How Green is Bamboo?

Hey Mr. Green,

A friend and I are debating whether bamboo is as environmentally friendly as it's billed to be. Sure, it grows fast. But it has a tremendous carbon footprint since it has to be shipped from overseas. Then again, so do a lot of other kinds of wood. We're wondering if it's just a wash?

--Wendy in Des Plaines, Illinois

It all depends on how — and how far — the bamboo or wood is transported. Ocean vessels emit less than a sixth of the carbon dioxide that big rigs do while moving one ton of stuff the same distance. So it's possible that bamboo shipped in from, say, China could have a smaller footprint than domestically grown wood trucked 1,000 miles, or brought 2,000 miles by rail.

Are Plastic Food Containers Too Toxic to Reuse?

Hey Mr. Green,

There has been a lot of discussion about hazards of using plastic, especially related to bisphenol A, or BPA. We try to avoid buying anything in plastic, but over the years we have acquired plastic containers, like one-quart yogurt containers, which we use to store food in the refrigerator. Is this a bad idea? We wash and reuse them many times and wonder if chemicals are leaching into the food that is stored?  We also wash and reuse plastic bags to buy bulk foods. Could this also be hazardous?  We have not seen this issue addressed and hope you have an answer.  –-Rick in Berkeley, California

Now that we are deep into the Plastic Age, questions about material safety and environmental impact have become a bit more complicated than in previous technological epochs like the Bronze or Iron Ages.

Ask Mr. Green: What Should Go Down the Drain?

Hey Mr. Green,

I’m confused about what we should and shouldn’t dump down the drain or flush into waste water systems. For example, is it okay to pour povidone-iodine down the drain? I can’t find any info on toxicity online, so I’m thinking it is?  

—Peggy, Wheelwright, Massachusetts

Whoa! Hold the iodine! Hold everything! Don’t pour or flush any chemical products—including unused drugs—until you’ve read the following.

Houses: How Big Is Too Big?

Hey Mr. Green,

I’ve been arguing with my friend who thinks he needs a McMansion-size house. Since he claims to be an environmentalist, and since home size must have an impact on the environment, I’d like to nail him on this point. So what do you have to say about the impact of home size on the environment? —Jason, Oconomowoc, Wisconsin

The staggering increase in home size has indeed had a huge impact on the environment. It’s another symptom of giantism in a culture of SUVs rolling down widened freeways in search of giant burgers and extreme pizzas washed down with Big Gulps. There are a number of causes for your buddy’s yen for a huge house, and he probably doesn’t have a clue about most of them. Here are some facts to hit him with:

Ask Mr. Green: What's the Deal with Campfires?

Hey Mr. Green,

I’ve been a long-time lover of the campfire tradition, but discovered that even the cleanest burning wood fire releases toxic material into the air. So the good ol’ summer campfire may be just as hazardous to the lungs as breathing secondhand cigarette smoke, and for those downwind who already have asthma, chemical sensitivities, COPD, or are cancer survivors, this is a recipe for misery. —Linda in Edmonton, Alberta

I too love a roaring campfire. Being creatures that play with fire and that take great comfort in crackling flames and smoky flavors, we could contend that we’re hard-wired for campfires and that they’re conducive to mental health and social harmony. But then we might be hard-wired for all sorts of mayhem, so this is a fairly lame defense of fires.

Ask Mr. Green: What's the Best Car?

Hey Mr. Green,

What's the best car for both ecofriendliness and driving about 75 miles per day?

--Alex in Manchester, Kansas

Rating a vehicle's whole package is a hugely complicated job. That's because we're talking not just about the carbon emissions of the actual driving but about everything, cradle to grave, in its life span--from the toxics spewed when it's built to the disposition of its mortal remains.

So I defer to the minds at the estimable American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (aceee.org), who rank cars by crunching terabytes of vehicle-related data from reliable sources like the Argonne National Laboratory.

The Mitsubishi i-MiEV, a subcompact electric car that can go 3.8 miles on just one kilowatt-hour of electricity, earned ACEEE's top rating in 2012--the first time a plug-in has done so since 2000.
But if the i-MiEV's limited range (62 miles per charge) is a problem, you could opt for another of ACEEE's top 12 cars, listed at greenercars.org. The Prius C came in second, followed by a tie for third between the Nissan Leaf and the Honda Civic Natural Gas.

With electricity averaging 12 cents per kilowatt-hour in the United States, and gasoline hovering around $4 per gallon at press time, the per-mile cost of running even an efficient gasoline-powered car is about three times higher than that of driving an i-MiEV or a similar EV. Over 100,000 miles, that equates to a savings of almost $9,000. So be sure to factor that figure in--along with federal tax credits of up to $7,500--when shopping for an EV, which can cost up to $20,000 more than a comparable gas-powered car.

 

Got a question? Ask Mr. Green!

 

--photo by Lori Eanes

Ask Mr. Green: Coal on the Dole

Hey Mr. Green,

Is there a resource that compiles all coal related subsidies, including transportation, property, and other tax and direct subsidies, that can be quantified to a per-megawatt-hour cost?

—James, Richmond, Virginia

As I noted two years ago, puzzling out the subsidies to coal is as about as dicey as navigating through a dark mine tunnel swarming with Velcro-winged bats. The situation hasn’t changed greatly since. Because there is no single resource that totals up all the subsidies, it’s impossible to arrive at a per-megawatt-hour cost. The most clearly stated total is a federal subsidy of $1.358 billion in 2010 to coal, by the U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA). However, this number is deceptive because it grossly understates the total subsidies, which is why it has been sharply criticized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, among others

The problem with that EIA calculation is that it looks at only five coal-subsidy sources — direct payments, tax advantages, R&D funding, loan guarantees, and federal electric programs — while conveniently ignoring numerous other forms, including low-cost mine leases, tax-free revenue bonds to support construction of coal-fired power plants, subsidies to coal-burning electric power plants, subsidized transportation of coal on federal waterways, and expenditures to police coal pollution and clean up the mess created by coal in the first place. Perhaps more fudgingly, the EIA doesn’t even count tax breaks for coal (or any other energy source) if those same tax benefits are also bestowed on other industries. Nor does it account for state subsidies to coal, such as Kentucky’s $115 million per year. The EIA also makes no attempt to calculate the hidden subsidies in the form of the costs incurred from damage to public health and the environment, which may run to the tens of billions of dollars each year. This damage includes mercury poisoning, lungs damaged by power plant emissions, and lives and landscapes destroyed by everything from mining itself to pollution from shipping.

Even the EIA’s latest lowball estimates admit that the federal government pays a direct subsidy of $4.18 billion for all fossil fuels, and $6.64 for biofuels, mostly ethanol, which itself requires a huge amount of fossil fuel to produce. But if you think that total of $10.82 billion a year is a steep price to pay to suffocate in global warming gases and pollution, consider that worldwide subsidies for all fossil fuels exceed $500 billion, according the International Energy Agency.

Got a question? Ask Mr. Green!

 

--photo by Lori Eanes

Ask Mr. Green: Recycling Logos

Hey Mr. Green,

What's to keep a company from putting the recycling symbol on its packages merely to attract environmentally conscious customers? Are there any regulations for using the symbol on plastic containers?

--Miranda in Atlanta, Georgia

The triangle of three chasing arrows rarely ends up on nonrecyclable plastic. When it does, it's usually a manufacturer's error, not marketing chicanery, according to the Association of Postconsumer Plastic Recyclers.

Unfortunately, the symbol itself can be misleading, since it gets slapped on plastics that theoretically can be recycled but often aren't. A polypropylene yogurt container stamped with the triangle embracing the number 5 looks righteous enough, but if a local handler can't recycle this type of plastic, it gets dumped--unlike the more readily processed beverage containers numbered 1 or 2. It's an imperfect system, which is why the Sustainable Packaging Coalition is working to develop more-informative labeling.

Adding to the confusion are some 400 eco-labels and green certifications of varying credibility. But who's certifying the certifiers? In North America, only EcoLogo and Green Seal have earned the highest ranking from the International Organization for Standardization, a global watchdog that upholds standards for products and services.

Federal Trade Commission guidelines aren't binding, but culprits who make bogus environmental claims can get smacked for deceptive advertising practices. There's also some self-policing: Companies have sued their competitors on the grounds that phony green claims are an unfair business practice. If you suspect greenwashing, call (877) FTC-HELP or your local attorney general's office.

Got a question? Ask Mr. Green!

 

--photo by Lori Eanes

Ask Mr. Green: Palm Oil

Hey Mr. Green,

Since I live in a desert, I need lots of moisturizer to prevent dry-skin eczema. But all the affordable lotions seem to use palm oil derivatives--and harvesting palm oil destroys tropical rainforests, threatening to annihilate our orangutan brethren. What to do?

--Lynda in Las Cruces, New Mexico

Palm oil is in so many products, from cookies to detergents, that it's difficult to avoid unless you carefully read the ingredients of every product you're considering. And even then, palm oil masquerades under many chemical names, such as stearic acid and sodium stearoyl lactylate; the Rainforest Action Network (RAN; ran.org) lists palm oil's other names on its website.

The total global output of palm oil is 53 million tons per year, more than 85 percent of which comes from Indonesia and Malaysia. While the oil's defenders trumpet its land-use efficiency (palms yield 10 times more oil per acre than soybeans do), critics point out that slashing ancient forests to make room for palm plantations destroys vital habitat for endangered species. And while some tout palm oil's value as a renewable fuel, opponents respond that felling and burning rainforests is one of the biggest sources of climate-altering gases--and also robs the planet of a natural method of sequestering carbon.

Activists have persuaded some palm oil producers to implement more sustainable methods, and RAN is petitioning Cargill to adopt environmental safeguards in its huge palm oil business (to sign the petition, go to http://bit.ly/cargillpetition).

Meantime, keep your skin soft and healthy by looking up DIY recipes for homemade lotions--and avoid harsh soaps and long baths, which can dehydrate your epidermis as much as the desert air does.  

Got a question? Ask Mr. Green!

 

--photo by Lori Eanes

After the Masterpiece: Safe Paint Disposal

Hey Mr. Green,

I'm confused! There is a lot of contradictory advice on proper disposal of latex paint. What is the greenest method for dealing with latex paint on paint brushes once the job is done? Throw the brush away? Clean it with water in buckets and pour the residue on the ground? Wash brushes in sink and let the residue go down the drain? Other method? —Doug, in Newton, Kansas

What a useful query for all painting procrastinators. Next time the topic arises, we all can say, “But dear, we can’t just recklessly leap into a painting project without sufficient research into biohazards and disposal methods.”

For latex paint, the greenest method for cleaning brushes is simply to wash with soap and water and pour the liquid down the drain into the municipal sewer system. For septic systems, it’s better to wash and dispose of the residue in the regular garbage. Never just dump it on the ground or pour it into a storm drain, because it won’t get safely treated. One exception: In the unlikely event that paint is really old—made in 1990—or before, it should be handled like hazardous waste. (There may well be more danger in prepping a surface than in paint. For more about this, see the paragraph on safe prepping below.)