Ask Mr. Green: Where Should Old Clothes Go?

Hey Mr. Green,

I've read that the average American dumps about 70 pounds of textiles (clothing, old carpets, etc.) into landfills each year. How do I recycle the stained and hole-ridden jeans that thrift stores won't take?

--Jesse in California

Americans dispose of more than 12 million tons of textiles annually, less than 25 percent of which is recycled or reused, dooming most secondhand clothing and carpets to a soggy afterlife crammed deep in a landfill.

Do Cleaning Products Have Dirty Secrets?

Hey Mr. Green,

How damaging to the environment are Scotch Brite pads and their ilk?

—Robbyn, in Novato, California

It all depends on which ilk of pad from which company. 3M’s Scotch Brite has joined the green parade by developing a line of environmentally friendly products such as its “Greener Clean” scouring pad. It’s made from natural agave fibers, unlike those composed of plastic and unspecified mineral substances, or metal pads infused with chemicals of unspecified provenance. Whether processing and transporting agave fibers has greater or lesser total environmental impact than making conventional pads is impossible to determine. I do fervently hope that such a use of agave, the source of tequila, is not diminishing the supply of this divine beverage.

Ask Mr. Green: Simmer or Nuke?

Hey Mr. Green,

I have about a quart of soup left over. Is it more efficient to reheat it on my gas range or in my microwave?

--Paul in Kalamazoo, Michigan

A microwave is a lot more efficient for reheating than a stovetop, since it takes 80% less energy to warm up relatively small amounts, according to the EPA. Although the microwave needs a lot of electricity, it's a relatively short burst of power. As the immortal Yogi Berra might have put it, "A watched pot never boils, but it boils quicker in a microwave."

While stovetops are less efficient, you can make regular gas or electric cooking more efficient by matching the size of the burner to the size of the pot—a 6-inch pot on an 8-inch burner can waste a goodly portion of a burner's heat—and by keeping a lid on unless the recipe forbids.

Though cooking accounts for only 3% of total U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions from residences, every bit we can cut is significant because we use so much more than we really need. Per capita, we now consume six times as much electricity and twice as much natural gas as we did in 1950. Whether our overall standard of living has improved correspondingly is open to debate.

Saving energy isn't just green but also massively cheaper than wasting power the way most households do. At your present utility rates, to heat that soup on the stove would cost you about three times as much as warming it in the microwave. As I always say, even if global warming didn't exist, there would be plenty of other reasons to save energy.

Got an eco-question? Ask Mr. Green!

A Real or Fake Christmas Tree: Which is Greener?

Hey Mr. Green,

Have you reached a conclusion on the real tree vs. artificial Christmas tree debate?

--Kathy in Winston Salem, North Carolina

I have indeed. The real tree is better for the environment than the fake tree. A real tree is a renewable resource, whereas a fake tree is usually made from plastic, which is derived from oil, a nonrenewable resource. The real tree can be recycled as mulch, compost, or wildlife shelter, whereas the fake tree can’t. The real tree does not contain harmful chemicals, whereas fake trees are often made with plastic polyvinyl chloride, whose manufacture releases highly toxic material. Plus, lead may have been added to stabilize the plastic. The real tree also absorbs carbon dioxide while it grows, doing its bit to fight global warming.

The belief that using real trees causes deforestation is mistaken. The fact is, real trees are farmed, often on marginal land that can't be used for other purposes. 

Ask Mr. Green: Low-Cost Wind Power or Hot Air?

Hey Mr. Green,

The Electric Reliability Council of Texas noted one day last summer that out of 10,400 megawatts of its wind-power capacity, wind was only producing 37 megawatts. Wow! 10,400 mWs of wind construction to get just 37. How the hell do you guys expect to power the nation with no coal- or gas-fired power plants when wind is so expensive and unreliable? I don't know about you, but I like my power on all the time.  

—Andy in Texarkana, Arkansas

Hang on, podner. Nobody claims we’ll instantly get by without coal or gas. The Sierra Club’s goal is a bit more modest and realistic: retire a third of the coal plants by 2020. Besides, your knock on windmills relies on fudged numbers, because you’ve singled out an unusually calm day. If you’d picked, say, March 28, 2012 instead, you’d’ve noticed that wind power topped 7,900 megawatts that day—24 percent of Texas’s total load. Already, 8 percent of the electricity generated in that massive state is from wind. Wind  power isn’t pricey, either. It costs about the same as electricity from new coal plants, averaging around $100 for your precious mWh, according to the Energy Information Administration. Iowa, for example, which gets almost 20 percent of its electricity from wind, enjoys a relatively low residential rate of less than 11 cents per kilowatt-hour. Even some nuclear-energy disciples have expressed surprise at the fast-dropping cost of wind power.

Ask Mr. Green: Will Biodiesel Fuel the Future?

Hey Mr. Green,

Why is biodiesel neglected? So many people don’t have any concept of it!  Why don’t you do an information blitz on this subject?

 —Linda, Coral Springs, Florida

I'm not so sure biodiesel is all that neglected. If I did an information blitz on it, I'd remind its boosters that biodiesel is no magic elixir for a clean-energy, safe-climate future. Biodiesel could be a small part of our energy portfolio, if we were willing to intercept more oil and grease and divert it to fuel tanks before it reached our fast-food-crammed guts. And it’s certainly worthwhile to retrieve used kitchen oil and grease to run your car, as long as you don’t think you’re saving the world by gorging on Big Macs and avalanches of french fries to supply the raw, or, um, cooked material. 

What's the Best Way to Recycle Old Cameras?

Hey Mr. Green,

Digital photography has condemned a lot of beautiful film-based equipment to an uncertain fate. It is distressing to think that my two sophisticated SLRs and their associated lenses and paraphernalia could end up in a landfill. Is there any good alternative for this stuff?

—Gary, in Seattle

How sad indeed to see such gorgeous old photo equipment land in a dump with rotten garbage smearing their multiple lenses and oozing into their delicate inner chambers. It's a tragedy for all of us who loved to watch photographers wield their cameras, and later to enjoy the results of their alchemical magic in the haunting light of those mysterious darkrooms.

But take heart. There are a number of possibilities for recycling old film cameras. There are retro photographers who venerate the old equipment, just as there remain arty printers who still set type by hand and music lovers infatuated with old-fashion vinyl records. And there are also recyclers. Here are some suggestions to help find a respectable home for your cameras in their old age:

Ask Mr Green: Burning Question

Hey Mr. Green,

We were considering converting from an oil-run furnace to one powered by natural gas. But now we're unsure, after reading Sierra's article about the pollution caused by the fracking process that companies use to extract natural gas. Do you have suggestions for a greener — yet affordable — replacement for our furnace?

--Susan in Guildhall, Vermont

In Vermont and other tree-abundant places, a wood-burning heater may actually be the best affordable choice for reducing the harms caused by extracting and burning fossil fuels. But wood has these virtues only if it's sustainably harvested and used in Energy Star appliances: Typical wood-burning stoves can emit enough dangerous particles to affect air quality, which is why some places ban the burn.

As for picking your poison — natural gas or oil — gas was once considered safer, because burning it emits about 30% less carbon dioxide per unit of heat than burning oil does. Also, the natural-gas industry hasn't smeared the seas with legendary spills like BP's Deepwater Horizon.

But with the fracking boom, natural gas has lost its eco-favorite status. Fracking ruins landscapes and poisons water and people. 

Whatever you end up choosing for your heater, try to cut waste: Proper insulation, caulking, and duct sealing can work wonders. Turn the thermostat down to 55 or 60 degrees when you're away or sleeping, and don't ever set it higher than 68. Taking efficiency measures can cut your heating bill by more than 30%.

Got a question? Ask Mr. Green!

illustration: Little Friends of Printmaking

Ask Mr. Green: Mercury in Fluorescent Bulbs

Hey Mr. Green,

What about the mercury in the fluorescent bulbs, and what do you suggest if one falls and breaks?

—Donna in Ojai, California

Your concern is shared by many others, judging by the number of questions I keep getting about mercury in bulbs.

The bottom line is that mercury in fluorescent bulbs does not add to the total amount of mercury in the environment, and they may even reduce it.

Ask Mr. Green: What's the Best Way to Dry Dishes?

Hey Mr. Green,

To conserve energy, I've asked my wife to never use the dishwasher to dry the dishes but she thinks that using the "heated dry" cycle protects us against germs and she surreptitiously overrides the air-dried settings.  I argue that like millions of healthy people before us, we always "air-dried" in the dish strainer before owning a dishwasher. Can you help clarify all the benefits to this recommended climate friendly practice?

--Don in Province, New Hampshire

At the risk of echoing my fellow advice columnist Dear Abby, you've got to put a stop to this surreptitious behavior before you end up at a marriage councilor.