Planes or Trains: Which is Greener?

Hey Mr. Green,

What of the recent claim that trains can be as hard on the environment as airplanes?

--Mark in Richmond, California

Yes, they "can," but remember that the operative word is "can," not "are," because not all trains are created equal. Some best planes environmentally, and some don't. But a bad rap on trains may be spreading because of some rather superficial interpretations of recent transit research. So let's try to get the facts straight before right-wing pundits start whipping up anti-train sentiment by twisting the truth -- like they already have been by dissing everything from hybrid cars to fluorescent bulbs to bicycles.

So it all depends on the kind of train, what type of infrastructure is built to support it, where it's located, what kind of energy it runs on, and how many passengers ride. It seems fairly obvious that if a train has few riders, it may well be burning more fuel per "passenger mile" and spewing out more pollution per mile than a packed airplane. Conversely, it may emit less per passenger if it's jam-packed.

But comparing methods of travel gets a lot more complicated when you go beyond engine energy and look at the total environmental impact of everything from obtaining all the raw materials needed to manufacture everything involved, and to build and maintain roads, rails, and airports. Such variables were recently analyzed in an astonishing doctoral dissertation by Mikhail V. Chester at the University of California, Berkeley. No wonder this document and an article by Chester and his dissertation director Arpad Horvath have attracted attention to the train/plane question. What these guys do is go way beyond comparing energy use and greenhouse gases from vehicles themselves, and look at the energy and pollutants (like sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide) generated by processes from the entire life cycle of planes, trains, and cars and the infrastructures that support them. Chester even researches the impact of maintaining insurance on the various modes of motion!

What we get from this comprehensive life cycle analysis is what's indicated above. For example, the San Francisco Bay Area's electric train-transit system known as BART is responsible for substantially less carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide emissions per passenger mile than any plane. But Boston's Green Line light rail is responsible for slightly more carbon dioxide than midsize and large aircraft, but way less nitrous oxide. Yet it almost bumps the top of the chart on sulfur dioxide emissions. If Boston were less dependent on fossil fuels, the numbers would look very different. In fact, as these researchers point out, all comparisons can change drastically if energy sources, technologies, and demographics change.

You'll notice that I mentioned they also compare cars to other modes of transportation. Because of this, it seems to me that people who dwell on the train/plane issue have got the whole thing upside down. In almost every category, planes and trains are far better for the environment than individual passenger vehicles. San Francisco's BART accounts for less than half as much carbon dioxide per passenger mile as an SUV.  But remember, we're talking "per passenger mile" throughout. If more people only had the good sense and social grace to carpool, motor vehicles would be far less ruinous.

All this should warn us not to use data perversely. A comparison of San Francisco's commuter train with a large jet doesn't mean all that much, because nobody is flying on the morning commute, though Steve Jobs once reportedly used a helicopter. But the fact that a commuter train, whether Boston's or San Francisco's is so much better than a car, makes it the best option for such areas. What's most useful about this kind of research is that it helps us view a system holistically. Yes, that a train might not be the ideal solution, and, yes, it could be a boondoggle in the name of environment if it doesn’t have enough riders or requires intense construction efforts or is too dependent on fossil-fuel energy.

Finally, there's your basic geography. Long commutes and trips to the mall from oversized houses out in the sprawl create environmental dilemmas no matter what the mode of transportation. After all, New York City's carbon footprint is only a third of the national average, thanks to its compactness, transit system, and apartments that average half the size of new houses in the suburbs. A ban on building in the middle of nowhere might be more important than the transportation we choose to get to and from it.

To Buy Renewable-Energy Certificates from Utilities? Or Not?

Hey Mr. Green,

My electric company offers an option where, for an extra 1.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, they’ll buy renewable-energy certificates up to the amount of my bill. I would be buying regular energy (a mix of coal, nuclear, some renewables) and somehow there would be a requirement that an equivalent amount of renewable energy be purchased for the grid. They call this their Green Power program. Should I go ahead and sign up for this option?

–Rachel in Falls Church, Virginia

Don't buy into any renewable program unless and until you have first done everything possible to cut your electricity use. People who purchase renewable-power credits without also reducing power consumption are like alcoholics who down as much booze as they want because the vodka's organic. It might help justify your habit but it's bad for the system. Like most states, Virginia has been on an electricity binge, and there isn’t enough renewable power available to make up for the increased consumption.

Besides, you may find that a modest investment in energy conservation is a better bargain than simply buying "clean" energy. Like a growing number of utilities, your power company, Dominion, has a great menu of energy-saving advice at this link.

Still, buying renewable energy does give an economic incentive for companies to invest more in renewables. With its renewables program, Dominion certifies that for each extra 1.5 cents you pay per kilowatt, it will buy a kilowatt of renewable energy to put into its power grid. (Note: The Sierra Club's Virginia Chapter isn't sold on the idea because, they say, that half of the extra money goes into overhead. Dominion counters that the money is needed to administer the program and ensure that the renewable sources are legitimate.)

But back to our national binge. Thanks to the construction of oversized homes, overheating, overcooling, and the introduction of countless new energy-sucking gadgets, Virginia's residential power use has increased a whopping 50 percent since 1981, from less than 4,000 kilowatt-hours per person to almost 6,000. The U.S. per capita consumption also jumped more than 30 percent during this period.

Renewable energy is a fine idea, provided it doesn't do too much collateral damage. But the quickest, cheapest way to address the host of environmental problems caused by burning fossil fuels is to drastically cut our nonsensical electricity waste.

Just Do It. (Recycle, That Is.)

Hey Mr. Green,

What do I do with my old stuff, like used shoes? I hate the thought of filling our landfills if my junk can be someone else's treasure. How do I learn what can be reused or recycled and where to send unwanted items?

--Kirstin in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin

My favorite resource for information about recycling almost anything is Earth 911. You specify what you want to recycle, type in your ZIP code, and get the location nearest you.

Regarding footwear, there are an estimated 1.5 billion pairs of unworn shoes languishing in U.S. closets—enough, maybe, for the most desperate shopaholic, or all the world's shoeless. But there are plenty of organizations that recycle them, including Soles4Shoes, which takes all types of "gently worn" shoes. For women's shoes, there's SimplySouls. For sports shoes only, there's Nike—but don't let its recycling program convince you that Nike is environmentally innocent, and don't get all utopian about recycling, as Sole4Soles does with its slogan "Changing the world, one pair at a time," or SimplySouls'  "Saving the Earth, one shoe at a time." It's gonna take a bit more effort than basking in the glow of a recycling ritual to fix the environment.

Nike takes worn-out athletic shoes and grinds them into Nike Grind,  which sounds like runner’s boredom but is actually a substance used in those cushiony athletic surfaces. Critics charge that while Nike has made some improvements since the 1990s, it dumps or burns scrap rubber in Indonesia—and that laborers in Nike and other shoe and sportswear factories in Asia lack the right to organize, are fired for union activity, and cheated out of pay. See, for example, this site or this one. Since Nike itself admits that there are still problems,  it wouldn't hurt to remind the company to try harder to solve them.

Cruise Ships: The Straight Scoop

Hey Mr. Green,

We've had friends cruise to Alaska and others who have traveled the Caribbean. I've got unconfirmed suspicions that these vessels are no more than floating garbage disposals and toilets. What are the practices and legal requirements of these cruise lines when it comes to disposing of onboard waste?

--Ron in Newport Beach, California

Cruise ships can indeed dump a lot of foul and dangerous stuff in our oceans. An imposing, mansion-esque boat packing 3,000 passengers can harbor a mess in its bowels reminiscent of that bubbling swamp in Dante’s Inferno. Essentially a floating town (it takes more than a village), a cruise ship can generate more than 200,000 gallons of human sewage and a million gallons of graywater per week, not to mention thousands of gallons of oily bilge water and other toxic materials. Going into specific rules and regulations would land us in an arcane discussion of allowable parts per milliliter of fecal coliform bacteria, the operation of Type II marine sanitation devices, and details as perplexing as the Big D’s theology itself (our medieval poet is making a comeback as a noted hip-hop moralist.)

So here’s the basic deal: cruise ships are allowed to dump raw sewage whenever they’re more than 3 nautical miles offshore. Within 3 miles, they can dump treated sewage, but how well-treated is a dirty little question, since in these dumpings, the EPA has found concentrations of coliform bacteria as much as 10,000 times higher than the allowable max for sewage. Cruise effluent can pollute beaches, harm marine animals, and even cause dead zones. When the ships get 25 miles out, they can simply dump or incinerate many types of garbage, and they can also dump the ash of the trash.

These are some of the reasons why Friends of the Earth filed a petition with the EPA to tighten up the 30-year-old regulations of the Clean Water Act, and is strongly backing  the Clean Cruise Ship Act, soon to be introduced in the Senate by Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and in the House by Sam Farr (D-Calif.) To support this move to clean up shores and oceans, click here.

The proposal will seek a ban on sewage and oily bilge closer than 12 miles from shore, as well as strict treatment standards and stronger reporting requirements for wastewater treatment. Alaska’s rules are much stricter than the outdated federal requirements, so FOE envisions something resembling that state’s policy to become a national requirement for our coasts.

Despite the problems, you don’t need to avoid a cruise—if you can afford a cruise—because some lines are cleaning up their act, thanks to pressure from environmentalists. According a report card issued by Friends of the Earth, the cleanest cruise lines are Holland America and Norwegian Cruise Lines. Both bagged an “A” for their sewage-treatment practices and a “B” and “B-” overall respectively, whereas the worst were Royal Caribbean, which got a “D” on sewage and an “F” overall, and Disney Cruise Line, which flunked with an “F” on sewage and an “F” overall.

For far more detailed information about this issue, and about other ocean-protection topics, you are invited to contact Friends of the Earth ocean defender Marcie Keever.

How to Insulate Your Home

Hey Mr. Green,

My attic has part rock-wool insulation and part fiberglass, to the depth of the ceiling joists. I'd like to throw a "blanket" over the existing layer, preferably one that won't release bits of fiberglass when I walk around up there. Is there a nontoxic, nonflammable, ideally encapsulated insulation that doesn't cost an arm and a leg?

--Anna in Grass Valley, California

You need at least another six inches of insulation up there, as do millions of others, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. That's because 40 percent of a typical home's energy use goes toward heating, and a lot of it is lost through the ceiling. (The DOE's Web site offers customized insulation recommendations.) Encapsulation insulation (in which the fiberglass fibers are sealed behind a protective film) is available.

Yes, fiberglass can irritate the body, but I think its dangers have been exaggerated. If you're concerned about formaldehyde, you can use formaldehyde-free fiberglass insulation, and all fiberglass is made with up to 40 percent recycled glass. Other options include insulation made of recycled paper.

Whatever you choose, avoid tromping on it: You'll squish out its R-value, and with the joists concealed by the new layer, one misstep could send you plunging through the ceiling (truly costing you an arm and a leg). Installing insulation can be tricky, however, especially in an older home, so I strongly recommend consulting a reliable installer before you begin.

Finally, don't forget to insulate and weather-strip the door that leads to the attic, and remember that if your house has leaks around windows, doors, pipes, vents, ceiling lights, or even electrical outlets, you can lose 30 percent of your heat. The DOE provides excellent information about finding and dealing with these mini-escapes here.

How to Throw an Ecofriendly Kegger

Hey Mr. Green,

I'm in my senior year of college. I live off campus, and we throw a lot of parties. What appalls me is the amount of nonrecyclable plastic cups we go through. If we use 100 cups per party and have 12 parties a year, that's 1,200 cups we're wasting. Are there any reusable plastic cups that are cheap and environmentally friendly?

--Dan in Titusville, New Jersey

The mere thought of heaps of disposable cups, replete with congealing backwash and reconnoitering insects, can spur even the most environmentally indifferent into action. I recommend rigid plastic tumblers, in part because they provide a nice example of how helping the environment can also save you money.

I could have taken the easy path and recommended biodegradable cups made from corn, potatoes, or other "renewable" substances, but I haven't found convincing evidence that biodegradables are significantly better for the environment than regular plastic. And glassware is neither a safe nor a cheap solution.

Rigid plastic tumblers are sufficiently durable for long-term reuse. Since no self-respecting college party host would countenance vessels smaller than 16 ounces, I assume that's your current choice. You can get nondisposable plastic tumblers at restaurant-supply stores or online for $1.50 or less each--$150 for the 100 you need. Of course, you have to factor in additional funds to cover theft, stomping, and inadvertent melting--not to mention the time and water needed to wash them.

But if you're spending $240 annually for the throwaways, even if you use the sturdier cups for only one year, they're a better investment--for your pocketbook and the planet.

Are Hybrids Worth It?

Hey Mr. Green,
 
I'm shopping for a used car and am seriously considering a used hybrid, such as a Civic or Prius. Friends have warned me that hybrid batteries wear out and are very expensive to replace. So what is the expected life of a used hybrid battery and what do new hybrid batteries cost? I emailed the same question to the Car Talk guys, but their auto-response said they get 500 emails a day, so they are unlikely to be able to respond.

-- Dale Wright in Tacoma, Washington

I’m honored to fill in for the worthy Car Talk guys, and relish another opportunity to refute those chronic hybrid-dissers who keep busy contriving anti-hybrid arguments. Even if you did have replace the battery, you’d still probably come out money ahead with the hybrid.

The expected battery life, according to Toyota, is at least 100,000 miles or 8 years for the first-generation Prius models. To back this up, the batteries of the first-generation Priuses are covered by warranty for this mileage and time period, and both companies report a very low failure rate even for batteries past their warranty period.

In some states (your neighboring Oregon and California, plus Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont, batteries of second-generation Priuses (2004 to 2008) are covered for 150,000 miles or 10 years. So if you buy a used hybrid, be sure you have the warranty because if the battery croaked before reaching these miles or age, you shouldn't have to pay to replace it. The Honda battery life expectancy and warranties are the same.

Toyota says that its recommended price for a a battery pack for a first-generation Prius is $2,299, while the price or the battery pack for the second-generation cars (2004 to 2008 models) is $2,588. That's the battery price itself; the individual dealer’s markup and charges for labor will of course add to this. So you’re looking at something around $3,000 to $3,500 if the hybrid has exceeded the warranty limits. Honda has similar prices for the Civic.

A lot of money, yes, but, if you drive the Prius sensibly, you should get around 45 miles per gallon. So, that means you get 20 mpg more than the all-too-typical 25. If you drive 10,000 miles per year, you'd save 188 gallons per year, or $564 at $3 per gallon. So in five or six years (or sooner, if gas prices go up drastically, as they occasionally do), your fuel savings would cover the cost of battery replacement.

Of course, I don't recommend that everybody rush out and buy a Prius. It depends on what you can afford and what the car costs. As I've said before, some folks might be better off buying a cheaper car with lower mpg, and investing the extra cash in other energy-saving measures, like insulation, solar panels, a new furnace, and so on.

Overpopulation: A Religious Problem?

Hey Mr. Green,

How come you are intimidated by the religion business? Why won’t you talk about the root of all our environmental problems: Overpopulation?

I see a list of environmental criminals in the latest issue of Sierra. But the most notorious environmental criminals, the Duggars, actually have their own TV show: 18 children and counting. The Duggars are thieves, stealing from the rest of us what little is left. We should launch a boycott of that show, write to the sponsors and tell them we won’t buy their product.

Sarah Palin isn't far behind, with five kids already and the next generation beginning at age 16—which will double the number of Palins living at one time. That means that we will have 500 percent more Palins on every creek and river, devouring and murdering every living thing in the name of sport . . . but thanking God for putting them there. Good thing she didn’t win.

–Cliff in San Rafael, California

That some people are actually inspired by the Duggars and their litter might qualify as America's biggest Unsolved Mystery. If you propose to initiate a boycott of their reproductive propaganda machine, I won't stand in your way. But aren't you being a bit rough on the Palin clan? Unless they brew up some in vitro octuplets, they simply can’t outbreed the Duggars.

As far as religion and population are concerned, as I've noted before, it's an oversimplification to single out religion as the cause of high birth rates. The demographics don't show a clear connection between religion and fertility. For example, relatively pious Poland has a fertility rate of 1.28 children per woman, while more secular France is at almost 2 per woman. And Iran, a strongly Muslim country, has a lower rate than France. But poverty-stricken Rwanda's rate is 5.25 per woman.

In general, poverty and lack of education are far more significant factors in high fertility rates than religion. So the real root of environmental problems is not population, but poverty and injustice. Remember, too, that people’s impact on the environment can be more serious than numbers would show. Even if a nation’s fertility rate is low, its toxic waste, sprawl, water and energy consumption, and sheer excess can create problems way out of proportion to the population numbers.

None of this lets religion off the hook. When any religious group attempts to obstruct family planning through legislation or lawsuits, it deserves to be challenged head on. But it's also important to avoid being oppositional because religion can be a strong ally for environmentalists, as you can see from the many ways in which spirituality is being integrated with environmental thought and action. For insight into this, check out the multi-faith National Religious Partnership for the Environment. Though these environmentalists aren't singing “Kumbaya” with the Duggars, they do represent a broad group of religions with a common goal of stewardship of Creation that is grounded in their faith.

A Black-or-White Question Yields Shades of Gray

Hey Mr. Green,

In a cold climate like Minnesota's, is it better to have a light or dark house exterior and roof? We spend more of the year heating than cooling, so that makes me think dark. On the other hand, we live in a city heat island, and I would think dark colors would just add to that.

--Cynthia in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Going with lighter colors is generally best for many regions, but darker colors might be the best choice for the great northern city of Minneapolis. So you’ve got Mr. Green in the (rather rare) position of lacking a definitive answer. This is because of a gazillion variables: the insulation quality, the type of heating and cooling systems, the size and shape of the building, the pitch of the roof, and so on. (Even the absence of shade trees or wind-busting evergreens might come into play.) Obviously, every building in this country needs a thorough energy audit.

But you can get an estimate for your dwelling by using calculators provided by the EPA and the U.S. Department of Energy here and here. Plug in the math -- and do disregard idiots at town-hall meetings and right-wing bloggers who’ll no doubt claim that these sites are a scheme from Obama’s emerging socialist tyranny to invade your privacy.

Regarding heat islands, if you were to move to a hotter place like Los Angeles, the case for lighter colors is easy to make. For example, one study showed that if L.A. installed reflective roofs, reflective asphalt, and 10 million more shade trees, it could knock 5 degrees off its summertime temperatures and slash the need for air-conditioning by 18 percent. That’s a whopping amount of energy, with the added bonus of reducing the lung-searing ozone caused by higher temperatures.

Homes aren’t the only places where huge savings could occur; commercial buildings could reduce their energy use by 13 to 16 percent by taking energy-saving measures, which would not only hugely cut greenhouse gases, but save $30 billion per year on energy costs by 2030.

What to Look for When Car-Shopping Besides MPG?

Hey Mr. Green,

While I very much appreciate your cash for clunkers calculator, I very much doubt I can afford a new car even with a clunker rebate. So I'm shopping for a moderately priced used car. I want high mileage, but also reasonable safety and reliability. I plan to look at back issues of Consumer Reports to try to estimate miles per gallon of various models I'm considering. Is there anything besides MPG that I should consider to keep my carbon footprint low as possible? Anything else I need to look for?  Any pertinent websites you can direct me to?

-- Dale, location undisclosed

The most helpful website for MPG of cars both new and used is the EPA’s economy.gov. Go there and click on “find and compare cars.” Your tax dollars at work. (Better check soon, before some yahoos at a town meeting howl “socialism” loud enough to get the site shut down.)

There are indeed huge considerations regarding your carbon footprint besides MPG. The biggest single one is if you really even need to own a car. More and more folks are actually getting along fine without one, with membership in a car-share service, taking cabs and mass transit, or biking.

Besides reducing their carbon footprint, they are saving a lot of money, because costs of owning and operating a car dwarf the cost of the gas it needs. Add to the gas the price of maintenance, insurance, licensing, financing, and, alas, depreciation, it takes a whopping total $9,641 to own and drive a medium-size sedan 15,000 miles per year, according to AAA. Less than a fourth of this cost is for gasoline. The rest is overhead. For comparisons of different-size cars, click here.

Finally, if you do buy a car, try to think about the bigger financial picture. Don’t simply compare cars’  MPG, but their prices too, and considering your entire energy-consumption portfolio If you have enough money to buy, say, a $15,000 car that gets 35 MPG and a $5,000 model that gets 25 MPG, you might be able to reduce your energy and carbon footprint a lot more by purchasing the cheaper model and spending the extra $10,000 on other energy-conserving measures, which could be anything from a new heating system to investing in a renewable-energy company.