home. In addition they are asked to try one new fruit or vegetable each day, and to freeze or otherwise preserve some food to enjoy later in the year.
EcoTrust also provides consumers with tips on how to eat locally more often. Shopping regularly at local farmers' markets or farmstands tops the list. Also, locally owned grocery and natural foods stores and coops are much more likely than supermarkets to stock local foods. The Local Harvest website provides a comprehensive national directory of farmers' markets, farm stands and other locally grown food sources.
CONTACTS: Center for a New American Dream, www.newdream.org/consumer/farmersmarkets.php ; EcoTrust Eat Local Challenge, www.eatlocal.net ; Local Harvest, www.localharvest.orgDear EarthTalk : What is the best eco-friendly vehicle choice for those of us who need a pickup or SUV? We are about to replace two older trucks with one that is more fuel-efficient. -- Barbara Roemer, via e-mail
Fuel efficiency has not typically been the calling card of pickup trucks and sport-utility vehicles (SUVs). Small hybrid gasoline-electrics are all the rage now among commuters looking to save money at the pump, but similar technology has been slower to gain traction in the “light truck” category. Carmakers have made strides in recent years, though, to meet growing demand for vehicles of all kinds that will sip and not gulp.
Currently, General Motors is the only carmaker offering hybrid pickups. Hybrid versions of its Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra 4x4s have been available since 2005, and get about 18 miles per gallon (mpg)/city and 21/highway. The non-hybrid versions get 15/19 mpg, but cost $1,500 less. GM claims that those paying the hybrid premium will get back that extra investment in fuel savings over three to five years.
Toyota reportedly has plans for hybridizing its full-size pickup line, too. The company recently unveiled its FTX concept truck, a large 4x4 hybrid pickup, hinting that technology developed for the project will likely end up in its current full-size Tundra pickup. But no such models have hit showrooms yet, and Toyota remains mum about a release date. Meanwhile, industry analysts have been picking up chatter about a hybrid version of Honda's popular Ridgeline pickup, but the company has yet to publicly announce plans.
Regarding fuel-efficient SUVs, consumers have a few more choices. Ford currently leads the charge with its Escape Hybrid model, a smaller SUV that gets 36/31 mpg. Ford makes similar SUV hybrids under its Mercury and Mazda brands. Meanwhile, Toyota's mid-sized Highlander Hybrid SUV clocks in at 32/27 mpg, while the similar Lexus RX 400 Hybrid gets 33/28 mpg. All these vehicles post significantly better fuel efficiency ratings than their non-hybrid counterparts, but also cost more up front.
If you're looking to purchase a new hybrid-electric car or truck in the U.S. before the end of 2007 you may qualify for a healthy tax credit, depending on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle. According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), a 2007 4WD Chevrolet Silverado or GMC Sierra hybrid pickup would garner a tax credit worth $650 (2WD versions qualify for a $250 credit), and the new 2WD Ford Escape Hybrid and Toyota's Highlander Hybrid each qualify for a whopping $2,600 credit. Buyers of the 2007 Lexus RX 400h can count on getting $2,200 back. The credits are limited to the first 60,000 sold, though, so if you're looking to jump on the hybrid bandwagon you should run, not walk, to the nearest showroom.
Replacing an older truck with a newer model--especially a hybrid--will almost always guarantee better fuel economy, but it might not be the most environmentally sensitive way to go, all things considered. Some experts would argue for keeping the old truck, and fixing and tuning it up, thus preventing another new vehicle from hitting the roads while an old one clogs up the junkyard. Repairing an old vehicle is usually cheaper than buying a new one, though it is difficult to quantify the cost of ongoing maintenance hassles.
CONTACTS: IRS Hybrid Vehicle Tax Credits, www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=157632,00.html ; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fuel Economy Information, www.epa.gov/fueleconomy/ .Dear EarthTalk : I heard that using a solar powered water heater in my home would reduce my CO2 emissions significantly. Is this true? And what are the costs?
-- Anthony Gerst, Wapello, IA
According to mechanical engineers at the University of Wisconsin's Solar Energy Laboratory, an average four-person household with an electric water heater needs about 6,400 kilowatt hours of electricity per year to heat their water. Assuming the electricity is generated by a typical power plant with an efficiency of around 30 percent, it means that the average electric water heater is responsible for about eight tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, which is almost double that emitted by a typical modern automobile.
The same family of four using either a natural gas or oil-fired water heater will contribute about two tons of CO2 emissions annually in heating their water.
Surprising as it may seem, analysts believe that the annual total CO2 produced by residential water heaters throughout North America is roughly equal to that produced by all of the cars and light trucks driving around the continent. Another way of looking at it is: If half of all households used solar water heaters, the reduction in CO2 emissions would be the same as doubling the fuel-efficiency of all cars.
And that might not be such a tall order. According to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI), there are 1.5 million solar water heaters already in use in U.S. homes and businesses. Systems can work in any climate and EESI estimates that 40 percent of all U.S. homes have sufficient access to sunlight such that 29 million additional solar heaters could be installed right now.
Another great reason to make the switch is a financial one. According to the EESI, residential solar water heating systems cost between $1,500 and $3,500 compared to $150 to $450 for electric and gas heaters. With savings in electricity or natural gas, solar water heaters pay for themselves within four to eight years. They last between 15 and 40 years--the same as conventional systems--so after that initial payback period is up, zero energy cost essentially means having free hot water for years to come.
What's more, in 2005 the U.S. began offering homeowners tax credits of up to 30 percent (capped at $2,000) of the cost of installing a solar water heater. The credit is not available for swimming pool or hot tub heaters, and the system must be certified by the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy's “Consumer's Guide to Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency,” zoning and building codes relating to the installation of solar water heaters usually reside at the local level, so consumers should be sure to research the standards for their own communities and hire a certified installer familiar with local requirements. Homeowners beware: Most municipalities require a building permit for the installation of a solar hot water heater onto an existing house.
For Canadians looking to get into solar water heating, the Canadian Solar Industries Association maintains a list of certified solar water heater installers, and Natural Resources Canada makes its informative booklet “Solar Water Heating Systems: A Buyer's Guide” available as a free download on their website.
CONTACTS: U.S. Department of Energy, www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/ ; Natural Resources Canada, www.canren.gc.ca/app/filerepository/AC5201041AFA42A1BFD51EA128F787CF.pdf .Dear EarthTalk : Now that autumn is here the leaves are going to pile up in my yard again. Is it really that bad to burn them? Why is it illegal to burn leaves in so many places now? -- Jeffrey Edwards, Westport, CT
Burning fallen leaves used to be standard practice across North America, but most municipalities now ban or discourage the incendiary practice due to the air pollution it causes. The good news is that many towns and cities now offer curbside pickup of leaves and other yard waste, which they then turn into compost for park maintenance or for sale commercially. And there are other burn-free options as well.
Because of the moisture that is usually trapped within leaves, they tend to burn slowly and thus generate large amounts of airborne particulates--fine bits of dust, soot and other solid materials. According to Wisconsin's Department of Natural Resources, these particulates can reach deep into lung tissue and cause coughing, wheezing, chest pain, shortness of breath and sometimes long-term respiratory problems.
Leaf smoke may also contain hazardous chemicals such as carbon monoxide, which can bind with the hemoglobin in the bloodstream and reduce the amount of oxygen in the blood and lungs accordingly. Another noxious chemical commonly present in leaf smoke is benzo(a)pyrene, which has been shown to cause cancer in animals and is believed to be a major factor in lung cancer caused by cigarette smoke. And while breathing in leaf smoke can irritate the eyes, nose and throat of healthy adults, it can really wreak havoc on small children, the elderly and people with asthma or other lung or heart diseases.
Sporadic individual leaf fires usually don't cause any major pollution, but multiple fires in one geographic area can cause concentrations of air pollutants that exceed federal air quality standards. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), several leaf and yard waste fires burning simultaneously in a particular locale can cause air pollution rivaling that from factories, motor vehicles and lawn equipment.
Purdue University consumer horticulture specialist Rosie Lerner says that composting leaves is the most eco-friendly alternative to burning. Dry leaves alone will take a long time to break down, she says, but mixing in green plant materials, such as grass trimmings, will speed up the process. Sources of nitrogen, such as livestock manure or commercial fertilizer, will also help. “Mix the pile occasionally to keep a good supply of air in the compost,” she says, adding that a compost pile should be a minimum of three cubic feet and will generate soil conditioner within weeks or a few months, depending on conditions.
Another option is to shred leaves for use as mulch for your lawn or to help protect garden and landscape plants. Lerner suggests adding no more than a two-to-three-inch layer of leaves around actively growing plants, chopping or shredding the leaves first so they don't matt down and prevent air from reaching roots.
As to using leaves as mulch for your lawn, it is just a simple matter of mowing right over the leaves with the lawnmower and leaving them there. As with leaves used for garden mulch, this will provide many benefits, including weed suppression, moisture conservation and moderation of soil temperature.
CONTACTS: U.S. EPA Residential Leaf Burning Facts, http://es.epa.gov/techinfo/facts/leafburn.html ; “Composting for Beginners,” www.plowhearth.com/magazine/compost_how_to.asp .
Dear EarthTalk : Is there a connection between Mad Cow Disease and Alzheimer's?
-- Jon Luongo, Brooklyn, NY
Despite limited evidence, some researchers fear that just such a connection might exist. In his 2004 book, Brain Trust , biochemist Colm Kelleher argues that Mad Cow Disease (also known as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, or BSE) has actually been in North American cattle since long before 1993 when the first case was publicly “discovered” in a beef cow in Canada's Alberta province.
According to Kelleher's research, undocumented cases date back at least a quarter century and may have tainted many a steak and hamburger already consumed. Further, Kelleher speculates that the infectious “prion” proteins that cause Mad Cow Disease and its brain-wasting human variant, Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD), could be a factor in the substantial increase in cases of Alzheimer's disease in recent years.
Some other research bears out Kelleher's claims; though blaming all of the increase in Alzheimer's on rampant prions might be pushing it. Dr. Michael Greger, Director of Public Health and Animal Agriculture at the Humane Society of the United States, cites several studies detailing that as much as 12 percent of all senile dementia or Alzheimer's cases diagnosed in North America these days may actually be cases of CJD.
“It would seem CJD is seriously underdiagnosed at present,” says Greger. He goes on to describe how the symptoms and pathology of both Alzheimer's and CJD overlap. Also, he points to epidemiological evidence suggesting that people eating red meat more than four times a week for prolonged periods have a three times higher chance of suffering dementia than long-time vegetarians.
“We don't know exactly what's happening to the rate of CJD in this country, in part because CJD is not an official illness,” says Greger, explaining that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) does not actively monitor incidences of the disease. He adds that several clusters of CJD outbreaks have been reported across the continent in recent years and stresses that more studies need to be done to determine just how many of the five million North Americans with Alzheimer's-like symptoms might actually have CJD.
Regardless, nutritionists hardly need more evidence about the potentially negative health effects of eating red meat. For starters, the saturated animal fat in red meat contributes to heart disease and atherosclerosis. Recent research also shows that frequent red meat eaters face twice the risk of colon cancer as those who indulge less often. Red meat is also thought to increase the risks of rheumatoid arthritis and endometriosis.
Meanwhile, according to the American Dietetic Association, vegetarian diets can significantly reduce the risk of heart disease, colon cancer, osteoporosis, diabetes, kidney disease, hypertension, obesity and other debilitating medical conditions. While red meat is a key source of protein and vitamin B12 in North American diets, nutritionists explain that properly planned meat-free diets easily provide these important nutrients while keeping you healthier in the long run.
CONTACTS: Brain Trust, www.colmkelleher.com ; American Dietetic Association, www.eatright.org .Dear EarthTalk : Now that the school year is starting, how can I pack lunches for my kids that are less wasteful of packaging? -- Maryellen, via e-mail
When kids open their lunchboxes after a hard morning of the three Rs (readin', ‘ritin' and ‘rithmetic), they hardly expect to be learning about the other three Rs (reduce, reuse, recycle). But parents can use the lunch they pack for the kids as a green lesson--if, that is, they can only hold off on the convenient but wasteful single-use paper napkins, plastic baggies and cutlery, and the pre-packaged foods and juice boxes.
We've all come to depend upon such throwaways to keep us moving speedily through each day, and it is difficult to resist those temptations jutting out at us in the supermarket aisles (especially if we bring the kids shopping with us!). But such conveniences come at an environmental cost as our landfills clog up with plastic and our garbage incinerators continue to belch out hazardous emissions.
So how are parents to “do the right thing?”
Enter Amy Hemmert and Tammy Pelstring, two California moms who were appalled to learn that a typical American school kid generates 67 pounds of discarded lunchbox packaging waste per school year. That's more than 18,000 pounds yearly for the average sized elementary school.
Hemmert and Pelstring began networking with other parents who shared their concerns, and quickly hit upon the “no-brainer” that by switching to reusable lunch containers, cloth napkins, stainless-steel forks and spoons, and refillable drink containers--not to mention eschewing the “Lunchables” and other unhealthy-to-boot prepared meals--they could eliminate their kids' lunch waste altogether.
They also discovered it was a great way to save money, as the costs of single-use disposables like juice boxes adds up quickly in relation to those of doling juice into plastic screw-top “sippie” cups out of half-gallon containers. Sure, some of the silverware and containers never make it back home, but that's a small “one step back” against the “two steps forward” of saving hundreds of dollars per child per school year.
Waste-free lunches also save schools time and money, as less waste cuts down on the frequency of trips to the outside dumpster and on the amount of trash that needs to be hauled away. “If every American child attending a public elementary school packed a waste-free lunch, 1.2 billion pounds of lunch waste would be diverted from landfills each year,” says Hemmert. “Landfills would last longer, and children would learn the importance of protecting the planet,” she adds.
Hemmert and Pelstring, who met in 1995 as members of a mothers group, went on to be good friends and jogging partners and, in 2002, launched a company, Obentec, specializing in the production of stylish reusable and modular lunch containers called Laptop Lunches, fashioned after Asian Bento boxes. The company also produces a free monthly newsletter, the Laptop Lunch Times , which includes lunch recipe suggestions, packing tips and links to related websites.
CONTACTS: Waste-Free Lunches, www.wastefreelunches.org ; Obentec, www.laptoplunches.com .Dear EarthTalk : How can I reduce the amount of paper bills that arrive at my home?
-- Bill C., via e-mail
Fortunately for the world's dwindling forests, a growing number of financial institutions, utilities and universities are implementing paperless billing options that not only save paper, but time and money, too.
Students at hundreds of educational institutions across North America are already receiving and paying their tuition bills online, avoiding the hassle of receiving paper bills and paying by mail, while also saving their schools hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in paper, postage and administrative costs.
Forward-thinking companies already offering their customers similar options include Bank of America, BellSouth, Citibank, Qwest, South Carolina Electric & Gas, Southern California Edison, T-Mobile, Verizon Wireless, Wells Fargo and Washington Mutual, among many others.
BellSouth offers “e-bills” that you can print out any time but don't have to. With the click of a mouse you can view your bill, access details and billing history, and make secure payments. You can pre-schedule so that each monthly bill gets paid on time, or set it up so that funds are remitted only when you authorize it. Southern California Edison's Online Billing and Payment service involves the same routine, with no paper exchange needed between company and consumer, and no need to print out your bills. Both companies send e-mail notices to let you know each time a new bill has been tendered.
At least two companies, PayTrust and XPress Bill Pay, will coordinate the receipt of all of your bills and present them to you online so you can pay any and all routinely from your desktop, even with different bank accounts, and using credit or debit cards or electronic funds transfer. The company lauds this service as one step removed (and paper saved) from “bill pay” services that still require you to “watch your mailbox, collect your bills on the kitchen table and remember to make a payment.”
“Electronic bill presentment and payment via the Internet is one of the fastest-growing areas in business,” says Nick Rini, a columnist for Telephony , a trade magazine for communications service providers. “With more than 63 billion checks written annually where 80 percent is some sort of bill payment--either business-to-business or consumer-to business--substantial cash-management benefits and customer-service opportunities exist for those who use interactive billing and payment,” he adds.
One advantage of paperless billing, says Rini, is that companies can get paid faster than when they must print, fold, stuff, meter, sort and mail paper bills. Rini estimates that, in the U.S. alone, companies could save $200 million collectively each day if they switched to paperless billing.
“The obvious cost savings come from decreasing, and eventually eliminating, printing and mailing expenses,” says Rini, adding that companies usually pay between 75 cents and $2.00 for each document generated and mailed. Meanwhile, the same companies end up paying another $1.25 for each paper check payment they must process, most if not all of which could be eliminated through online bill payment.
CONTACTS: PayTrust, www.paytrust.com ; XPress Bill Pay, www.xpressbillpay.com .Dear EarthTalk : A friend of mine refuses to swim at our beach near Los Angeles because the water is too polluted. What is the status of beach pollution, and is it safe for my kids and me to take a dip? -- Oscar Jeffries, Santa Monica, CA
Pollution levels are not the same at all beaches, so local conditions dictate whether or not it is safe to swim in the ocean near you. Local officials are required by federal law to monitor coastal pollution levels and post warnings as needed. But some local water quality officials are more diligent than others, so if you have any reason to doubt the cleanliness of the beach water, it is best to stay out.
Beach pollution originates with a variety of sources, including human, animal, agricultural and industrial waste, as well as leaked motor oil and gasoline, among other contaminants flushed out to coastal regions. Swimming in contaminated beach water can expose people to harmful chemicals bacteria and viruses.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the most common illness associated with exposure to contaminated beach water is gastroenteritis, which rears its ugly head in the form of nausea, vomiting, stomach ache, diarrhea, headache and sometimes fever. Ear, eye, nose and throat infections can also ensue from swimming in polluted water. In rare cases--though not typically in the U.S. or Canada--swimmers are exposed to more serious diseases such as dysentery, hepatitis, cholera and typhoid fever.
Back in 2000, Congress called on the EPA to update its beach water health standards by 2005 to reflect increased pollution over the past 20 years--when the agency last issued standards. They missed the deadline, so in 2006 the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) filed suit against the EPA for failing to honor its Congressional mandate. On the same day it filed suit, NRDC issued a report showing that beach closings due to hazardous bacterial contamination had jumped 50 percent in Los Angeles County last year alone. Further, across the U.S. beaches were closed or posted with health advisories 20,000 times in 2005.
According to NRDC, New Hampshire and Delaware had the cleanest ocean beaches, with contamination exceeding federal safety levels in only one percent of the samples taken. But beaches in California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Rhode Island and South Carolina were in violation of existing contamination standards at least half the time water samples were taken in 2005.
NRDC acknowledges that better local monitoring may explain the increased number of closings in 2005, but warns that many beaches deemed safe according to 20-year-old standards may not actually be so. For its part, the EPA reports it will now not be able to issue updated standards until 2011.
North of the border, Canadians can worry less about contaminated ocean beaches due to less developed coastlines. But the Great Lakes that Canada shares with the U.S. are notoriously polluted and the Great Lakes Commission has been working since 2000 to reduce the amount of raw sewage and industrial pollution jeopardizing water quality there. As with swimming at ocean beaches, freshwater swimmers should always check with local water authorities before diving in.
CONTACTS: EPA Beach Pollution Info, www.epa.gov/beaches/learn/pollution.html ; NRDC Beach Pollution FAQ, www.nrdc.org/water/oceans/qttw.asp ; Great Lakes Commission, www.glc.org .Dear EarthTalk : Is it true that nothing really “biodegrades” in a landfill? -- Laura, via e-mail
Organic substances “biodegrade” when they are broken down by other living organisms (such as enzymes and microbes) into their constituent parts, and in turn recycled by nature as the building blocks for new life. The process can occur aerobically (with the aid of oxygen) or an aerobically (without oxygen). Substances break down much faster under aerobic conditions, as oxygen helps break the molecules apart.
Most landfills are fundamentally anaerobic because they are compacted so tightly and thus do not let much air in. As such, any biodegradation that does take place does so very slowly. “Typically in landfills, there's not much dirt, very little oxygen, and few if any microorganisms,” says green consumer advocate and author Debra Lynn Dadd. She cites a landfill study conducted by University of Arizona researchers that uncovered still-recognizable 25-year-old hot dogs, corncobs and grapes in landfills, as well as 50-year-old newspapers that were still readable.
Biodegradable items also may not break down in landfills if the industrial processing they went through prior to their useful days converted them into forms unrecognizable by the microbes and enzymes that facilitate biodegradation. A typical example is petroleum, which biodegrades easily and quickly in its original form, crude oil. But when petroleum is processed into plastic, it is no longer biodegradable, and as such can clog up landfills indefinitely.
Some manufacturers make claims that their products are photo degradable, which means that they will biodegrade when exposed to sunlight. A popular example is the plastic “polybag” in which many magazines now arrive protected in the mail. But the likelihood that such items will be exposed to sunlight while buried dozens of feet deep in a landfill is little to none. And if they do biodegrade at all, it is only likely to be into smaller pieces of plastic.
Some landfills are now being designed to promote biodegradation through the injection of water, oxygen, and even microbes. But these kinds of facilities are costly to create and as a result have not caught on. Another recent development involves landfills that have separate sections for compostable materials, such as food scraps and yard waste. Some analysts believe that as much as 65 percent of the waste currently sent to landfills in North America consists of such “biomass” that biodegrades rapidly and could generate a new income stream for landfills, marketable soil.
But getting people to sort their trash accordingly is another matter entirely. Indeed, paying heed to the importance of the environment's “Three Rs” (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle!) is likely the best approach to solving the problems caused by our ever-growing piles of trash. With landfills around the world reaching capacity, technological fixes are not likely to make our waste disposal problems go away.
CONTACTS: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Reduce-Reuse-Recycle page; www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/reduce.htm .Dear EarthTalk : Would removing dams in the Pacific Northwest allow the wild salmon that used to thrive there return to their former abundance? -- Jake Garmey, Boston, MA
Before white settlement in the Pacific Northwest (pre-1850), each year some 10 million Pacific salmon--a so-called “silver tide”--swam up the Columbia and Snake Rivers to spawn at the streams and tributaries of their births. Native Americans feasted and derived much of their cultural awareness from the presence and cycles of these fish. Today as few as 10,000 salmon return home to the Snake River each season.
Over fishing and pollution--as well as the crossbreeding of native fish with weaker hatchery-born fish--have since taken their toll on wild salmon populations, but most analysts point to the construction of eight large hydropower dams throughout the Columbia/Snake system during the middle of the 20th century as the key factor. According to noted Pacific Northwest naturalist and writer William Dietrich, 106 salmon stocks have gone extinct from Northern California to the Canadian border since the dams were built.
According to Save Our Wild Salmon, a coalition of environmental groups and commercial and sport fishing associations, dams alone are responsible for the loss of 92 percent of salmon headed out to sea and of up to 25 percent on their way back upstream. “Fish are gone entirely from almost 40 percent of their historic rivers,” says Dietrich, who adds that most of the remaining fish are at risk, too, qualifying for full protection under the Endangered Species Act. Quite simply, the fish just cannot swim past the dams.
The idea of removing dams to restore salmon runs is not new. Environmentalists rejoiced in 1999 when Maine removed the 162-year-old Edwards Dam on the Kennebec River to allow passage for decimated stocks of Atlantic salmon. That dam was an obvious choice for removal, as it provided only 1/10th of one percent of Maine's power needs, yet strained and drained 20 percent of the state's watershed lands. In all, more than 145 dams have been removed across the U.S. since the Edwards Dam came down in 1999.
Environmentalists and biologists alike are calling for the removal of dams along the Columbia and Snake Rivers, but doubt that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the agency responsible for developing a salmon plan, will actively promote the idea. Dams in the Pacific Northwest produce nearly seven percent of the nation's electricity without generating greenhouse gases, and the Bush administration is eager to promote hydropower as one way to reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
Meanwhile, the federal government is working to complete removal of the Elwha Dam on Washington State's Olympic Peninsula by 2008. Built a century ago to generate power, the Elwha Dam shut off 70 miles of habitat for the more than 500,000 fish that had spawned there each year. Today, just 5,000 wild Pacific salmon swim up the Elwha River and school at the base of the dam each year, looking for a way upstream that no longer exists. The success or failure of the Elwha Dam removal will certainly impact the debate about the prospects for removing other hydropower dams in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere.
CONTACTS: Save Our Wild Salmon, www.wildsalmon.org ; NOAA Fisheries Service, www.nmfs.noaa.gov ; Elwha Restoration Project, www.nps.gov/olym/elwha/ .Dear EarthTalk : In a public restroom, which is the more environmentally sound and healthy option for drying your hands: a paper towel or an electric hand dryer? -- Dee Janis, Binghamton, NY
Most experts would agree that wall-mounted electric hand dryers are preferable to paper towels from an environmental standpoint. Though they do use energy, they shut off automatically and therefore don't waste energy--and they eliminate the need for paper while also keeping paper out of the waste stream.
But the answer may depend upon whom you ask. World Dryer Corporation, which supplies wall mounted dryers, prepared a study for the Topeka, Kansas public school system, which concluded that switching from paper towels to 102 of its wall-mounted dryers system-wide would save annually 587 trees, 690,000 gallons of water, 34.5 tons of solid waste, 103.5 cubic yards of landfill space, and almost $90,000 per year (including electricity costs), with less than a six-month initial payback period for the cost of installation.
Others are not so quick to give the nod to dryers, and cite sanitation as the reason. The Handwashing For Life Institute (HFL), an association of food service suppliers that includes paper makers, argues that hand dryers have “no place” in restaurant or cafeteria washrooms or in other situations where food is being handled. “Most users walk away with wet hands and wet hands transfer bacteria 500 times more readily than dry hands,” says the group's website. HFL advocates paper towels over dryers because they “remove bacteria from hands and reduce general bacterial counts by an average of 58 percent.”
Many hand washers would agree that wall dryers do not work as effectively as paper. After all, who hasn't given their hands a final swipe across a pant leg after using a hand dryer for a few minutes? California State University facilities manager Gary Homesley was one of those, but in assessing whether or not to replace paper towels with electric dryers at a campus student union, he was shocked to learn of the significant amount of resources used to make paper as well as the large amount of pollutants that paper-making was responsible for discharging into the atmosphere.
Ultimately Homesley chose the Xlerator hand dryer. The manufacturer, Excel Dryers, claims that it will dry hands in 10-15 seconds, and that it addresses the effectiveness issue with a high-velocity air stream that actually blows most of the water off the hands, leaving the thin remaining film of water to evaporate more quickly. The product is the first electric hand dryer to be awarded the Environmental Building News GreenSpec designation for conserving energy and reducing waste, and is also the first to qualify for the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program.
Despite the prevalence of recycled papers and the increased efficiency of electric hand dryers, it may still be disheartening to know that no matter what you are offered at the conclusion of your public restroom visit you are having some environmental impact. For those losing sleep over that, there is always the truly green fallback of carrying your own reusable washcloth.
CONTACTS: World Dryer Corporation, www.worlddryer.com/environment.html ; Handwashing For Life Institute, www.handwashingforlife.com/US/english/Integrated_solutions/paper_towel.asp ; Excel Dryer, www.exceldryer.com ; GreenSpec Directory, www.buildinggreen.com/ecommerce/gs.cfm .Dear EarthTalk : The term “sustainable” seems to be the new green buzzword. What exactly does it mean, particularly when applied to such things, say, as transportation or agriculture? -- Steve Nezhad, Portland, ME
“Sustainable,” quite simply, is the positive result of conducting economic, social or environmental activities in such a way that current needs are met without compromising the well-being of future generations. A sustainable activity also does not despoil the here and now, in part because of how it may affect the future.
For example, cars that run on oil and gasoline are unsustainable on both counts: They make use of a non-renewable resource (that is, one that will be completely depleted at some point in the future); and they pollute the environment right now. Thus they negatively impact the present-day as well as tomorrow.
What, then, is sustainable transportation? Any option that moves people or goods while impacting the environment minimally. Walking and bicycling are the most sustainable, using no energy except for leg power and consuming very little or no resources. And public transportation moves large numbers of people at once while also saving space, as one negative impact of cars is that activities tend to spread out through the process of sprawl, creating the need to travel greater distances to obtain goods or get to work.
As such, to a large extent transportation can be made more sustainable through urban design. The closer together we locate shopping and entertainment centers, the easier it is for public transport to get us there, and the less reliant we are on cars. And cars themselves can be more sustainable by running on clean fuels or on technologies, like hybrids, that use less fuel. Better yet, cars of the not-too-distant future will be powered by fuel cells, which run on hydrogen and spew no pollution. Ideally, that hydrogen will be made from water, using power from solar energy, thus creating no pollution at that point in the process, either.
In the realm of farming, sustainable agriculture in its ideal form provides a living for those who farm and supports the local community's needs while maintaining the natural ecology of the farm and its surrounding environment. According to the National Safety Center (NSC), a “sustainable” farm produces crops without damage to the farm's ecosystem, including the soil, water supplies and other adjoining resources. Sustainable agriculture is also “intergenerational,” says NSC, in that it seeks to pass on to future generations a conserved natural resource instead of one that has been depleted or polluted.
Some examples of sustainable agriculture include avoiding chemicals, rotating crops, and choosing crops that suit the climate, so as to reduce the need for chemicals and preserve the long-term fertility of the soil. In light of modern developments, some might add that avoiding genetically modified crops would also fit with the sustainable model, given the uncertainty of their impact on ecosystems and personal health.
Robert Gilman of the Context Institute defines sustainability as “extending the Golden Rule through time…Do unto future generations as you would have them do unto you.” Meanwhile, Paul Hawken of the Natural Capital Institute offers an equally concise summary: “Leave the world better than you found it, take no more than you need, try not to harm life or the environment, make amends if you do.”
CONTACTS: Context Institute, www.context.org ; Natural Capital Institute, www.naturalcapital.org .Dear EarthTalk : Are there any Amway-like multi-level marketing companies that focus on environmentally friendly products? -- Dave Miller, Fresno, CA
Back in the 1950s, Amway and a handful of other consumer products companies first pioneered the concept of “multi-level marketing” (MLM). In this business model, individuals act as distributors, selling the company's products from home while also recruiting others to do the same. In doing so, they earn commissions on both their own sales and on the sales of those they recruit. In recent years, a number of MLM companies have sprouted up with environmentally friendly products as their focus.
The most well known of the crop is Shaklee, which has been selling green-friendly nutrition, personal care and household products since 1956, when research chemist Dr. Forrest Shaklee started the company. Since then, perhaps in an effort to live up to Dr. Shaklee's personal motto (“Follow the laws of nature and you'll never go wrong”), the company has wracked up a long list of eco-accomplishments. Back in 1960 it introduced the first mass marketed biodegradable cleaning product, Basic-H, an all-natural formula that has since been adopted as an official Earth Day product. More recently, Shaklee became the first independently verified “climate neutral” company in the world, offsetting its carbon dioxide emissions with investments in various renewable energy projects. And just this year, Shaklee embarked upon an ambitious campaign to plant a million trees with the help of thousands of its independent distributors.
Another big player in the green MLM field is Idaho-based Melaleuca, which has been selling natural health care, personal care and household products since 1985. The name Melaleuca is borrowed from a plant that produces organic essential oils found in many of the company's products.
Meanwhile, Amazon Herb Company offers opportunities to sell herbal remedies derived from rainforest plants. “Amazon John” Easterling, who first discovered the healing power of herbs when Shipibo Indians used them to treat him when he fell ill during a visit to the Amazon rainforest, founded the company in 1990. Another up-and-coming player is Krystal Planet, which sells compact fluorescent light bulbs, solar heaters, fuel additives and other energy saving products for home, car and office.
If you're looking to work with an MLM company, keep in mind that just because a company has good green intentions does not mean it is a good deal for you. According to Robert FitzPatrick, who runs the Pyramid Scheme Alert newsletter, less than one in a thousand MLM distributors makes a profit. The bottom line is: Do your homework. As in any business, there are reputable companies and there are bad apples. The perceived opportunity of working independently may seem too good to pass up, so get a solid idea about the work required and the actual return likely before you quit your day job.
CONTACTS: Shaklee, www.shaklee.com ; Amazon Herb, www.amazonherb.com ; Krystal Planet, www.krystal-planet.com ; Melaleuca, www.melaleuca.com ; Pyramid Scheme Alert , www.pyramidschemealert.org .Dear EarthTalk : I'm familiar with the hybrid cars now widely available, but what ever happened to the purely electric cars that were around 10 years ago? --Peter Zilly, Bellingham, WA
The main problem with the electric cars that reared their heads briefly a decade ago was their ability to only go so far on battery power. Charges lasted just 50 miles or so, so you were in trouble if you needed to go farther or ran out of juice somewhere in-between electric outlets. Hybrids, on the other hand, which have side-by-side electric and gas motors, never need to be plugged in and instead use the motions of their gas-powered engines (as well as those of the car's wheels and brakes) to keep their batteries charged at all times. And with a huge infrastructure of gas stations, refueling is always as easy as pulling over to fill up.
Electric car advocates have long touted their alternative vehicles as primarily short-distance commuter cars. At a 50-mile range, most electric cars could make such short trips without the need for recharging. One need only plug their vehicle into an electric outlet in the garage overnight to charge up the battery for the morning commute, and if needed then plug it in at the office for the return trip later.
But most people want more from their cars than just the daily commute--and gassing up takes minutes whereas re-charging takes hours--so sufficient demand never materialized. Hybrids, though they do use gasoline, are as versatile as conventional cars--and the coming “plug-in hybrids” (covered previously in this column) promise to substantially increase efficiency, to perhaps 100 miles per gallon or more, by using the electric motor exclusively for short runs and commutes and the gas engine only for long trips.
Even though all-electric vehicles are not currently in vogue, innovative engineers are busy working to improve them. Technological advances in battery life and engine efficiency mean that electric vehicles may be able to roam farther than ever before. According to EVWorld.com, drivers looking to go electric will soon have a few options:
California-based Tesla Motors will soon be accepting deposits on orders for its Tesla Roadster, and plans its first deliveries for 2007. Tesla claims its car can go 250 miles on a charge, which can even be extended further through its “regenerative braking” technology, similar to that which is employed in the hybrids.
And Spokane, Washington's Commuter Car Corporation is taking orders for its Tango 600 (a kit you have to assemble) and its Tango 100 and 200 models (fully assembled), with plans to deliver by 2007. Actor George Clooney was Commuter Car's first customer. The Tango can only go 60-80 miles on a charge, but boasts of its ability to go zero to 60 in four seconds and attain a top speed of 150 miles per hour.
Elsewhere, California-based AC Propulsion is working with Toyota on a Scion electric conversion, and Cleanova, based in France, is developing an electric Renault Kangoo, a popular European car.
One consideration to keep in mind about electric vehicles is that, if your utility is a dirty coal-fired plant, tapping that power could mean creating more pollution than driving a gasoline powered car. But progress in renewable energies may well solve that problem and help usher in a new era for electric vehicles.
CONTACTS: EVWorld, www.evworld.com ; Tesla Motors, www.teslamotors.com ; Commuter Car Corporation, www.commutercars.com .Dear EarthTalk : What are the implications of the massive thaw that is taking place right now in Western Siberia? -- Brad Arnold, St. Louis Park, MN
Russian researchers returned from an exploratory mission in Western Siberia last year to report that the world's largest frozen peat bog there, land as large as France and Germany combined, was quickly melting away “into shallow lakes.” Sergei Kirpotin, a botanist at Russia's Tomsk State University and the leader of the research effort, told the journal New Scientist that the situation was an “ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming.”
The main worry is that as much as a billion tons of methane--a “greenhouse gas” 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide--could be rapidly released from the bog, where it has been sitting harmlessly for thousands of years. This flush of methane into the atmosphere could, in turn, further warm the atmosphere.
Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost any other area of the planet, with an average temperature increase of about three degrees Celsius over the last four decades alone. Kirpotin believes that man-made climate change, combined with cyclical changes in atmospheric circulation caused by melting ice, is to blame. Similar patterns are developing in Eastern Siberia and across the Arctic stretches of Alaska.
Siberia's peat bogs formed about 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. The huge bog in question is thought to contain 70 billion tons of methane, or about a quarter of all the methane stored on the Earth's surface worldwide. If it continues to thaw, as it seems likely to do, researchers fear that the methane could force a “tipping point” (point of no return) in the ability of the Earth's climate to regulate itself.
“When you start messing around with these natural systems, you can end up in situations where it's unstoppable,” says climate researcher David Viner of England's University of East Anglia. “This is a big deal because you can't put the permafrost back once it is gone.”
In 2001, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international group of climate researchers, estimated that global temperatures could rise as much as 5.8 degrees Celsius by 2100, thanks to known sources of greenhouse gas emissions. According to Viner, scientists did not even anticipate the possibility of events like this when making their predictions, and how much they could add to the warming.
Environmentalists are using the Western Siberia findings to step up pressure on world leaders to take concerted action on climate change. Says Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth in the United Kingdom: “If we don't take action very soon, we could unleash runaway global warming that will be beyond our control and it will lead to social, economic and environmental devastation worldwide. There's still time to take action, but not much.”
CONTACT: New Scientist , www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725124.500 .Dear EarthTalk : The soda bottle I'm holding only lists a few U.S. states and deposit amounts on it. Aren't more than just a few states requiring that bottles be returned for recycling? -- Calvin Terry, Castine, ME
Currently 11 American states have “bottle bill” laws on the books that require a deposit of usually five or 10 cents on beer and soda cans and bottles that can be redeemed when empties are returned to the store. The state of Oregon pioneered such legislation, passing the first U.S. bottle bill back in 1971. Hawaii has the newest one, enacted in 2002. Meanwhile, all but two of Canada's 13 provinces (the remote Northwest Territories and Nunavut) have bottle bills. As with the American laws, Canada's provinces require deposits on all beverage containers other than those containing milk.
The Container Recycling Institute (CRI), an advocacy group based in Washington, DC, works for the passage of new bottle bills and the strengthening of existing ones. According to CRI, bottle bills make sense because they encourage recycling and, in conjunction with curbside recycling programs, extend the life of landfills by keeping cans and bottles out. Indeed, recycling rates in states with bottle bills can be as much as three times higher than in states without them.
Such programs also help reduce litter. Studies have shown that beverage container legislation has reduced total roadside litter by as much as 64 percent in regions with bottle bills. Another documented benefit has been a reduction in incidences of glass laceration, simply because fewer glass bottles end up broken on sidewalks, streets and in kids' play areas. One Massachusetts study attributed a 60 percent decline in reported childhood glass lacerations once the state's bottle bill went into effect.
Despite these benefits, however, many beverage manufacturers oppose bottle bills, arguing that the five to 10 cents added to the price of their products deters customers even though the deposits are redeemable. These companies have effectively squelched bottle bills in many U.S. states through the sheer power of their lobbying efforts. Anheuser-Busch, Coca-Cola and Pepsi and others have spent millions fighting bottle bills, complaining that such legislation duplicates community recycling programs already in place.
But CRI says the argument has been “wrongly cast in either/or terms,” that refundable deposits and curbside recycling programs are not mutually exclusive and should be part of a comprehensive approach to recycling: “If the goal is to maximize recovery of recyclables [and] reduce reliance on raw materials for manufacturing new containers…then a combination of recovery options should be employed to ensure the highest…recovery rates possible.”
Beverage sales are growing, especially bottled water and other non-carbonated drinks. And the waste has been growing as well. According to CRI, some 118 billion aluminum, glass and plastic beverage containers were discarded and not recycled in 2002 alone, more than double the number 20 years earlier. The main issue is really who should pay the costs of recycling. Refundable deposits are fair, says CRI, because they put the costs on the producers and consumers of the beverages instead of on the local communities and taxpayers.
CONTACT: Container Recycling Institute, www.container-recycling.org .
Dear EarthTalk : Is bamboo really an environmentally friendly alternative to wood for making paper? If so, why are we still cutting down trees to keep our copiers and printers humming? -- Ali Forte, via e-mail
Bamboo is a fast-growing and renewable resource, and it has long been used throughout Asia as a raw material for many goods, including paper. With North America's supply of forests now dwindling, bamboo is starting to look like a viable alternative to wood pulp to make paper for Western consumption. It has a similar consistency to wood pulp, and most existing paper mills can adapt to it with existing infrastructure.
On the other hand, clearing forests to establish bamboo plantations across the globe hardly makes environmental sense. Aaron Lehmer of ReThink Paper, a project of Earth Island Institute, calls the rapid expansion of bamboo plantations in Southeast Asia “alarming,” and says that it is “setting up a status quo whereby natural forests are increasingly being developed” for bamboo cultivation for paper.
Most of this bamboo is feeding paper mills in China and India, says Lehmer, but increasing demand from North America and Europe could deplete existing supplies and force Southeast Asian producers to push deeper into the forests. This would deplete primary habitat for hundreds of threatened species of birds, pandas, reptiles and amphibians. “Since there are no international standards or certification mechanisms in place for bamboo, neither paper producers nor consumers have any way of knowing whether the bamboo they purchase is coming from endangered ecosystems,” he adds.
According to the World Bamboo Organization, a trade group, 12 million acres of bamboo reserves exist across Asia today. If demand for bamboo were to increase, Lehmer says, surely the environment in these areas would suffer. Indeed, environmentalists in India are already crying foul over government-subsidized bamboo extraction from that country's supposedly protected forests, including the world-renowned Nagarjunasagar Tiger Reserve, one of the last suitable habitats in the world for the big endangered cats.
ReThink Paper would rather see North American paper producers convert existing mills to process locally generated agricultural waste, such as wheat or rice straw. These are usually plentiful and inexpensive, and paper companies could reap significant financial benefit getting raw material from local farmers eager to offload otherwise unmarketable “biomass” waste. This makes eminent environmental sense, too, says Lehmer, compared to importing bamboo chips from far away on planes, trains, ships and trucks that emit tons of climate-altering carbon dioxide en route.
The debate over papermaking reminds us that modern society has yet to go “paperless” as many predicted we would. But our inability to achieve that goal as yet doesn't make efforts to cut back worthless. Everyone can do their part at home, school and office to reduce paper usage, even if only one sheet at a time.
CONTACTS: ReThink Paper, www.rethinkpaper.org ; World Bamboo Organization, www.world-bamboo.org .Dear EarthTalk: Can you explain what “hormone disrupting” chemicals are, how they affect our health and what they have to do with environmental problems?
-- Tom Rose, Oakland, CA
Many of the human body's process, including reproduction, mental processing and metabolism, are controlled and regulated by hormones, chemical “messengers” produced by the endocrine glands. In the embryo and fetus, hormones guide the development of the brain, the nervous and immune systems, the sexual organs, and the liver, blood and kidneys, among other organs and tissue.
Hormones work by attaching to “receptors,” molecules on cell surfaces that carry information into the cells, triggering certain actions. In recent years, scientists have found that certain man-made chemicals disrupt this process by blocking it altogether, throwing off the timing--or by actually mimicking natural hormones and binding with the cells themselves. Such chemicals have been dubbed “hormone disruptors.”
Since the 1940s thousands of chemicals have been released into our air, water and food. Chemicals now contaminate virtually every corner of the globe, and the average person has over 100 chemicals in his or her body. In one study of pregnant women, the average woman had 286 chemicals in her fetal blood.
Many of the worst chemicals have been banned or phased out, but they continue to linger in the environment and will no doubt do so for centuries to come. Among the worst culprits in hormone disruption are: PCBs, used heavily in the electrical industries until banned in 1978; phthalates, still widely used in the plastics industry; and dioxin, one of the most hazardous of all chemicals, a byproduct of paper-bleaching, waste incineration and coal-burning, among other industrial activities.
The effects of this growing “chemical soup” were first noticed in wildlife. Alligators in Florida's Lake Apopka, for example, have been unable to reproduce in recent years due to underdevelopment in young males. North Sea seals exposed to synthetic chemicals have also developed reproductive problems as well as suppressed immune systems. And gull colonies in California and elsewhere suffered significant population losses after exposure to chemicals interfered with their reproductive capabilities.
According to Our Stolen Future , co-authored by Dr. Theo Colburn of the World Wildlife Fund, former Boston Globe reporter Dianne Dumanoski and Dr. J.P. Myers, now Senior Advisor to the United Nations Foundation, numerous human health problems also owe their origin to hormone disrupting chemicals. They include low sperm count and increased testicular and prostate cancers among men, and increased rates of breast cancer, endometriosis and tubal pregnancies in women. “What we're talking about is an overall low-dose exposure and a cumulative effect,” says Holly Lucille, author of Creating and Maintaining Balance: A Woman's Guide to Safe, Natural Hormone Health .
With so many chemicals permeating our environment, it is almost impossible to attribute specific health problems to specific substances. Individuals can hedge their bets by eating organic and choosing personal care and household products that avoid chemicals. They can also pressure their elected representatives as well as business leaders to work to reduce the amount of pervasive chemicals in the environment.
CONTACT: Our Stolen Future , www.ourstolenfuture.org .Dear EarthTalk : What is better for the environment, cork wine stoppers, or plastic or screw tops? -- Susan Wolniakowski, Duluth, MN
Though you might be surprised, natural cork wine stoppers are the best choice, primarily because harvesting the real stuff is an age-old practice that keeps the world's relatively small population of cork oak trees, which can live for hundreds of years, alive. These scattered pockets of cork oaks, mostly in Portugal and Spain, thrive in the hot, arid conditions of the southern Mediterranean, sheltering a wide array of biodiversity and helping to protect the soil from drying out.
In addition, some wildlife depends upon cork oak forests for their survival, including the Iberian lynx and the Barbary deer, as well as rare birds such as the Imperial Iberian eagle, the black stork and the Egyptian mongoose. As wine producers switch to other types of wine stoppers, the cork oak forests could be abandoned and the trees and the myriad plants and animals that depend on them could die out.
While 70 percent of wine bottles still contain natural cork stoppers, plastic and glass alternatives have been coming on strong in recent years. Indeed, more and more winemakers around the world are switching to alternatives, citing benefits including the avoidance of cork mold that can taint wine and the ability to more easily re-close opened bottles. In Australia and New Zealand--both promising upstarts on the global wine scene--the majority of wine producers use screw caps, mainly because they can make them cheaply instead of paying the relatively high price of importing the natural cork.
But the increasing popularity around the world of screw caps and plastic stoppers has cork producers and environmentalists alike worried. In a recent report, “Cork Screwed,” the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) predicts that, at the current rate of adoption by wine producers, screw caps and other synthetic non-cork wine stoppers will dominate the market by 2015, calling into question the future of Mediterranean cork forests. In order to stem the tide, the organization is supporting efforts by Portuguese cork producers to certify their practices as sustainable by the non-profit Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), which promotes sustainable, economically-viable forestry practices around the world.
“Cork oak forests rank among the top biodiversity hotspots in the Mediterranean and in Europe. At the same time, they are the backbone of an entire economy,” says Nora Berrahmouni, coordinator of WWF's Cork Oak Landscapes program. “FSC certification will reinforce the already environmentally friendly characteristics of the cork economy, leading to new opportunities in cork markets,” she adds.
Public opinion will undoubtedly be what calls the day, and producers of plastic stoppers and metal screw caps are working hard to overcome the stigma associated with using their products, as most consumers still associate non-cork stoppers with cheap wine. For now, the world's premiere winemakers in Europe are still bullish on the cork reserves in their own backyards. And wine enthusiasts everywhere can do their part to help the environment by choosing wines with natural cork stoppers.
CONTACTS: Forest Stewardship Council, www.fsc.org/en/whats_new/news/news_notes/23 ; “Cork Screwed,” http://assets.panda.org/downloads/cork_rev12_print.pdf.Dear EarthTalk : What are the health and environmental issues associated with the noise and air pollution at airports? -- John Cermak, via e-mail
Researchers have known for years that exposure to excessively-loud noise can cause changes in blood pressure as well as changes in sleep and digestive patterns--all signs of stress on the human body. The very word “noise” itself derives from the Latin word “noxia,” which means injury or hurt.
On a 1997 questionnaire distributed to two groups--one living near a major airport, and the other in a quiet neighborhood--two-thirds of those living near the airport indicated they were bothered by aircraft noise, and most said that it interfered with their daily activities. The same two-thirds complained more than the other group of sleep difficulties, and also perceived themselves as being in poorer health.
Perhaps even more alarming, the European Commission, which governs the European Union (E.U.), considers living near an airport to be a risk factor for coronary heart disease and stroke, as increased blood pressure from noise pollution can trigger these more serious maladies. The E.U. estimates that 20 percent of Europe's population--or about 80 million people--are exposed to airport noise levels it considers unhealthy and unacceptable.
Airport noise can also have negative effects on children's health and development. A 1980 study examining the impact of airport noise on children's health found higher blood pressure in kids living near Los Angeles' LAX airport than in those living farther away. A 1995 German study found a link between chronic noise exposure at Munich's International Airport and elevated nervous system activity and cardiovascular levels in children living nearby. And a 2005 study published in the prestigious British medical journal, The Lancet , found that kids living near airports in Britain, Holland and Spain lagged behind their classmates in reading by two months for every five decibel increase above average noise levels in their surroundings. The study also associated aircraft noise with lowered reading comprehension, even after socio-economic differences were considered.
Living near an airport also means facing significant exposure to air pollution. Jack Saporito of the U.S. Citizens Aviation Watch Association (CAW), a coalition of concerned municipalities and advocacy groups, cites several studies linking pollutants common around airports--such as diesel exhaust, carbon monoxide and leaked chemicals--to cancer, asthma, liver damage, lung disease, lymphoma, myeloid leukemia, and even depression. CAW is lobbying for the clean up of jet engine exhaust as well as the scrapping or modification of airport expansion plans across the country.
Another group working on this issue is Chicago's Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, which lobbies and conducts extensive public education campaigns in an effort to cut noise and pollution and rein in expansion plans at the world's busiest airport. According to the group, five million area residents may be suffering adverse health effects as a result of O'Hare, only one of four major airports in the region.
CONTACTS: Alliance of Residents Concerning O'Hare, www.areco.org ; U.S. Citizens Aviation Watch Association, www.us-caw.org .Dear EarthTalk: Do fireworks celebrations cause any significant pollution? -- David Hiebert, Scottdale, PA
Perhaps it should come as no surprise that the fireworks displays that go on around the U.S. every Fourth of July are still typically propelled by the ignition of gunpowder--a technological innovation that pre-dates the American Revolution itself. And the fall-out from these exhibitions includes a variety of toxic pollutants that rain down on neighborhoods from coast to coast, often in violation of federal Clean Air Act standards.
Depending on the effect sought, fireworks produce smoke and dust that contain various heavy metals, sulfur-coal compounds and other noxious chemicals. Barium, for instance, is used to produce brilliant green colors in fireworks displays, despite being poisonous and radioactive. Copper compounds are used to produce blue colors, even though they contain dioxin, which has been linked to cancer. Cadmium, lithium, antimony, rubidium, strontium, lead and potassium nitrate are also commonly used to produce different effects, even though they can cause a host of respiratory and other health problems.
The chemicals and heavy metals used in fireworks also take their toll on the environment, sometimes contributing to water supply contamination and even acid rain. Their use also deposits physical litter on the ground and into water bodies for miles around. As such, some U.S. states and local governments restrict the use of fireworks in accordance with guidelines set by the Clean Air Act . The American Pyrotechnics Association provides a free online directory of state laws across the U.S. regulating the use of fireworks.
Of course, fireworks displays are not limited to U.S. Independence Day celebrations. Fireworks use is increasing in popularity around the world, including in countries without strict air pollution standards. According to The Ecologist , millennium celebrations in 2000 caused environmental pollution worldwide, filling skies over populated areas with “carcinogenic sulphur compounds and airborne arsenic.”
Not usually known for championing environmental causes, the Walt Disney Company has pioneered new technology using environmentally benign compressed air instead of gunpowder to launch fireworks. Disney puts on hundreds of dazzling fireworks displays every year at its various resort properties in the U.S. and Europe, but hopes its new technology will have beneficial impact on the pyrotechnics industry worldwide. The company has made the details of new patents it has filed for the technology available to the pyrotechnics industry at large with the hope that other companies will also green up their offerings.
While Disney's technological breakthrough is no doubt a step in the right direction, many environmental and public safety advocates would rather see the Fourth of July and other holidays and events celebrated without the use of pyrotechnics. Parades and block parties are some obvious alternatives. Meanwhile, laser light shows can wow a crowd without the negative environmental side effects associated with fireworks.
CONTACTS: American Pyrotechnics Association, www.americanpyro.com/State%20Laws%20(main)/statelaws.html ; Walt Disney Company, http://corporate.disney.go.com/environmentality/press_releases/2004/2004_0628.html .Dear EarthTalk : What have been the most significant environmental impacts of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans? -- Samantha Gray, Tacoma, WA
Perhaps the longest-lasting impact of Hurricane Katrina was its environmental damage that, in real terms, has mainly to do with public health. Significant amounts of industrial waste and raw sewage spilled directly into New Orleans neighborhoods. And oil spills from offshore rigs, coastal refineries, and even corner gas stations have also made their way into residential areas and business districts throughout the region.
Analysts estimate that seven million gallons of oil spilled throughout the region. The U.S. Coast Guard says that much of the spilled oil has been cleaned up or “naturally dispersed,” but environmentalists fear that the initial contamination could devastate the region's biodiversity and ecological health for many years to come, further devastating the region's already ailing fisheries, once the economic lifeblood of the area.
Meanwhile, flooding at five “Superfund” sites (heavily polluted industrial sites slated for federal cleanup), and the wholesale destruction along the already infamous “Cancer Alley” industrial corridor between New Orleans and Baton Rouge, have only served to complicate matters for clean-up officials. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) considers Katrina the biggest disaster it has ever had to handle.
Household hazardous wastes, pesticides, heavy metals and other toxic chemicals also created a witch's brew of floodwater that quickly seeped down into and contaminated groundwater across hundreds of miles. “The range of toxic chemicals that may have been released is extensive,” says Johns Hopkins University environmental health sciences professor Lynn Goldman. “We're talking about metals, persistent chemicals, solvents, materials that have numerous potential health impacts over the long term.”
According to Hugh Kaufman, an EPA senior policy analyst, environmental regulations in place to prevent the types of discharges that occurred during Katrina were not enforced, making what would have been a bad situation much worse. Unchecked development throughout ecologically sensitive parts of the region put further stress on the environment's ability to absorb and disperse noxious chemicals. “Folks down there were living on borrowed time and, unfortunately, time ran out with Katrina,” Kaufman concludes.
To date, recovery efforts have focused on plugging leaks in levies, clearing debris and repairing water and sewer systems. Officials cannot say when they will be able to concentrate on longer-term issues such as treating contaminated soil and groundwater, though the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has begun a Herculean effort to physically remove tons of contaminated sediment left behind by receding floodwaters. Meanwhile, financially strapped state and local agencies are slowly cleaning up or removing contaminated buildings, many of which harbor mold and viruses that can still make people sick.
But just as some of these longer-term remediation projects are getting started, the Gulf Coast is battening down the hatches for what promises to be another whopper of a hurricane season this summer and fall, fueled in part by increasing ocean temperatures due to global warming.
CONTACTS: EPA's Response to 2005 Hurricanes Website, www.epa.gov/katrina ; “The Toxic Legacy of Hurricane Katrina,” www.emagazine.com/?issue=125&toc .Dear EarthTalk : Why do modern bacteria “resist” antibiotics, confounding medical treatment? -- Hugo Mestres, Seattle, WA
Antibiotics have played a profoundly important role in staving off bacterial infections since Alexander Fleming first discovered them in 1927. But the effectiveness of these so-called miracle drugs has waned in recent years as some of the very bacteria they are meant to control have been mutating into new forms that don't respond to treatment. Many medical experts blame this phenomenon on both the misuse and overuse of antibiotics in recent years in both human medicine and in agriculture.
Doctors first noticed antibiotic resistance more than a decade ago when children with middle ear infections stopped responding to them. Penicillin as a treatment for strep has also become increasingly less effective. And a recently-discovered strain of staph bacteria does not respond to antibiotic treatments at all, leading medical analysts to worry that certain “super bugs” could emerge that are resistant to even the most potent drugs, rendering some infections incurable. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) calls antibiotic resistance one of its “top concerns” and “one of the world's most pressing health problems.”
One large part of the problem, according to the CDC, is the tendency for people to take antibiotics to fight viruses, which they cannot do. Antibiotics fight bacteria, not viruses, and will not fight colds, flu, bronchitis, runny noses, or sore throats not due to strep. Nonetheless, says CDC, “more than 10 million courses of antibiotics are prescribed each year for viral conditions that do not benefit from antibiotics.” To address this, a growing number of doctors, including Dr. Randel Cardott, an internist with Iowa's Genesis Convenient Care, are advocating a “wait-and-see” approach to prescribing antibiotics, especially in cases like middle ear infections that sometimes prove to be viral and not bacterial in origin. Cardott says that European physicians have taken this approach for years with no adverse effects.
Scaling back on antibiotics for human maladies won't address the whole problem. Farmers and ranchers use antibiotics heavily, too. In North America, industrial beef, pig and poultry farming is a big unsanitary business, and antibiotics are used extensively to ward off diseases and also for non-medical reasons, such as to promote growth. In fact, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a non-profit research and advocacy group, estimates that some 70 percent of all antibiotics are used as additives in the feed given to healthy pigs, poultry and cattle. These drugs leave the animals' bodies as waste and work their way into local water supplies, as well as right into the food chain. “Nonetheless,” says UCS, “agribusiness and the pharmaceutical industry are fighting hard to thwart restrictions on the use of antibiotics in agriculture.”
Keep Antibiotics Working, a non-profit dedicated to reducing antibiotics overuse in agriculture, advocates phasing out unnecessary antibiotics in healthy livestock and poultry. In lieu of Congressional action along these lines, the group is encouraging meat wholesalers and retailers to voluntarily stop buying or selling meat that has been produced using antibiotics for purposes other than treating sick animals. Consumers looking to avoid antibiotics in meat should seek out organic offerings at natural foods markets.
CONTACTS: UCS, www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/antibiotics_and_food/ ; Keep Antibiotics Working, www.keepantibioticsworking.com .Dear EarthTalk : Do houseplants really help to clean indoor air? -- Jackson Schlemmer, London, England
One positive result of the 1970s energy crisis was the development and widespread adoption of improved insulation materials to maintain indoor energy efficiency. Unfortunately, however, many of these materials have compromised indoor air quality due to their tendency to “off-gas” various airborne toxins, including formaldehyde, trichloroethylene (TCE), benzene and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Much of the synthetic carpeting, upholstery and paint used indoors also contain sometimes noxious gases that get trapped inside air-tight homes and offices and which can build up gradually over time. And most synthetic air fresheners only make matters worse, adding even more harmful VOCs to the indoor air. With most people spending upwards of 90 percent of their time indoors, it may be no coincidence that cases of asthma and other respiratory diseases have been on the rise in recent years.
The unlikely hero in this scenario may in fact be the humble houseplant. In a landmark 1984 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) study, initially commissioned to find ways to clean air in space bases and vehicles, researcher Bill Wolverton found that some common houseplants actually cleaned polluted indoor air. He found that philodendrons and golden pothos excelled at stripping formaldehyde from the air, gerbera daisies and chrysanthemums wiped out excessive amounts of indoor benzene, and pot mums and peace lilies absorbed a toxic degreasing solvent known as TCE.
A later NASA study, also conducted by Wolverton, saw houseplants removing up to 87 percent of toxic indoor air within 24 hours. And a 1994 German study reported that one spider plant could cleanse a small room of formaldehyde in just six hours. Further, English ivy, bamboo palm and snake plants have been shown to be effective in removing cigarette smoke as well as noxious odors from carpeting and chemical-laden household cleaners.
Just how can a houseplant be so good at cleansing the air? The reason lies in its basic ability to absorb carbon dioxide from the air while releasing oxygen as part of the photosynthetic process. Houseplants are essentially doing indoors what other plants and trees ordinarily do outdoors.
To maximize the benefits of houseplants in cleaning indoor air, it is generally recommended to use one plant for every 100 square feet of indoor space. Besides those plants mentioned above, other good indoor air cleaners include palms, ferns, dracaenas, corn plants, weeping figs, dumb canes, orchids, arrowheads, dwarf bananas and Chinese evergreens.
For its part, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends opening the windows and letting in some good old-fashioned fresh air as the best antidote to breathing in off-gassed airborne toxins in both homes and offices. But many modern buildings do not permit such exchanges between indoor and outdoor air, and it is in just these situations where houseplants can really make the difference.
CONTACT: Plant-Care.com; www.plant-care.com/indoor-plants-clean-air-1.html .Dear EarthTalk : Can old tires be recycled? If so, where, and what is the recycled material used for? -- George, Rockville, MD
Old tires can indeed be recycled, and thanks to concerted efforts by state and provincial governments from coast-to-coast, as many as 80 percent of them are these days across North America. While some of these old tires are remanufactured into new tires, others are used in a wide variety of applications including railroad ties, rubber-modifiedasphalt, athletic surfaces, insulation, plastic/rubber blends used in a variety of products, even fuel.
The world's first tires were made entirely out of natural rubber, but the Southeast Asian forests where the plants grew could only produce so much. By World War II most tires were composed primarily of synthetic rubber made from petroleum products. Up until the 1960s, tires were routinely recycled and broken down for use in making new tires. But when imported oil got cheaper, demand for recycled synthetic rubber fell, and caches of old tires with nowhere to go -- most landfills won't accept them -- began to sully landscapes across North America. These old tire stockpiles became havens for pests and mosquitoes, and would even occasionally burst into flames and belch noxious chemicals into the air.
Beginning in the mid-1990s, state and provincial governments in the U.S. and Canada led the charge in mandating and funding tire recycling efforts. In doing so they helped spur the markets for reprocessed synthetic rubber that exist today. Now thousands of companies across North America specialize in turning recycled synthetic rubbers into useful new products.
American consumers looking to off load old tires should take a gander at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) “Management of Scrap Tires” website to find tire recycling centers near them. Canadians can turn to the website of the Canadian Association of Tire Recycling Agencies (CATRA) to find out where to take used tires in any province, including even the remote Yukon Territory.
The EPA also offers free Business Planning Guides for those who might be looking to start a tire recycling or re-manufacturing business. The website Scrap Tire News also provides a wealth of knowledge on different ways to get started.
Despite this encouraging progress, North America still faces a backlog of hundreds of millions of old tires, quickly piling up outside filling stations and in backyards near you. The EPA estimates that 290 million scrap tires are generated annually, representing two percent of all solid waste, and that some 265 million are sitting in stockpiles right now. At the very least, we could all take the advice of Participating in Nature: Thomas J. Elpel's Field Guide to Primitive Living Skills and turn our old tires into “sandals with a 50,000 mile warranty!”
CONTACTS: EPA Scrap Tires Page, www.epa.gov/garbage/tires/index.htm ; CATRA, www.catraonline.ca ; Scrap Tire News, www.scraptirenews.com/youask.html ; Tire Sandals, www.hollowtop.com/sandals.htm .Dear EarthTalk : What is the significance of the recent discovery of a cow in Alabama having Mad Cow disease? Isn't that the very first in North America? Should we be worried?
-- Chris Carroll, Austin, TX
Actually, Mad Cow Disease, technically known as Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), was first detected in North America in January 1993, when a beef cow that had been imported from Britain to the Canadian province of Alberta tested positive. The Canadian government destroyed that particular cow, as well as its entire herd, in order to quell the potential spread of the disease.
Federal agricultural agencies in both Canada and the United States then stepped up testing for BSE coast-to-coast whileimposing stricter import criteria for cows coming in from abroad. And since the disease spreads not from direct cow-to-cow contact but only through consumption of infected feed, both countries banned rendered cow remains from being added to cattle feed beginning in 1997.
The redoubled efforts seemed to pay off, as another case of BSE didn't show up in North America for a decade. But then in May 2003, veterinary officials in Alberta confirmed another case, but this time involving a cow born in Canada. Seven months later, American officials announced the first case of BSE in the U.S., when the remains of a deceased cow from a farm in Washington State tested positive.
Regulators feared that some meat may have made its way into supermarkets, which in turn sparked a wave of mad cow hysteria, including import bans on American beef by some foreign countries. Records showed that the cow had been born in Canada, leading to cross-border finger pointing. But when the disease showed up in a Texas cow in June 2005, and then again recently in an Alabama cow, Americans stopped blaming Canada and began looking to stem the spread of the disease within U.S. borders.
BSE, a fatal disease of the nervous system of cattle, first appeared in the United Kingdom in the mid-1980s and then spread across Europe, peaking at almost 1,000 new cases per week in 1993. In 1996, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), an offshoot of BSE, was detected in humans and linked to the eating of meat and cattle products contaminated with BSE. Fewer than 200 cases of vCJD, all originating in Western Europe, have been detected since the human disease was first identified.
Despite assurances by both Canadian and U.S. officials that BSE cases in recent years have been isolated ones and that North American beef is fit for human consumption, some skeptics aren't so sure. “This disease is endemic in U.S. herds,” says News Target health and wellness columnist Mike Adams. “It is circulating in cows right now and there are almost certainly cows infected with mad cow disease that are being slaughtered and used in the human food supply,” he adds. Adams is worried that the millions of Americans who eat red meat every day are putting themselves at risk while the government focuses on spinning the story to stifle valid concerns.
CONTACTS: Health Canada BSE Information, www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/animal/bse-esb/index_e.html ; U.S. Department of Agriculture BSE Newsroom, www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/hot_issues/bse.shtml .Dear EarthTalk : Is it true that livestock grazing is harmful to the environment?
-- Paul Howe, Athol, MA
Most scientists and environmental experts view livestock grazing as an ecological disaster. For starters, cows and sheep are indiscriminate eaters and tend to remove every piece of grass and shrub in sight, thus eliminating shelter and food for birds and other wildlife, leading to their decline. In drier regions, landscape used extensively and repeatedly for grazing eventually turns into barren wasteland not even suitable for the livestock themselves. Further, the significant amounts of waste that livestock animals leave behind play a key role in the pollution of our freshwater supplies.
Today, cattle and sheep ranchers lease roughly 300 million acres of public land in 11 western U.S. states. George Wuerthner and Mollie Matteson, in their book Welfare Ranching: The Subsidized Destruction of the American West (Island Press), document the enormous destruction caused by livestock grazing: “The combined area is as large as the entire Eastern Seaboard from Maine to Florida, with Missouri thrown in,” they report. Indeed, as much as 90 percent of Bureau of Land Management land and 69 percent of U.S. Forest Service land is leased to livestock producers. Federally leased public land includes numerous national parks, wildlife refuges and other nature preserves.
Welfare Ranching charges that livestock ranchers are heavily subsidized with tax dollars, routinely leasing public lands for grazing at well-below market prices. They cite the fact that the federal grazing fee is “often eight to 10 times lower than fees charged on comparable private grazing land.” In addition to dirt-cheap grazing fees, livestock ranchers are also the beneficiaries of low-interest farm loans, and taxpayers support them with emergency bailouts and other state and federally funded programs.
Stephen Leckie of Canada's International Development Research Centre (IDRC) says the problem is not limited to the U.S. He cites a 1997 report by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) showing that 20 percent of the world's land is used for grazing, while only around 10 percent is devoted to growing crops. In Central America, for example, more than a third of the forests have been cut since the 1960s, while pastureland has increased by 50 percent. Meanwhile, in India, free-roaming cattle and goats pose a serious threat to tiger reserves and national parks, and are jeopardizing re-forestation efforts (by eating young shoots of new plants) that are trying to help mitigate global warming.
Vegetarians have long insisted that raising livestock is one of the least efficient ways to feed people. FAO research, for example, indicates that farm animals are extremely inefficient converters of plants to edible flesh. Studies show that livestock in North America are fed about six times as much corn and other crops as the amount of edible meat they produce. Meanwhile, Overseas Development Council analysts estimate that if North Americans were to reduce their meat consumption by just 10 percent, it would free up 12 million tons of grain annually for humans to eat. And a study by the non-profit Worldwatch Institute found that one pound of steak from steer raised in feedlots costs five pounds of grain, 2,500 gallons of water, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about 35 pounds of eroded topsoil.
CONTACTS: FAO, www.fao.org/ag/magazine/0603sp2.htm; IDRC, www.idrc.ca/en/ev-30610-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html; Worldwatch Institute, www.worldwatch.org/pubs/mag/1994/74/mos/ .Dear EarthTalk : I read somewhere that babies were being born nowadays with a number of man-made chemicals detected in their bloodstreams. This is pretty scary. How could it be?
-- Sandra McGregor, Portland, OR
“Body Burden,” a 2005 study by the non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG), found that American babies are born with hundreds of chemical contaminants in their bloodstreams. The findings are based on tests of samples of umbilical-cord blood taken by the American Red Cross from 10 babies, located in different part of the U.S., that were born in August and September of 2004. The most prevalent chemicals found in the newborns were mercury, fire retardants, pesticides and the Teflon chemical PFOA.
“Of the 287 chemicals we detected in umbilical-cord blood, we know that 180 cause cancer in humans or animals, 217 are toxic to the brain and nervous system, and 208 cause birth defects or abnormal development in animal tests,” the report said.
In the month leading up to a baby's birth, the umbilical cord pulses with the equivalent of at least 300 quarts of blood each day, pumped back and forth from the nutrient- and oxygen-rich placenta to the rapidly growing baby cradled in a sac of amniotic fluid. This cord is a lifeline between mother and baby, bearing nutrients that sustain life and propel growth.
Not long ago scientists thought that the placenta shielded cord blood--and the developing baby--from most chemicals and pollutants in the environment. But the results of EWG's study show otherwise. “Now we know that at this critical time when organs, vessels, membranes and systems are knit together from single cells to finished form in a span of weeks, the umbilical cord carries not only the building blocks of life, but also a steady stream of industrial chemicals, pollutants and pesticides that cross the placenta as readily as residues from cigarettes and alcohol,” the report said.
“These 10 newborn babies ... were born polluted,” said House Democrat Louise Slaughter of New York, who is leading the charge in Congress to hold chemical producers more accountable to higher standards. “If ever we had proof that our nation's pollution laws aren't working, it's reading the list of industrial chemicals in the bodies of babies who have not yet lived outside the womb,” Slaughter added.
Slaughter also had similar tests done on her own blood, which she found to contain polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) that were banned decades ago as well as chemicals like Teflon that are currently under federal investigation. “I have auto exhaust fumes, flame retardant chemicals, and in all, some 271 harmful substances pulsing through my veins,” she said. “That's hardly the picture of health I had hoped for, but I've been living in an industrial society for more than 70 years.”
CONTACT: EWG Body Burden Report, www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden2/ .Dear EarthTalk : What is causing the bird flu? Could it really kill millions of people?
-- Steve Schlemmer, Andover, MA
Bird flu is a viral infection naturally carried by wild birds, notably ducks that can infect other birds but not get sick themselves. Domestic poultry, however, are very susceptible to the disease and usually get sick and die once infected. Humans, in turn, can catch the disease through close contact with infected birds.
When the influenza strain H5N1 appeared in humans in Hong Kong in 1997 and spread quickly to Asia, Africa and Europe, it sent shockwaves throughout the healthcare profession. The spread of the disease was not sufficient to be considered a pandemic (an epidemic worldwide in scope), but it did infect over 200 people and kill about half of them. There have been no documented cases so far of H5N1 moving from human to human, but experts fear that the virus could mutate into a strain that can--and accordingly kill millions of people. It wouldn't be the first time: Many scientists now believe that the Spanish Flu of 1918, which killed 50 million people (including 675,000 Americans and 43,000 Canadians), started as bird flu.
Some researchers see habitat loss as a key factor in the unusual spread of the disease between wild and domestic birds. A recently released United Nations (U.N.) Environment Programme report found that loss of wetlands around the world has forced migrating wild birds onto stopping points along their way--such as rice paddies and farms--that are ordinarily the domicile of domestic chickens, ducks and geese, with whom they normally don't mix. “Wetland depletion has direct implications for migrating wild birds,” says David Rapport, a professor at the University of Western Ontario and a lead researcher on the U.N. study. “Wetland habitat worldwide continues to decline, owing to agricultural expansion and urban development, resulting in fewer staging areas for wild migrating birds.”
Rapport warns that “heroic efforts” like mass culling are not likely to appreciably slow the spread of bird flu. The best hope, he says, is to increase habitat for wild birds and avoid siting large-scale poultry operations along migratory bird routes. Minimizing human contact with domestic poultry is also key, but this would be a tall order given the prevalence of poultry in the human diet. Also, in many parts of Asia, separating poultry from people would be at odds with cultural traditions.
Many North Americans may not realize that the bird flu virus has already arrived here. In November 2005 two wild ducks tested positive for H5N1 in Canada, although not the same dangerous strain that affected Southeast Asia. The virus was also found on a domestic duck in British Columbia shortly thereafter. While no infected birds have been documented in the U.S. yet, researchers say it's only a matter of time.
Just last year U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said that a bird flu pandemic was an “absolute certainty,” echoing repeated warnings from the World Health Organization (WHO). A recently released White House report warns that, if there were to be an outbreak, the nation is unprepared and as many as two million people could die. Meanwhile, Canada has earned kudos from WHO, which is using its billion-dollar preparedness plan as a model for other countries to follow.
CONTACTS: Wildlife Trust, www.wildlifetrust.org/enter.cgi?p=news/2006/0101_1_avian.htm ; Health Canada Avian Flu (Bird Flu) Website, www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dc-ma/avia/index_e.html .Dear EarthTalk : What is the “Not Too Pretty” campaign pertaining to the use of cosmetics?-- Lucy Balzary, Los Angeles, CA
The non-profit Environmental Working Group launched the Not Too Pretty campaign in 2002 to raise awareness about the dangers of phthalates, industrial chemicals that are used as solvents in many cosmetics. Most of the mainstream hair sprays, deodorants, nail polishes and perfumes that millions of people use every day contain these harmful chemicals. Phthalates are also employed as plastic softeners in many different consumer products, including children's toys and medical devices.
Shown to damage the liver, kidneys, lungs and reproductive systems in animal studies, phthalates can be absorbed through the skin or inhaled. Scientists at government agencies in both the U.S. and Canada agree that exposure to the chemicals could cause a wide range of health and reproductive problems in people.
Manufacturers use phthalates because they cling to the skin and nails to give perfumes, hair gels and nail polishes more staying power. But a recent study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that five percent of women between age 20 and 40 had up to 45 times more phthalates in their bodies than researchers initially hypothesized. CDC found phthalates in virtually person tested, but the largest concentrations--20 times higher than the rest of the population--were found in women of child-bearing age. Meanwhile, another study, led by Dr. Shanna Swan of the University of Missouri, identified developmental abnormalities in male infants correlating to high phthalate levels in their mothers' bodies.
Meanwhile, the industry-backed Phthalate Information Center asserts, “There is no reliable evidence that any phthalate has ever caused a health problem for a human from its intended use.” The group accuses organizations of “cherry picking” results “showing impacts on test animals to create unwarranted concern about these products.” But EWG spokesperson Lauren E. Sucher urges people--especially women who are pregnant, nursing or planning on becoming pregnant--to avoid phthalates. EWG offers free online access to its “Skin Deep” database, which lists lotions, creams and polishes that contain phthalates. Health experts encourage women to consult the database before shopping for beauty products.
A 2003 European Union directive bans phthalates in cosmetics sold in Europe, but U.S. and Canadian regulators have not been so proactive, despite mounting evidence of potential harm. Health advocates were temporarily relieved when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it would begin enforcing a 1975 law requiring labels on products with ingredients that haven't been safety tested. But such labels remain to be seen, even though 99 percent of cosmetics contain one or more untested ingredients.
Those interested in adding their voices to the chorus of environmental and health advocates opposed to the inclusion of phthalates in cosmetics can submit a customizable pre-written letter to the FDA expressing their concern via EWG's NotTooPretty.org website. The website also provides pages and pages of information and research on the issue for those looking to learn more.
CONTACTS: Not Too Pretty, www.NotTooPretty.org; Skin Deep, www.ewg.org/reports/skindeep .Dear EarthTalk : Where I live in Connecticut, our highways are “parking lots” many times a day. Isn't this an ideal situation for public transit? Why isn't it happening? -- John Moulton, Stamford, CT
An increasing number of public transit options are coming online throughout North America, but those of you idling alone bumper-to-bumper in your cars might not know it. Indeed, lack of knowledge about public transportation options may be the largest impediment to widespread acceptance of more efficient ways of getting around. Driving your own car back and forth to work every day is not as convenient as it once was, and public transit options are now faster and undoubtedly generate less stress and pollution.
In Connecticut, the state-owned CTTRANSIT moves 27 million people a year on well-appointed local and express buses serving all metro areas. And two full-service commuter rail lines, Metro-North and Shore Line East, routinely take riders longer distances. Similar services are available in many urban and suburban areas across the U.S. Municipal websites are the best place to find transit options, routes and schedules.
The best thing to happen to encourage public transit usage has been high gas prices. Over the last year the average price of regular unleaded rose in the U.S. by 76 cents, with prices now $3.00 or more almost everywhere. And transit agencies report a correlation between high gas prices and increased ridership. The Utah Transit Authority says ridership is up 50 percent from last year on a 19-mile light-rail system in Salt Lake City. And Washington, DC's Metrorail has seen some of its busiest days ever during the last few months. In Canada, ridership has risen as much as 10 percent in cities like Vancouver and Winnipeg in step with rising gas prices, though cars remain the travel option of choice in the country's eastern cities.
According to the American Public Transportation Association, 14 million Americans use one or another form of public transportation every weekday, while about 17 million people drive their cars instead. The organization estimates that public transit ridership has grown by as much as 22 percent--faster than highway or air travel--since 1995. And a recently conducted Harris Poll concluded that the American public would like to see rail-based public transit “have an increasing share of passenger transportation.”
Meanwhile, Canadians have embraced public transit even more than their neighbors to the south. An estimated 12 million Canadians--including more than a fifth of all commuters in Toronto--use some form of public transit. Transportation analyst Paul Schimek found that public transit use is almost twice as high per capita in Canada as in the U.S. Also, car use in Canada is almost 20 percent lower per capita. Schimek attributes the differences to traditionally higher gas prices as well as more compact urban development than in the U.S.
Analysts point to the strength of the American “highway lobby” as the reason why Americans have been slow to embrace public transit. It has worked directly with lawmakers over the years to encourage road building and private automobile use to achieve, in the words of a General Motors ad of days gone by, the “American dream of freedom on wheels.” Back in Connecticut, some urban planners have been pushing the idea of turning crowded Interstate 95 into a double-decker highway in places to ease congestion.
CONTACTS: American Public Transportation Association, www.apta.com; Canadian Urban Transit Association, www.cutaactu.caDear EarthTalk : What's the controversy over bison hunting in the U.S. and Canada?
-- Prakash Thomas, Akron, Ohio
Whether or not to allow the hunting of bison (also known as buffalo) is a hot debate indeed. For starters, Native Americans sustainably hunted bison for thousands of years, but the onslaught of gun-toting European commercial hunters reduced the species to just 30 remaining animals by the 1880s. Bison populations have rebounded in recent years, but to numbers in just the low thousands, far from the 30 to 60 million that roamed the plains before the white man arrived in the New World. Animal advocates and environmentalists think hunters should not be allowed another shot at bison right now.
Meanwhile, agricultural agencies in both the U.S. and Canada beg to differ, as they have been dutifully working for decades to stamp out a disease, Brucellosis, which once ran rampant through domestic cattle herds. The disease, which can spread easily between cattle as well as bison, causes infertility, miscarriages and lowered milk production in the animals. It is also transmissible to humans, where it is known as “undulant fever” because of the severe intermittent fevers it causes.
Livestock ranchers have cooperated with government efforts to rid their cattle populations of Brucellosis, but the disease spread into rebounding bison herds in Yellowstone National Park and in Canada's Wood Buffalo National Park in Alberta in the middle of the 20th century when cattle were allowed to graze in the same areas. Domestic livestock grazing is no longer allowed inside either park, but wild bison tend to wander outside park boundaries where they can intermingle with domestic cattle herds and possibly reintroduce Brucellosis. As such, ranchers think that hunting any such bison that stray too far from protected areas is justified in order to protect against a new outbreak among domestic cattle.
For this reason, the state of Montana began to allow bison hunting during the 1980s. Animal advocates decried hunting the innocently grazing animals as hardly sporting, and nationally televised protests and tourist boycotts forced the Montana legislature to shut the hunt down in 1991. But in 2005, Montana lifted the ban, but with some strings attached: The hunt was limited to a 450,000-acre area; and only 50 permit holders actually got to take down a bison. (More than six thousand applicants vied for the coveted permits, which were awarded via lottery.) And hunters must get certified in their knowledge of the rules of the hunt.
Nevertheless, animal advocates were not placated. Video cameras in hand, members of the Buffalo Field Campaign, a bison advocacy group, were on hand last fall to film the killing of the first bison, which reportedly took five bullets and about 45 minutes to die after a 17-year-old marksman shot it.
Meanwhile, the Canadian government is considering letting hunters into Alberta's Wood Buffalo National Park to cull the burgeoning herd there, where Brucellosis has become a big problem. Last fall, 32 scientists met to figure out whether it was possible to eliminate the disease from the park by culling the herd and then reintroducing the species. The jury is still out. Meanwhile, the fate of the bison hangs in the balance.
CONTACT: Buffalo Field Campaign, www.buffalofieldcampaign.orgDear EarthTalk : How could there ever be a “water scarcity?” Isn't water the most plentiful thing on Earth? --Chris Carroll, Austin, TX
Ocean water may cover more than 70 percent of the Earth's surface, but thirsty humans rely on finite supplies of freshwater to stay alive. And with exploding human population growth, especially in poor countries, these finite supplies get quickly spoken for. Further, in places without proper sanitation, water can become tainted with any number of diseases and parasites.
According to the World Bank, as many as two billion people lack adequate sanitation facilities to protect them from water-borne disease, while a billion lack access to clean water altogether. According to the United Nations, which has declared 2005-2015 the “Water for Life” decade, 95 percent of the world's cities still dump raw sewage into their water supplies. Thus it should come as no surprise to know that 80 percent of all the health maladies in developing countries can be traced back to unsanitary water.
Sandra Postel, author of the 1998 book, Last Oasis: Facing Water Scarcity , predicts big water availability problems as populations of so-called “water-stressed” countries jump perhaps six fold over the next 30 years. “It raises tons of issues about water and agriculture, growing enough food, providing for all the material needs that people demand as incomes increase, and providing drinking water,” says Postel.
Developed countries aren't immune to freshwater problems either. Researchers found a six-fold increase in water use for only a two-fold increase in population size in the United States since 1900. Such a trend reflects the connection between higher living standards and increased water usage, and underscores the need for more sustainable management and use of water supplies even in more developed societies.
With world population expected to pass nine billion by mid-century, solutions to water scarcity problems are not going to come easy. Some have suggested that technology--such as large-scale saltwater desalination plants--could generate more freshwater for the world to use. But environmentalists argue that depleting ocean water is no answer and will only create other big problems. In any case, research and development into improving desalination technologies is ongoing, especially in Saudi Arabia, Israel and Japan. And already an estimated 11,000 desalination plants exist in some 120 countries around the world.
Others believe that applying market principles to water would facilitate a more efficient distribution of supply everywhere. Analysts at the Harvard Middle East Water Project, for example, advocate assigning a monetary value to freshwater, rather than considering it a free natural commodity. They say such an approach could help mitigate the political and security tensions caused by water scarcity.
As individuals, we can all reign in our own water use to help conserve what is becoming an ever more precious resource. We can hold off on watering our lawns in times of drought. And when it does rain, we can gather gutter water in barrels to feed garden hoses and sprinklers. We can turn off the faucet while we brush our teeth or shave, and take shorter showers. As Sandra Postel concludes, “Doing more with less is the first and easiest step along the path toward water security.”
CONTACT : United Nations Water For Life Decade, www.un.org/waterforlifedecadeDear EarthTalk : Can you explain the “Zero Waste” movement in Europe, Australia and elsewhere that goes beyond recycling to reduce waste? How can we make it happen here in the U.S.? -- Neil Weiss, Methuen,
Mass.In essence, “Zero Waste” is a design principle writ large, whereby products are conceived, produced, packaged, distributed and retired with their long-term environmental impacts in mind. According to the non-profit GrassRoots Recycling Network (GRRN), “Zero waste maximizes recycling, minimizes waste, reduces consumption and ensures that products are made to be reused, repaired or recycled back into nature or the marketplace.” GRRN is calling on companies to take responsibility for the entire lifecycle of their products and packaging, and on governments to not subsidize non-recyclable waste processing.
“Waste is the result of bad design,” says Eric Lombardi of EcoCycle, a recycler in Boulder, Colorado. “The concept of zero waste leads upstream to the designer's desk, where waste needs to be designed out.” Lombardi, a leading light in the fledgling U.S. zero waste movement, lays out four basic principles for achieving zero waste: (1) Make producers responsible for the waste their products create; (2) invest in infrastructure rather than in more landfills and incinerators; (3) end taxpayer subsidies for wasteful and polluting industries; (4) and create jobs and new businesses around the re-use of discards.
While the concept has been slow to catch on here, it has been standard practice in parts of Europe and elsewhere for over a decade. In fact, some 25 countries require companies to take back their packaging, and some have gone so far as to mandate “Extended Producer Responsibility” laws, whereby companies must pay for the waste generated in the production, packaging and distribution of their products.
In Germany, a 1991 ordinance seeking to address packaging waste was a huge success. By 2000, the agencies charged with collecting and recycling such materials were recovering over 90 percent of the plastics and glass used in German packaging. (In the U.S. we reclaim 5.3 and 26 percent respectively.) Another success story comes from Australia, where its capital city, Canberra, embarked on a “No Waste by 2010” campaign in 1996. By 2001 the city had reduced waste sent to landfills by 40 percent and more than doubled the garbage it captured for reuse. The city also began fueling two of its power stations with re-captured methane gas from its landfills, which is plentiful enough to power 3,000 homes for 30 years.
In the U.S., industry has continually put up roadblocks to any serious consideration of adopting such initiatives at the federal level. But, according to the Zero Waste International Alliance, at least 18 local communities have taken it upon themselves to adopt their own strategies for achieving zero waste. These include a dozen California cities and towns; Boulder and Summit counties in Colorado; Carrboro, North Carolina; the Central Vermont Waste Management District; and the cities of Seattle and New York.
“Zero waste is about challenging the ruling paradigm that says we can manage waste safely in landfills and incinerators,” says GRRN's national coordinator, Bill Sheehan. GRRN helps coordinate efforts to implement zero waste campaigns in the U.S., and offers a wealth of free resources on its website.
CONTACTS : GrassRoots Recycling Network, www.grrn.org; EcoCycle, www.ecocycle.org; Zero Waste International Alliance, www.zwia.orgDear EarthTalk : How do solar swimming pool heaters work? Are they efficient? How do they compare in cost to conventional pool heaters? -- Bob Whelan, Providence, RI
While more efficient swimming pool heaters exist, solar heaters offer the most cost effective option, given that the fuel source, sunshine, is free. According to the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Consumer's Guide to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy , solar pool heating systems cost more than other common options such as gas heaters or heat pumps, but will usually provide payback within two to seven years of purchase (depending upon local fuel costs) due to fuel savings.
Owners are guaranteed to make back their initial outlay, too, as solar heaters are not dependent upon motorized moving parts, and thus last twice as long as other types of heaters and don't rack-up significant maintenance costs. Of course, solar pool heaters are also the most environmentally benign option, as no fossil fuels need to be burned to maintain the right amount of warmth.
Most solar pool heating systems come with four key interacting components: a flow control valve takes pool water and sends it through a collector; a filter removes debris before the water reaches the collector; the collector itself heats the water that passes through it; and a pump sends that water back into the pool. In warmer climates, the system can be used to cool the pool in summer months by operating only at night.
But such solar technology need not be restricted to warm climates. As long as the sun is shining, it can provide solar energynot to be confused with the sun's heateven when it is cold outside. Indeed, the DOE reports that solar pool heaters are sold in every climatic region of the continental U.S., meaning that solar is a smart choice even for pools in more northern latitudes like Maine or Minnesota.
While solar pool heaters excel at maintaining steady water temperatures over long time periods, they are not nearly as fast as gas heaters for quick last-minute heat-ups. As such, many pool owners install hybrid systems combining the best elements of gas and solar systems. Also, using a pool cover will reduce heat, water and chlorine loss while maintaining efficiency and preventing debris from sullying the water, regardless of which type of heater system is in place. Even better, “solar blankets” are high-tech covers that use thousands of sealed air pouches to facilitate heat transfer from the sun's ray to the pool water below.
If you are thinking of installing a solar pool heating system, the online version of the DOE's Consumer's Guide provides tips on determining if your pool's location is adequate enough (i.e. does it get enough sunlight?) and on how to choose the system that best suits your needs. The handy website will also show you how to compare competing systems and investigate relevant local pertinent regulations.
Some of the leading manufacturers of solar pool heating system include EZ Heat, Hi-Deluxe, Sungrabber and Suntrek. As always, unless you're familiar with the intricacies of your pool's inner workings, it's best to get a certified installer to work with you to make sure installation goes swimmingly.
CONTACT: Consumer's Guide to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/; EZ Heat, www.harterindustries.com/ezheat.htm; Hi-Deluxe, www.cetsolar.com/hideluxe.htm; Sungrabber, www.sungrabber.net; Suntrek, www.suntreksolar.comDear EarthTalk : I've heard some environmental advocates claim that organic farming could produce enough food to feed the world. Is this true? --Gabe Morello, Lynnwood, WA
Advocates of modern agriculture reliant on pesticides and widespread single crop plantings (known as “monoculture”) have bragged for decades about the increased productivity their high-tech methods can yield. Indeed, several studies in the U.S., Britain and Australia have shown that such methods produce as much as 40 percent more than the more benign methods that served mankind well for thousands of years.
As a result, seed growers and pesticide makers are now working in poor countries to promote the same “green revolution” there, capable, they say, of growing enough food to feed the desperately hungry.
But a spate of new research has shown that organic farming actually yields better results than modern techniques when evaluated more holistically. A series of peer-reviewed papers published by the international journal, Nature , showed that organic methods for growing rice, corn and wheat all produced significantly higher yields--and at less the cost--than monoculture farms. And research at England's Essex University has shown that farmers in India, Kenya, Brazil, Guatemala and Honduras have doubled or tripled their yields by switching to organic agriculture. Cuban farmers, who cannot access fertilizers and pesticides due to the U.S. embargo, have also realized greater yields by taking up organic farming.
According to Dr. Christos Vasilikiotis of the University of California, Berkeley, a vocal advocate of organic farming, chemically intensive farming is highly undesirable due to the toll it takes on the land and the pollution it generates. “Organic…farming methods continually increase soil fertility and prevent loss of topsoil to erosion, while conventional methods have the opposite effect,” he says. He further maintains that “only a conversion to organic farming will allow us to maintain and even increase current crop yields.”
Dr. Liz Stockdale of Britain's Institute of Arable Crops Research agrees, and points out that even when organic yields are less than conventional ones, organic farmers make up the financial difference by not having to buy costly pesticides and fertilizers. She adds that improved growing techniques and new natural pest controls could eventually level the playing field, giving organic farmers the economic advantage.
According to the trade group, Organic Consumers Association, only slightly more than two percent of all farms in the U.S. are currently organic. But with sales of domestic organic food growing about 20 percent annually, the organization expects that figure to rise exponentially in years to come.
Still, though, feeding the world is a tall order, and everyone from organic farmers to environmental leaders to human rights workers agrees that ending hunger is dependent more upon political will than agricultural prowess. “Until governments tackle the social and political factors involved in poverty and food distribution, millions of people will continue to go hungry,” concludes Stockdale.
CONTACTS: Organic Consumers Association, www.organicconsumers.org; U.S. Department of Agriculture National Organic Program, www.ams.usda.gov/nopDear EarthTalk : Is it economical and environmentally friendly for me to recycle my empty inkjet printer cartridges instead of buying new ones? --Matt Hoffman, Seattle, WA
Analysts estimate that more than 300 million inkjet printer cartridges find their way into American landfills every year. Each of those new cartridges requires about three quarts of oil and other raw materials to produce, and also contributes its fair share of greenhouse gases during manufacturing. And as anyone who has ever bought one knows, they come packaged in such excessive amounts of cardboard and plastic that it often takes several minutes and a pair of strong scissors to break through to even get to the ink cartridge!
Thus any effort to reuse or recycle these items is a big win for the environment. And given the exorbitant prices of new inkjet cartridges--the real profit center for printer manufacturers--it makes economic sense, too, for consumers who just want to save money.
The good news is that Americans are already recycling more than 40,000 tons of inkjet cartridges each year. Hundreds of companies out there are eager to pay for your used cartridges so they can re-ink them and resell them at prices much lower than for new ones.
We Buy Empties, InkjetCartridge.com and the eCycle Group, among others, take back major brand inkjet printer cartridges and pay for the privilege, even reimbursing shipping costs. These companies usually only accept large quantities (like 100 or more) of spent cartridges, paying between 10 cents and $5 each, depending on the cartridge type. Meanwhile, Staples, Office Depot and Office Max each give customers about $3 in store credit, or in some cases a ream of office paper, for each empty cartridge that is returned.
Meanwhile, most of the major inkjet printer manufacturers, including Hewlett-Packard, Epson, Canon and Lexmark, will gladly take back empty cartridges shipped directly to them in their original boxes. Hewlett-Packard even puts pre-paid return shipping labels inside their boxes to facilitate customer recycling of their used inkjet cartridges.
Several such companies offer special buy-back rates for schools, churches and other non-profits, which can solicit and collect used cartridges from members and businesses to raise money. Interested organizations can contact companies like iRethink and Funding Factory, which both have special programs to facilitate collection and reimbursement for spent inkjet cartridges.
Those who don't mind getting their hands a little messy can re-ink their empty cartridges themselves. Squeeze bottle ink refills are the most cost effective and environmentally friendly way to keep on printing. Inkjetman, which sells its own refilled inkjet cartridges, also sells inkjet refill kits, which will last through thousands of pages, for about the price of a single new cartridge. FillJet sells similar kits, and estimates the cost of a refilled cartridge to be about $2 in ink, which represents a savings of at least 80 percent over buying refilled recycled cartridges from them.
CONTACTS: iRethink, www.irethink.com, Funding Factory, www.fundingfactory.com, We Buy Empties, www.webuyempties.com, InkjetCartridge.com, www.inkjetcartridge.com, The eCycle Group, www.ecyclegroup.com, Inkjetman, www.inkjetman.com, FillJet, www.inkjetrefilloutlet.comDear EarthTalk : As I understand it, “hybrid” cars make use of an electric motor that never needs to be plugged in. But what's up with the proposed “plug-in” hybrids I've been hearing about? -- Jen Seminara, Omaha, NE
The mass-market gasoline-electric hybrids made by Toyota, Honda and others make use of an electric engine right under the hood next to the gas engine. That electric motor creates fuel economy by kicking into use during idling, backing up, slow traffic, and to maintain speed after the gas engine has been employed for acceleration. The car doesn't need to be plugged in because the on-board electric battery is constantly being charged by the gas engine and by the motion of the wheels and the brakes.
The so-called “plug-in hybrids,” now in prototype stages of development, take this technology a step further. By adding the ability to charge up from a standard household outlet, typically overnight, such cars relegate the gas engine to back-up status and instead let the electric motor do most of the work.
Proponents claim that such “gas-optional” cars--if you don't take long trips you can rely entirely on the electric motor--can be twice as fuel efficient as hybrids, which already get double the gas mileage of traditional vehicles. Additionally, they say, powering up plug-in hybrids with wall sockets results in far less pollution (from the power plants providing the electricity) than an equivalent gasoline-powered car spews out its tailpipe. Meanwhile, plug-in hybrids recharged from rooftop solar power systems might approach being the world's first mass-market “zero emission” vehicles, requiring no power from the grid at all.
Convincing a skeptical American public that plug-in hybrids are the way of the future is the challenge of a loose network of advocacy groups led by the California Cars Initiative (CalCars). Indeed, the experimental electric vehicles of a decade ago and older required re-charging every 25-50 miles, rendering them useless for anything but short trips. The new breed of plug-in hybrids solves this problem by employing much more sophisticated battery technology while still keeping the insurance of gasoline (and a gas engine) on-board.
“It's like having a second small fuel tank that you always use first--only you fill this tank at home with electricity at an equivalent cost of under $1/gallon,” reports the CalCars website. The organization goes on to explain that with gas prices at $3/gallon, traditional cars cost eight to 20 cents per mile, while plug-in hybrids used for all-electric local travel and commuting would cost only two to four cents per mile.
CalCars is lobbying the world's major automakers to introduce plug-in options on future hybrid models, and has built showcase examples themselves that achieve 100 miles per gallon using Toyota's Prius. Meanwhile, a growing list of state and local governments say they would seriously consider converting their fleets to plug-in hybrids if such vehicles became available.
The website HybridCars.com reports that DaimlerChrysler has built a handful of prototypes based on its 15-passenger Mercedes-Benz Sprinter van. And analysts believe Toyota already has the technology in place but may be waiting to gauge consumer demand before making any production commitments. Only time--with a little guidance from the price of gasoline--will tell.
CONTACT: California Cars Initiative (CalCars), www.calcars.orgDear EarthTalk : Is it true that some foods we buy contain genetically engineered ingredients known to cause health problems? -- George Kaye, New York, NY
First made available in the U.S. during the mid-1990s, genetically modified (GM) foods have become staples of American agriculture, though most consumers are unaware of this. According to the non-profit Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, the majority of corn, soy and cotton grown by American farmers today are from seeds genetically engineered to repel pests without the need for spraying pesticides or herbicides. GM versions of canola, squash and papaya are also coming on strong in the U.S.
As is the case with so many scientific controversies, the jury is still out regarding the potential health effects of GM food products. But while conclusive results have been hard to come by, some of the few studies conducted on animals fed diets consisting of GM foods have generated some disturbing results.
In one study, potatoes engineered to contain an insect-repelling gene to improve agricultural yield caused intestinal damage in the test subjects--some lab mice. While the mice did not die from eating the altered food, lesions that formed in their digestive tracts gave researchers pause enough to recommend more thorough testing of the “transgenic potatoes” before marketing them to humans.
In another study, mice were fed so-called “Flavr Savr” Tomatoes--tomatoes developed in the early 90s by Calgene that were “optimized for flavor retention.” Similar lesions arose in the intestines of the mice, causing reviewers from the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to conclude that “the data fall short of ‘a demonstration of safety',” adding, “unresolved questions still remain.” Yet later, yielding to the pressure of industry lobbyists, the FDA not only approved the Flavr Savr for mass human consumption, but also claimed that all safety issues had been satisfactorily resolved.
According to Belinda Martineau, a Calgene researcher who later published the tell-all book, First Fruit: The Creation of the Flavr Savr Tomato and the Birth of Biotech Foods , when the Flavr Savr hit store shelves consumers were not particularly impressed with its taste. Also, farmers were coping with disease problems and low yields, the very problems the technology sought to address in the first place. Eventually the FlavrSavr--or “Franken tomato,” as some cynics dubbed it--was abandoned altogether.
Its legacy lives on, however. Many environmental advocates feel that the FDA's nod on the Flavr Savr set the bar particularly low for approval of other GM foods that may or may not cause health problems. Further, it remains to be seen what effects these hybridized species might have on the environment at large, reason enough to delay the mass release of GM foods into the market until more is known.
Meanwhile, European countries have remained steadfast against allowing GM crops to be grown on their own farms for fear of widespread environmental contamination. And whether or not to allow GM food imports into Europe is a matter of great debate right now within the European Union.
CONTACTS: Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, www.pewagbiotech.org; First Fruit, www.books.mcgraw-hill.com/getbook.php?isbn=0071360565Dear EarthTalk : I'm looking for projects for my son's elementary school to do for Earth Day this year. Do you know of any that can teach children about taking care of our environment? -- Meryl Greenfield, Williston Park, NY
Earth Day is April 22 this year and there's no time like the present to start preparing activities that will teach young people about the importance of protecting the planet. The Seattle-based Earth Day Network, founded by the organizers of the first Earth Day in 1970, offers a wide range of resources to help parents and teachers plan events and direct appropriate discussions on current topics. This year, the organization is focusing efforts on raising awareness about environmental problems associated with global warming.
Parents and teachers can register with Earth Day Network and receive free materials including lesson plans, information on how to get students engaged in local environmental activities, suggestions for hands-on and outdoor activities--even an environmentally-themed “Jeopardy” game.
Some other free resources offered by Earth Day Network include: an “Ecological Footprint Quiz,” whereby kids can find out how much impact they personally have on the environment as determined by how they eat, live and travel; a series of informative fact sheets on climate change and alternative energy sources; and links on their website to other reputable information sources online. And if you're looking for Earth Day events to attend in your area, Earth Day Network's website allows you to simply type in your locale and get a continuously updated calendar of events local to you.
Meanwhile, Kaboose.com, an educational website for kids and families, features Earth Day pages with green-themed online games, suggestions for recycling everyday items into Earth-friendly crafts, and kid-oriented eco-discussion topics. And Education World offers lesson plans and activities covering a wide range of topics including here-and-now issues like in-school recycling and minimizing lunchroom wastes.
Another interesting way to educate kids and the public alike is the Earth Day Groceries Project: Parents or teachers borrow grocery bags from local supermarkets to be decorated with environmental messages and artwork by students. The bags are then returned to the store and used for bagging groceries on April 22.
For those looking to get real local, the Heartland All Species Project offers a free, web-based “Earth Day in Your Neighborhood” guide outlining ways kids can bring neighbors together to celebrate the Earth and commit to greener living. The concise and illustrated guide details ways to get composting, tree planting, energy efficiency and recycling projects going on a street-by-street basis.
For additional ideas, consider perusing the posts on the Earth Day/Ecology Projects Chatboard on Teachers.net. Several teachers have posted ideas for Earth Day projects and activities, from putting on a play based on Dr. Seuss' Lorax, to raising money for school by recycling inkjet cartridges.
CONTACTS: Earth Day Network, www.earthday.net ; Kaboose.com, www.kidsdomain.com/holiday/earthday ; Earth Day Groceries Project, www.earthdaybags.org ; Heartland All Species Project, www.allspecies.org/neigh/blocka.htm ; Education World, www.education-world.com/holidays/archives/earthday.shtml; Teachers.net, www.teachers.net/projects/earthday .Dear EarthTalk : I've heard that gas-powered lawn mowers, despite their small engine size, actually pollute as much as cars. If this is true, is there a greener way to cut my grass? -- Jon Haufe, Seattle, WA
Reports about those noxious fumes emitted from gasoline lawn mowers are indeed true. A Swedish study conducted in 2001 concluded, “Air pollution from cutting grass for an hour with a gasoline powered lawn mower is about the same as that from a 100 mile automobile ride.” Meanwhile, the 54 million Americans mowing their lawns each weekend with gas-powered mowers may be contributing as much as five percent of the nation's air pollution, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The problem is that small engines emit disproportionately large amounts of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides that contribute to smog. The human health effects of smog-laden air are well known, and include inflammation and damage to lungs, increased risk of asthma attacks, and lowered levels of oxygen in the bloodstream, which can aggravate heart conditions.
Fortunately, the EPA is now phasing in new emissions standards for gas mower engines that will result in a 32 percent smog reduction for all models made starting in 2007. And with even more stringent standards slated to go into effect soon in California, environmental leaders are hoping that the old adage for automobile trends (“as goes California, so goes the nation”) will soon apply to lawn mowers too.
But even with such progress, gas power is not the only option. Eco-conscious consumers looking for a new mower should consider, among other options, any of the electric models now available. The easy part is the price, as many models cost less than $200. The trade-off is that they only work for small lawns and must be tethered to a power outlet during use. Also, going electric is not necessarily a way to reduce pollution overall. According to Consumer Reports , “Achieving a net environmental savings from switching to electric mowers depends on the efficiency of the power plant” from where the electricity originates.
If money is not an issue, the $2,500 solar-powered “auto mower” from Husqvarna can't be beat for both eco-friendliness and convenience. It wanders unattended around any level lawn, its collision sensors carefully avoiding contact with anything but the grass itself. While it is currently not available directly in the U.S., some Husqvarna dealers are willing to special order it from Sweden where it is manufactured.
Another green option, and a much more affordable one, is the Solar Powered Mulching Mower from Gaiam, which is in essence a cordless electric Black & Decker mower modified with a small solar array to turn sunlight into power. The battery on the $795 mower can also be charged by simply plugging it in.
Of course, the greenest choice of all is the mower than runs on three square meals a day and a good exercise regimen: the venerable human-powered reel mower. The most popular choices are from American Lawn Mower, which makes nine models including a child-size. They can be found at retailers like Ace Hardware and Target (and at local hardware stores) and in catalogs like Real Goods and Smith & Hawken.
CONTACTS: Husqvarna, www.husqvarna.com; Gaiam, www.gaiam.com; American Lawn Mower, www.reelin.comDear EarthTalk : With the recent hubbub over the chemicals used to make Teflon linked to health problems, what is the safest cookware to use in preparing meals for my family?
-- Wyatt Walley, Needham, MA
When the health risks associated with making Teflon first came to light last year, many cooks trashed their non-stick cookware and went back to using their old stainless steel pots and pans. But what many people didn't realize was that even stainless steel is not immune to controversy regarding health impacts.
In fact, stainless steel is really a mixture of several different metals, including nickel, chromium and molybdenum, all of which can trickle into foods. However, unless your stainless steel cookware is dinged and pitted, the amount of metals likely to get into your food is negligible.
These days, many health conscious cooks are turning to anodized aluminum cookware as a safer alternative. The electro-chemical anodizing process locks in the cookware's base metal, aluminum, so that it can't get into food, and makes for what many cooks consider an ideal non-stick and scratch-resistant cooking surface. Calphalon is the leading manufacturer of anodized aluminum cookware, but newer offerings from All Clad (endorsed by celebrity chef Emeril Lagasse) and others are coming on strong.
Another good choice is that old standby, cast iron, which is known for its durability and even heat distribution. Cast iron cookware can also help ensure that eaters in your house get enough iron--which the body needs to produce red blood cells--as it seeps off the cookware into food in small amounts. Unlike the metals that can come off of some other types of pots and pans, iron is considered a healthy food additive by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Consumers should beware, though, that most cast iron cookware needs to be seasoned after each use and as such is not as worry-free as other alternatives. Lodge Manufacturing is the leading American producer of cast iron cookware.
For those who like the feel and heat distribution properties of cast iron but dread the seasoning process, ceramic enameled cookware from Le Creuset, World Cuisine and others is a good choice. The smooth and colorful enamel is dishwasher-friendly and somewhat non-stick, and covers the entire surface of such cookware to minimize clean-up headaches. One other surface favored by chefs for sauces and sautés is copper, which excels at quick warm-ups and even heat distribution. Since copper can leak into food in large amounts when heated, the cooking surfaces are usually lined with tin or stainless steel.
But if you're concerned about the build-up of solid waste in our landfills, don't trash your non-stick cookware just yet. According to DuPont, the finished product of Teflon does not contain any of the production-process chemicals linked to health problems in factory workers. And the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says that ingesting small particles of Teflon flaked off into food is not known to cause any health maladies. With proper use and care, such pots and pan--which constitute more than half of all cookware sales in the U.S.--should be safe to use for years to come.
CONTACTS: Calphalon, www.calphalon.com ; All-Clad, www.allclad.com , Lodge Manufacturing, www.lodgemfg.com ; Le Creuset, www.lecreuset.com ; World Cuisine, www.world-cuisine.com .Dear EarthTalk : Did the car companies really conspire to kill the trolleys and streetcars of bygone days to force us to become dependent on automobiles instead?
-- Taylor Howe, San Francisco, CA
Indeed, in the 1920s automaker General Motors (GM) began a covert campaign to undermine the popular rail-based public transit systems that were ubiquitous in and around the country's bustling urban areas. At the time, only one in 10 Americans owned cars and most people traveled by trolley and streetcar.
Within three decades, GM, with help from Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, Mack Truck and Phillips Petroleum, succeeded in decimating the nation's trolley systems, while seeing to the creation of the federal highway system and the ensuing dominance of the automobile as America's preferred mode of transport.
GM began by funding a company called National City Lines (NCL), which by 1946 controlled streetcar operations in 80 American cities. “Despite public opinion polls that showed 88 percent of the public favoring expansion of the rail lines after World War II, NCL systematically closed its streetcars down until, by 1955, only a few remained,” writes author Jim Motavalli in his 2001 book, Forward Drive .
GM first replaced trolleys with free-roaming buses, eliminating the need for tracks embedded in the street and clearing the way for cars. As dramatized in a 1996 PBS docudrama, Taken for a Ride, Alfred P. Sloan, GM's president at the time, said, “We've got 90 percent of the market out there that we can…turn into automobile users. If we can eliminate the rail alternatives, we will create a new market for our cars.” And they did just that, with the help of GM subsidiaries Yellow Coach and Greyhound Bus. Sloan predicted that the jolting rides of buses would soon lead people to not want them and to buy GM's cars instead.
GM was later instrumental in the creation of the National Highway Users Conference, which became the most powerful lobby in Washington. Highway lobbyists worked directly with lawmakers to craft highway-friendly legislation, and GM's promotional films were showcasing America's burgeoning interstate highway system as the realization of the so-called “American dream of freedom on wheels.” When GM President Charles Wilson became Secretary of Defense in 1953, he worked with Congress to craft the $25 billion Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Referred to at the time as the “greatest public works project in the history of the world,” the federally funded race to build roads from coast-to-coast was on.
Meanwhile, many eco-advocates and urban planners alike yearn for a rebirth of public transit. In the face of nightmarish traffic tie-ups nationwide, widespread urban sprawl, loss of open space, and the global warming we owe largely to automobiles, will we ever see a return to mass transit as the dominant mode for moving people? According to the Public Transportation Partnership for Tomorrow (PT2), mass transit ridership has grown 21 percent since 1995--faster than both vehicle and airline passenger miles logged over the same period. “Public transportation is a…means of helping our environment and conserving energy,” says the PT2 website. “If one in ten Americans used public transportation regularly, U.S. reliance on foreign oil could be cut by more than 40 percent--the amount we import from Saudi Arabia each year.”
CONTACTS : American Streetcar Scandal, www.njtpa.org/public_affairs/intrans/scandal.html; Transportation Partnership for Tomorrow, www.publictransportation.org/pt2/ .Dear EarthTalk : As warm weather approaches I know we're going to have a problem again with ticks near our home. Are there any eco-safe applications we could use to get rid of them? -- Thomas Cohn, Bedford Corners, NY
“Tick season” will be upon us sooner than we know it, as early as April if post-winter weather warms up fast. And ticks can pass on more diseases to humans than any other creepy crawly except the mosquito.
Small bugs with big bites, ticks are of course associated most with Lyme Disease, symptoms of which include fever, headache, fatigue, and a distinctive circular skin rash. Left untreated, infection can spread to joints and the nervous system and, according to the Centers for Disease Control, to the heart as well.
Modern science has devised many ways to keep ticks at bay, most involving harsh chemicals with dubious safety records. Indeed, according to a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the majority of tick products on the market today contain toxins, known collectively as organophosphate insecticides (OPs), which not only kill insects but can also damage the nervous systems of pets and people.
Studies have shown that children exposed to OPs may face increased risk of health problems later in life, including cancer and Parkinson's disease. One recent study showed that people with any history of in-home exposure to insecticides containing OPs faced twice the risk of Parkinson's as the rest of the population. In addition, four OPs used in pet products increase cancers in lab animals, and as such may cause cancer in humans. One study showed children of pregnant women exposed to products containing OPs to be 250 percent more likely than those in a control group to develop brain cancer before the age of five. According to NRDC, pesticides that contain the OPs chlorpyrifos, dichlorvos, phosmet, tetrachlorvinphos, naled, diazinon and Malathion should be avoided, and regulated much more stringently by government.
While there is no environmentally safe and effective way to spray buildings or backyards to fight ticks, the Bio-Integral Resource Center urges an approach that manages the habitat in and around your home to make it less hospitable to ticks. Ticks are attracted to humidity, so deep and infrequent watering of your lawn will let it dry out between applications. Vegetation should be cut below ankle height, the brush along paths and roadways removed, and trees pruned to let the light through. This will also make your property less appealing to animal hosts such as rabbits, rodents, possum, raccoons and deer. Further steps include placing soap, hair, garlic, lilac, jasmine or holly--all having deer-repelling qualities--around your property.
Because pets are frequent carriers, their sleeping quarters should be vacuumed frequently. NRDC also recommends that pet owners ask their veterinarian about dog and cat collars containing fipronil, a chemical which blocks nerve transmission in insects but has little if any effect on people or pets.
The best advice when exploring the outdoors during tick season is to always cover yourself from head to toe, and to wear light-colored clothing so you can spot ticks more easily if they do get on you. Search yourself thoroughly, particularly at the base of your skull, and wash clothes immediately afterwards.
CONTACTS: Centers for Disease Control, www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/lyme/index.htm; NRDC, www.nrdc.org/health/effects/pets/execsum.asp ; Bio-Integral Resource Center, www.birc.org .Dear EarthTalk : What are “El Niño” and “La Niña” and what relationship do they have with global climate change? -- Ralph Carpio, Delray Beach, FL
Simply put, El Niño and La Niña are different stages in a cyclical pattern of climate turbulence otherwise known by meteorologists as the Southern Oscillation. First noticed by 16th century fishermen on the Pacific coast of South America, these phenomena were not scientifically documented until the 1920s when scientists noticed periodic occurrences every three to seven years in the eastern Pacific. Since the 1970s, though, El Niño and La Niña have been occurring with more frequency and intensity.
According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the El Niño part of the cycle involves warmer-than-usual sea temperatures, great amounts of rainfall (in the northern hemisphere) and low atmospheric pressure. The most extreme results of an El Niño event have included flooding from Ecuador to the Gulf of Mexico, massive marine life die-offs in the Pacific, hurricanes in Tahiti and Hawaii, and concurrent droughts in many other parts of the world from Southern India to Australia to Central America.
In contrast, cooler sea temperatures, high atmospheric pressure and drier air characterize the La Niña phase of the Southern Oscillation. During La Niña, currents bring nutrients up from the deep water, providing feast, rather than famine, for marine organisms. And accompanying strong winds blow moisture away, making for cloudless skies and dry conditions in equatorial countries from the International Date Line east to South America.
Some scientists believe that the increased intensity and frequency--now every two to three years--of El Niño and La Niña events in recent decades is due to warmer ocean temperatures resulting from global warming. In a 1998 report, scientists from NOAA explained that higher global temperatures might be increasing evaporation from land and adding moisture to the air, thus intensifying the storms and floods associated with El Niño.
Another take on what's happening is from Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the Colorado-based National Center for Atmospheric Research. Trenberth believes that the Southern Oscillation may be functioning like a pressure release valve for the tropics. With global warming driving temperatures higher, ocean currents and weather systems might not be able to release all the extra heat getting pumped into the tropical seas; as such an El Niño occurs to help expel the excess heat.
CONTACTS : National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, www.noaa.gov ; National Center for Atmospheric Research, www.ucar.edu/communications/factsheets/elnino/ .Dear EarthTalk : Do government “Energy Star” ratings for major appliances take into account their “cradle-to-grave” impacts, or are they just concerned with energy efficiency? -- Fred von Mechow, via e-mail
The Energy Star program, set up back in 1992, is designed to help consumers determine the energy efficiency of various appliances, home electronics, office equipment and lighting. All such items for sale in the U.S. come with an Energy Guide label, which indicates how much energy they will consume over the course of a typical year, and how much that energy will cost, detailing how it compares to similar models.
Those units that are especially energy-efficient--based on standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Department of Energy (DoE)--receive an Energy Star , signifying them as preferred environmental choices. Clearly the program is designed as an incentive for competing brands to lower their products' energy consumption and costs over time.
The program is very helpful to consumers who want to do the right thing environmentally while also saving on energy bills, but it is not a “cradle-to-grave” assessment. “Cradle-to-grave,” as the term implies, measures an appliance's environmental impact over the course of its entire life, and it counts other factors besides energy use and costs.
German and Scandinavian manufacturers, for example, thanks to stringent “Extended Producer Responsibility” (EPR) laws in place there, must do more than maximize the energy efficiency of their products. They must also eliminate hazardous materials from both the appliances' components and their manufacturing processes (i.e. “cradle”), and make them in such a way that maximizes their recyclability and reusability so as to keep them out of landfills (“grave”). In fact, European EPR laws even require companies to take back some of their products at the end of their useful life, removing the burden from the consumer as well as from local community waste handling systems.
And with passage last year of “Directive 2005/32/EC” by the European Union (EU), similar laws will apply for any manufacturer--domestic or otherwise--that wants to sell appliances to Europe's 400-million-strong consumer market. The goal is to encourage manufacturers to assess the full lifecycle impacts of their products, which would ideally also lead to the elimination of unnecessary parts and of wasteful, extraneous packaging. The directive becomes law across the continent in 2007.
Meanwhile, strong industry lobbies have thus far prevented similar legislation from taking hold in the U.S., though some state and local governments have expressed interest in European-style take-back laws. A few forward-thinking computer makers, including IBM and Hewlett-Packard, have started take-back programs voluntarily in order to salvage some components for re-use while looking good to environmentally-conscious consumers. But for the most part the trend has not caught on for American manufacturers and there are no laws in place to force them to abandon that age-old and not-so-green-friendly principle of “planned obsolescence.”
CONTACTS : Energy Star, www.energystar.gov ; European Union Directive 2005/32/EC, http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/eco_design/ .Dear EarthTalk : Some people argue that recycling uses more energy than it saves, and thus it is not worth the effort. Is this true? -- Tigger Fox, Millinocket, Maine
Controversy over the benefits of recycling bubbled up in 1996 when columnist John Tierney posited in a New York Times Magazine article that “recycling is garbage.” “Mandatory recycling programs,” he wrote. “…offer mainly short-term benefits to a few groups--politicians, public relations consultants, environmental organizations and waste handling corporations--while diverting money from genuine social and environmental problems. Recycling may be the most wasteful activity in modern America…”
Environmental groups were quick to dispute Tierney, especially on assertions that recycling was doubling energy consumption and pollution while costing taxpayers more money than disposing of plain old garbage. The Natural Resources Defense Council and Environmental Defense, two of the nation's most influential environmental organizations, each issued reports detailing how municipal recycling programs reduce pollution and the use of virgin resources while decreasing the sheer amount of garbage and the need for landfill space--all for less, not more, than the cost of regular garbage pick-up and disposal.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Solid Waste director, Michael Shapiro, also weighed in: “A well-run curbside recycling program can cost anywhere from $50 to more than $150 per ton…trash collection and disposal programs, on the other hand, cost anywhere from $70 to more than $200 per ton. This demonstrates that, while there's still room for improvements, recycling can be cost-effective.”
But in 2002, New York City, an early municipal recycling pioneer, found that its much-lauded program was losing money, so it eliminated glass and plastic recycling. According to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, recycling plastic and glass was costing twice as much as disposal. Meanwhile, low demand for the materials meant that much of it was ending up in landfills anyway, despite best intentions.
Other major cities watched closely to see how New York was faring with its scaled back program (the city never discontinued paper recycling), ready to perhaps jump on the bandwagon. But in the meantime, New York City closed its last landfill, and private out-of-state landfills raised prices due to the increased workload of hauling away and disposing of New York's trash. As a result, glass and plastic recycling became economically viable for the city again, and New York reinstated the program accordingly, with a more efficient system and with more reputable service providers than it had used previously.
According to Chicago Reader columnist Cecil Adams, the lessons learned by New York are applicable everywhere. “Some early curbside recycling programs…waste resources due to bureaucratic overhead and duplicate trash pickups (for garbage and then again for recyclables). But the situation has improved as cities have gained experience.” Adams also says that, if managed correctly, recycling programs should cost cities (and taxpayers) less than garbage disposal for any given equivalent amount of material.
Even though the benefits of recycling over disposal are manifold, individuals should keep in mind that it better serves the environment to “reduce and reuse” before recycling even becomes an option.
CONTACT : Natural Resources Defense Council, www.nrdc.org/cities/recycling/gnyc.asp .Dear EarthTalk : Can you explain the tax credits I might be entitled to if I buy a hybrid car? Also, is it true that single-rider hybrids can now use HOV lanes in recognition of their fuel efficiency? -- Mark Timken, Greenwich, CT
If you've been wanting a hybrid gasoline-electric vehicle but have been reticent to shell out the extra bucks, 2006 just might be your year. Beginning this past January, in accordance with the new Energy Policy Act, the federal government began awarding unprecedented tax credits to consumers who go hybrid.
Hybrids are more expensive than conventional vehicles because of their costly batteries and because there are two separate engines under each vehicle's hood. But the new tax credits go a long way toward closing that cost differential. Individuals who purchase any of the new gas-electric hybrids available in the U.S. between 2006-2007 are eligible for up to $3,400 in federal tax credits. The credits are limited to the first 60,000 hybrid vehicles sold by each automaker, though, limiting the savings to those who act early.
According to an analysis by the non-profit Union of Concerned Scientists, which runs the website HybridCenter.org, Toyota's popular Prius model would typically qualify its buyer for a tax credit topping $3,100, while Honda's Civic Hybrid would garner about $2,100. Buyers of the new hybrid SUVs from Ford, Toyota and Lexus could expect more than $2,000 in tax credits. The amounts of the credits are based on fuel economy improvements over conventional models of the same class of car or truck, so the hybrids offering the biggest boost in fuel efficiency will generate the largest tax credits for their owners.
And, yes, another component of the Energy Policy Act is the Federal Hybrid HOV Waiver, which allows states to open their high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes to hybrids that get at least 50 percent better fuel efficiency in the city and 25 percent better in combined city-highway miles over conventional models, regardless of how many passengers. So far 12 states are participating and many others are sure to follow.
Beyond these new federal incentives, 36 states offer some kind of rebate, incentive or benefit to encourage consumers and businesses to go hybrid. New York Governor George Pataki recently unveiled a comprehensive energy reduction plan that includes a $2,000 hybrid state tax credit, discounted highway tolls for hybrid drivers, and HOV-lane access for hybrids. If the state legislature approves Pataki's plan, New York taxpayers who buy hybrids could save more than $5,400.
Even some businesses are voluntarily getting in on the act. Search engine giant Google is offering $5,000 to each employee toward the purchase of a new hybrid. And Travelers Insurance announced last month that it would start giving its auto insurance customers who drive hybrids a 10 percent discount.
Demand for hybrids is surging. Combined sales of the first hybrids in 1999 topped out at just a few hundred vehicles. In 2005, American car dealers sold more than 205,000 hybrid cars and SUVs. With all these new incentives in place, and a public more concerned than ever about the price of gas at the pump, automakers are planning to unveil many more hybrid models over the next few years. Whether or not they can keep up with demand is going to be anybody's guess.
CONTACT : HybridCenter.org, www.hybridcenter.org .Dear EarthTalk : What are religious leaders and organizations doing to communicate the importance of safeguarding our natural environment? -- Peter Toot, Taos, NM
Perhaps it's not surprising that those who care for God's creation take environmental issues seriously. But only in recent years have Sunday sermons and other religious services put green topics front and center.
Much of the credit for increases in such “faith-based” environmentalism can go to the National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE), which was founded in 1993 to “weave the mission of care for God's creation across all areas of organized religion.” NRPE has forged relationships with a diverse group of religious organizations, including the U.S. Catholic Conference, the National Council of Churches of Christ, the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, and the Evangelical Environmental Network.
These organizations work with NRPE to develop environmental programs that mesh with their own varied spiritual teachings. For instance, some 135,000 congregations--counting Catholic parishes, synagogues, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox churches and evangelic congregations--have been provided with resource kits on environmental issues, including sermons for clergy, lesson plans for Sunday school teachers, and even conservation tips for church and synagogue building managers.
Even Evangelical Christians, known for their conservative take on most issues, are going green. The Colorado-based National Association of Evangelicals is urging its 30 million members to pursue a “biblically balanced agenda” to protect the environment alongside fighting poverty. Indeed, it was Evangelical minister, Reverend Jim Ball, who started the influential “What Would Jesus Drive?” campaign promoting hybrid cars back in 2003. More recently Ball has worked with likeminded Evangelicals to craft a faith-based policy statement on global warming.
Another key organization is the Forum on Religion and Ecology, which holds conferences that bring religious leaders together from all over the world to discuss religion's role in ecological matters.
Earth Ministry, an association of 90 churches around Seattle, takes a more “hands-on” approach. It organizes hikes, book parties, and volunteer support for local agricultural projects, helping to educate thousands of people along the way. Some congregations also conduct church “greenings,” like replacing church lightbulbs with energy-saving compact fluorescents and virgin copier paper with recycled paper.
Some more hard-hitting environmental actions have sprung up at the congregation level as well. In Mississippi, Jesus People Against Pollution brought together local churchgoers to pressure authorities to clean-up local toxic waste sites. And in Detroit, the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart turned a former crack house into a community vegetable garden. Meanwhile, New York's Hamburg Presbyterian Church “adopted” a nearby creek and won it designation as a protected habitat. And just like good environmentalists everywhere, Hamburg Presbyterian's parishioners continue to monitor the creek to ensure that it remains vibrant and healthy.
CONTACTS : National Religious Partnership for the Environment (NRPE), www.nrpe.org ; Earth Ministry, www.earthministry.org ; National Association of Evangelicals, www.nae.net .Dear EarthTalk : I really enjoy the various Survivor TV series, but what is the environmental impact of such productions on their remote locales? -- Rachel Maxwell, Port Washington, NY
When Survivor first aired in the summer of 2000, environmental groups cheered producers for choosing nature as the setting for such a high profile series. And by the time the series was only a year old, it was garnering green praise from all over, including from Australian environmental officials, who played host during the show's second season.
Ian Sinclair of the Queensland Department of Natural Resources, Mines and Water, said in an interview at the time, “The impacts were pretty minimal. All rubbish was removed. No vegetation was destroyed. The tracks and the bare area that were re-seeded are probably the only visible signs of impact…” But Survivor 2 was only granted use of the site on very strict terms, including protection of local flora and fauna as well as guarantees of waste cleanup. As Survivor competitor Colby Donaldson showed when he illegally picked up pieces of coral, such guarantees were sometimes dishonored, however unintentionally.
But bigger trouble began brewing for the show in 2001 in Kenya when a local land trust complained that vegetation and animals living in that country's Shaba National Reserve--where that season was being filmed--were being disrupted by all the production-related activities. “The presence of more than 200 workers and the heavy commercial trucks busy supplying provisions and other operations in the reserve has scared away all the animals,” said a press release by Kenya's Waso Trust Land Project. The story was carried in newspapers around the world, bruising the show's otherwise spotless environmental reputation.
Since then, though, perhaps because of the flap, Survivor has been a more responsible environmental actor with each successive season, often garnering accolades from local governments monitoring operations. Authorities in Thailand were skeptical about hosting American productions after crew from the film, The Beach , were charged with damaging one of the country's most pristine national parks in 2000. But they were pleasantly surprised after Survivor 's producers displayed great environmental sensitivity when taping the show's fifth season there. More recently, the government of Palau, where the series was set in 2004, reported that it found “no significant environmental impact [or] damage” from hosting Survivor .
Despite the show's recent good track record during filming, some environmental groups are now concerned that Survivor 's popularity may well cause some of the pristine and far-flung locales where it is filmed to become overrun with tourism. In fact, the Palau Conservation Society has had to re-double efforts to manage tourism growth which has spiked since the island nation began hosting Survivor .
CONTACTS: CBS Survivor Website, www.cbs.com/primetime/survivor/ ; Waso Trust Land Project, e-mail: wasotrustland@yahoo.com ; Palau Conservation Society, www.palau-pcs.org .Dear EarthTalk : Are there sources for disposable cups, plates, napkins and dinnerware that are more eco-friendly than others? -- Charles Phillips, New York, NY
Disposable dishware is ubiquitous in our modern “on-the-go” culture. That's why nearly 100 billion plastic, paper and Styrofoam cups end up in American landfills and incinerators every year. Human health is the real loser when it comes to our consumption of such products, which are typically made from petroleum-based plastics, hazardous foam or chlorine-bleached virgin paper.
For the eco-conscious who enjoy entertaining large groups but don't want to wash dishes, compostable dishware might be just the ticket. California-based Sinless Buying makes a wide range of compostable dinnerware--from dishes and cups to cafeteria-style trays and soup bowls--out of “Bagasse,” a fully biodegradable organic sugar cane fiber. Unlike their traditional plastic counterparts, once such dinnerware has served its purpose it can simply be tossed in with the backyard or garden compost. Sinless Buying also offers unbleached versions of some of its products.
Another California company, Cereplast, makes its highly regarded Nat-Ur line of compostable cups, plates, utensils, straws and even trash bags out of a plastic-like substance made from biodegradable corn byproducts, also completely biodegradable and compostable.
Meanwhile, Montana's Treecycle, best known for its wide variety of recycled papers, now also manufactures biodegradable plates, cups, bowls and trays made from sugar cane byproducts, as well as disposable cutlery made from 100 percent compostable wheat wastes. All Treecycle dinnerware can be machine washed and re-used several times before composting.
A new entrant on the retail side of compostable dinnerware is EarthShell, which makes a wide range of compostable plates, cups, cutlery and food storage containers from fully biodegradable renewable materials like limestone and starch. The company has been supplying food service giants like SYSCO and McDonald's for years, and now sells direct to consumers under the ReNewable Products brand name, available at Smart & Final stores in the West and at Schnucks in the Midwest.
Problems with plastic, paper and Styrofoam waste will undoubtedly continue to grow despite such positive trends and because landfills are filling up fast and taking up space that could be better put to use. But some state and local governments are taking action. Kentucky, New Jersey and California have passed bills that limit the sale of disposable plastic products, and thousands of municipalities coast to coast have increased their capacities for recycling and composting in recent years.
CONTACTS : Sinless Buying, www.sinlessbuying.com ; Nat-UR Store, www.nat-urstore.com ; Treecycle, www.treecycle.com ; EarthShell, www.earthshell.com .Dear EarthTalk : Is it true that some sponges used for cleaning and bathing are real sea sponges? If so, are they endangered by our using them? Which are more eco-friendly, real or synthetic? -- Lin Heidt, Canmore, Alberta
While it is true that real sea sponges have been in use since the Roman Empire, synthetic alternatives made primarily from wood pulp became commonplace by the middle of the 20th century when DuPont perfected the process of manufacturing them. Today most of the sponges we use are made from a combination of wood pulp (cellulose), sodium sulphate crystals, hemp fibers and chemical softeners.
Although some forest advocates decry the use of wood pulp for producing sponges, claiming that the process encourages logging, the manufacture of cellulose-based sponges is a pretty clean affair. No harmful byproducts result and there is little waste, as trimmings are ground up and recycled back into the mix.
Another common type of artificial sponge is made of polyurethane foam. These sponges excel at cleaning, but are less ideal from an environmental perspective, as the manufacturing process relies on ozone-depleting hydrocarbons (set to be phased out by 2030) to blow the foam into shape. Also, polyurethane can emit formaldehyde and other irritants and can form cancer-causing dioxins when incinerated.
Some real sea sponges are still sold today, used for everything from cleaning car and boat exteriors to removing make-up and exfoliating the skin. The product of at least 700 million years of evolution, sea sponges are among the world's simplest living organisms. They survive by filtering microscopic plants and oxygen from the water, growing slowly over many decades. Commercially, they are prized for their natural softness and resistance to tearing, and their ability to absorb and discharge large amounts of water. Scientists know of more than 5,000 different species, though we only harvest a handful of them, such as the exfoliating Honeycomb ( Hippospongia communis ) and the silky smooth Fina ( Spongia officinalis ).
Environmentalists are concerned about protecting sea sponges, especially because we still know so little about them, particularly with regard to their potential medicinal usefulness and their role in the food chain. For example, researchers are optimistic that chemicals emitted from some living sea sponges could be synthesized to create new arthritis treatments and possibly even cancer fighters. And sea sponges serve as the primary food source for endangered hawksbill sea turtles. Shrinking amounts of natural sponge could push the prehistoric creature over the brink to extinction.
According to the Australian Marine Conservation Society, sea sponges are under threat not only from over-harvesting but also from sewage discharge and storm water run-off, as well as from scallop dredging activity. Global warming, which has been increasing water temperatures and altering the ocean food chain and sea floor environment accordingly, is also now a factor. The organization reports that very few sponge gardens are protected, and is advocating for the creation of marine protected areas and more sensitive fishing methods in regions where sea sponge remain abundant.
CONTACT : Australian Marine Conservation Society, www.amcs.org.au .Dear EarthTalk : What is the status of the seal hunt that used to be held each winter in Newfoundland, Canada? I thought it had ended but then I heard it had started up again. -- Mary, via e-mail
The first European explorers who landed on the eastern coast of Canada in the late 17th century estimated the local seal population to number around 30 million. With such an abundance of wildlife and a huge demand around the world at the time for seal oil and pelts, the hunt was on almost immediately. But biologists estimate that by the early 1970s, when the Canadian government began to regulate marine mammal hunting, only about two million seals were left in the area.
Not until the 1980s did inhumane seal hunting practices, including clubbing and shooting of baby “whitecoat” harp seals, begin to foment public outrage. As a result, the European Parliament banned the import of baby harp seal pelts from Canada in 1984. Meanwhile, the Britain-based International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) called for a boycott of all Canadian seafood that same year. These actions forced the Canadian government to ban vessel-based seal hunting in Canadian waters (although land-based seal hunting was still allowed), significantly reducing the numbers of seals killed over the following few years. This short-term fix allowed seal numbers off Canada's Atlantic coast to rebound to about five million.
But more recently, blaming seals for dwindling populations of fish on its Atlantic coast, Canada has allowed more kills as well as a resumption of vessel-based hunting. These days hunters are allowed to take over 300,000 pelts each year, most of which are sold in Europe. Canada also reportedly subsidizes the seal hunt some $20 million per year, according to the Canadian Institute for Business and the Environment, in order to help the fishermen who rely on seal hunting for a portion of their incomes.
Meanwhile, animal advocates counter that mismanagement of fisheries by Canada's government is really to blame for dwindling fish, not hungry seals. Last year Mhairi Dunlop of Greenpeace told Environmental News Service: “The Canadian government has a long history of mismanaging marine ecosystems, yielding to the short-term interests of the fishing and sealing industries at great cost to jobs and marine life.”
The Protect Seals Network, an international coalition of some three-dozen groups including Greenpeace, Canada's Nova Scotia and Vancouver humane societies and others, is calling for a new boycott of Canadian seafood. As one of its many actions, the group recently placed a full-page ad in the Christian Science Monitor urging readers to join the boycott until Canada's government ends the seal hunt.
According to the website harpseals.org, which monitors seal hunting worldwide and advocates for eliminating the hunt, Canada is set to release a new three-year quota for seal pelts before the beginning of the new season to begin in March. Environmental and animal groups are hoping that officials there will bow to pressure and reduce the total allowable catch of seals from the record numbers allowed during the previous three-year period ending in 2005.
CONTACTS: IFAW, www.ifaw.org ; Harpseals.org, www.harpseals.org ; Protect Seals Network, www.hsus.org/marine_mammals/protect_seals/the_protect_seals_network.htmlDear EarthTalk : Is it true that the materials used in car interiors can be hazardous to our health? -- Chris Smith, Bethesda, MD
“Indoor air pollution” in homes and offices has been studied extensively in recent years--with sometimes alarming conclusions that have led the building industry to rethink many aspects of design and choice of materials. But the health hazards lurking inside car interiors, where most Americans spend 90 minutes on average each day, have largely escaped scrutiny.
However, on January 11 of this year, the Michigan-based Ecology Center released a report entitled: “Toxic at Any Speed: Chemicals in Cars and the Need for Safe Alternatives.” In this new report, researchers detail how heat and ultraviolet (UV) light can trigger the release inside cars of a number of chemicals linked to birth defects, premature births, impaired learning and liver toxicity, among other serious health problems.
Polybrominated diphenyl ethers (or PBDEs, often used as fire retardants) and phthalates (chemicals used to soften plastics) are the primary culprits. Part of the seat cushions, armrests, floor coverings and plastic parts in most car interiors, these chemicals are easily inhaled or ingested through contact with dust by drivers and passengers. The risks are greatest in summer, when car interiors can get as hot as 192º F.
Motorists can lessen their risks by rolling down car windows, parking in the shade and using interior sun reflectors. But the Ecology Center is urging carmakers to stop using such chemicals in the first place. “We can no longer rely just on seatbelts and airbags to keep us safe in cars,” says Jeff Gearhart, the Ecology Center's Clean Car Campaign Director and co-author of the report. “Our research shows that autos are chemical reactors, releasing toxins before we even turn on the ignition. There are safer alternatives to these chemicals, and innovative companies that develop them first will likely be rewarded by consumers.”
In preparing its report, the Ecology Center collected windshield film and dust from 2000 to 2005 models made by 11 leading manufacturers. Volvo was found to have the lowest phthalate levels and the second lowest PBDE levels, making it the industry leader in interior air quality. Volvo also has the toughest policies for phasing out these chemicals. Other makers claim they have eliminated some but not all PBDEs and phthalates. Ford, for example, reports that it has eliminated PBDEs from “interior components that customers may come into contact with.” Honda reports it has eliminated most phthalate-containing PVC. Other carmakers tested were BMW, Chrysler, GM, Hyundai, Mercedes, Subaru, Toyota and Volkswagen.
With indoor air pollution already listed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as one of the top five environmental risks to public health, the Ecology Center is especially concerned that concentrations of PBDEs are five times higher inside cars than in homes and offices. The organization is calling on the U.S. government to ban the worst forms of PBDEs and phthalates from use in any indoor environments, and has enlisted the help of several concerned members of Congress to help write legislation to that effect.
CONTACT : The Ecology Center, www.ecocenter.org .Dear EarthTalk: Someone told me that methane gas emitted by cows is a major contributor to global warming. I thought it was a joke, but is this true? -- David Rietz, Goose Creek, SC
Accumulation of methane in the Earth's atmosphere has nearly doubled around the globe over the past 200 years. Scientists believe that rising concentrations of this “greenhouse gas,” which absorbs and sends infrared radiation to the Earth, are causing changes in the climate and contributing to global warming.
Livestock animals naturally produce methane as part of their digestive process, belching it while chewing cud and excreting it in their waste. According to the Worldwatch Institute, about 15 to 20 percent of global methane emissions come from livestock. John Robbins, author of The Food Revolution and Diet for a New America , says that methane is 24 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, the culprit normally at the center of global warming discussions.
And there are plenty of sources of it: The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports that animals in the U.S. meat industry produce 61 million tons of waste each year, which is 130 times the volume of human waste produced, or five tons for every U.S. citizen. In addition to its impact on climate, hog, chicken and cow waste has polluted some 35,000 miles of rivers in 22 states and contaminated groundwater in 17 states, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Ronnie Cummins, national director of the Organic Consumers Association, says that a food chain with meat at its top is unsustainable not only as a major contributor of greenhouse gases, but also with regard to inefficient dedication of large amounts of acreage to livestock grazing. The USDA, for example, says that growing the crops necessary to feed farmed animals requires nearly 80 percent of America's agricultural land and half of its water supply.
In addition, animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90 percent of the country's soy crop, 80 percent of its corn crop, and 70 percent of its grain. “If all the grain currently fed to livestock in the United States were consumed directly by people, the number of people who could be fed would be nearly 800 million,” says Cornell ecologist David Pimentel. He adds that irresponsible livestock farming is directly or indirectly responsible for much of the soil erosion in the U.S.
Unfortunately, environmental problems associated with livestock rearing are not limited to the United States. According to the international environmental journal, Earth Times , meat production grew more than fivefold worldwide during the latter half of the 20th century. And as intensive “factory” farming methods of raising livestock spread from the U.S. to other countries--many with regulatory monitoring and enforcement standards far worse than our own--this form of pollution is sure to play an increasingly larger role in environmental problems moving forward.
CONTACTS : Organic Consumers Association, www.purefood.org ; Worldwatch Institute, www.worldwatch.org .
Dear EarthTalk: Is it more environmentally friendly to hand-wash dishes or use a dishwasher? -- Jennifer Furnari, Sonora, CA
Dishwashers are the way to go if you comply with two simple criteria. “Run a dishwasher only when it's full, and don't rinse your dishes before putting them in the dishwasher.” So says John Morril of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, who also advises not using the dry cycle. The water used in most dishwashers is hot enough, he says, to evaporate quickly if the door is left open after the wash and rinse cycles are complete.
Scientists at the University of Bonn in Germany who studied the issue found that the dishwasher uses only half the energy, one-sixth of the water, and less soap than hand-washing an identical set of dirty dishes. Even the most sparing and careful washers could not beat the modern dishwasher. The study also found that dishwashers excelled in cleanliness over hand washing.
Most dishwashers manufactured since 1994 use seven to 10 gallons of water per cycle, while older machines use eight to 15 gallons. Newer designs have also improved dishwasher efficiency immensely. Hot water can now be heated in the dishwasher itself, not in the household hot water heater, where heat gets lost in transit. Dishwashers also heat only as much water as needed. A standard 24-inch-wide household dishwasher is designed to hold eight place settings, but some newer models will wash the same amount of dishes inside an 18-inch frame, using less water in the process. If you have an older, less-efficient machine, the Council recommends hand washing for the smaller jobs and saving the dishwasher for the dinner party's aftermath.
New dishwashers that meet strict energy and water-saving efficiency standards can qualify for an Energy Star label from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Besides being more efficient and getting the dishes cleaner, qualifying newer models will save the average household about $25 per year in energy costs.
Like John Morril, the EPA recommends always running your dishwasher with a full load and avoiding the inefficient heat-dry, rinse-hold and pre-rinse features found on many recent models. Most of the appliance's energy used goes to heat the water, and most models use just as much water for smaller loads as for larger ones. And propping the door open after the final rinse is quite adequate for drying the dishes when the washing is done.
CONTACTS: American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, www.aceee.org/consumerguide/topdish.htm ; Energy Star, www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=dishwash.pr_dishwashers .
Dear EarthTalk: Are there humane ways of dealing with problem bears?
-- Boris Yevgeny, Woodstock, NY
The best way to deal with problem bears is to prevent human-bear encounters in the first place. As human population has grown and people have encroached more and more on forested areas, bears have been forced to share what has traditionally been their domain with more and more of us.
Mostly what attracts bears is food. When people don't dispose of food wastes properly, whether at campsites or at home, bears follow the smell and come calling. And once bears get a taste for human food scraps they will return time and again for more, increasing the chance of conflicts. Game managers at the mercy of a frightened public are left with little choice but to shoot the unwitting creatures.
But bears don't have to die in order to resolve such conflicts. The most common alternative to the death sentence for bears is relocation. However, says Allison Jones of the non-profit Wild Utah Project, “the efficacy of this method is still debated.” She cites one study that found 81 percent of bears returning that were relocated 40 miles away or less, and 48 percent returning of those relocated 40 to 75 miles away.
One non-lethal tactic for keeping bears away was developed by the Florence, Montana-based Wind River Bear Institute (WRBI). According to WRBI founder and bear biologist Carrie Hunt, the group’s “bear shepherding” strategy involves trapping and then releasing a bear at the site of its “crime.” As the bear is released from its cage, it is shot with red pepper spray and rubber bullets. Hunt’s trained Karelian Bear Dogs then chase the bear, scaring it so much that it chooses not to return. While this may not seem so humane, it has succeeded in sparing the life of many a wayward bear while keeping it permanently away.
Short of such war-like tactics, WRBI's website provides tips for homeowners on keeping bears from wandering onto property, including: packing away barbecue grills and all food scraps after meals are over; limiting compost piles to grass, leaves and garden clippings (i.e. no food); feeding pets indoors instead of outside; eliminating bird feeders and replacing hummingbird feeders with hanging flower baskets that will still attract the birds but not bears; and picking fruit from fruit trees as soon as it is ripe while also removing rotting fallen fruit from the ground.
Meanwhile, park rangers at Yosemite National Park report that human-bear encounters have decreased significantly there since they mounted an aggressive campaign to educate park visitors about bear safety. “By far, the most effective technique we've used is education--letting people know that their behavior, especially in regard to food storage, plays a huge role in attracting bears,” says Adrienne Freeman, a Yosemite park ranger. “Bears are not the problem; people are the problem,” she says.
The campaign seems to be working. Back in 1998, rangers reported that bears carried out $630,000 worth of property damage in more than 1,000 incidents with the park’s human visitors. But so far in 2005, bears have only caused $84,000 in property damage, and the number of incidents is down 75 percent from 1998.
CONTACTS: Wild Utah Project, www.wildutahproject.org; Wind River Bear Institute, www.beardogs.org; Bears at Yosemite National Park, www.nps.gov/yose/nature/wlf_bears.htm.
Dear EarthTalk: What is the deal with plastics recycling these days? Can you explain what the different numbers molded onto the bottom of plastic containers stand for?
-- Tom Croarkin, Fairfield, CT
The confusion over what we can and cannot recycle continues to confound consumers. Plastics are especially troublesome, as different forms of plastic require differing processing in order to be reformulated and re-used as raw material. Some municipalities accept all types of plastic for recycling, while others only accept jugs, containers and bottles with certain numbers stamped on their bottoms.
The symbol code we're familiar with--a single digit ranging from “1” to “7” surrounded by a triangle of arrows--was designed by The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) in 1988 to allow consumers and recyclers to differentiate types of plastics while providing a uniform coding system for manufacturers.
The numbers, which 39 states now require be molded or imprinted on all eight ounce to five gallon containers that can accept the ½" minimum size symbol, identify the type of plastic and, according to the American Plastics Council, an industry trade group, help recyclers do their jobs more effectively.
The easiest and most common plastics to recycle are made of Polyethylene terephthalate (PETE) and are assigned a “1.” Examples include soda and water bottles, medicine containers and many other common consumer product containers. Once it has been processed by a recycling facility, PETE can become fiberfill for winter coats, sleeping bags and life jackets. It can also be used to make bean bags, rope, car bumpers, tennis ball felt, combs, cassette tapes, sails for boats, furniture--and, of course, other bottles.
Number “2” is reserved for high-density Polyethylene plastics. These include those heavier containers that hold laundry detergents and bleaches as well as milk, shampoos and motor oils. Plastic #2 is often recycled into toys, piping, plastic lumber and rope. Like #1 plastic, it is widely accepted at recycling centers.
Polyvinyl chloride, commonly used in plastic pipes, shower curtains, medical tubing, vinyl dashboards--even some baby bottle nipples--gets number “3.” Like numbers “4” (wrapping films, grocery and sandwich bags and other containers made of low-density Polyethylene) and “5” (Polypropylene containers used in Tupperware, among other products), few municipal recycling centers will accept it due to its very low rate of recyclability. Number “6” goes on polystyrene (Styrofoam) items such as coffee cups, disposable cutlery, meat trays, packing “peanuts” and insulation, and is widely accepted because it can be reprocessed into many items including cassette tapes and rigid foam insulation.
Last but far from least are items crafted from various combinations of the aforementioned plastics or from unique plastic formulations not commonly used. Usually imprinted with a “7” or nothing at all, these plastics are the most difficult to recycle and, as such, are seldom collected or recycled. More ambitious consumers can feel free to return such items to the product manufacturers to avoid contributing to the local waste stream and instead put the burden on the makers to recycle or dispose of the items properly.
CONTACTS : The Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI), www.socplas.org ; American Plastics Council, www.americanplasticscouncil.org .
Dear EarthTalk: How many Americans are adversely affected by air pollution and what can we do to improve air quality? -- Tom Weaver, Sioux City, IA
According to the State of the Air 2005 report, published by the American Lung Association (ALA), air pollution levels improved in many parts of the nation during the first few years of the new millennium, but millions of Americans still face dangerous levels of air pollution.
The ALA report highlights the sad fact that, despite pro-environmental sentiment and strong regulations, more than half of the U.S. population lives in counties with unsafe levels of either smog or particle pollution. Smog is the worst offender and is often directly responsible for cases of decreased lung function, respiratory infection, lung inflammation and aggravation of respiratory illness. Some 142.7 million Americans live in counties rated with failing grades by the ALA for this airborne pollutant.
Meanwhile, another 76.5 million Americans live in areas where they are exposed to unhealthy short-term levels of particle pollution. Children and the elderly are especially at risk. Short-term, or acute, exposure to particle pollution has been linked to increases in heart attacks, strokes, and emergency-room visits for asthma and cardiovascular disease. Particle pollution is most dangerous to those already suffering from asthma, heart disease, bronchitis and emphysema.
The ALA's annual tally of America's air pollution is based on readings from air quality monitors in every county in the nation. The organization is presently working hard to protect the Clean Air Act from the budget-cutting efforts of several key lawmakers. It is also currently engaged in a vigorous campaign to force the cleanup of the country's dirtiest power plants. Old, coal-fired power plants are among the biggest industrial contributors to unhealthy air, especially particle pollution in the eastern United States.
Individuals can help improve air quality by cutting down on driving so as to reduce vehicle exhaust, and by refraining from burning wood or trash that sends particle pollution into the air. The ALA also suggests getting involved in community reviews of air pollution plans and supporting state and local efforts to clean up air pollution. Urging members of Congress to protect the Clean Air Act is another way for individuals to get involved.
CONTACT: American Lung Association, www.lungaction.org .
Dear EarthTalk: Since 2006 is almost upon us, what New Year's resolutions might my family and I make to lessen our impact on the environment? -- David Schink, Chicago, IL
The dawn of a new year is always a good time to consider how our actions and activities affect the environment. Here are a few ways to be greener in 2006:
- Buy organic and fair. Organic crops grow without the chemicals that pollute our environment and cause health problems for sensitive consumers. Meanwhile, “fair trade” goods won't exploit third world workers or their environment. Purchase organic and fair traded food and clothing and you'll help make a difference while often enjoying higher quality goods. ( www.purefood.org ; www.fairtrade.net )
- Travel Lite. Driving gas-guzzling SUVs is a sure way to keep warming the globe and polluting the air. Even small steps--like driving a fuel-efficient hybrid or taking public transit--can have major impact. And don't forget that walking and biking cause no pollution, use no oil, keep you fit and get you to appreciate the great outdoors more. Vacationing? Choose an “eco-tour” that minimizes impact and benefits the host community ( www.hybridcars.com ; www.ecotourism.org )
- Batten Down the Hatches. Upgrade appliances to greener models, add insulation and replace leaky windows and you can make your home comfy and save lots of cash. A slew of new tax incentives make it more lucrative than ever to do the right thing. Jimmy Carter's advice to lower the thermostat and don a sweater still rules. In summer, turn off air conditioners and open the windows. ( www.ase.org )
- Dump the Chemicals. Green cleaning products, from a growing list of manufacturers, are safer than conventional cleansers, especially for children who spend a lot of time on the floor. And since dioxin traces have been found on everything from bleached paper towels and diapers to tampons, look for alternatives made with unbleached paper or organic cotton. ( www.checnet.org )
- Eat Lower on the Food Chain. By eating less or no meat and more fruits and veggies, you'll not only improve your health by reducing fat and cholesterol, you'll also help the environment. Meatless diets mean far less land and water usage and reduced pollution from the animal waste that is now a major contributor to water and groundwater pollution. ( www.goveg.com )
- Don't buy fur. Give wildlife a break--they have enough trouble surviving as it is, with so much habitat threatened by booming human population and rampant development. And the ones raised on “ranches” aren't having a picnic either. ( www.hsus.org/wildlife/issues_facing_wildlife/fur_and_trapping )
- Invest in your principles. Mutual funds like Calvert, Domini and others will invest your money in good corporate environmental citizens. And a growing number of credit unions and banks will lend your deposits to green-friendly businesses. Buy stock in companies you don't like, too--then effect change from within by speaking up at shareholder meetings for better practices. ( www.sriworld.com )
- Teach Your Children Well. A good place to start is with curbing consumption. How many Beanie Babies, Barbies and IPODs will be in landfills 10 years from now? You decide. ( www.newdream.org )
Dear EarthTalk: Are there any toothbrushes that are recyclable? -- Emily Sacchetti, Ellicott City, MD
Small as they are, tossed toothbrushes certainly do create a lot of waste. Indeed, some 50 million pounds of them are tossed into America's landfills each year. If we followed our dentist's recommendations and replaced our toothbrushes every three months, we'd be throwing even more of them away.
Fortunately there are some greener-friendly alternatives, most available at natural food retailers or, if not, online at the companies' websites:
The handle of a Recycline Preserve toothbrush, designed by dentists, is made out of polypropylene plastic that has been recycled from used Stonyfield Yogurt cups. And when a Preserve toothbrush reaches the end of its effective life, consumers can either put it out on the curb in the blue bin with other recyclables (if your community offers #5 plastics recycling), or send it back to Recycline in a postage-paid envelope supplied to you with your purchase. It will then likely be reborn again as raw material for a picnic table, deck, boardwalk or other durable long-lasting product.
Another wise eco-choice is the Terradent line of toothbrushes from Eco-Dent. These innovative toothbrushes have replaceable heads, so that once the bristles have worn out, consumers can retain the toothbrush handle and just snap on a new head, thus minimizing waste.
Meanwhile, Radius offers stylish recyclable toothbrushes that are made not from plastic at all but from naturally occurring cellulose derived from sustainable yield forests. Beyond its standard toothbrush line, the company also sells a battery-powered electric “Intelligent Toothbrush” that uses replaceable heads to reduce environmental impact. And the company will take back the handle for recycling once the battery has worn out, usually after about 18 months.
For those stuck on their favorite mass-market toothbrush brands, the online retail website Toothbrush Express offers a toothbrush recycling program similar to Recycline's. Consumers can sign up to receive new toothbrushes from Toothbrush Express at predefined intervals ranging from monthly to semi-annually. And for only a few dollars extra, the company will include a postage-paid mailer inside each shipment for consumers to use to send their old toothbrushes back for recycling.
Don't want to bother sending your toothbrushes back? HGTV's crafts guru Carol Duvall recommends making kids' bracelets out of old toothbrushes instead of sending them to the landfill. After about a minute in boiling water, a toothbrush with its bristles removed can be re-shaped accordingly by wrapping it around a small jar and then allowing it to cool. Full instructions are available on the HGTV website.
CONTACTS: Recycline, www.recycline.com ; Eco-Dent, www.eco-dent.com ; Radius, www.radiustoothbrush.com ; Toothbrush Express, www.toothbrushexpress.com ; HGTV, www.hgtv.com/hgtv/cr_occasions/article/0,1789,HGTV_3268_1382191,00.html .
Dear EarthTalk: What can scuba divers and snorkelers do to avoid harming coral reefs? -- Harry Chase, New Orleans, LA
According to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, coral reefs are becoming increasingly threatened around the world due to coastal development, over-fishing and pollution. Some 25 percent of the world’s original coral reefs have already been lost, and the process is accelerating, in part due to global warming, which increases ocean temperatures and makes the corals more susceptible to disease and die-off.
Meanwhile, the growing popularity of scuba diving and snorkeling has put additional pressure on these already fragile coral systems.
According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), direct physical damage to coral reefs by divers and snorkelers is well documented. The damage inflicted consists mostly of breaking fragile, branched corals or causing lesions to massive corals. Research indicates that reefs degrade quickly and “die,” essentially, once a certain level of use by divers is exceeded. As such, UNEP recommends that governments limit to 6,000 per year the number of diver and snorkeler visits to any one area.
Many divers fail to think about the harm their pleasure trips to coral reefs can do. Damage is often caused by simple carelessness. Hillary Viders, author of Marine Conservation for the 21st Century, says that divers should learn about the fragility of the reefs they plan to visit, and always practice “minimal impact” when around coral. “Even a seemingly insignificant brush against coral can remove its protective coating, making it vulnerable to algae infestation, and… fatal disease,” she reports.
Divers should also take care that their kicking doesn't ruin reef structures, and it is important not to touch coral with your hands. Some diving instructors even recommend against using gloves, because they tend to make people clumsier and less aware of their surroundings. Photographers should take care not to lean on corals when taking pictures.
Certification programs teach proper diving technique, although divers often forget that safety basics like carrying the proper weight to control buoyancy and keeping equipment close to the body to prevent it from getting caught can also prevent reef damage. The Professional Association of Diving Instructors (PADI) has partnered with Project AWARE, a non-profit organization dedicated to coral reef protection, to offer a specialty course focusing on coral reef conservation for environmentally conscious divers. The two-hour course counts as one of five specialty certifications required for PADI’s Master Scuba Diver certification.
Scientists estimate that global warming may well kill off the world’s remaining coral reefs within the next 50 years. These dire predictions have ignited a spark among marine activists and scientists to try to save the world’s remaining reefs. But without help from the divers and snorkelers who recreate in the waters surrounding coral systems, this tough job will only be harder.
CONTACTS: UNEP coral reefs page, http://corals.unep.org/cru/tourismpr.htm; Project AWARE, www.projectaware.org; Reef Relief, www.reefrelief.org.
Dear EarthTalk : What are the effects of dumping man-made structures, like old cars and boats, into the sea for use as “artificial reefs?” -- Jed Gore, Stamford, CT
Coral reefs teeming with marine life are a magnet for fishermen and divers, but such underwater paradises exist only in tropical areas and certainly nowhere in the United States north of the Florida Keys. So in 1953, primarily to appease fishermen who thought such structures would attract fish, governments in some Southeast states began sinking car bodies, old boats, bridges and docks--even airplanes, ballistic missiles and defunct oil rigs--off the Atlantic coast and in the Gulf of Mexico. Since then, thousands of man-made materials have been sunk in the coastal waters of the region with the hope of attracting marine life.
Advocates of artificial reefs laud the structures' ability to enhance marine ecosystems by promoting underwater plant life and attracting the sea creatures that thrive on them. Artificial reefs, they say, help restore and revitalize otherwise flagging marine ecosystems decimated by years of overfishing and pollution. Opponents argue that they are a sham and are simply a way for oil companies and other business concerns to easily dump things that would otherwise be very costly to decommission properly.
Jack Sobel, director of Ecosystem Programs for the non-profit Ocean Conservancy, says, “Artificial reefs are no replacement for natural reefs or for proper fisheries management, and we don't want people to view the oceans as a dumping ground for our wastes.” Sobel argues that there is no scientific evidence that artificial reefs can sustain as much biodiversity as natural systems.
The Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, which sunk 100 obsolete combat tanks in 1994, would seem to agree. The agency now estimates that most of the artificial reefs they created in doing so will probably last no longer than 50 years. Sobel believes that such short-lived structures may threaten fragile marine ecosystems as they break up and scatter.
Because of such concerns--and because many marine ecosystems have been compromised by human activity and do need a jump-start--some innovative engineers have begun to design and deploy formations known as “reef balls”: hollow, dome-shaped structures made of marine-friendly concrete and designed to imitate natural reef formations. The South Carolina Marine Artificial Reef Program, for example, has deployed more than a dozen different artificial reef designs throughout the state's coastal waters since 1983.
The Georgia-based non-profit Reef Ball Foundation, which was created with the mission of restoring the world's ocean ecosystems and protecting natural reef systems, has conducted similar projects in more than 50 countries around the world. The United Nations Development Program even named the Reef Ball Foundation one of its “2005 Environmental Laureates for Technology” for its work in helping increase marine biodiversity around the world.
CONTACTS: Ocean Conservancy, www.oceanconservancy.org ; South Carolina Marine Artificial Reef Program, www.dnr.sc.gov/marine/pub/seascience/artreef.html ; Reef Ball Foundation, www.reefball.org .
Dear EarthTalk: Is it better for the environment to burn synthetic oil or conventional oil in my car's engine? -- David Bedell, New Canaan, CT
According to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, 85 percent of the motor oil changed at home by do-it-yourselfers--about 9.5 million gallons a year in that state alone--ends up disposed of improperly in sewers, soil and trash. Multiply that by 50 states and it is easy to see how used motor oil might well be the one of the largest sources of pollution affecting groundwater and our nation's waterways. The implications are startling indeed, as one quart of oil can create a two-acre sized oil slick, and a gallon of oil can contaminate a million gallons of fresh water.
Conventional motor oils are derived from petroleum, whereas synthetic oils are replicas manufactured from chemicals that are really no kinder to the environment than petroleum. As such, conventional and synthetic motor oils are about equally guilty when it comes to how much pollution they create. But Ed Newman, Marketing Manager for AMSOIL Inc., which has been producing and selling synthetics since the 1970s, believes that the synthetics are environmentally superior for the simple reason that they last about three times as long as conventional oils before they have to be drained and replaced.
Additionally, Newman says that synthetics have lower volatility and therefore do not boil off or vaporize as quickly as petroleum motor oils. Synthetics lose from four to 10 percent of their mass in the high heat conditions of internal combustion engines, whereas petroleum-based oils lose up to 20 percent, he says. Economically, however, synthetics are more than three times the cost of petroleum oils, and whether or not they are worth the difference is the subject of frequent, inconclusive debate among auto enthusiasts.
But before deciding for yourself, consult your car's owner's manual regarding what the manufacturer recommends for your model. You can void your car's warranty if the manufacturer requires one type of oil and you put in another. For instance, some Chevrolet Corvettes require synthetic motor oil only.
While synthetics seem to be the lesser of two evils for now, some promising new alternatives derived from vegetable products are coming of age. A pilot project at Purdue University, for example, has produced motor oil from canola crops that outperforms both traditional and synthetic oils with regard to both performance and production price, not to mention greatly lessened environmental impact. Despite the benefits, though, mass production of such bio-based oils would probably not be feasible, as it would require setting aside large amounts of agricultural land that could otherwise be used for food crops. But such oils may have a place as niche players as the worldwide market for petroleum products diversifies due to dwindling reserves and related geo-political tensions.
CONTACTS: AMSOIL, www.amsoil.com ; Purdue Research on Canola-based Motor Oils, www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/ncnu02/v5-029.html .
Dear EarthTalk: Are there any environmentally friendly alternatives to aerosol spray dusters? -- Troy Blakely, New York, NY
Artists, photographers and electronics technicians have long relied on aerosol spray dusters to carefully remove dust and fine particles from sensitive surfaces like paintings, film and computer hardware. An aerosol spray uses a propellant chemical, along with various other additives, to push clean air or a particular active ingredient out of the container. Until the late-1980s, chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were the primary propellants used. However, CFCs were phased out worldwide after scientists discovered that they were helping to deplete the Earth's ozone layer.
While makers of aerosol spray dusters don't use CFCs anymore, they can put other potentially harmful hydrocarbons, such as methylene chloride, into their products. The Consumer Federation of America reports that many of the highly flammable substances used are carcinogenic. Some are also neurotoxic (harmful to nerve tissue) and contain chemicals that can damage one's sense of smell.
Hydrocarbon-free alternatives are not that easy to come by, though one manufacturer, Advantus, makes a line of nontoxic, chemical-free and “ozone-safe” dusters for home and office. Some are refillable and are thus waste saving, too, and can be ordered from the company's website. Several other companies, including Universal and Falcon, make spray dusters that use Earth-friendly propellants, but they are not chemical-free. Most are available at most office supply stores or online at CleanSweepSupply.com.
Those who rely on spray dusters can minimize their use by keeping the indoor environment as dust-free as possible. Frequent damp dusting and vacuuming are the best defenses against a dusty indoor environment. Clutter consisting of small objects and books make dusting more difficult--and all the more necessary. Routine air duct cleaning and frequent changing of furnace and air conditioning filters will also minimize the accumulation of dust in both homes and offices.
CONTACTS: Consumer Federation of America, www.consumerfed.org , Advantus Corp., www.advantus.com ; CleanSweepSupply.com, www.cleansweepsupply.com .
Dear EarthTalk : What are the implications of the increased breakup of Antarctica's large floating ice shelves in recent years? -- Gaertner Olivier, Brussels, Belgium
Ice shelves are thick plates of ice that float on the ocean around much of Antarctica. Snow, glaciers and ice flows feed these large plates in the colder months. In warmer periods, surface melting creates standing water that leaks into cracks and speeds the breaking off (calving) of icebergs, decreasing the continent's mass in a natural cycle as old as Antarctica itself.
“Large icebergs calve off on a fairly regular basis from the larger ice shelves in Antarctica,” says Dr. Ted Scambos, a research associate at National Snow and Ice Data Center. “This is a part of their normal evolution.”
The only effect of such calving that scientists are sure about is that they are changing the outline of Antarctica. The break-up of the ice shelves, which account for about two percent of the continent's landmass, does not have any measurable effect on sea levels. “Since an iceberg floats in ocean water, and much of it is below the surface, it is already displacing the same volume of water it will contribute when it eventually melts,” Scambos explains.
But while such calving activity may not be new, it has increased over the last 30 years, with larger and larger chunks breaking off from Antarctica where they float free in the ocean and break up into successively smaller pieces. One especially large iceberg, a chunk the size and shape of New York's Long Island and dubbed “B15A” by researchers, broke off from Antarctica's Ross Ice Shelf in 2000 and just last April collided with the continent's Drygalski Ice Tongue (a long shelf of ice extending out to sea from the mainland). The iceberg itself remained intact, but a city-sized chunk of the ice tongue broke off and is now floating free.
Most researchers suspect that recent increases in calving are linked to warming surface air temperatures as a result of human-induced climate change. British glaciologist David Vaughan says, “There is no doubt that the climate on the Antarctic Peninsula has warmed significantly over the last few decades. What we're seeing now are changes only just working through to glaciers and ice sheets.” Scambos says that, as Antarctic summer temperatures continue to increase, the process can be expected to become more widespread, and could begin to significantly increase sea levels around the world.
Even a relatively small rise in sea level would make some densely settled coastal areas uninhabitable. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an international group of climatologists, predicts a global sea level rise of less than three feet by 2100, but also warns that global warming during that time may lead to irreversible changes in the Earth's glacial system and ultimately melt enough ice to raise sea levels many more feet in coming centuries. Some 200 million people inhabit low-lying areas in countries like Vietnam, Bangladesh, China, India and The Philippines and could be displaced, leading to a major international refugee crisis.
CONTACTS : Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, www.ipcc.ch , NASA's iceberg collision page, www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/Iceberg_collides.htmlDear EarthTalk : What's up with these “eco-fashions” I keep hearing about?
--Glenn Hammond, San Francisco, CA
Simply put, the term “eco-fashion” refers to stylized clothing that uses environmentally sensitive fabrics and responsible production techniques.
The nonprofit Sustainable Technology Education Project (STEP) defines eco-fashions as clothes “that take into account the environment, the health of consumers and the working conditions of people in the fashion industry.” Clothes and accessories that meet such criteria are usually made using organic raw materials, such as cotton grown without pesticides, or re-used materials such as recycled plastic from old soda bottles. Eco-fashions don't involve the use of harmful chemicals and bleaches to color fabrics--and are made by people earning fair wages in healthy working conditions.
Designers have been playing around with organic and natural fibers for years, but so-called “eco-fashions” had their coming out party at New York City's famed Fashion Week back in February 2005 when the non-profit EarthPledge teamed up with upscale clothing retailer Barneys to sponsor a special runway event called FutureFashion. At the event, famous and up-and-coming designers showcased outfits made from eco-friendly fabrics and materials including hemp, recycled poly and bamboo. Barneys was so enthused that it featured some of the environmentally sensitive designs in its window displays for several weeks following the event, imparting a unique mystique to this emerging green subset of the fashion world.
One of the highlights of FutureFashion was a stunning pink-and-yellow skirt made from corn fiber by uber-cool Heatherette designer Richie Rich. “It's definitely something we're going to continue toying with,” Rich told reporters. “People often perceive the fashion world as superficial, so it's great to work with materials that are actually good for the environment. I had my doubts, but when we actually saw the fabric swatches we were blown away. They were gorgeous, and it wasn't hard to design with them.”
The party moved to the west coast in June when San Francisco culminated its World Environment Day celebration with “Catwalk on the Wild Side,” an eco-chic fashion show sponsored by the nonprofit Wildlife Works featuring top models and designs from the likes of EcoGanik, Loomstate, Fabuloid and others.
One of the pioneers of the emerging eco-fashion movement is designer Linda Loudermilk. Her “luxury eco” line of clothing and accessories uses sustainably produced materials made from exotic plants including bamboo, sea cell, soya and sasawashi. The latter is a linen-like fabric made from a Japanese leaf that contains anti-allergen and anti-bacterial properties. Loudermilk also incorporates natural themes in each season's line--her most recent one being an oceanic motif. “We aim to give eco glamour legs, a fabulous look and a slammin' attitude that stops traffic and shouts the message: eco can be edgy, loud, fun, playful, feminine (or not) and hyper-cool,” Loudermilk says.
CONTACTS : Earth Pledge, www.earthpledge.org ; Wildlife Works, www.wildlifeworks.com ; Sustainable Technology Education Project (STEP), www.stepin.org ; Linda Loudermilk, www.lindaloudermilk.com .
Dear EarthTalk : What's better for the environment, a fake or real Christmas tree?
-- R.M. Brandt, Nutley, NJ
While there is no crystal clear answer to the age-old “real versus fake” Christmas tree debate, most environmentalists, “tree-huggers” among them, would agree that real trees are the better choice, at least from a personal and public health standpoint. Some might make a case for fake trees, because they are re-used every year and thus don't generate the waste of their real counterparts. But fake trees are made with polyvinyl chloride (PVC, otherwise known as vinyl), one of the most environmentally offensive forms of non-renewable, petroleum-derived plastic.
Furthermore, several known carcinogens, including dioxin, ethylene dichloride and vinyl chloride, are generated during the production of PVC, polluting neighborhoods located near factory sites. Most of those factory sites are actually in China, from where 85 percent of the fake trees sold in North America originate. Labor standards there don't adequately protect workers from the dangerous chemicals they are handling.
In addition to PVC, fake trees contain lead and other additives designed to make the otherwise rigid PVC more malleable. Unfortunately many of these additives have been linked to liver, kidney, neurological and reproductive system damage in lab studies on animals. The Children's Health Environmental Coalition warns that fake trees “may shed lead-laced dust, which may cover branches or shower gifts and the floor below the tree.” So heed the advice of the label on your fake tree telling you to avoid inhaling or eating any dust or parts that may come loose.
The primary downside of real Christmas trees is that, because they are farmed as agricultural products, they often require repeated applications of pesticides over their typical eight-year life cycles. Therefore, while they are growing--and then again once they are discarded--they may contribute to pollution of local watersheds. Beyond the run-off issue, the sheer numbers of trees that get discarded after every holiday can be a big waste issue for municipalities that aren't prepared to mulch them for compost.
The most eco-friendly way to enjoy a Christmas tree is to buy a live tree with its roots intact from a local grower, and then replant it in your yard once the holiday has passed. However, since trees are dormant in the winter, live trees should spend no more than a week indoors lest they “wake up” and begin to grow again in the warmth of your home. If this happens there is a good chance the tree will not survive once it is returned to the cold winter outdoors and replanted.
CONTACTS: Children's Health Environmental Coalition, www.checnet.org ; About.com's “How to Care for a Live Christmas Tree,” http://forestry.about.com/od/christmastrees1/ht/living_x_tree.htm.
Dear EarthTalk : Is there a legal definition of “biodegradable” that companies have to meet in order to so-label their products? -- Bill Van Leeuwen, Hinsdale, IL
There is no legal definition of “biodegradable,” but the American Society for Testing and Materials defines the term as “a degradation caused by biological activity, especially by enzymatic action, leading to a significant change in the chemical structure of the material.” The European Union deems a material biodegradable if it will break down into mostly water, carbon dioxide and organic matter within six months.
But despite such precise sounding definitions, the term “biodegradable” has been applied to a wide range of products--even those that might take centuries to decompose, or those that break down into harmful environmental toxins.
According to the Consumers Union (publisher of Consumer Reports magazine), there are no specific standards for the “biodegradable” claim, and no official organization exists to verify the use of the claim. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the U.S., however, has issued some general guidelines on what types of products qualify as legitimately biodegradable, and has even sued companies for unsubstantiated, misleading and/or deceptive use of the term on product labels.
According to the FTC, only products that contain materials that “break down and decompose into elements found in nature within a reasonably short amount of time when they are exposed to air, moisture and bacteria or other organisms” should be marketed as “biodegradable.” But the FTC acknowledges that even products appropriately-labeled as biodegradable may not break down easily if they are buried under a landfill or are otherwise not exposed to sunlight, air and moisture, the key agents of biodegradation.
Of course, just because a product or ingredient is biodegradable does not mean it is healthy or safe for people or the environment. For example, the toxic pesticide DDT biodegrades to the compounds DDD and DDE, both of which are more toxic and more dangerous than the original DDT itself.
Consumers with questions about what qualifies a given product to carry a biodegradable label should contact the manufacturer directly. The Consumers Union maintains that “if a manufacturer has solid scientific evidence demonstrating that the product will break down and decompose into by-products found in nature in a short period of time, then claiming that it is ‘biodegradable' is not deceptive.” If you encounter a manufacturer that appears to be stretching the definition, file a complaint with the FTC.
CONTACTS : American Society for Testing and Materials, www.astm.org ; Consumers Union Guide to Environmental Labels, www.eco-labels.org ; FTC Environmental Claims Guide, www.ftc.gov/bcp/grnrule/guides92.htm#G2 .
Dear EarthTalk : How can I reduce the amount of unwanted mail that I receive?
-- Jennifer Pearle, Brattleboro, VT
According to the Center for a New American Dream (CNAD), a Maryland-based non-profit that works to help people consume responsibly, some 5.6 million tons of catalogs and other direct mail solicitations clog U.S. landfills every year. Meanwhile, the average household may receive as many as 1,000 unwanted pieces of mail annually, of which only about 22 percent ever get recycled. Further, says CNAD, each American will spend about eight months of his or her life opening unwanted mail! So, reducing the volume of mail you receive will not only saves trees, energy and landfill space--it will also save you time.
So how do you reduce the mountain of “junk” mail that fills your mailbox? Registering with the Mail Preference Service of the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) can help, but it is no guarantee. DMA includes your name in a database, but then it is voluntary on the part of marketers as to whether or not they consult it to remove “Do Not Mail” names before doing their mailings. Indeed, most pieces of mail you receive are from firms who rented your name from another firm, so they can usually only comply with “take me off your list” requests by using this service. Fortunately, most large mailers do use the service routinely because they know that there is nothing to gain by mailing to people who don't want mail.
Another way to lighten your mailbox is to go to OptOutPreScreen.com, where you can get yourself off of lists that credit card and insurance companies use to solicit your business. It's a centralized website run by the country's four major credit bureaus, Equifax, Experian, Innovis and TransUnion. These are the companies that businesses check with before accepting your credit card. They are also the largest sources of names and addresses used by credit card companies to trawl for new customers via mass mailings. Luckily, the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act requires that these bureaus delete any person's name and address from rented lists if they so request.
In addition to registering with these services, you should notify in writing all of the companies you do business with that you wish to be placed on their “do not promote” or “in-house suppress” file. Do it the very first time you do business with them if you can, but it can be done at any time. These should include your credit card companies, magazines you receive, catalogs you buy from, and any others that you do business with by mail.
And you can keep such companies and organizations honest by cleverly altering your name so as to track where mail may be obtaining it. If your name is John Smith, for example, subscribe to Rolling Stone magazine as “John R.S. Smith” (in conjunction with telling them not to rent your name). Then if you later receive mail from another company or organization addressed to “John R.S. Smith,” you'll know precisely how they found you and you can take action accordingly.
The website JunkBusters.com provides further guidelines for reducing mail and other intrusive marketing.
CONTACTS: DMA's Mail Preference Service, www.dmaconsumers.org/consumerassistance.html; OptOutPreScreen.com, www.optoutprescreen.com ; JunkBusters.com, www.junkbusters.com .
Dear EarthTalk: Have high oil prices of late really caused Americans to buy fewer SUVs, or is this just a myth? --Shane Wiener, Royal Oak, Michigan
It is indeed true that sales of sport utility vehicles (SUVs)--not to mention pickup trucks and vans--have plummeted in recent months in the U.S. Undoubtedly rising oil prices are playing a big role, and sales of the Ford Explorer, Lincoln Navigator, GMC Yukon and Hummer H2 are all down 50 percent or more.
But U.S. automakers are quick to point out that sales have been dropping across all product lines and that attractive financing programs last year translated into record sales numbers. But General Motors (GM), the world's largest automaker, did report that overall sales in the U.S. sank in October 2005 by 22.7 percent compared to the previous year, while sales of SUVs, pickups and vans shrank by a whopping 30.3 percent. Meanwhile, Ford Motor Company experienced similar drops.
“We realize that gas prices are important to consumers and we're certainly not denying that there's an impact,” says Paul Ballew of GM, who thinks the change in consumer preference is not as significant as it was following the world's first round of oil shocks three decades ago. “We are seeing more interest in consumers understanding fuel economy of vehicles. But there's not the shift we saw in the 70's and 80's.”
Against this backdrop of gloom for American automakers, Japanese competitors specializing in smaller cars have reported banner sales numbers in recent months. Toyota, maker of the industry-leading gas-electric hybrid Prius, beat its own October U.S. sales numbers from a year earlier by 5.2 percent, while Honda, which offers the world's most fuel-efficient traditional cars as well as hybrids, saw its U.S. sales rise four percent in October. Toyota's SUV and pickup sales slackened by four percent, while Honda bucked the downward trend by staying even with last year with its light truck line.
One sign of flagging consumer demand for gas-hogging large SUVs is the recent development of so-called crossovers, which are SUV-type vehicles built on smaller, more fuel efficient frames. These vehicles, such as the Chrysler Pacifica and the Toyota Highlander, appeal to consumers looking for better gas mileage but unwilling to give up the SUV's size. Today almost half of all light trucks sold are considered crossovers. Just two years ago, such vehicles accounted for only about 16 percent of the country's light truck fleet.
Another new option for light truck lovers looking to save gas and money is the hybrid SUV, which, like a hybrid car, utilizes both gasoline and electric engines to maximize fuel efficiency. Ford and Toyota lead the pack in hybrid SUV sales, but new models on the way from GM promise to provide consumers with even more ways to live large with less guilt.
CONTACTS : Toyota Highlander, www.toyota.com/highlander ; Highlander Hybrid SUV, www.toyota.com/vehicles/minisite/hhybrid/index.html ; Chrysler Pacifica, www.chrysler.com/pacifica ; Ford Hybrid SUV, www.fordvehicles.com/escapehybrid/home ; U.S. Department of Energy's fueleconomy.gov, www.fueleconomy.gov .
Dear EarthTalk : Why is chlorine added to tap water? Do water filters effectively filter it out? -- J.P. Miller, Hudson, WI
Chlorine is a highly efficient disinfectant, and it is added to public water supplies to kill disease-causing bacteria that the water or its transport pipes might contain. “Chlorine has been hailed as the savior against cholera and various other water-borne diseases, and rightfully so,” says Steve Harrison, president of water filter maker Environmental Systems Distributing. “Its disinfectant qualities…have allowed communities and whole cities to grow and prosper by providing disease-free tap water to homes and industry.”
But Harrison says that all this disinfecting has not come without a price: Chlorine introduced into the water supply reacts with other naturally-occurring elements to form toxins called trihalomethanes (THMs), which eventually make their way into our bodies. THMs have been linked to a wide range of human health maladies ranging from asthma and eczema to bladder cancer and heart disease. In addition, Dr. Peter Montague of the Environmental Research Foundation cites several studies linking moderate to heavy consumption of chlorinated tap water by pregnant women with higher miscarriage and birth defect rates.
A recent report by the non-profit Environmental Working Group concluded that from 1996 though 2001, more than 16 million Americans consumed dangerous amounts of contaminated tap water. The report found that water supplies in and around Washington, D.C., Philadelphia and Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, and the Bay Area in California were putting the greatest number of people at risk, although 1,100 other smaller water systems across the country also tested positive for high levels of contaminants.
“Dirty water going into the treatment plant means water contaminated with chlorination byproducts coming out of your tap,” said Jane Houlihan, EWG's Research Director. “The solution is to clean up our lakes, rivers and streams, not just bombard our water supplies with chlorine.”
Eliminating water pollution and cleaning up our watersheds are not going to happen overnight, but alternatives to chlorination for water treatment do exist. Dr. Montague reports that several European and Canadian cities now disinfect their water supplies with ozone instead of chlorine. Currently a handful of U.S. cities do the same, most notably Las Vegas, Nevada and Santa Clara, California.
Those of us who live far from Las Vegas or Santa Clara, though, do have other options. First and foremost is filtration at the faucet. Carbon-based filters are considered the most effective at removing THMs and other toxins. The consumer information website WaterFilterRankings.com compares various water filters on the bases of price and effectiveness. The site reports that filters from Paragon, Aquasana, Kenmore, GE and Seagul remove most if not all of the chlorine, THMs and other potential contaminates in tap water.
Concerned consumers without the money to spend on home filtration, though, can just rely on good old-fashioned patience. Chlorine and related compounds will make their way out of tap water if the container is simply left uncovered in the refrigerator for 24 hours.
CONTACTS: Environmental Working Group, www.ewg.org ; Environmental Research Foundation, www.rachel.org ; WaterFilterRankings.com, www.waterfilterrankings.com .
Dear EarthTalk: What have been the environmental consequences of the Iraq War?
-- Katharine Biddle Barrette, Weston, CT
According to a report by the international environmental organization Greenpeace, the ecological damage from the 1990s Gulf War was “unprecedented.” More than two-dozen chemical, biological and possibly nuclear facilities were destroyed or badly damaged, dispersing airborne toxins over hundreds of surrounding miles. Bombing and troop movements ruined hundreds of square miles of fragile desert surface, while land mines killed and maimed not only humans but also many thousands of wild animals.
A United Nations mission in March 1991 found nearly half of Kuwait's 1,330 active oil wells ablaze, releasing acrid smoke that spread hundreds of miles, causing substantial amounts of ensuing acid rain as well as respiratory and carcinogenic effects in humans accordingly. Many other wells were gushing oil: Some eight million barrels reached coastlines, and as many as 150 million barrels spilled onto the ground.
Fast forward to the present Iraq War: The U.S. military focused on securing Iraq's oil wells at the outset, in light of past experience, and was more concerned about the potential environmental destruction from the release of chemical and biological agents or the detonation of weapons of mass destruction.
But while such fears proved unfounded, Iraqi citizens--not to mention allied soldiers--could suffer for decades to come from the effects of the use of weapons containing depleted uranium. Depleted uranium (DU) is a waste product of uranium enrichment for the production of nuclear fuel and weapons. Its density and high melting point make DU useful in various kinds of munitions, especially because it can penetrate tank armor. For the same reasons, it is also used in tank armor itself.
But when such munitions are expended into the field, the substance sticks around and can contaminate food and water supplies and surrounding landscapes. (The actual radiation given off by DU is slight, and not likely to cause any distress.) Human health effects linked to DU exposure include kidney damage, lung cancer and leukemia, although conclusive studies have not yet been conducted
An International Commission to Ban Uranium Weapons was formed in 2003 to try to convince military leaders to stop using DU. The group is currently collecting signatures for its online petition calling for a comprehensive prohibition on the production, possession and sale of DU weaponry. Some 190,000 sympathizers have signed on so far.
In a rare bit of good news from Iraq (environmental or otherwise), the country's ancient marshlands, which were drained by Saddam Hussein in the 1990s as punishment against their occupants (most of the area's 450,000 Shi'ite inhabitants had to flee), are back to almost 40 percent of their former level, according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Since Saddam Hussein's fall from power, the marshes have recovered at what researchers term a “phenomenal” rate.
CONTACTS : Greenpeace, www.greenpeace.org ; International Coalition to Ban Uranium Weapons, www.bandepleteduranium.org .
Dear EarthTalk : Is it bad for the environment to dump clog removers like Drano down the drain? What are some alternatives to such products? -- Cindy Jones, via e-mail
The active ingredient in Drano and other conventional drain cleaners is sodium hydroxide, otherwise known as caustic soda or lye. It is a man-made chemical used for its corrosive properties. According to the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the substance is not considered a pollutant per se, as it separates into relatively harmless component elements once released into water or moist soil.
But sodium hydroxide is an irritant that can burn skin and aggravate nose, throat and respiratory airways, so contact with it is best avoided. If ingested outright it will likely induce vomiting, as well as cause chest or abdominal pain and make swallowing difficult--so keep it well out of the reach of children.
For those who would rather avoid such chemicals entirely, safer alternatives do exist. A plunger or mechanical drain snake--along with a little elbow grease--can often free up clogs as well or better than sodium hydroxide compounds. One home remedy with a proven track record is to pour a handful of baking soda mixed with a half cup of vinegar down the drain, and follow it quickly with boiling water.
Another option is to choose any number of enzymatic biological drain cleaners on the market today, such as Earth Friendly Products' Enzyme Drain Cleaner or Bi-O-Kleen's BacOut. These make use of a natural bacterial and enzyme mixture to open and keep drains clear. And unlike sodium hydroxide they are non-caustic and will not facilitate combustion.
As any plumber will tell you, a good maintenance regimen is the best way to prevent clogged drains. Flushing drains weekly with boiling water can help keep them clear. Also, installing small screens atop drains will help keep hair, lint and other clogging elements out of the pipeline in the first place.
CONTACTS : Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, www.atsdr.cdc.gov ; Earth Friendly Products, www.ecos.com ; Bi-O-Kleen, www.bi-o-kleen.com .
Dear EarthTalk: I have a friend who works with polystyrene insulation materials on construction sites and I'm concerned for his health. Should I be? -- Taryn H. Eldredge, via e-mail
Occasional exposure to polystyrene, more commonly known by Dow Chemical's trade name Styrofoam, is not likely to do any harm to one's health. But workers exposed to the material for prolonged periods on a regular basis should take heed. The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) warns that chronic exposure can irritated the skin, eyes, upper respiratory and gastro-intestinal tracts, and lead to central nervous system damage and compromised kidney function.
Polystyrene is a plastic manufactured by blowing air at high pressure into styrene, a naturally occurring petroleum by-product. Initially, environmental groups criticized the polystyrene production process for its use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which cause ozone depletion, as blowing agents. But an international agreement in 1987 banned CFCs, so polystyrene makers shifted to less harmful manufacturing methods.
However, concerns continue about the widespread distribution of polystyrene throughout our society. Toxicologists report that all Americans have at least trace amounts of styrene in their bloodstreams, no doubt leaked from Styrofoam food containers, packing materials and insulation, if not from mother's milk directly (as studies have borne out). And according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), “several epidemiological studies suggest there may be an association between styrene exposure and an increased risk of leukemia and lymphoma.” The EPA classifies styrene as a “possible human carcinogen.”
In 1990 environmentalists convinced McDonald's to abandon polystyrene “to go” boxes and cups--which could leak styrene into food and drinks--in favor of non-toxic recycled cardboard and paper containers. Prior to the decision, McDonald's had been the largest consumer of polystyrene products in the world.
Today that dubious distinction goes to the construction industry, which uses polystyrene as lightweight, rot-free and highly efficient insulation, and for other purposes. Minimizing exposure, including wearing masks and gloves, is key to preventing health effects. And construction workers handling polystyrene should take the advice of Dow Chemical itself: “When large quantities of the boards are stored indoors, it is recommended that the building be ventilated to allow a minimum of two air changes per hour.”
The increasing production of polystyrene is also a big waste issue. It is not biodegradable and is one of the most difficult plastics to recycle. Thus polystyrene is starting to clog landfills around the U.S. and beyond.
Some alternatives to polystyrene for insulation include recycled polystyrene, which addresses solid waste concerns but not health issues, and cellulose (made from newspaper and cardboard and available from Celbar, among others). Natural cotton fiber, such as that made by UltraTouch, is also a healthier alternative for construction workers and homeowners alike, and is available at Phoenix Organics, among other online retailers. Another good choice is straw insulation, which is enjoying renewed interest in the building trade. Straw is both widely available and renewable, and is about half the cost of polystyrene.
CONTACTS : OSHA, www.osha.gov/SLTC/styrene ; Dow Chemical, www.dow.com/styrofoam ; Celbar, www.celbar.com ; Phoenix Organics, www.phoenixorganics.com .
Dear EarthTalk : Why do people consider the Endangered Species Act to be the country's most important environmental law when it only protects a few hundred plant and animal species?
-- Mark McGrath, Greenwich, CT
According to the latest tally by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 745 plant and 523 animal species are listed as threatened or endangered in the United States. While these flora and fauna have benefited from Endangered Species Act (ESA) protections, environmental advocates point to the law's far-reaching habitat protection provisions as key to preserving the nation's overall environmental quality.
When a plant or animal is listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, federal officials must also designate critical habitat “essential to the conservation of the species.” Today it is estimated that some 100 million acres of both private and public land across the U.S. are protected by the ESA from new development and resource extraction (mining, oil drilling) because they harbor one or more rare species.
Not everyone is happy with these provisions. Since the ESA became law in 1973, property owners have protested that restrictions on what they can do on their own private lands are unconstitutional. With some success, they have taken their grievances to court repeatedly, clogging the judicial system with appeal after appeal. Also, due to all these legal skirmishes, officials at the USFWS, which administers the law, complain of having to devote so many hours and resources to legal battles instead of field work.
Sympathetic to these legalistic concerns, the Bush administration has been pushing for the de-listing of some species whose numbers have improved in recent years--including bald eagles, gray wolves and grizzly bears. But critics say that the White House is more concerned with furthering its political agenda than in the welfare of the nation's endangered species.
Meanwhile, House Resources Committee Chair Richard Pombo, a California Republican, has pushed a bill through the House that proposes to limit federal powers under the ESA. One controversial change the bill calls for is removal of many critical habitat designations. Another would require the government to compensate property owners for the costs of complying with regulations.
Recently, some 80 organizations, from the Sierra Club to Republicans for Environmental Protection, signed a letter to Congress urging them to leave the ESA intact. “Of the 1,800 plants and animals under the Act's protection,” the letter states, “only nine have been declared extinct, and more than two-thirds of protected species…are moving toward recovery with stable and improving populations.”
Congress first passed the ESA due to public outcry over species loss “as a consequence of economic growth and development untempered by adequate concern and conservation,” in the words of the ESA itself. In signing the bill, then-president Richard Nixon said that the “legislation provides the federal government with the needed authority to protect an irreplaceable part of our national heritage--threatened wildlife.”
CONTACTS : U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered Species Program, www.fws.gov/endangered ; Endangered Species Coalition, www.stopextinction.org .
Dear EarthTalk : Is it true that toxins in some common childhood vaccines cause autism, and if so should I not have my children vaccinated? -- Peter Fox, Brewer, ME
Researchers studying neurological disorders in children have zeroed in on thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative once common in vaccines, as a potential culprit in the rise of autism cases in recent years. Preservatives like thimerosal are used to prevent infection in the event that a dose is accidentally contaminated. Due to recent heightened concerns over the potential effects of mercury on child brain development, though, most vaccines for U.S. children under the age of six no longer contain thimerosal.
The issue received considerable attention following a June 2005 Rolling Stone article entitled “Deadly Immunity,” by environmental lawyer and activist Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Kennedy claims that federal officials covered up proven scientific links between thimerosal and a 15-fold increase in autism cases since 1991. At that time, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had recommended that three additional vaccines containing thimerosal be given to infants.
“More than 500,000 kids currently suffer from autism, and pediatricians diagnose more than 40,000 new cases every year,” says Kennedy. “The disease was unknown until 1943, when it was identified and diagnosed among 11 children born in the months after thimerosal was first added to baby vaccines…”
Due to the concerns of Kennedy and thousands of like-minded parents, vaccine manufacturers have begun to phase thimerosal out of injections given to American infants. Unfortunately, though, they have continued to export their back stock of tainted vaccines to developing countries, according to Kennedy. For instance, autism was virtually unknown in China prior to the introduction of thimerosal by U.S. drug makers in 1999; today approximately 1.8 million Chinese children suffer from the disorder. Even so, industry groups complain that a direct link between autism and thimerosal has not been definitively proven.
To be safe, parents may want to ask their pediatrician if the vaccines he or she uses contain thimerosal. Some flu and tetanus shots containing thimerosal are still given to pre-teens in the U.S., although preservative-free versions are usually available upon request. The FDA provides a listing on its website of common children's vaccines and their thimerosal content, if any, and also lists thimerosal-free alternatives.
Parents who are considering not vaccinating their children at all should know that this is a hotly debated topic--and this column is in no position to recommend a course of action. Most medical professionals argue that vaccines have saved more lives than any other kind of medical intervention and recommend their use to guard against such diseases as polio, diphtheria, rubella, hepatitis B and many others. On the other hand, critics believe that the medical benefits of vaccines are exaggerated and that negative reactions owed to toxic chemical ingredients in many vaccines have been grossly under-reported.
CONTACTS : CDC Mercury and Vaccines Page, www.cdc.gov/nip/vacsafe/concerns/thimerosal/ ; FDA “Thimerosal in Vaccines” Information, www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm ; “Deadly Immunity,” www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/7395411?rnd=1127933882328&has-player=true&version=6.0.12.1212 . Wikipedia Vaccines Page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine .
Dear EarthTalk : How do “affinity” credit cards work that donate a percent of your purchases to environmental organizations? -- Clifford Koufman, Portland, OR
“Affinity” programs were developed by credit card companies in an effort to attract more customers by associating their cards with other businesses or organizations. While consumers may be more familiar with such programs that allow them to build up discount points with retailers and car companies or frequent flier miles with airlines, non-profit organizations are increasingly getting into the game by putting their logos on credit cards and garnering a small percentage of every sale.
Consumers like such programs because they can contribute to the charitable causes of their choice through the shopping they are already doing. Charities like them because they reap donations with hardly any effort. And credit card companies benefit by gaining access and marketing to millions of potential new customers.
Plastic-wielding environmental advocates can choose credit cards benefiting the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Humane Society of the U.S., National Audubon Society and Wilderness Society, among many others. The credit card companies usually donate one half of one percent to the non-profit for every purchase, balance transfer or cash advance. Typically, the groups also get a donation for each new cardholder they sign up and for each renewal.
Some 55,000 card-carrying members of the Sierra Club have donated more than $1 million to the group since it started its affinity program in 1986. And the Humane Society of the U.S. reports that its decade-old affinity credit card program with MBNA has accounted for donations of hundreds of thousands of dollars each year from 37,000 account holders.
Working Assets is another affinity program worth considering for anyone who wants a portion of their consumer dollar to help environmental and other charitable causes. The company, according to its website, has generated over $47 million for nonprofits since it began in 1985, helping such organizations as Rainforest Action Network, Greenpeace, Oxfam America and Human Rights Watch. The company's long distance and wireless phone services also donate to nonprofits and allow their customers to have a say as to which organizations receive donations and how much.
Consumer advocates warn, though, that racking up credit card debt is not economically responsible even if payments benefit charities. And customers should beware that affinity cards usually have higher interest rates than other cards. Also, savvy marketers have realized that pasting scenic photos of forests, mountains or wildlife on credit cards can attract more customers even without a specific donation-based affinity tie.
Websites such as CardRatings.com and CreditCardGuide.org can help potential customers see the forest for the trees when it comes to signing up for credit cards, affinity-based or otherwise.
CONTACTS : MBNA Cause-Related Credit Cards, www.mbna.com/creditcards/enviro_causes.html ; Working Assets, www.workingassets.com/creditcard.cfm ; CardRatings.com, www.cardratings.com ; CreditCardGuide.org, www.creditcardguide.org .
Dear EarthTalk: Why do many people think Nevada's Yucca Mountain is an unsafe place to store nuclear waste? -- Vinka Lasic, Cleveland, OH
Since the 1980s, the U.S. Department of Energy has been pushing to open Nevada's Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste storage facility. In 2002, George W. Bush signed into law a plan to make the site the central repository for the spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste that is presently being held in separate locations throughout 43 U.S. states. Yucca Mountain is 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and many environmentalists, area residents and local and state officials believe it is dangerously unsuitable for nuclear waste storage.
According to Judy Treichel, executive director of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, “There are numerous reasons to slow this thing down.” For one, independent and state-sponsored scientists have determined that Yucca Mountain is geologically active and is located near other active volcanoes. And, according to the Las Vegas- and Reno-based organization, Citizen Alert, the proposed site lies on 32 known fault lines and has a history of rising groundwater. If the facility were to get flooded, therefore, the groundwater could be contaminated with hazardous materials.
John Hadder, Citizen Alert's northern Nevada coordinator, is concerned about dangers of transporting the nation's nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain from so many distant locations where it now sits. The waste would arrive by truck, and six to seven shipments of the hazardous material would be made daily for the next 30 years. Such a transportation system has inherent dangers, such as spills due to accidents and the possibility of terrorist attacks, according to the National Safety Council. Citizen Alert also worries that the communities through which the vehicles pass would suffer economically if the plan goes through.
Most Nevadans, including area Native American communities, are dead set against their state becoming the nation's nuclear waste repository. When George W. Bush became president in 2000, he said he would base his decision on whether or not to allow nuclear waste storage at the site based on “sound science.” Two years later, despite recommendations to the contrary from federal scientists and the General Accounting Office, and after heavy lobbying by the nuclear power industry, Bush approved the plan, much to the dismay of Nevada's Congressional delegation.
Currently a handful of lawsuits challenging the plan are underway, and Nevadans are scrambling to propose alternative scenarios for handling nuclear waste. Meanwhile, Yucca Mountain could start accepting nuclear waste from across the country as soon as 2010.
CONTACTS: Citizen Alert, (702) 796-5662, www.citizenalert.org ; Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, www.nvantinuclear.org ; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Yucca Mountain Information, www.epa.gov/radiation/yucca ; National Safety Council, (630) 285-1121, www.nsc.org .
Dear EarthTalk: What are the environmental benefits of an all-steel home? What other kinds of “green” homes are on the market today? -- D. Hudson, Park City, UT
In the past, ecologically sound new homes have been costlier to build and maintain than their traditional counterparts, but recent innovations in green design coupled with smart materials sourcing have allowed builders to create not only efficient but also affordable green homes. Many of these homes are on the cutting edge of building design, making use of steel framing, modular and panelized construction techniques, and energy efficient insulation.
While the criteria for what is considered a “green” building are not set in stone, most such structures offer good indoor air quality, reduced energy use, and resource conservation via the use of recycled, reused or sustainably-harvested virgin materials. Furthermore, green buildings are often sited to minimize water use and run-off while taking full advantage of the sun for solar heating and/or shade for natural cooling. The initial costs of a “green” home might be more than for a traditional house, but the buyer's return on investment comes in the form of energy and maintenance cost savings over a lifetime.
While a wide range of construction materials passes the test as environmentally friendly, steel is king in the new generation of affordable green buildings. Besides its strength and resistance to weather and fire, steel is ultimately recyclable; two-thirds of all the steel in use in the U.S. today comes from recycled stock. Additionally, by framing houses with steel instead of wood, green builders save millions of trees every year.
Beyond steel, other materials, such as adobe, straw bales or “rammed earth,” can make for some of the most energy-efficient and affordable structural elements. Each provides excellent insulation, and can save on both materials and transportation costs if available and procured locally. Some designs include walls made by “stressed skin foam” panels, rigid foam that is sandwiched between oriented strand boards. More scaled down green homes might use recycled newspaper for insulation in otherwise traditional walls. Also, salvaging materials--such as old windowsills, floorboards or light fixtures--from existing or teardown structures epitomizes the green motto of “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” while saving money.
Those inspired to build a green home on a limited budget today have a wealth of information at their disposal, notably a plethora of websites devoted to green building practices, techniques and materials that offer free information online. Also, Building Innovation for Homeownership , a publication of the federally funded Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing, profiles 63 award-winning low-cost housing developments that incorporate materials and techniques on the cutting edge of green building. Meanwhile, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offers free access to its online “Energy Star” database of “green” builders. The EPA site also includes a database of both lenders and utilities that offer special incentives to buyers and builders of energy-efficient homes.
CONTACTS : Greenerbuilding.org, www.greenerbuilding.org ; EPA Energy Star New Homes Partner Locator, www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=new_homes_partners.showHomesSearch ; Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing, www.pathnet.org ; Green Building Resource Guide, www.greenguide.com ; Green Builder, www.greenbuilder.com .
Dear EarthTalk: What is the “Roadless Rule” and why are environmentalists in favor of it?
-- Eliza Scheer, Seattle, WA
The U.S. Forest Service manages America's national forests for “multiple uses,” not just recreation and preservation. And over the past 50 years, one of those primary “uses” has been resource extraction, whereby taxpayer-subsidized leases have been granted to logging, mining and energy companies so they can remove and sell timber, ore, oil and gas. Road building is key to these activities so that heavy equipment can be moved in and out. Needless to say, both the road building and the resource extraction itself are very damaging to the forest ecosystem.
In one of his last acts as president in January 2001, Bill Clinton signed an executive order preventing the construction of roads on large areas of wild lands within America's national forests. The so-called “Roadless Rule” preserved 58.5 million acres of unspoiled forest land in 39 states. But in July 2004, the Bush Administration revamped the law, giving state governors the final say on decisions about opening up otherwise virgin national forest lands to resource extraction.
Environmentalists cheered Clinton's order back in 2001, contending that roads built on forest lands often punch through wildlife habitat ranges, cause erosion and silting of rivers and streams, and destroy the backcountry experience for human visitors. Industry, however, argued that it infringed on the Forest Service's guiding principle of multiple uses by essentially excluding a traditional user group--loggers and miners. By revamping the law, the Bush Administration gave the nod to industry, despite the fact that, according to the Heritage Forests Campaign, public comment invited by the Forest Service had been overwhelmingly in favor of the Roadless Rule.
Much of the land in contention is in western states looking to bring jobs and money into otherwise ailing economies. The U.S. Forest Service just recently approved its first new timber leases on lands previously protected from development by the Roadless Rule in the lush southeast section of Alaska, where dwindling natural resources and a sluggish economy have conspired to drive unemployment rates to unprecedented highs. Alaska's state leadership has traditionally favored extracting and selling the state's abundant natural resources. New timber leases in previously protected sections of Idaho and Wyoming are expected soon as well.
CONTACTS : U.S. Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation Program, http://roadless.fs.fed.us/ ; Heritage Forests Campaign, (202) 887-8800, www.ourforests.org .
Dear EarthTalk: How serious is the threat of antibiotic resistant bacteria in chicken and other poultry? -- Dana Wilke, Chicago, IL
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, 70 percent of all antibiotics in the U.S. are fed to pigs, cattle and poultry for the purposes of sanitation and growth promotion. Meanwhile, humans rely on many of these same antibiotics as medicines to control various bacterial infections. Bacteria in poultry and other livestock exposed over and over to these antibiotics develop increased resistance. The result can be that when people become infected by these same bacteria--such as Campylobacter or Salmonella, the two most common causes of food poisoning in the U.S.--the antibiotics they normally rely on can be useless.
The Keep Antibiotics Working (KAW) campaign, an association of health, consumer protection, environmental and animal welfare organizations, says that antibiotic resistance is “reaching crisis proportions, resulting in infections that are difficult, or impossible, to treat.” The campaign asserts: “Overuse and misuse of antibiotics greatly accelerates the proliferation of resistant bacteria.” KAW's primary goal is to end the overuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture.
A recent study published in Consumer Reports found that 49 percent of brand name whole broiler chickens purchased in food stores in 25 U.S. cities were contaminated with Campylobacter and/or Salmonella bacteria. According to KAW, those two strains of bacteria alone cause 3.3 million illnesses and 650 deaths every year. The study also found that 90 percent of the Campylobacter and 34 percent of the Salmonella tested were resistant to at least one antibiotic.
Another recent study, conducted by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and the Sierra Club, found that thousands of people in the Minneapolis area were ingesting bacteria resistant to important antibiotic medicines like Cipro, Synercid and Tetracycline. “As bacteria on food get more and more resistant to the antibiotics doctors rely on for treating infections, it puts patients' lives at risk. This study confirms that supermarket chicken…can be an important source of drug-resistant infections,” says IATP's David Wallinga M.D. “We can't afford to play Russian Roulette with our existing antibiotics because they are rapidly losing effectiveness,” he concludes.
CONTACTS: Union of Concerned Scientists, (617) 547-5552, www.ucsusa.org ; Keep Antibiotics Working, (202) 572-3250, www.keepantibioticsworking.com ; Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, (612) 870-0453, www.iatp.org ; Sierra Club, (415) 977-5500, www.sierraclub.org .
Dear EarthTalk: In light of concerns about mercury-tainted fish that have been in the news lately, which fish are safer to eat than others? -- Renee Scott, via e-mail
As mercury pollution from industrial facilities becomes more pervasive in both ocean and freshwater environments, consumers need to limit their intake of both freshwater fish and seafood, whether they catch it themselves or buy it in a supermarket or restaurant.
More than 3,000 water bodies nationwide were under fish consumption advisories in 2003, an increase of almost 10 percent over the previous year, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Aquatic predators toward the top of the food chain--such as swordfish, shark, king mackerel, tilefish, pike, walleye, largemouth bass, white sucker, yellow perch and albacore tuna--are most likely to carry large amounts of mercury. Environmentalists recommend avoiding eating such fish altogether.
Meanwhile, shrimp, salmon, pollock, catfish, and canned light tuna do not accumulate as much mercury in their systems, and as a result may be safer to eat in moderation. Nevertheless, the EPA recommends that consumers limit their intake to 12 ounces (2 average meals) per week of any fish.
Each year, U.S. power plants and other industrial facilities spew as much as 150 tons of mercury or more into the air as a by-product of production processes. Eventually the mercury makes its way into nearby waterways and accumulates in the tissue of fish.
Exposure to mercury can be particularly hazardous for pregnant women and small children, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. During the first several years of life, a child's brain is still developing and rapidly absorbing nutrients. Prenatal and infant mercury exposure can cause mental retardation, cerebral palsy, deafness and blindness. Even in low doses, mercury may affect a child's development, delay walking and talking, shorten attention span and cause learning disabilities.
In adults, mercury poisoning can adversely affect fertility and blood pressure regulation and can cause memory loss, tremors, vision loss and numbness of the fingers and toes. A growing body of evidence suggests that exposure to mercury may also lead to heart disease.
A January 2003 report from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that one in six women of childbearing age have mercury in their blood above the level that would pose a risk to a developing fetus. The good news for consumers who have eaten large amounts of fish in the past is that they can significantly lower the mercury content in their bloodstreams by cutting consumption now.
CONTACTS : Environmental Protection Agency Fish Advisories Page, www.epa.gov/waterscience/fish/ ; Natural Resources Defense Council's Mercury Contamination in Fish: A Guide to Staying Healthy and Fighting Back , www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/index.asp .
Dear EarthTalk: What are some ways to save paper at the office?
-- Wee Kheong, Singapore
Paper usage is at an all-time high around the world, and the average office worker prints and copies through some 10,000 pages every year. Hopes that the advent of electronic communications would drastically cut paper consumption have not panned out thus far, but individuals can still do their part by replacing printed communications with electronic ones whenever possible.
Many companies use e-mail extensively now, for both interoffice exchanges as well as communication with customers. Attaching files to e-mails instead of printing out reports can eliminate reams of paper on a daily basis, as can posting information on company websites or intranets, private networks that use the same kinds of software as the public Internet, but for internal use.
Beyond eliminating paper, offices have many options for reducing paper consumption. One very obvious strategy is to use both sides of every sheet, an approach that, if used religiously, can cut routine paper usage almost in half. Most office equipment can be set to default to double-sided printing. Also, workers should make use of the “print preview” function--which comes standard in most word processing and spreadsheet software--to prevent having to reprint pages due to errors discovered after the fact.
Sharing is another way to save paper. Notices or announcements can be posted in a few highly trafficked common areas instead of delivered to individual desks. Likewise, a single copy of a report can be circulated for editing to multiple employees. Meanwhile, more paper can be saved by printing only relevant pages instead of entire reports.
Copiers and printers that are in tune and running efficiently also help save paper. When copiers are not serviced regularly, they run out of toner and jam more often, causing more paper to be wasted. Printers suffer similar problems if ink cartridges wear out or paper trays are filled the wrong way.
Companies can help their employees save paper by instituting a formalized paper reduction campaign, including mandatory double-sided printing and copying, the scheduling of periodic equipment maintenance, and the reduction of paper-based forms. Outdated letterhead can be used as scratch paper or for internal memos. And office managers can make sure clearly marked paper recycling bins are available, and can post “think before you print” and “think before you copy” signs in visible areas of the workplace.
For more tips on reducing paper use at the office, check out the websites listed below…
CONTACTS : Office Paper Reduction Quick Tips, California Integrated Waste Management Board, www.ciwmb.ca.gov/BizWaste/OfficePaper/QuickTip.htm ; Cutting Paper, U.S. Department of Energy Waste Minimization Program, http://eetd.lbl.gov/Paper/ ; INFORM's Waste Reduction Tips for the Office, www.informinc.org/fact_office.php .
Dear EarthTalk: What are the environmental pros and cons of damming rivers for hydropower?
-- Kartikeya Singh, Greenville, SC
Hydropower--electricity generated from turbines churning in dammed rivers--has been part of America's energy mix since the 1880s when the world's first hydroelectric plant began operation on the Fox River in Appleton, Wisconsin. By the 1940s, hydropower accounted for about 40 percent of America's energy needs.
Hydropower today accounts for only about 10 percent of electricity generation in the U.S., but it plays a crucial role in keeping regional economies afloat, such as in parts of the Pacific Northwest where dammed rivers provide 80 percent of the electricity needed by area residents and businesses.
Many environmentalists still cheer hydropower as the only major source of electricity that is renewable and non-polluting. Unlike energy generated from fossil fuels, hydropower plants do not emit the waste heat and gases that are major contributors to air pollution, global warming and acid rain. Nor do they require the environmentally destructive mining and drilling needed to acquire coal, natural gas and oil.
Another environmental benefit of hydropower is its ability to help control otherwise wide fluctuations in water flow in and around rivers. By increasing water flow during dry months and reducing flow during periods of heavy run-off, hydropower projects help to enhance aquatic habitats while preventing damage to vegetation and wildlife along stream banks.
Despite the benefits, however, hydropower does have its environmental costs. In general, damming rivers and installing hydropower turbines permanently alters the environment and disrupts naturally functioning ecosystems. For example, populations of wild salmon and trout--which migrate back and forth between upstream spawning grounds and the ocean--have fallen off by as much as 90 percent in parts of the U.S. due to the damming of major coastal area rivers for hydropower.
Last year, one of Maine's major utilities agreed to remove three dams on the Penobscot River and its tributaries in order to restore declining populations of wild Atlantic salmon. Environmentalists are calling for similar measures in the Pacific Northwest to save dwindling populations of Coho and Chinook salmon.
As more harmless forms of renewable energy such as solar, wind and hydrogen become more economically viable, hydropower will likely play an increasingly smaller role in America's energy mix. Indeed, only time will tell whether these more efficient sources of renewable energy might finally end the need for hydropower while making fossil fuels obsolete as well.
CONTACTS : American Rivers, (202) 347-7550, www.americanrivers.org ; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Hydropower Page, www.corpsresults.us/hydro/default.htm ; National Hydropower Association, www.hydro.org .
Dear EarthTalk: What's behind the startling explosion in nut allergies among children? Is it changes in the kids, the peanuts or the processing? -- Lynne Whetzel, Ithaca, NY
Recent research does in fact show that the incidence of nut allergies among American and British children has tripled within the last two decades. No one knows for sure why, but because the phenomenon seems to be occurring only in developed countries, some environmentalists believe that pollution and synthetic chemicals might be to blame. An allergic reaction happens when the body's immune system overreacts to a perceived threat, and researchers believe there may be an as-yet undiscovered link between exposure to various chemicals, pollutants and food additives and an overall rise in immune system disorders.
Parents of children suffering from nut allergies live life constantly checking the ingredients on food labels. Nuts and nut oils are used in an increasingly wide range of processed foods, including many of the chips and cereals preferred by kids today. The ubiquity of snack foods throughout our society makes it difficult for kids to avoid nuts and nut oils, even if they know they are allergic.
Nut allergies can start early on and usually do not go away in adulthood. From the second trimester of pregnancy on, the unborn fetus can recognize allergens to which the mother has been exposed, and may at this early point begin to develop sensitivities that can lead to allergic reactions following birth. Pregnant women with a history of allergic reactions can minimize the risk to their children by avoiding certain known allergens, especially tree nuts (cashews, almonds, pecans and walnuts) and peanuts. Breast-feeding mothers should also avoid foods that contain these allergens, as they can be transmitted to babies via breast milk. Additionally, several leading brands of creams used by mothers to ease discomfort while breast-feeding contain nut oils which can trigger allergic reactions in babies as well.
Symptoms of nut allergies, as with many allergies, can range from mild reactions like watery eyes, an itchy throat or a runny nose, to severe reactions like eczema, hives, nausea and vomiting. In extreme cases, allergic reactions can lead to anaphylaxis, a life-threatening condition hastened by the body's release of toxic amounts of histamine into the blood stream.
The Fairfax, Virginia-based Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network is a non-profit organization that raises awareness about and conducts research on food allergies and anaphylaxis. The organization's diverse membership makes it the leading clearinghouse on food allergies in the U.S. Meanwhile, the Farnborough, England-based Anaphylaxis Campaign provides similar services in the U.K. and beyond. These groups can be invaluable to families struggling through food allergies.
CONTACTS : Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Network, (800) 929-4040, www.foodallergy.org ; Anaphylaxis Campaign, www.anaphylaxis.org.uk .
Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that the prairie grasslands of the Midwest are North America's most endangered ecosystem? --Charlie Anderson, Boston, MA
When Lewis and Clark made their epic journey across North America in 1805, they encountered far more prairie grassland (or “tallgrass prairie”) than any other type of landscape. Today, just 200 years later, less than five percent of that prairie remains, due to the impacts of urban sprawl, rapid development and overgrazing by livestock--all of which were ushered in by the very westward expansion Lewis and Clark initiated. Hundreds of native species of plants and animals are on the brink of extinction today as a result.
North America's unique tallgrass prairies evolved over millennia. The wide variety of grass species that make up the ecosystem's foundation survived well along with modest rainfall and regular, naturally-caused fires. Sixty-five million free-roaming bison sustained themselves on the abundant grasses, in turn sustaining Native American tribes such as the Sioux.
Earlier this year, a coalition of non-profit groups under the banner of the Northern Plains Conservation Network (NPCN) released a report entitled: “Ocean of Grass: A Conservation Vision for the Northern Great Plains,” documenting and describing the native biodiversity of the tallgrass prairies. The report sets forth a long-term proposal for conserving and restoring prairie habitat such that, by the year 2050, the region can support 20,000 wild bison, half a million acres of prairie dog towns, and stable populations of all grassland-dependent birds.
Congress helped spur the process along in 1996 by setting aside over 10,000 pristine prairie acres in Kansas' Flint Hills region as the Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve. The National Park Trust, a non-profit conservation organization, purchased the land in 1994 and today co-manages the property with the National Park Service. Visitors can take self-guided tours on various nature trails and participate in “living history” programs that demonstrate the ecological importance of maintaining tallgrass prairies.
Believing that the establishment of the Tall Grass Prairie Reserve is a good step but not enough to sustain dwindling wildlife populations, the NPCN is calling for the establishment of one million additional acres of tallgrass prairie across the Midwest. The group is hard at work identifying key areas where replanting and reintroducing native grass species could help create safe havens for a variety of wildlife species.
CONTACTS : Northern Plains Conservation Network, www.npcn.net ; Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve, www.nps.gov/tapr ; National Park Trust, www.parktrust.org .
Dear EarthTalk: How can I recycle my unwanted CDs and DVDs?
-- Mike Wells, Oswego, IL
Compact discs (CDs) and digital videodiscs (DVDs) have become the de facto standards for media storage and playback for millions of consumers and businesses around the world. But the very popularity of these inexpensive 5” diameter discs made of metal, plastic and dye is taking a serious toll on the waste stream.
According to the Worldwatch Institute, more than 45 tons of used CDs are discarded globally every month. Ironically, CDs and DVDs are made from recyclable materials, yet the vast majority ends up in landfills or incinerators anyway. As with minimizing any waste, the three R's (reduce, reuse, recycle) apply:
For starters, consumers can reduce the number of disks that they purchase. Worldwatch suggests that consumers search online for information and media so as to avoid purchasing CDs and DVDs in the first place. For those situations where virtual media is not available or practical, Worldwatch recommends looking for used CDs and DVDs to save both materials and money. Amazon.com makes finding and buying used discs directly from individual sellers as easy as searching its site for the titles you want. Also, many libraries now lend out CDs and DVDs as readily as they do books.
For the discerning craftsperson or fun-loving kid, reuse means turning old discs into key components in any number of toys and decorations. Crafty end uses include turning them into disco balls by gluing them to a hanging ball, making drink coasters by attaching cork to one side, or attaching them to roadside fences or bicycle seat-posts to serve as safety reflectors. The National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) offers tips on how to turn an old CD or DVD into a model of the planet Saturn. Indeed, the sky's the limit with what can be done with old discs.
Those looking to recycle CDs and DVDs have several options. The best deal financially is to sell your unwanted discs to retail stores that sell used titles. Trading with friends or co-workers is another waste-free option. Beyond selling or trading, NESAR Systems of Darlington, PA and MRC Polymers of Chicago, IL will take and recycle old disks at no charge (you pay postage) and use the raw materials to make new discs. Likewise, GreenDisk of Redmond, WA will recycle CDs and DVDs, as well as a wide range of other technology-related refuse, for a fee of 10 cents per pound to cover labor costs (again, you pay postage).
All these options aside, the best scenario is to not have to get rid of old CDs and DVDs in the first place. Consumers should only buy CDs and DVDs which they intend to keep, and should ask to be taken off mailing lists that generate junk mail with enclosed CDs. With so many eco-responsible options available these days, sending old discs to the “circular file” surely makes no sense.
CONTACTS : Worldwatch Institute, (202) 452-1999; www.worldwatch.org ; NASA Space Place: Saturn Model, http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/cassini_make1.shtml ; NESAR Systems, 420 Ashwood Road, Darlington, PA 16115, (724) 827-8172; MRC Polymers, 3307 South Londale Ave., Chicago, IL 60623, (773) 890-9000; Greendisk, 16398 NE 85th St., Redmond, WA 98052, (425) 883-9165, www.greendisk.com .
Dear EarthTalk: How much land has Congress designated as wilderness since passage of the Wilderness Act 40 years ago? -- Maureen Langloss, New York, NY
When Congress passed the Wilderness Act in 1964, it designated 9.1 million acres across the United States permanently off limits to development. Since then, lawmakers have added an additional 96.5 million acres--including more than 50 million acres in Alaska alone--for a total of 105.6 million acres, spread over some 662 different areas and constituting roughly five percent of total U.S. land mass.
Only Congress has the power to designate lands as federally protected wilderness. Typically, parcels of land need to be 5,000 acres or larger to be included. The Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service and the National Park Service each oversee different areas of wilderness within their respective holdings.
It was a group of influential policymakers, scientists and outdoorsmen that banded together in the mid-1930s whose advocacy work ultimately led to the passage of the Wilderness act 30 years later. Calling themselves the Wilderness Society, they included: Benton Mackaye, known as “father of the Appalachian Trail”; Robert Sterling Yard, at the time a National Park Service publicist; visionary ecologist and author Aldo Leopold; and Robert Marshall, then chief of recreation and lands for the Forest Service. Today the Wilderness Society is thriving, with a quarter million dues-paying members and wilderness preservation campaigns running from Alaska to Florida.
Despite protections provided by the 1964 law, wilderness areas face many threats today. Excessive human recreational activity takes a toll, as do air and water pollution from sources that originate outside wilderness boundaries. Non-native plants and animals that have been introduced over time threaten the native species that have evolved over thousands of years. Wildlife habitat in adjacent “buffer zones” is shrinking as development moves closer and closer to the boundaries of these wild lands. And ill-advised land management practices--such as widespread fire suppression--disrupt naturally functioning ecological systems.
This year, numerous government agencies and non-profit organizations are celebrating the 40th anniversary of the passage of the Wilderness Act and assessing how to best work together to protect wilderness lands in perpetuity. Conferences are exploring the important role wilderness plays in the American psyche, and “walks for wilderness” are scheduled on weekends this fall from coast-to-coast to raise public awareness about the role wilderness plays in the quality of life and the health of our environment. To find an event near you, log on to Wilderness.net.
CONTACTS : Wilderness Act of 1964, www.leaveitwild.org/reports/wilderness1964PF.html ; Bureau of Land Management, www.blm.gov ; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, www.fws.gov ; U.S. Forest Service, www.fs.fed.us ; National Park Service, www.nps.gov ; Wilderness Society, (800) 843-9453, www.wilderness.org ; Wilderness.net, www.wilderness.net .
Dear EarthTalk: How do hybrid cars get better fuel efficiency than traditional cars?
-- David Walley, Framingham, MA
Hybrid cars get better gas mileage and pollute less because their highly efficient electric motors run on recycled waste energy generated during normal driving. These cars actually have two engines under the hood--a traditional gasoline-powered motor used for acceleration, and an electric motor that kicks in and out of service when the car is maintaining cruising speeds and when the car is idling or backing up. Excess power generated by the gasoline engine is stored in batteries and used to fuel the electric engine, so owners never need to plug the cars in.
Hybrids have two complex drive trains, so consumers can expect to pay a premium of $3,500 or more for one, depending upon extra options ordered. But, as with most new innovations, as demand for hybrids rises (there is a long waiting list for the Toyota Prius) and manufacturers increase production accordingly, prices are likely to come down. And the demand will surely rise as long as gas prices continue to soar.
Despite the price premium, owners can expect to earn back the extra investment of going hybrid within three to five years of ownership through savings at the gas pump--especially if their hybrids are replacing gas-guzzlers like big SUVs. Hybrid owners who drive the average 12,000 miles per year can expect to save anywhere between $600 and $1,000 each year on gasoline, depending upon their driving patterns. High-mileage commuters will see their savings mount even faster. Also, the federal government currently offers hybrid owners a tax credit of up to $1,500 for purchasing a “clean fuels” vehicle, though this incentive is set to expire after 2006. And several U.S. states--including Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Utah--offer their own incentives and tax rebates for hybrid owners.
Those ready to take the hybrid plunge have more options than ever at their disposal. The first two hybrids to hit the U.S. market in 2000 were the Honda Insight and the Toyota Prius, both which claim fuel efficiencies of up to 60 miles per gallon and are available today in updated forms. In the meantime, Honda has also introduced a hybrid version of its popular Civic model, and is soon to introduce a hybrid Accord.
American automakers are slated to release new hybrid SUVs this fall, beginning with Ford's hybrid Escape, which boasts 40 miles per gallon. Lexus is also offering a hybrid SUV, and a full hybrid Saturn Vue is coming. Meanwhile, Chevrolet has a hybrid version of its full-size Silverado pick-up truck for fleet buyers, though it only gets 10 to 12 percent better fuel economy over its standard GM 1500 pickup. Given all the choices--not to mention the savings at the pump--there's never been a better time to get behind the wheel of a fuel-efficient hybrid.
CONTACTS : HybridCars.com, www.hybridcars.com ; Clean Car Campaign, www.cleancarcampaign.org ; GreenerCars.com, www.greenercars.com ; Electric Drive Transportation Association, www.electricdrive.org .
Dear EarthTalk: Do airplanes contribute significantly to air pollution?
-- Neil Gladstone, New York, NY
Airplanes do indeed create a great amount of air pollution. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a non-profit environmental group, “airport air pollution is similar in scope to that generated by local power plants, incinerators, and refineries, yet is exempt from rules other industrial polluters must follow.” Major airports, says NRDC, rank among the top 10 industrial air polluters in cities such as Los Angeles, Washington and Chicago. The hundreds of thousands of airplanes taking off, landing, taxiing and idling each day across the country emit contaminants into the air and ground which have been linked to a wide range of human health problems, including asthma and cancer.
Beyond local environmental effects, air travel is contributing significantly to global warming. A 1999 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that aircraft are responsible for 3.5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide; this could increase to 10 percent by 2050 as the popularity of air travel rises. Meanwhile, contrails--those vapor condensation trails you see overhead that are formed when airplanes fly at high altitudes through extremely cold air--could be contributing to global warming as they turn into high thin cirrus clouds and trap heat from incoming sunlight within the atmosphere.
A recent agreement to cut 37 daily peak-hour arrivals at America's busiest airport, Chicago's O'Hare, should help to not only ease congestion and reduce delays but also to improve local air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, because of the increasing popularity of air travel, 60 of the 100 largest U.S. airports are proposing building more runways, thus expanding rather than reducing activity.
Because airplanes are considered part of interstate commerce, they are not subject to local and state pollution laws. Furthermore, the Federal Aviation Administration has the potentially conflicting responsibilities of monitoring pollution while promoting air travel.
In lieu of government regulation to curb airplane emissions, though, economics sometimes prevail. In the wake of 9/11, consumers have been skittish about air travel, while fuel prices have risen to unprecedented levels. Ailing airlines are left with no choice but to scale back on flights as well as on engine idling, in turn benefiting the environment. Analysts estimate that Delta Air Lines' voluntary reduction of engine idling, for instance, has cut ground-level emissions from its planes by as much as 40 percent.
Meanwhile, NRDC promotes taxes on jet fuel as a way to encourage airlines to increase their efficiency, and encourages consumers to opt for alternative modes of transportation, such as high-speed rail when available, especially for shorter distances. “Consumers can also help,” says the group, “by demanding that airports be subject to the same rigorous standards and reporting requirements as their industrial neighbors.”
CONTACTS: Natural Resources Defense Council, (212) 727-2700, www.nrdc.org ; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, www.ipcc.ch .Dear EarthTalk: What is “biomass energy,” and where in the world is it used?
-- Kourosh Khazaii, Vancouver, BC
Biomass energy is power generated by burning any organic plant matter, including wood. As such it was perhaps humankind's earliest source of fuel. Wood is by far the most widely used biomass energy source, but other plants are also used, as are residues from agriculture or forestry and the organic components of municipal and industrial wastes.
Environmentalists are enthusiastic about expanding the use of biomass energy because it is fundamentally a renewable energy source and has the potential, if widely used, for greatly reducing the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. While the burning of biomass fuels generates carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), the leading greenhouse gas, new plants grown for biomass remove CO 2 from the atmosphere. So as long as biomass energy sources continue to be replenished, their net CO 2 emissions will be zero.
Biomass, because it is available on a recurring basis, is the world's most plentiful fuel source, and it is second only to hydropower in efficiency. Thus it is a very viable alternative to burning fossil fuels. Farmers around the world are now cultivating fast-growing trees and grasses specifically for biomass energy use.
Developing countries, especially those in Asia, Latin America and Africa, are currently the primary users of biomass as fuel, mainly because in many locales they lack access to other forms of energy. In the developing world, biomass makes up almost a third of total energy use. By contrast, the U.S. uses biomass for only four percent of its total energy supply.
Many countries are making concerted efforts to increase their use of biomass. Australia is generally recognized as the leader in developing biomass projects, due to the close cooperation there between government agencies, research facilities and industry. Britain is also working on some significant biomass projects, including the establishment of power stations fueled by fast-growing crops.
The International Energy Association reports that biomass has the potential to supply 40 percent of the world's energy needs. Studies by the Shell International Petroleum Company and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are equally if not more optimistic and project that biomass could satisfy between one-quarter and one-half of the world's demand for energy by the middle of this century. This projection implies a world full of “bio-refineries,” where plants provide many of the materials we now obtain from coal, oil and natural gas.
Looking ahead, some analysts have begun to talk about a “carbohydrate economy” in which plants would be a major source of not only electricity and fuels, but also construction materials, clothes, inks, paintseven industrial chemicals.
CONTACTS: Biomass Energy Research Association, (800) 247-1755, www.bera1.org ; International Energy Association, (011) 33-1-40-57-65-00, www.iea.org ; Shell International Petroleum Company, (888) GO-SHELL, www.shell.com ; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, www.ipcc.ch .
Dear EarthTalk: I've heard that tankless water heaters are more energy efficient than traditional water heaters. How do they work? -- Felipe Gomez, Flagstaff, AZ
In a conventional water heater, 30 to 60 gallons of water sit in the tank, constantly being heated and re-heated, even when no hot water is in use. The heat from the tank keeps dissipating into the air, creating “standby heat loss.” This constant energy waste adds up, and can constitute 10 to 20 percent of a household's heating costs.
Unlike traditional water heaters, tankless water heaters (also known as demand or instantaneous water heaters) heat the water only as it is used, thus eliminating standby heat loss and minimizing energy usage. Cold water travels through a pipe to the unit, where it passes over a gas or electric heating element in a thin enclosure. This exposes a lot of the water's surface to the heating element, thus enabling it to heat up quickly. The element only operates when the hot water faucet is turned on. These heaters are also small and thus space saving, and can be attached to a wall or put under the sink or in a closet.
First put into widespread use in Japan and Europe, tankless water heaters began appearing in the U.S. about 25 years ago. While they do cost more than double the price of conventional water heaters--top-of-the line, high-capacity residential tankless models sell for up to $1,000--a typical tankless unit lasts more than 20 years, compared to the 10-year life expectancy of a conventional water heater, according to the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office of the U.S. Department of Energy. Also, consumers can quickly make up the difference through energy savings.
While a constant supply of hot water is available through a tankless system, the flow rate may be somewhat limited, depending upon the needs of your household. Typically, a tankless water heater provides a flow of two to four gallons per minute. As with many tank heaters, simultaneous use of hot water appliances can affect the flow rate. Water-hungry appliances like dishwashers and washing machines may need to be operated at separate times. Alternatively, a second water heater can be installed at a high-demand location. Gas-fired heaters tend to have higher flow rates and are less expensive than electric models. Leading tankless water heater manufacturers include Bosch, PowerStar and Ariston, and the units are available at most big appliance and home superstores as well as through Controlled Energy Corporation, Tankless Water Heaters Direct, and several others.
CONTACT: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office, (800) DOE-3732, www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo/factsheets/bc1.html ; Controlled Energy Corporation, (800) 503-5028, www.controlledenergy.com ; Tankless Water Heaters Direct, (802) 583-2726, www.tanklesswaterheatersdirect.com .Dear EarthTalk: Is there a connection between environmental toxins and breast cancer?
-- Ben Ward, Virginia Beach, VA
More than 200,000 women are diagnosed with breast cancer each year in the United States, and 20 percent are likely to die from it. Breast cancers among women have climbed steadily in the U.S. and other industrialized nations since the 1940s. More than half of women diagnosed with breast cancer do not have any of the known or traditional risk factors such as family history, hormonal factors or a fatty diet, and researchers suspect that widespread exposure to environmental toxins is triggering the surge.
Strong evidence linking chemicals to breast cancer include studies showing that lifetime chemical exposure to naturally produced estrogens (female hormones produced by the ovaries and other adrenal glands) increases the risk of breast cancer. New evidence also suggests that exposure to compounds that mimic these natural estrogens, such as hormone replacement therapy and oral contraceptives, also increases risk.
Other compounds found to increase breast cancer risk include: polyvinyl chloride, a plastic commonly used in vinyl siding, shower curtains and other products; the gasoline component benzene; and some pesticides and herbicides. Also strongly linked are organic solvents used in manufacturing processes, hydrocarbons produced by the combustion of gasoline and heating oil, and synthetic chemicals like dioxin, a byproduct of the paper bleaching process. Many compounds long ago phased out of use in the U.S.--including DES, a drug taken by pregnant women to prevent miscarriage, the notorious pesticide DDT, and PCBs used in manufacturing--still persist in the environment and can also trigger the disease.
When New York health researchers noticed that breast cancer cases were increasing at alarming rates on Long Island during the 1980s and 1990s, they commissioned the Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project to find out if exposure to some prevalent toxins--including DDT and PCBs--was to blame. Surprisingly, researchers found little evidence to support a definitive connection. However, the study did suggest that these chemicals were linked to enlarged tumor size, meaning that although they may not cause breast cancer, they may contribute to how fast the cancer grows.
Without many direct links between breast cancer and specific contaminants, regulation is unlikely, so women should take precautions on an individual basis. Exercising more, increasing consumption of fruits and vegetables, lowering alcohol intake and quitting smoking are good first steps. Avoiding exposure to contaminants at home or on the job will also help. Meanwhile, environmental groups like the Breast Cancer Fund and Breast Cancer Action are advocating for more Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation of chemicals and pressing chemical makers to voluntarily limit the production of certain suspect substances.
CONTACTS : National Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project, http://epi.grants.cancer.gov/LIBCSP/ ; Breast Cancer Fund, (415) 346-8223, www.breastcancerfund.org ; Breast Cancer Action, (415) 243-9301, www.bcaction.org ; U.S. Food and Drug Administration, www.fda.gov .
Dear EarthTalk: What is Pfiesteria piscicida , and how do these organisms kill fish? Should I be concerned where I swim? -- Rachael Monroe, Orlando, FL-Pfiesteria piscicida , a microbe, normally exists in rivers and bays in non-toxic forms, feeding on algae and bacteria. Scientists believe that this tiny creature becomes toxic only in the presence of fish, at which point Pfiesteria cells release a powerful poison that stuns fish and attacks their skin, causing bleeding sores. The attacking cells then feed on the fish tissues and blood. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that millions of fish are killed this way each year.
Pfiesteria growth exploded in the late 1990s in waters that became too “nutrient-enriched,” i.e. polluted by sewage treatment plants and by farms that allow excessive runoff of fertilizer and animal manure. In the U.S., the phenomenon seems to be isolated on the east coast, where waters are warmer and less turbulent, supporting more bacterial growth for Pfiesteria to feed on.
Pfiesteria populations have been found from New York to the Gulf of Mexico, with the largest concentrations in the Cheasapeake Bay and off the coast of North Carolina. “North Carolina is the best place for Pfiesteria problems because the waters off the outer banks, a series of barrier islands, are shallow, warmer and poorly flushed,” says scientist JoAnn Burkholder at North Carolina State University. However, in 1999 Hurricane Floyd scoured North Carolina's shoreline and estuaries, reducing the number of Pfiesteria colonies there.
As to Pfiesteria's affects on human health, evidence suggests that exposure to waters or airborne vapors where toxic forms of Pfiesteria are active may cause memory loss, confusion and a variety of other symptoms including skin sores and respiratory and gastro-intestinal problems. However, Pfiesteria is not a virus, fungus or form of bacteria. It is not contagious or infectious, and cannot be “caught” like a cold or fluand there is no evidence that Pfiesteria-related illnesses are associated with the consumption fish.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in cooperation with state health departments in Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia, have established a surveillance system to collect reports of human illness thought to be related to exposure to Pfiesteria and Pfiesteria-like organisms. This and other ongoing research efforts are expected to further delineate the nature, extent and duration of any Pfiesteria-related human health effects. In the meantime, Burkholder says, “If you see a fish kill, avoid the area and call state biologists to check it out.”
CONTACTS: Center for Applied Aquatic Ecology, North Carolina State University, (919) 515-2726, www.pfiesteria.org/pfiesteria/index.html ; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/owow/estuaries/pfiesteria ; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (404) 639-3534, www.cdc.gov/ .
Dear EarthTalk: Why are beaches and coastlines eroding and what can be done about it? -- Jesus Lopez, Santa Monica, CA
Beach erosion has both human and natural causes. The process of erosion carries beaches out to sea, but it also created them over millions of years from the rock-strewn shores that originally covered our planet. “Without erosion, we would not have the beaches, dunes and highly productive bays and estuaries that owe their very existence to the presence of barrier beaches,” says Jim O'Donnell, a coastal processes specialist with the Sea Grant program at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.Sand moves naturally through the actions of wind and the tide, but it is helped along by human actions, and the beach erosion problem is growing dramatically. The main causes are overbuilding right to the water's edge (a practice protected by federal flood insurance), rapid rises in sea level exacerbated by global warming, a gradual sinking of coastal land, and inept attempts to fix the problem.
Scott L. Douglass, author of Saving America's Beaches and a professor at the University of South Alabama, worked his way through college lifeguarding on the New Jersey shore. Like many beach experts, he's a major critic of the erosion-promoting effects of jetties, seawalls and dredging. Human activity has removed “more than a billion cubic yards of sand from the beaches of America, enough to fill a football field over 100 miles high,” he points out. Douglass prefers beach replenishment, which he says “adds sand to the system,” but he acknowledges that, with sea levels rising at a rate of six inches every 100 years, beaches may not be able to keep up.
Rising sea level means that wetlands and other low-lying lands get inundated, beaches erode, flooding intensifies, and the salinity of rivers, bays and groundwater tables increases. Sea level is rising more rapidly along the U.S. coast than worldwide, according the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the next century, a two-foot rise is likely, but a four-foot rise is possible; and sea level will probably continue to rise for several centuries, even if global temperatures were to stop rising.
Orrin Pilkey, who directs the Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines at Duke University, believes that in many cases it would actually be cheaper to move buildings back from the water's edge than to fund 10 to 20 years of constant beach replenishment, but his ideas have not had many takers among shoreline communities. Some states and localities in the U.S. and around the world have “set back requirements,” restricting development on the shoreline. Protecting and restoring natural barriers to erosion, like dunes, wetlands and vegetation close to shore are also natural, low-cost ways to fight erosion.
CONTACTS: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, (508) 289-2252, www.whoi.edu/; EPA Coastal Watershed Factsheets, www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/factsheets; Duke University Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines, (919) 684-2206, www.env.duke.edu/psds/.
Dear EarthTalk: What happened to the "paperless office" that computers were supposed to create, and what is the environmental impact of our paper usage? -- Michelle Barnes, Virginia Beach, VAThe paperless office does appear to still be a distant dream. A recent University of California-Berkeley study found that, worldwide, the amount of printed matter generated between 1999 and 2002 not only did not decrease--it grew by 36 percent. The quantity of information we now store electronically is growing in leaps and bounds. And while we're using less paper as a percentage of total data output, we're still using more paper. "Contrary to notions of paperless offices floated by futurists in the late 1980s and early 1990s," the report said, "the consumption of office paper has gone up substantially in recent years."
Not surprisingly, the United States is the biggest paper consumer, accounting for 33 percent of all printed material. U.S. paper producers alone consume one billion trees--or 12,430 square miles of forests--every year, while producing 735 pounds of paper for every American. Only five percent of America's virgin forests now remain, while 70 percent of the fiber consumed by the pulp and paper industry continues to be generated from virgin wood.
Besides consuming trees and habitat, processing paper generates tons of industrial pollutants. The pulp and paper industry is the third-largest industrial polluter in both Canada and the U.S., releasing more than 220 million pounds of toxic pollution--including dioxin, a cancer-causing byproduct of the chlorine-bleaching process--into the air, ground and water each year. Paper is also the dominant material in solid waste. And in the U.S., paper-producing companies are the third-largest energy consumer.
In recent years, advocates for ecologically sustainable paper, like the San Francisco-based Conservatree, have grown more vocal in support of both increasing the use of recycled paper and developing alternatives to wood-based paper. As a small step, they have succeeded in persuading large paper retailers like Staples, Kinko's and Office Depot to offer higher amounts of recycled content in the paper they sell.
Alternatives to tree-based paper include various kinds of agricultural wastes, like corn and rice husks, a plant called kenaf, and hemp. One agricultural waste paper is made from 100 percent bagasse fiber, left over from sugar cane production. Kimberly-Clark uses bagasse in some of its paper towels and tissues. But many consider kenaf, a relative of okra and cotton, and hemp, to be the most promising alternatives, especially for office papers. Kenaf, which originated in the East Indies and is now grown in the U.S., Thailand and China, is making inroads as a wood-based paper substitute. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has deemed kenaf "the best option for tree-free papermaking in the U.S."
Hemp is a very strong fiber, making it excellent for paper processing, and it is easily bleached without chlorine. Beginning in 1840, American-grown hemp was used to make manila paper. Hemp cultivation has been illegal in the U.S. since the end of World War II, because it is a relative of the plant grown for marijuana. But the strain of hemp grown for paper does not contain enough quantities of psychoactive chemicals for it to be used as a drug--and its cultivation is encouraged in 29 countries around the world.
CONTACTS: Conservatree, (415) 721-4230, http://www.conservatree.com; Kimberly-Clark, http://www.kimberly-clark.com; USDA Agricultural Research Center, (301) 504-5664, http://www.usda.gov.
Dear EarthTalk: How can I reduce the number and amount of toxins my new baby is exposed to? -- Beth Stevenson, Leesburg, Virginia
Since babies are so much smaller and their metabolism rates are so much higher than those of adults, proportionately they are exposed to higher doses of toxins from everyday foods and consumer products. And because babies' organs and immune systems aren't fully developed, those toxins can have a profound impact on them, effecting their growth and future health, according to the Princeton, New Jersey-based Children's Health Environmental Coalition (CHEC). “Since World War II,” warns CHEC, “we have developed more than 80,000 chemicals for use in cleaners, pesticides, plastics, personal care products, industrial products and other conveniences. We know very little about the effect of these chemicals on a child's development.” Fortunately for new parents, there is an expanding universe of organic and all-natural products, so you can minimize baby's exposure to potentially damaging chemicals.
Feeding your baby organic food means they will avoid the heavy-duty pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers that are sprayed onto or absorbed into conventionally grown foods. Companies like Earth's Best Baby Food provide parents with a variety of pre-packaged organic baby foods. Parents interested in an even more back-to-basics approach can get assistance in the form of books, supplies and tips from Fresh Baby. The company's Fresh Start Kit ($34.95) includes everything a parent needs -- instructions, recipes and materials -- to produce fresh, healthy, homemade baby food. Another eco-benefit: “By feeding children with all-natural alternatives, families don't use and toss scores of baby food jars,” says company spokesperson Christina Kerley.
Since babies spend so much time sleeping, toxins in their cribs, mattresses and bedding are also a concern. Lifekind makes crib mattresses ($279.99 to $379.99) that combine organic cotton with wool (which acts as a natural flame retardant) to prevent tender lungs from inhaling plastic and chemical fumes. For even sweeter dreams, bedding made from 100 percent cotton -- without permanent press and flame retardant substances -- is the least-toxic alternative.
Last, parents should shun soft plastic and vinyl baby toys. Manufacturers often add chemicals, called phthalates, to plastic toys as a softener. This chemical can leach from the plastic and -- since toddlers tend to put objects in their mouths -- expose young children to a substance that has been linked to cancer and reproductive harm. For this reason, the use of phthalates in baby and children's toys is outlawed in 15 European countries and Japan. Hard plastic toys or, better yet, wooden playthings coated with water-based lacquer are smarter purchases, and can be found at Natural Play and your local toy store.
CONTACTS: Earth's Best Baby Food, (800) 434-4246, www.earthsbest.com ; Fresh Baby, (866) 403-7374, www.myfreshbaby.com ; Children's Health Environmental Coalition, (609) 252-1915, www.checnet.org ; Lifekind, (800) 284.4983, www.lifekind.com ; Natural Play, (608) 637-3989, www.naturalplay.com .
Dear EarthTalk: What is the safest way to get a tan? -- Lauren Nivens, Cope, South Carolina
While dermatologists continue to remind us that long-term sun exposure can harm our skin, causing wrinkles, burns and age spots and, more seriously, malignant melanoma and other skin cancers, many people still yearn for that sun-worshipper look. “We encourage people to use self-tanning creams,” says Dr. Robin Ashinoss from New York University's Medical Center and the American Academy of Dermatology, which can help you find a dermatologist in your area. Creams use di-hydroxyacetone, a compound that binds to and stains dead skin cells, giving you a temporary tan. But beware, self-tanning creams will not protect you from the sun's harmful ultra violet rays, which stimulate melanoma, change pigment color and damage skin cell DNA.
Using tanning beds is your worst option. People who use tanning beds or tanning lamps face a significantly higher risk of developing common types of skin cancer, according to a recent study published by the National Cancer Institute. Because artificial tanning devices use the same energy source as the sun's rays--UV radiation--researchers suspect that tanning beds have the same damaging effects as overexposure to the sun. A recent study at Dartmouth College found that people who used a tanning device were 2.5 times more likely to develop basal cell carcinoma than those who avoided them. Basal cell carcinoma is the most common form of skin cancer, arising out of the bottom of the outer skin layer. They were also 1.5 times more susceptible to squamous cell carcinoma, the second most common form of skin cancer, involving tumors that arise in the outer layers of the skin.
Skin cancer is one of the most preventable cancers, yet it is also the most common cancer in the United States, accounting for almost half of all cancers, according to the Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation. “There is no need to be in the sun. The only benefit is that it helps the body to create vitamin D, for healthy bones,” says Dr. Jim Baral of American Dermatology Center and Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City.
CONTACT: American Academy of Dermatology, (888) 462-3376, www.aad.org ; Cancer Research and Prevention Foundation, (800) 227-2732, www.preventcancer.org .
Dear EarthTalk: Is the world running out of oil? -- Allie Knopf, Kansas City, MO
Many experts say that evidence points to a declining world oil supply. According to renowned petroleum geologist Colin Campbell, who has worked for Texaco, BP, Shell and other major oil companies, world oil discovery peaked in the 1960s, while world production is set to peak about six years from now. Campbell predicts “the onset of a chronic long-term shortage” by 2010.
According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. has 22.7 billion barrels of “proven” oil reserves as of January 2004, about 20 percent less than we had in 1990. “Proven” refers to estimated amounts that can be recovered in upcoming years with reasonable certainty. Outside the U.S., nearly two-thirds of the world's proven oil reserves exist in the 11 countries that make up the Organization of the Petroleum Export Countries (OPEC): Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Venezuela.
The U.S. Geological Survey, which last conducted its World Petroleum Assessment in 2000, estimated that 649 billion barrels of undiscovered oil, and 612 billion barrels of “oil reserve growth,” exist outside the U.S. “Undiscovered” refers to oil located in places that haven't yet been drilled or explored; “oil reserve growth” refers to new discoveries near or in existing oil fields.
These estimates do not include oil sitting in storage facilities, such as the one billion barrel capacity U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, located underground in salt caverns along the Gulf of Mexico coast. It is the world's largest cache of emergency oil, with a provision of 53 days of import protection.
How much oil do we need anyway? According to the International Energy Outlook, released this year by the EIA, world demand is expected to increase by 1.9 percent annually, from 77 million barrels per day in 2001 to 121 million barrels per day in 2025, with much of the increase projected to occur in the U.S., China and other developing nations in Asia. Over 19 million barrels of oil were consumed per day in the U.S. alone in 2003.
Dr. Nancy Kete, director of the World Resources Institute's Climate, Energy and Pollution Program, says: “We must face the inescapable fact that the nation's environment, economy, national security and oil resource base all point to the need for vast investments in energy efficiency and the rapid introduction of new, non-oil energy sources.”
CONTACT: United States Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration, (202) 586-8800, http://eia.doe.gov/ ; U.S. Geological Survey, (303) 236-5776, http://energy.cr.usgs.gov/oilgas/wep/ ; World Resources Institute, (202) 729-7600, www.wri.org .
Dear EarthTalk: What happens to the chemicals in drugs once they are out of our systems? -- Courtney Moschetta, Huntsville, AL
Every time you swallow a pill, some of that medicine follows a circuitous path through your body, down the toilet, through the sewage treatment plant (where if is often resistant to traditional treatments) and into the nearest river or lake, where it is eventually tapped again for the public drinking water supply.
According to Christian Daughton, chief of environmental chemistry at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Environmental Research Laboratory in Las Vegas, new technologies now allow scientists to detect extremely low levels of prescription and over-the-counter drugs, as well as compounds found in personal care products like shampoo and sun screen, in water. In Kansas City alone, more than 40 percent of stream samples analyzed recently by the U.S. Geological Survey had detectable amounts of over-the-counter-drugs like ibuprofen and acetaminophen, antibiotics, and prescription medications for high blood pressure.
While the effects on human health of drug residues in water are not yet a serious concern, new studies show that fish and other aquatic species may be affected, says Daughton. Antibiotics make some species more resistant to pathogens, steroids can cause endocrine disruption that interferes with reproductive processes, and anti-depressants make fish tranquil and more likely to succumb to predation. Considering the large variety of pharmaceuticals on the market today, our water may have a witch's brew of very small amounts of many different kinds of drugs.
Right now there are no EPA or Food and Drug Administration regulations in place to control levels of residual drugs in water, but some environmental groups concerned with water quality want to see drug disposal policies enacted, new sewage treatment technologies developed, and source reduction efforts on the part of pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies. Daughton envisions a day when drug companies will take responsibility for the life cycle of their products. Instead of flushing your unused prescription drugs down the toilet, you may be able to send them back to the pharmacy or return them to the maker for proper disposal. Such programs already exist in areas of Europe and Canada.
CONTACT: EPA National Environmental Research Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division, http://www.epa.gov/nerlesd1/chemistry/pharma/overview.htm ; United States Geological Survey's Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, http://toxics.usgs.gov/regional/emc.html .
Dear EarthTalk: I've heard that Singapore controls the number of cars on its roads. How does this work? -- Karen Abromovich, Trumbull, CT
Nearly 42 million cars were produced worldwide in 2003. More cars, of course, mean more congestion and more air pollution. In response, a handful of regions, including Singapore, are trying to limit the number of cars on the road.
Singapore implemented a “Vehicle Quota System” in 1990. According to the Singapore Land Transport Authority, which administers the program, the number of new vehicles allowed for registration is pre-determined annually, taking into account prevailing traffic conditions and the number of vehicles already on the roads.
The vehicle quota for any given year is administered through a monthly auction of “certificates of entitlement,” which are bid by prospective car owners and must be obtained before their vehicle is allowed on the road. This free market approach sets a relatively high price for a certificate; a quota premium on a car can cost as much as $16,000 in U.S. dollar equivalent. But as a result of the program and its high prices, the number of automobiles in Singapore increased just 22 percent from 1993 to 2003 (from 584,000 cars to 711,000), even though population increased 46 percent during the same time period.
Last year London began implementing a “Congestion Pricing System,” which is being touted as the new international model for transportation reform, according to Walter Hook, executive director of the Institute for Transportation & Development Policy. Between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. there is an extra charge to drive on certain downtown roads. Exemptions exist for taxis, emergency vehicles and other special classes of cars, including alternative energy vehicles. Traffic is monitored by camera, and violators risk fines starting at 78 pounds ($140 U.S.). The British government hopes to cut congestion downtown--where traffic speeds now average three miles an hour--and raise 130 million pounds ($230 million U.S.) per year in the process. A similar system has been in place in Trondheim, Norway for at least 10 years.
Could such systems ever work in the U.S.? Michelle Ernst, senior analyst at the Surface Transportation Policy Project, which advocates for alternative transportation choices, is doubtful, saying that Americans are too attached to their cars, and at present public transportation in many areas is not convenient. “If a system similar to Singapore's were to be implemented in the U.S., a likely candidate would be New York City, where there is a well developed dense urban core. But that's a long way off,” says Ernst. “Mayor Bloomberg was interested, but found it politically unfeasible.”
CONTACT: Singapore Land Transport Authority, +011 1800 - 2255 582, www.lta.gov.sg/ ; Institute for Transportation & Development Policy, (212) 629-8001, www.itdp.org ; London City Hall, +011 020 7983-4000, www.london.gov.uk/mayor/congest/index.jsp ; Surface Transportation Policy Project, (202) 466-2636, www.transact.org .
Dear EarthTalk: Are hybrid buses in my city really helping to reduce air pollution?
--Jennifer Cross, New York, NY
According to the Natural Resources Defense Council, 20 percent of U.S. air pollution comes from diesel buses--and many of them are concentrated in cities. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) currently runs a program called Clean School Bus USA, an effort to reduce both children's exposure to diesel exhaust and the amount of air pollution created by diesel school buses. The EPA has also recently passed tougher standards for all diesel-powered vehicles, but they won't go into effect until 2006. In the meantime, many cities are still trying to meet federal Clean Air Act rules, especially given rising rates of asthma, particularly in children. One of the ways cities can clean up their air is by employing alternatives to traditional diesel engines for both public and school buses.
“Retrofitting” (modifying) older buses, which includes adapting them to use cleaner-burning fuels and incorporating pollution controls, can reduce emissions, but hybrid buses offer increased benefits. A Department of Energy study reports that hybrid buses, which combine a diesel engine with an electric motor, outperform regular diesel buses in a variety of categories, offering 10 percent higher fuel economy, 19 percent lower carbon dioxide emissions and a whopping 97 percent reduction in carbon monoxide emissions. John Powell, executive director of the Advanced Transportation Technology Institute, sees the dual-fueled hybrids as the optimal choice with the most benefits. Hybrids have already been successfully introduced in New York City, New Jersey, Connecticut, Minnesota, Washington state and Toronto, Canada.
However, many environmentalists would like to do away with using diesel fuel altogether: “Replacing diesel buses with those fueled with natural gas or electricity will help to provide important health protections for people with lung disease,” says Bonnie Holmes-Gen, assistant vice president for government relations with the American Lung Association of California. Some cities, like Boston, already run compressed natural gas buses. Still others are looking into blending hydrogen with natural gas to create a low-emission fuel for buses called “hythane.” Whatever the alternatives, putting pressure on your local transit authority to buy hybrid vehicles or burn cleaner fuels will result in cleaner air for everyone.
CONTACTS : Natural Resources Defense Council, (212) 727-2700, www.nrdc.org ; EPA's Clean School Bus USA, http://www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/ ; Advanced Transportation Technology Institute, (423) 622-3884, www.atti-info.org ; American Lung Association of California, (510) 638-LUNG, www.californialung.org .Dear EarthTalk: There are so many juices labeled “natural.” Which ones are most healthful? --Zenas Lu, Boston, Mass.
The most healthful juice you can drink is made fresh, right before you drink it, from (preferably) organic fruits and vegetables with nothing added. The beneficial enzymes, vitamins and minerals are at their peak, and some health practitioners say that the water that comes from inside fruits and vegetables is the purest kind. When juices are packaged and pasteurized, they lose some of their nutritional value. Juices pack a nutritional punch, and are a good way to get part of your daily requirement of fruits and veggies. The American Dietetic Association calls orange juice a “nutrition powerhouse.”
Obviously we don't always have the time or money to drink fresh juice, and that's when bottled juices are a good choice over soda or sugary iced teas. But buyer beware: Widely popular commercial “fruit drinks,” with little to no real fruit juice, are largely artificially colored sugar water and contain minimal amounts of fruit juice.
According to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), many fruit “drinks,” “beverages,” “ades” and “cocktails” are nothing more than non-carbonated soda pop. Fruitopia “Real Fruit Beverage” and Sunny Delight “Real Fruit Beverage,” for example, contain only five percent juice. V8 “Splash” is about 25 percent juice and 75 percent sugar-water. CSPI says that, while Fruitopia has “100% vitamin C per serving” in flavors like Strawberry Passion Awareness, the product contains only about five percent strawberry juice and 95 percent high-fructose corn syrup. Similarly, Mystic Mango Mania Fruit Drink has mangoes pictured all over the label, but the product doesn't contain any mango, except perhaps a small amount included in the “natural flavors.” You're getting roughly three percent white grape juice and 97 percent sugar water. The health website Lifeclinic.com argues that juice in such limited amounts does not have any health benefit.
Reading labels is the best way to ensure you are buying what's best for you. If you're buying off the shelf, try to avoid juices with artificial ingredients or preservatives and, quite simply, anything with less than 100 percent juice. Also, if you are watching your weight, many bottled juices can be high in calories, owing to natural fruit sugars. Drink water and eat whole fruit, which has fiber along with all the nutritional benefits.
CONTACTS : American Dietetic Association, (800) 877-1600, www.eatright.org ; Center for Science in the Public Interest, (202) 332-9110, www.cspinet.org ; Lifeclinic.com, (800)543-2850, www.lifeclinic.com .
Dear EarthTalk: What are some ways to maintain a “green” swimming pool?
-- Jim Humphey, North Andover, MAThe primary health and environmental drawbacks to swimming pools are water waste, energy waste and overuse of chlorine. Chlorine is very irritating to the eyes and skin, and can trigger breathing difficulties by also “stinging” the sensitive tissue of the lungs. The chemical’s effects in a swimming pool are heightened when it comes into contact with sweat or urine. In fact, a recent Belgian study found a possible link between childhood asthma and exposure to chlorine byproducts in indoor pools.
Zodiac Pool offers a system called Nature2 that doesn't do away with chlorine entirely but does greatly decrease the amount needed. It makes use of silver and copper to destroy bacteria and algae. Silver is a bactericide whose properties have long been known. Copper kills algae. When used together, they reduce chlorine needs by 90 percent. Another product, from ChlorFree, combines silver and copper with zinc, activated carbon and other non-invasive materials to sanitize and control algae and bacteria, and also greatly reduces the need for chlorine.
According to the National Sanitation Foundation, another substitute for chlorine is ozone, which is made from oxygen and does not degrade into harmful chlorinated byproducts in a swimming pool. The Chlorine-Free Products Association recently endorsed an ozone-only public pool built for the city of Fairhope, Alabama. The pool has been operating successfully since construction without the need for harmful additives. Ozone systems for residential pools are slowly becoming available. Sunshine Pool Products makes one that, according to owner Richard Barnes, should enable a completely chlorine-free environment if installed properly and at the right size for the size of the pool.
Pool owners can save energy while still maintaining a pristine pool by using a timer to shut off the pump for at least 12 hours of the day. To hold in heat during the night, always use a pool cover, as almost all of a pool’s heat loss occurs at the surface. By employing a bubble cover (sometimes called a solar cover), outdoor pools can also gain heat, by absorbing 75 to 85 percent of the solar energy striking the pool surface. A pool cover can also reduce water loss by 30 to 50 percent--and reducing water loss also reduces the amount of chemical water treatment required.
Besides that, the easiest way to save energy is to lower the thermostat on your pool’s heater (if it has one) so that it heats the pool no higher than a minimally comfortable temperature. Every one-degree reduction in temperature can cut your energy use by between five and 10 percent.
CONTACTS: Zodiac Pool, Inc., (800) 937-7873, www.nature2.com; ChlorFree, (506) 665-0896, www.chlorfree.net; Sunshine Pool Products, (801) 728-4520, www.sunshinepool.com; National Sanitation Foundation, (800) NSF-MARK, www.nsf.org; Chlorine-Free Products Association, (847) 658-6104, www.chlorinefreeproducts.org.
Dear EarthTalk: What flooring materials reduce indoor air quality problems? (Allen R. Linoksi, Royal Oak, MI)
According to the publishers of Environmental Building News , nearly 70 percent of American floors are covered in carpeting. Whether it's shag, berber or plush, most carpet fiber is made from nylon, polypropylene, polyester or acrylic, and often treated with chemicals for stain resistance and glued to the floor with toxic adhesives.
Chemical releases from carpets have been blamed for “sick building syndrome,” a situation in which occupants of a building experience acute health effects--such as headaches, rashes and nausea--that diminish or stop when they leave the building. One of the chemicals historically used in glues and released from the carpet's backing material is 4-PC (4-phenylcyclohexene), which can cause such symptoms. A 2001 report from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded, “Poor indoor air quality can reduce a person's ability to perform specific mental tasks requiring concentration, calculation or memory.”
If you are concerned about indoor air quality, there are several companies, such as Natural Home in California, that sell natural fiber carpets that don't require toxic adhesives. The National Audubon Society building in New York City, one of the nation's first “green” office buildings certified by the U.S. Green Building Council, uses carpeting that is 100 percent un-dyed wool. The carpet underlayer is made of jute, a plant fiber, and is tacked down, avoiding the use of toxic glue (except on the stairs). When carpet shopping, look for a green label from the Carpet and Rug Institute, which certifies products with low chemical emissions from volatile organic compounds (VOCs), organic compounds that evaporate readily into the air.
If you want more traditional wood or other hard-surface flooring, avoid materials treated with veneers that emit VOCs, or products made with particleboard, which is often held together with formaldehyde, a possible carcinogen. Other green flooring options to consider include ceramic tiles and linoleum, made with linseed oil, cork, and wood dustall renewable resources.
CONTACTS: Natural Home, (707) 824-0914, www.naturalhomeproducts.com ; U.S. Green Building Council, (202) 828-7422, www.usgbc.org ; Carpet and Rug Institute, (800) 882-2246, www.carpet-rug.com .Dear EarthTalk: I still have asbestos siding on my house and want to remove it. How do I do so and dispose of it properly? -- Marian Masters, Bowerston, OH
In some cases, the safest thing to do about asbestos siding may well be nothing at all. Before the 1970s, asbestos mineral fiber was frequently used in schools, homes, factories and public buildings as insulation, shingling and other components. Asbestos was popular because of its resistance to corrosion and fire. Health researchers discovered, however, that some forms of asbestos dust, when inhaled and lodged in lung tissue, can foster a variety of lung diseases, including lung cancer. Symptoms usually don't occur until 20 to 30 years after exposure, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Pollution, Prevention and Toxics.
Asbestos-containing products were banned in 1989, but that decision was overturned in 1991. However, certain asbestos-containing products--flooring felt, rollboard and corrugated, commercial or specialty paper--remain banned.
Asbestos is dangerous only when the fibers are released into the air, so the EPA recommends checking materials regularly, without touching them, for tears, abrasions or water damage. “Sometimes, the best way to deal with slightly damaged material is to limit access to the area and not touch or disturb it,” according to the EPA's website. Check with local health, environmental or other appropriate officials to find out proper handling and disposal procedures for your area.The EPA warns that if asbestos material is more than slightly damaged, or if you are going to make changes in your home that might disturb it, such as remodeling, you need to hire a professional.
CONTACT : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pollution, Prevention and Toxics, (202) 566-0500, www.epa.gov/asbestos/ashome.html#6 .Dear EarthTalk: What ever happened to the Adopt-A-Rainforest programs that were so popular in the early 1990s? -- Chris Marlowe, Scotch Plains, NJ
Several environmental organizations still sponsor programs that allow the conservation-minded to help protect development rights in the rainforest. However, some of these programs have expanded their focus and now combine land purchase with financial support for local community groups promoting sustainable forest management. “The only change in our Adopt-A-Rainforest program has been in the selection of projects we support but not in the philosophy,” says Julianne Schrader, education program coordinator at Rainforest Alliance.
The money Rainforest Alliance raises (around $20,000 each year) supports conservation groups based in tropical countries that are working to stop local rainforest destruction. Sometimes these groups use the funds to purchase land, but if no appropriate forest is available, the money is used to hire, train and equip park rangers, fund environmental education programs, create buffer zones for wildlife and maintain ranger stations and other park facilities. “In the past, we had our land purchase projects separate from other community conservation projects. The land projects were often more popular, but now many donors let us designate their funds to the projects with the greatest needs,” says Schrader.
The Rainforest Action Network's “Protect-an-Acre” program, established in 1993, also donates money it collects to local groups, indigenous tribes, human rights and other organizations, mostly in the Amazon Basin. The grant money is used in a variety of ways, including securing protected areas and land titles, sustainably harvesting medicinal plants and exploring economic alternatives to logging. The Tropical Rainforest Coalition funnels donations to its “Save-an-Acre” program to small preserves in Belize, Ecuador and Trinidad. Fifty dollars will buy--and protect--one acre of rainforest.
Adoption programs aren't for rainforests exclusively: The Nature Conservancy's “Adopt-an-Acre” program is centered on the purchase of 150,000 acres in Chile's Valdivian Temperate Forest that would preserve a corridor of habitat between existing national parks.
CONTACT: Rainforest Alliance, (888) 693-2784, www.rainforest-alliance.org ; Rainforest Action Network, (415) 398-4404, www.ran.org ; Tropical Rainforest Coalition, www.rainforest.org ; The Nature Conservancy, (703) 841-5300, www.tnc.org .
Dear EarthTalk: I've heard I should avoid buying wood products made from “old-growth timber.” What does that refer to, and how can I tell if something is made from old-growth wood? -- Anna Hunt, Sierra Madre, CA
“Old growth” is often defined as trees that have been growing for approximately 200 years or longer. The problem, according to the Rainforest Action Network (RAN), is that the lumber industry classifies trees by lumber grades, not age, and because old-growth wood provides the highest quality lumber, it is highly prized. Most old growth in this country is found in the Pacific Northwest and California.
While there hasn't been much successful legislation to protect old growth in this country, it is possible to trace where your wood comes from and protect old-growth forests by boycotting products made from this irreplaceable resource, says Richard Donovan, chief of forestry at the Rainforest Alliance, which created the SmartWood forest certification program.“One can identify suppliers and then look at their forest management.” Donovan recommends buying forest products certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) as sustainably harvested from a well-managed forest, and warns that the new certification label from the American Forest and Paper Association, created in 2002 and called the Sustainable Forest Initiative (SFI) label, is not sufficient.
According to the Rainforest Alliance, few groups outside of the timber industry recognize the legitimacy of the SFI label. Organizations such as the U.S. Green Building Council, and corporate leaders in sustainable wood, including IKEA, Home Depot and Kinko's, use FSC-certified products in some cases because of pressure from rainforest activists. The Rainforest Action Network says the SFI label fails to protect old-growth forests, roadless areas and federal lands, endangered species and indigenous rights. RAN also recommends using timber alternatives when possible, such as recycled wood, composite wood made from plastic, and kenaf paper.
CONTACT: Forest Stewardship Council, (877) 372-5646, www.fscus.org ; Rainforest Action Network, (415)398-4404, www.ran.org ; SmartWood, (802) 434-5491, www.smartwood.org .
Dear EarthTalk: Does drinking hard water result in an unhealthy buildup of minerals in the body over time? Should I use a water softener? -- Sunny Mullis, Sturgis, SD
The presence of calcium and magnesium in your water will make it “hard.” These minerals are dissolved in rainwater as it moves through soil and rock. According to a 1980 study done by the National Academy of Sciences on the mineral nutrition of drinking water, a high-calcium diet can help prevent osteoporosis, or bone degeneration, and magnesium can help prevent depression, vertigo and muscle weakness. The study shows that magnesium deficiencies can slow growth, affect the kidneys, and result in hair loss. There were no negative side effects reported from ingesting large quantities of calcium or magnesium.
Hard water can, however, damage hot water heater efficiency and block plumbing by forming calcium deposits in pipes. It can also reduce water pressure, leave soap film and scum lines on tile, and cause poor sudsing of soap and shampoo, dry, itchy skin and brittle hair.
Hard water can be an inconvenience, but traditional treatment for softening your water may be bad for your health. To remove the minerals, many companies use an ion exchange process, replacing the calcium and magnesium with sodium (salt). The problem is that twice the amount of sodium is needed to replace the other ions, and treated water offers a heavy dose of this health buster. You may want to try an alternative softener, such as the Scaleban, an electronic limestone (the source of calcium deposits) neutralizer made by EcoSoft Systems. It softens water electronically without using salt. Water softeners made by War-A-Lon use a no-salt catalytic/magnetic process.
CONTACT: The National Academy of Sciences, www.nationalacademies.org ; EcoSoft Systems, (610)495-9930, www.scaleban.com ; War-A-Lon, (406)889-3915, www.waralon.com .Dear EarthTalk: I've heard that there were only two curbside recycling programs in the country in the early 1970s. Where were they and how many are there now?
-- Bonnie Emerick, Chicago, IL
According to Neil Seldman, president of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, a non-profit that promotes sustainable communities, the first two programs were in Madison, Wisconsin and Marblehead, Massachusetts. Seldman says that many cities had source separation in the 1940s, largely because of the war effort, but that these efforts fizzled after the war. In 1967, Madison was the first city to re-establish curbside newspaper collection, by installing special racks on garbage trucks. Madison Street Superintendent Roger Goodwin says the pioneering newspaper program got started because the city was running out of landfill space. Madison also built one of the first waste-to-energy plants in 1974 for the same reason.
Marblehead Director of Public Health Wayne Attridge says its curbside program, which began in 1973 with the first Earth Day as inspiration, included bottles, cans and newspapers. “It was definitely innovative,” Attridge says. The local League of Women Voters launched the program, aided by the nation's first Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recycling grant.
There are now close to 9,000 curbside programs, which aid in the recycling of 42 percent of all paper used, 40 percent of all plastic soft drink bottles, and 55 percent of all aluminum cans, according to the EPA's Office of Municipal Solid Waste. There are at least 600 curbside programs in Wisconsin and 156 in Massachusetts today.
New York City made news in July of 2002 when Mayor Michael Bloomberg put the City's curbside recycling program (for everything except paper) on hold for 18 months. Bloomberg reasoned that the project would save the City $56.6 million annually, and that 40 percent of the metal, glass and plastic collected was ultimately ending up in the trash anyway. But, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, New York City's big savings failed to materialize, and the plastics recycling program resumed in July 2003. Glass recycling, as well as weekly pickups, will start again in April 2004.
CONTACTS: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, (202) 232-4108, www.ilsr.org ; Natural Resources Defense Council, (212) 727-2700, www.nrdc.org .Dear EarthTalk: Where can one recycle computer equipment that is out of date or broken and not worth upgrading or fixing? --Kenneth Rapp, Toms River, NJ
According to the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, 315 million computers are expected to become obsolete by the end of 2004. Given the lightening speed of computer technology, some environmental groups estimate the average lifespan of a computer is only three years. A discarded computer reeks of environmental hazards. Not only will plastic components sit in landfills for hundreds of years, toxic materials are used to create computers, including lead used in monitors.
Instead of throwing your old computer away, consider donating it to one of many re-use programs or recycling programs throughout the country. The California-based Computer Recycling Center (CRC) began collecting used computers in 1991, and they claim to have diverted six million pounds of computer waste from landfills in 2002 alone. If you're computer is still functional, CRC's Computers & Education program takes computer donations and provides refurbished computers to public schools, and community non-profits. CRC is a local program, so if you can't drop off your old machine, you'll have to pay for shipping. Look for recycling programs in your community. Brokers like American Computer Exchange in Georgia are national programs that will take your hardware for trade on a newer model.
It is becoming more common for computer manufacturers to have their own recycling programs. Hewlett-Packard's (HP) Planet Partners recycling service will pickup, transport, and recycle any brand of computer equipment or HP printing supplies. As an incentive to recycle, HP will give you $50 towards the purchase of a new product when you return old computer products to the company. HP's recycling facilities processes more than three million pounds of used equipment each month.
Ink cartridges and disk use both generate significant waste. HP's Planet Partners LaserJet Supplies Program has helped recycle more than 39 million HP LaserJet cartridges worldwide since 1992, which equates to approximately 50,000 tons of material diverted from landfill. GreenDisk, a Washington State-based company that recycles used disks, estimates that more than 10 billion old disks and CDs will need a resting place over the next five years. GreenDisk's Personal Electronics Program helps individuals, businesses, and government agencies recycle small amounts of electronic waste, including CDs, diskettes, videos, inkjet and toner cartridges, and cell phones. You'll receive a “Certificate of Destruction” that guarantees your intellectual property has been destroyed, and all physical materials have been disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner.
CONTACTS : Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition, (408) 287-6707, www.svtc.org ; Computer Recycling Center, (707) 570-1600, http://www.crc.org/ ; American Computer Exchange, (404) 250-0050, www.amcoex.com ; Hewlett-Packard, 800-752-0900, www.hp.com/hpinfo/globalcitizenship/environment/recycle ; GreenDisk Services, (800) 305-3475, www.greendisk.com .Dear EarthTalk: How do I recycle or safely dispose of used batteries? --Tom Shamrell, Brattleboro, VT
Unfortunately, most of the more than 750 million alkaline batteries sold each year to power our cameras, flashlights and Discmans are landfilled and incinerated, not recycled. The chemicals in these batteries--particularly cadmium--present a major health hazard if they leak from their corroded metal jackets. Cadmium is a probable human carcinogen, and it can also affect kidney and lung function.
Several states, including Maine, Vermont and Florida, have passed legislation prohibiting incineration and landfilling of mercury-containing and lead-acid batteries, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Product Stewardship. Regardless of your home state's attitude on batteries, you should contact your town's solid waste office to see if there are any planned Hazardous Waste Collection Days. Batteries awaiting recycling should be stored separately from other hazardous materials in a cool and dry area.
Or take advantage of some of the increasingly popular national battery recycling programs. Since 1989, 13 states have adopted laws (including battery labeling requirements) to encourage the collection and recycling of used rechargeable batteries. In 1996, Congress passed the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act, which helps facilitate the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation's (RBRC) nationwide take back program. According to RBRC, some rechargeable batteries can go through 1,000 cycles. RBRC recycles million of batteries each year, collecting used batteries from more than 30,000 depositories in the U.S. and Canada, many at large retailers such as Home Depot, Best Buy and Target. The RBRC collects only nickel-cadmium, nickel-metal hydride, lithium ion and small sealed-lead batteries.
The Big Green Box battery-recycling program provides consumers, companies and government agencies with a simple method for recycling both batteries and portable electronic devices (cellphones, cameras, calculators and laptops) without having to drive to a recycling center. You prepay for a sturdy cardboard box (the consumer version is $58) that will hold up to 40 pounds of recyclables. The cost of the box includes all shipping, handling and recycling fees. You keep the box handy, filling it with old batteries and equipment as you go--and simply ship it to The Big Green Box address when it's full.
CONTACTS: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Product Stewardship, Office of Solid Waste, (800) 424-9346, www.epa.gov/epr/products/batteries.html ; Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation, (678) 419-9990, www.rbrc.org ; The Big Green Box, (714) 879-2067, www.biggreenbox.com .
Dear EarthTalk: How do sewer treatment plants threaten estuaries?
--Jean T. Castagno, Old Saybrook, CT
Estuaries are partially enclosed bodies of water where freshwater and saltwater mix. They are key coastal habitats for many a species of mammal, fish and bird--and are used as spawning grounds for much of our nation's commercial fish and shellfish. The wetlands associated with estuaries buffer uplands from flooding. Estuaries also provide many recreational opportunities, such as swimming, boating and bird watching. Chesapeake Bay, San Francisco Bay, Boston Harbor, Tampa Bay and Puget Sound are all examples of U.S. estuaries, but one that is particularly plagued by sewer plant drainage is the Northeast's Long Island Sound.
Norwalk, Connecticut-based Save the Sound reports that 10 percent of the U.S. population lives within 50 miles of Long Island Sound. That's a lot of people and a lot of sewage. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), “Sewage treatment plants discharge more than one billion gallons of treated effluent into the Sound each day.”
Sewage plants wreak havoc because their daily deposits contain nitrogen, which over-fertilizes the water and causes explosive growth in marine plants. These plants eventually die, sink and decompose. The unnatural amount of decaying material depletes dissolved oxygen levels, creating a condition called “hypoxia,” which Save the Sound says has diminished fish populations, reduced lobster growth rates and negatively affected slow-moving species such as starfish and bay anchovy in Long Island Sound.
Connecticut and New York have both committed millions to improve the health of the Sound with habitat restoration and upgraded sewage plants. There has already been a 19 percent reduction in nitrogen discharges since 1990. A number of state and federal organizations have also banded together to host National Estuaries Day, meant to promote the importance of estuaries and the need to protect them.
CONTACTS : National Estuaries Day, www.estuaries.gov ; Save the Sound, (203) 354-0036, www.savethesound.org , NRDC, (212) 727-2700, www.nrdc.org .
Dear EarthTalk: What is the environmental impact of America's consumer buying habits? -- Jenni Perez, Los Angeles, CA
Your next-door neighbor just bought a Hummer. That long-untouched parcel of land around the corner just became home to a new strip mall. And on your short bicycle trip to the office you count dozens of discarded soda cans and bottled water containers with pretty nature scenes on them. Back home, your kid's floor and closet are littered with CDs, video game cartridges, $150 sneakers and bean-filled toys. Indeed, a recent Time /CNN poll found that 80 percent of people think children are more spoiled today than the kids of 10 or 15 years ago. Arguably, the adults may be, too.
The nonprofit Center for a New American Dream, whose stated mission is to “help Americans consume responsibly to protect the environment, enhance quality of life and promote social justice,” says that America's growing obsession with acquisition is taking a heavy toll on the environment. According to the group's president, Betsy Taylor, the U.S. consumes more energy, water, paper, steel and meat per capita than any other country, so much so that at least four additional planets would be needed to provide the American lifestyle if every person on Earth were to demand it. Meanwhile, forests are being lost at an alarming rate, farmlands and wetlands are being engulfed by development, plant and animal species are disappearing and our air and water continue to be threatened by pollution.
Participants of New Dream's web-based Turn the Tide program follow “nine little actions” to try to reduce their personal impact on the environment, including skipping car trips, eating one less beef meal a week, reducing water use and installing energy-efficient light bulbs. The program enables participants to track the positive impact of their actions--and see the cumulative impact of all of the program's participants across North America. CNAD estimates that for every 1,000 people who pursue the program for one year, 48.5 million gallons of water and 170 trees are saved and 4 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere are prevented.
CONTACT: Center for a New American Dream, (301) 891-3683, www.newdream.org .
Dear EarthTalk: I've heard that conventional lice treatments contain toxic chemicals. Are safer, more natural alternatives available? -- Dwayne Newton, Charleston, SC
The National Pediculosis Association (NPA) advises consumers to be cautious with conventional lice treatments, including shampoos and lotions, since they contain toxic, and in some cases carcinogenic, pesticides. The NPA says that people with epilepsy, asthma, brain tumors, cancer or AIDS, and pregnant or nursing women, should completely avoid any chemical lice medications. Further, the NPA is calling on the medical community to address the current “resistance crisis” of lice becoming increasingly resistant to pesticide treatments.
Fortunately, several pesticide-free alternative products are now available that help get rid of lice and nits (lice eggs) safely and effectively. The NPA endorses a comb called the LiceMeister (around $10), which has closely spaced, stainless steel teeth that glide easily through hair, collecting lice and nits. The comb is safe but the process is quite time consuming as it works best when used daily during infestation and regularly thereafter. Well-In-Hand Herbals' Non-Toxic Nit Kit ($18.99) includes an easy-to-use herbal formula that smothers and kills lice. This product, which won't dry hair out, is made from olive, canola and essential oils and has a fresh, natural scent. The Nit Kit also comes with a fine-toothed metal comb and 5x magnifier to help find the unwanted insects.
CONTACTS: National Pediculosis Association, (781) 449-NITS, www.headlice.org ; Well-In-Hand, (434) 384-7774, www.wellinhand.com .
Dear EarthTalk: How many of our rainforests are protected around the world? --Adriano Adamson Paiva, Bahia, Brazil
Determining how much rainforest land is protected worldwide depends on how you define “rainforest.” Researchers at the Worldwatch Institute in Washington, DC have identified three different types of rainforests. There are about 4.2 million square miles of tropical moist forest, of which just eight percent is protected, and 76,000 square miles of tropical mangrove forest, of which only nine percent is protected. And only five percent of the 300,000 square miles of the third type, tropical dry forest, is protected. And many of these forests are protected only on paper; in practice, they may not necessarily be safe from oil drilling, wood harvesting, cattle grazing and myriad other destructive uses.
Scientists and policymakers at the Switzerland-based World Conservation Union (IUCN) estimate that there are 44,000 “protected areas” worldwide, covering over 13 million square kilometers--an area equivalent to the landmass of India and China combined. These areas, which include rainforests but which can also be agricultural lands, national parks, reserves, forested land, marine sanctuaries and more, cover about 10 percent of the Earth's surface.
While the IUCN has documented more than 1,388 words or terms used to describe a “protected area,” national park designation remains a common way to secure the future existence of a natural resource like a rainforest. Tumucumaque National Park in the Brazilian Amazon is the world's largest protected tropical rainforest, covering 24,135 square kilometers.
CONTACTS: The World Conservation Union, +41 (22) 999-0001; www.iucn.org ; Worldwatch Institute, (202) 452-1999, www.worldwatch.org ; Rainforest Alliance, www.rainforest-alliance.org ; Rainforest Action Network, (415) 398-4404, www.ran.org .Dear EarthTalk: I have been searching for an environmentally friendly way to repel moles from my home without killing or harming them. Any suggestions?
-- Elizabeth Powell, Marion, OH
Having moles in your yard is not necessarily detrimental. According to Bill Adler, author of Outwitting Critters: A Humane Guide for Confronting Devious Animals and Winning , moles eat destructive creatures like Japanese beetles and grubs, and aerate the soil by tunneling, thus bringing subsoil close to the surface. Moles themselves do not eat plant matter. Most likely, plant damage is done by the vegetarian vole, or by mice.
However, mole-tunneling activity can cause significant cosmetic damage to a well-manicured lawn. There are some mole-friendly ways to urge them to take their digging elsewhere. Gardens Alive! makes an eco-friendly spray called Mole-Gopher Med Repellent. Made from castor oil that you apply directly into mole holes about once every two months, the product releases a harmless smell that annoys moles, encouraging them to leave. One-pint bottles are good for a 5,000-square-foot application ($17).
Critter-Repellent.com offers Shake Away, a 100-percent natural pellet treated with a mixture of bobcat, coyote and fox urine that will also deter rodents from your yard: $15 for a 20-ounce bottle.
A physical barrier to try: Surround a cherished garden with an underground barrier of compacted soil and stones about one foot wide and two feet deep. A one-foot-high fence will prevent the moles from walking over the barrier.
CONTACTS: Gardens Alive!, (513) 354-1482, www.gardensalive.com ; Critter-Repellent.com, (866) 802-8837, www.critter-repellent.com .
Dear EarthTalk: Why are environmentalists trying to get snowmobiles banned from national parks? Deborah Beck, Ketchum, ID
According to the San Francisco, California-based Bluewater Network, which wants to ban snowmobile use in national parks, 250,000 snowmobiles are operated in America's park system each year, with some 60,000 snowmobiles zooming through Yellowstone National Park alone. Counting all snowmobile usage nationally, in and out of national parks, about 2.3 million take to the powder every year.
The main issue is the vehicle's two-stroke engine, which is a major polluter. According to Bluewater, the air pollution from these dirty machines is so bad that some Yellowstone Park Rangers now wear respirators to protect themselves. Further, these engines dump 25-30 percent of their fuel unburned out the tailpipe onto vegetation and soil and into the water and air. According to Katy Rexford, Public Lands Associate for Bluewater, snowmobiles dump more than 100,000 gallons of fuel and 2,500 gallons of oil into Yellowstone's ecosystem every year. Banning two-stroke engines in favor of four-stroke engines would make snowmobiles 80 percent cleaner, says Rexford.
But switching to four-stroke engines will not greatly affect the noise pollution. The piercing noise of snowmobiles is also at issue; studies have shown that snowmobiles can be heard 90 percent of the time in Yellowstone, thus destroying natural soundscapes and diminishing opportunities for more contemplative forms of recreation.
Another issue is their impact on wildlife: Canadian scientists found that the noise from snowmobiles disturbs animals up to 1,250 feet away. Even when restricted to approved and maintained trails, snowmobiles can push bison, wolves, elk, moose and bald eagles out of their preferred habitats.
CONTACT : Bluewater Network, (415) 544-0790, www.bluewaternetwork.org .
Dear EarthTalk: Does eye mascara contain toxic ingredients? Amber Galt, Madison, WI
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has identified many modern skin care, hair care and cosmetics ingredients as hazardous. Such ingredients can be absorbed into the body through the skin, and may be loaded with potential irritants, carcinogens, neurotoxins or hormone disrupters. The potential health problems associated with brand-name cosmetics are many and varied.
Some cosmetics companies throw petroleum distillates, shellac and other preservatives into the pot when stewing up a batch of lash thickener, says Kim Erickson in her book Drop-Dead Gorgeous: Protecting Yourself from the Hidden Dangers of Cosmetics . Ingredients like shellac and quaternium-22 can induce allergies; others, such as phenylmercuric acetate, may cause skin irritation and blisters. Although the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) restricts the use of phenylmercuric acetate, a mercury derivative, cosmetic manufacturers are not required to register with the FDA.
Eye products sometimes contain kohl, which is made of heavy metals such as antimony and lead. Also called al-kahl, kajal or surma, this color additive has been linked to lead poisoning in children and is not approved for cosmetic use in the U.S. However, the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) warns it can be found in imported mascaras.
Perhaps the most dangerous ingredient found in mascara is not meant to be included--bacteria. According to Dr. Andrew Weil, author of Eight Weeks to Optimum Health , airborne bacteria rush into the bottle every time you open it. Preservatives break down over time, losing their ability to prevent bacterial growth that can cause infection and, in rare cases, temporary or even permanent blindness. Doctors and beauty experts recommend replacing mascara every three months, no matter how much is left. Throw it out sooner if it develops an unusual texture or odor.
CONTACT: CFSAN Cosmetics Program, www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/cos-toc.html ; Dr. Andrew Weil, www.drweil.com .
Dear EarthTalk: I heard that sea turtles are developing cancerous tumors at an alarming rate. What's going on? -- Brendon Hunt, New York, NY
Sea turtles have long endured the pressures of hunting, intensive fishing practices and habitat degradation, including loss of nesting beaches due to human encroachment. In the last 20 years, marine turtles have also been the victims of a deadly tumor called Fibropapilloma, a bulbous growth that primarily affects the skin but also appears in the turtles' mouths, on their eyes and on internal organs.
The tumors can grow as large as a head of cauliflower, making it difficult for the animals to swim and find food. Internally, they can constrict the lungs and heart and affect the kidneys. In the 1980s, the disease began to reach epidemic proportions in shallow, near-shore waters off Hawaii, Florida and Barbados. The disease is now also present in Australia and the Pacific coasts of Mexico and Costa Rica.
The tumors have mostly been found on both young and adult green turtles, but have recently showed up on the Loggerhead, Hawksbill and Olive Ridley species. Sue Schaf of Florida's Turtle Hospital, which treats and performs surgery on afflicted turtles, says, “We were seeing 50 percent of green turtles with tumors, but now it is closer to 70 percent and getting worse.” In Hawaii, some 60 percent of the turtles are affected.
While progress is being made to understand Fibropapilloma, scientists are still puzzled as to what is causing the tumors. Their high prevalence in marine habitats near areas of heavy human use would lead one to believe that some form of pollution is the cause, such as runoff from fertilizer or farm waste, but research has been inconclusive. Some scientists speculate that a virus might be giving turtles the disease. Other marine experts blame the tumors on global warming, with increased water temperatures weakening the turtles' immune systems.
CONTACT: Turtle Hospital, (305) 743-6509, www.turtlehospital.org ; Florida Marine Research Institute, (727) 896-8626, www.floridamarine.org ; National Marine Fisheries Service, www.nmfs.noaa.gov .
Dear EarthTalk: Are there prepared lunches comparable to Oscar Mayer “Lunchables” that are healthier and more environmentally friendly? -- Carla Bahun, Marietta, GA
Oscar Mayer's Lunchables are a hit with youngsters because of their bright packaging and fun-to-eat snacks. However, like much of the junk food marketed to children today, behind those colorful boxes and tasty treats lies a spectrum of potential health disasters. The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) offers 10 tips in creating a nutritional lunch, and one of them is “Don't send Lunchables,” because the snacks derive “two-thirds of their calories from fat and sugar.”
CSPI also includes Lunchables among their list of the “Top 10 Foods to Avoid” because, “It would be hard to invent a worse food than these combos of heavily processed meat, artery-clogging cheese and mostly-white-flour crackers. The regular (non-lowfat) line averages 5 1/2 teaspoons of fat (that's 60 percent of calories) and 1,734 milligrams of sodium.”
Moreover, Lunchables' form of attractive packaging is environmentally unfriendly. It consists of a plastic tray cut into various compartments, which is then sealed with a transparent and flexible film. This tray is then placed in an outer cardboard box. All this makes it very difficult to recycle, so much so that the Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (MASSPIRG) gave Lunchables a “Lifetime Waste Maker Achievement Award” in 1999
Currently, as there are not many known alternatives to such prepared foods, CSPI suggests packing one's own lunch and snacks, which would be more environmentally friendly and far healthier for your children. If your kids insist on Lunchable-style meals, a simple alternative would be to whip up your own collection of healthy, low-fat snack replacements. In addition, CSPI offers tips on preparing a healthy lunch, such as leaving out the cheese altogether (or using low fat of fat-free cheese), adding vegetables to sandwiches, using low-fat crackers, using whole-grain bread instead of white bread, including fruit or juice (100% juice only), and using one percent or fat-free milk.
CONTACT: Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), (202) 332-9110, www.cspinet.org ; Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (MASSPIRG), 617-292-4800, www.masspirg.org .
Dear EarthTalk: I've been hearing that wind power is going to play a significant role in our energy future. What's the story? -- Dorothy Raffman, Norwalk, CT
Wind energy is zero-emissions energy, a renewable resource that many environmentalists and alternative energy proponents feel is one of our last, best hopes for staving off devastating climate change. According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), the average wind turbine can prevent the emission of 1,500 tons of carbon dioxide each year.
Globally, wind energy has grown 500 percent since 1997. In 2003, 8,133 megawatts of wind-generating capacity were installed worldwide, according to a recent joint announcement from AWEA and the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA). This brought the world's total wind power generating capacity to 39,294 megawatts, enough to power 19 million European households, according to EWEA. World wind leaders include Germany, the U.S., Spain, Austria and India, each with more than 1,000 megawatts. A number of other countries, including the Netherlands, Italy, Japan and Great Britain, are nearing the 1,000-megawatt mark.
In the United States, there are now wind energy installations in almost every state west of the Mississippi, and in many Northeastern states. California leads with more than 2,000 megawatts of installed wind energy, followed by Texas with nearly 1,300 megawatts. In total there were nearly 6,400 megawatts of wind power in the United States as of January 2004, enough to power 1.6 million U.S. homes, and up 50 percent from the installed capacity in the U.S. at the end of 2001, says AWEA.
Offshore wind has enormous growth potential as well. Germany, for instance, recently finalized an agreement to build a 350-megawatt project (with 70 five-megawatt turbines) anchored on the ocean floor off the island of Rügen. Here in the United States, in Massachusetts, the Cape Wind Project hopes to construct a $700 million, 420-megawatt, 130-windmill development that would stretch for five miles off Cape Cod, though it has drawn opposition from some residents, as has the German project, for fears that it will be an eyesore and could harm migrating birds.
CONTACTS: American Wind Energy Association, (202) 383-2500, www.awea.org ; European Wind Energy Association, +32 2 546 1940, www.ewea.org ; Cape Wind Project, 617-904-3100, www.capewind.org .
Dear EarthTalk: Which are better for the environment, disposable or cloth diapers? -- Barbara Fritts, White Lake, MI
The “disposable versus cloth” debate has raged among environmentalists for years. Non-degradable disposable diapers can sit for decades, even centuries, in landfills and require thousands of tons of plastic and hundreds of thousands of trees to manufacture. However, the water and chemicals used to clean cloth diapers, and the fossil fuels diaper services consume to transport them, suggest that their relative environmental impact could be a wash.
However, modern advances in water- and energy-efficiency in washing machines and dryers have reduced the environmental impact of diaper laundering. Concerned parents should also consider the issue of sewage. The urine and feces in disposable diapers enter landfills untreated, possibly contaminating the ground water supply. Whether cloth diaper waste is flushed down the toilet or removed in the washing machine, that dirty water will enter a sewer system and, most likely, a wastewater treatment plant.
Also, John Shiffert, executive director of the National Association of Diaper Services (NADS), points out that the chlorine byproduct dioxin, a carcinogen, has been found in trace amounts in disposables.
Those concerned about the environment who want the convenience of disposables can try Nature Boy and Girl, which makes a competitively priced, cornstarch-based diaper that can be composted. Using flushable cloth diaper liners, made by Tiny Tush and other companies, means only the thinnest--and messiest--part gets thrown away. Parents who want to use cloth diapers can hire a cleaning service to do the dirty work. Their numbers have rebounded in recent years. Check the yellow pages, or contact NADS to locate a service in your area.
CONTACT: National Association of Diaper Services (NADS), (610) 971-4850, www.diapernet.com ; Nature Boy and Girl, (425) 771-1339, www.natureboyandgirl.com ; Tiny Tush, (608) 356-2500, www.tinytush.com .Dear EarthTalk: Do urban gardens significantly contribute to our food supply? -- Wayne Chow, New York, NY
The United Nations Development Program estimates that urban gardens, like the ones springing up all over New York City and Seattle, provide 15 percent of the world's food supply. In the U.S., they are also creating sorely needed jobs in neglected neighborhoods and introducing concrete-raised children to the wonders of nature. Gardens bolster community pride and eliminate some of the environmental problems of modern agribusiness such as heavy use of pesticides and pollution from long-distance transportation.
Town planners, who may worry that constituents will be offended by manure and dirt, often view urban agriculture suspiciously. However, there are many examples of successful urban gardens. Hong Kong, one of the world's most densely populated cities, produces about half of its vegetables in urban gardens. In Moscow, nearly 65 percent of families engage in some kind of food production. In Cuba, according to the Institute for Food and Development Policy (also known as Food First), urban gardens play a crucial role in feeding the country's citizens. Havana, where nearly 20 percent of Cuba's population lives, is home to over 8,000 community gardens, which are cultivated by more than 30,000 people and cover nearly 30 percent of the available land.
Back in the U.S., South Central Los Angeles' “Food from the ‘Hood” program has brought attention to the potential of its embattled Crenshaw district, while providing college funds for the high school students who maintain organic gardens. San Francisco's Fresh Start Farms employs homeless families to grow produce, which is then sold to local restaurants. Even some U.S. prisons have now started urban gardens, which can be on rooftops as well as on the ground.
CONTACT: Food from the ‘Hood, (888) 601-FOOD, www.foodfromthehood.com ; Fresh Start Farms, (415) 487-9778, www.grass-roots.org/usa/fresh.shtml , Institute for Food and Development Policy, (510) 654-4400, www.foodfirst.org .Dear EarthTalk : How much of our waste in the U.S. is recycled compared to what is “disposed of”? Who keeps track of this? -- Anita Knight, Wheaton, IL
Roughly 30 percent of the trash generated in the United States is recovered and recycled or composted. About 14 percent is incinerated, and 56 percent ends up buried in landfills, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Municipal Solid Waste.
The EPA reports on a wide variety of solid wastes, including paper and cardboard, glass, metals, plastics, rubber, leather, textiles, wood, food, yard trimmings and inorganic wastes from residents, businesses and institutions. The agency has witnessed the amount of waste produced in the U.S. rapidly increase over the past four decades.
The EPA's last study, conducted in 2001, estimated that 229 million tons of wastes were produced that year, or approximately 4.4 pounds per person per day. That's a 260 percent increase in tonnage from the 88 million tons of waste produced in 1960, which was about 2.7 pounds per person per day. Bearing in mind that U.S. population was 179 million in 1960 but is 292 million now (a 60% increase), it means that not only are there more Americans now--Americans are wasting more.
But there are some positive trends: In 1960, only 6.3 percent of total U.S. waste was recycled, only a fifth of what is being recycled today. And in a more recent years' comparison, some 68 million tons of waste were recycled or composted in 2001, compared to 34 million tons just 10 years earlier.
There has also been forward movement in paper recycling. According to the Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI), we are well on our way toward recovering 50 percent of all paper used. More paper is now recovered in the U.S. than is sent to landfills.
There's progress, say recycling advocates, but not enough: “I think that for certain materials--glass, plastic, and aluminum--we have not made much headway in the past few years,” says Pat Franklin, executive director of the Container Recycling Institute. “The recycling rate for all containers has declined over the past eight years, partly because the financial incentive to recycle aluminum cans has not increased with inflation,” she says.
CONTACT: The U.S. EPA's Office of Solid Waste, (800) 424-9346, www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/index.htm ; Container Recycling Institute, (703) 276-9800, www.container-recycling.org ; TAPPI, (800) 332-8686, www.tappi.org .
Send your questions to: EarthTalk, c/o E/Environmental Magazine, PO Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; Submit your question at www.emagazine.com or email to earthtalk@emagazine.com