An Aged Fireplace: To Burn or Not to Burn?

Hey Mr. Green,

My house has a 1950s fireplace that has not been upgraded in any way to make it more environmentally friendly. I hope that since I make wood fires only when it's raining, I'm not doing much damage to air quality, since the air always seems perfectly clean after a rainstorm. Am I sufficiently environmentally correct in this matter to avoid the wrath of the environment police?

--George in Berkeley, California

It’s true that rain reduces the outdoor pollution from fireplaces. But if predictions for a rainier-than-normal winter in your area are correct, you might want to curtail burning anyhow, not to avoid the environmental police but to protect your own health.

An outmoded fireplace or wood stove not only pollutes the outdoors, but the indoors as well. Old fireplaces and stoves can emit eight times as much dangerous microparticulate matter (i.e., "smoke") per hour as new ones that meet the EPA's standards. Old fireplaces and old stoves can emit 60 times as much pollution as super-clean models that exceed EPA standards. For a list of EPA-approved models, click here.

In your region, on some days wood-burning accounts for as much as 30 percent of the particulate pollution in the winter, and in some parts of the country, accounts for as much as 80 percent. Since millions of dangerous old stoves and fireplaces are still in operation, the EPA operates a change-out program in some regions; some households are eligible for financial help to replace an outmoded polluter with a new and approved model.

Regarding health hazards, sometimes “officialese” might be the scariest. The EPA says, "Particle pollution--especially fine particles--contains microscopic solids or liquid droplets that are so small that they can get deep into the lungs and cause serious health problems including: increased respiratory symptoms, such as irritation of the airways; coughing, or difficulty breathing; decreased lung function; aggravated asthma; development of chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung disease. . . . However, even if you are healthy, you may experience temporary symptoms from exposure to elevated levels of particle pollution.”

Finally, speaking of the environmental police, in your area and growing numbers of others, it is actually illegal to burn wood on days when the air is dirty enough to trigger a ban. So you risk getting busted if you burn on the wrong occasion.

The Bottom Line on the Great Diaper Debate

Hey Mr. Green,
From a strict environmental perspective, what type of diaper--cloth, disposable, or hybrid (disposable liner)--do you recommend?
--George in Wentworth, New Hampshire

The central question is this: Is it worse to (a) waste billions of gallons of hot water washing diapers that come from pesticide-doused cotton fields or (b) produce and toss the more than 27 billion disposables that end up in U.S. landfills each year? I recommend cloth--a daring statement, because diaper ecology has long been clouded by "analysis paralysis," and many environmentalists still can't reach a conclusion.

National Geographic's Green Guide (thegreenguide.com), a source I greatly admire, says there's "no easy answer to the 'cloth or disposable' debate." The EPA doesn't take a position either.

So how can Mr. Green be so certain?

First, it depresses the hell out of me to think that an infant's first ongoing contact with the outside world involves the twisted cult of disposability that bedevils our environment--a subjective argument, true, but not all environmental decisions need be made solely on the basis of science. John Muir didn't protect the great outdoors because of life cycle studies and scientific findings but because he loved it, and its abuse made him feel downright rotten. And damn it, that's how I feel. 

The second major reason for rejecting disposables is the other bottom line. Disposables can cost from $1,500 to $2,000 between birth and potty training, while you can obtain four dozen cloth diapers and a half-dozen plastic covers for less than $100. Costs for washing, detergent, and drying are about $200 per year ($150 if you line-dry). So you save up to $1,500 per kid by using cloth. Invest those savings in a lifetime Sierra Club membership, and your reusable diapers dump all over disposables.

Is Shopping Online Greener?

Hey Mr. Green,

I live in a rural area and have always ordered a variety of stuff over the Internet. Online shopping is great because there are so many more choices, but what's the carbon footprint for delivery to my house versus driving to a store and buying what they have in stock?

 

--Janet in Sagle, Idaho

The internet's environmental benefits are sometimes vastly overrated, as are many aspects of telecommunication — the latest exaggeration being the notion that political protest can't do without cell phones and the internet, as though nobody ever managed a rebellion without Twitter.

But back to shopping: Because there are so many factors involved, it's complicated to compare online shopping with conventional shopping. For example, shipping individual items bought online requires much more packaging than shipping bulk items for resale in brick-and-mortar stores. And though considerable amounts of energy are consumed delivering packages to individual residences, it also takes a lot to heat and cool stores.

The biggest factor, though, as you must know from bitter experience, is the amount of gas you burn driving to a store. This does make online shopping greener — overall, it takes about 30% less energy than does conventional shopping. However, as a recent Carnegie Mellon University study reminds us, there's significant uncertainty and variability in calculating the carbon footprint of your shopping trip, depending on what you drive, how far you go, and so on.

Because 65% of the energy used in conventional retailing is consumed moving the shopper to and from the store, buying from an old-fashioned, in-town operation can actually be as environmentally efficient as buying online — but only if you heed Mr. Green's endless harping about walking, bicycling, taking mass transit, and carpooling.

My Glass Is Half Empty, My Cup Runneth Over, and I Shall Not Want Throwaways

Among the dedicated environmentalists who follow these ruminations are some serious party animals, at least judging by the response to a recent column on alternatives to disposable cups at college bashes. Since it's the time of the year when an inordinate amount of partying occurs (inordinate at least for us elders), here are some comments from readers who have successfully solved the problem of throwaway drinking vessels. Meanwhile, best wishes for the holidays! Salud!

From Salida, Colorado, Laura says:

"My thoughts on Dan in Titusville, New Jersey, regarding his keggers.  I just had an open house and decided I couldn't buy plastic.  So I cleaned out my cupboard and my office's cupboard.  Gathered up about 50 glasses, some metal cups and a few coffee cups.  No one cared and I swear half the people said "Dang, I should've thought about bringing my own glass." So that's my thought when you advertise for a party: Tell people to bring their own cups, tumblers, mugs, glasses, tankards, etc."

Sylvia, from Albuquerque, elaborates in some detail--and with remarkable recall--on her extensive experience with disposable-free parties:

"In the '60s I was the social committee for a university sports/social club, also off campus, and not officially supported by the University. We had at least two weekend parties a month (often more) and the attendees were deeply committed to the need for cups. I rented bar-quality glasses from a local restaurant supply and each attendee received a glass when they paid their admittance (calculated to include the cost of the glass and the hall but at no profit) at the door. They were told they would not be given a second glass and no rented glass, no beer. In the three years I ran the parties I do not remember one broken or lost glass. The regulars used to put sticker, marker stripes, or ties on their glasses to keep track of them. It is also useful to remember these same kids go to regular bars which customarily use glasses and they have not killed themselves. Of course glass does not belong at a pool party.

"A second thought is the use of printed souvenir recyclable plastic glasses.  My son has several plastic glasses from parties and smiles when he looks at one. Needless to say they didn't get tossed, they occupy a shelf above his home bar. Not only do they bring back good memories, they start interesting conversations with guests as well.

"A third thought is attendees bring their own cup or mug or the house keeps assigned mugs. A note on the party flyer will take care of the first case: 'BYO beer mug' would do it. Obviously in this case someone has to make it clear that lightweight glass isn't acceptable. I remember attending campus Greek Society parties where individuals labeled mugs were kept at the bar and used for parties. Usually the base cost of the mug was not high and extra blank mugs were available for guests. Several of my college friends had specialty mugs that broadcast their personal style and would not have attended a party without that mug. I attended a medieval faire in Denmark this summer and received a ceramic cup with the purchase of my first drink. A nominal fee for the cup was included in the cost of the first drink. You could get that cost back if you turned the cup in prior to leaving, however many people kept the cup as a souvenir. This could also be applied to rented glasses if needed. There never has been a student so broke that they couldn't afford the cost of a drink container."

A Down-To-Earth Question About Carpets

Hey Mr. Green,

Where can I find information about purchasing replacement carpeting that is environmentally responsible and nontoxic?

--Donna in Ocala, Florida

Finding the most environmentally magic carpet can take a bit of digging but it's worth it. I recommend taking the following steps:

1) Make sure your prospective carpets, carpet pads, and adhesives carry the Green Label Plus logo of the Carpet and Rug Institute. This certification helps ensure that carpets and installation materials meet low-emissions standards. If you've ever been exposed to noxious, dizzying fumes from carpet installations, you'll know why this is important.

2) Look for carpets and pads that are blessed with the highest post-consumer recycled content and recovered materials content (recovered materials are those recycled with the manufacturing process). The Carpet and Rug Institute provides links to help you assess individual manufacturers here.

3) If you're thinking about replacing an old carpet, consider the possibility of giving it a new lease on life by refurbishing it or re-dying it or both. If it's too far gone for such remedies, make sure it's recycled after you rip it out. Only 10 percent of old carpets get recycled. A depressing 2.5 million tons of it gets squished down into U.S. landfills every year, instead of being resurrected as composite lumber, tile backer board, roofing shingles, railroad ties, automotive parts, stepping stones, and so on. You can find carpet-recycling information at the Carpet America Recovery Effort’s Web site, and at Earth911. For more intriguing information about carpets and their destiny, click here.

4) Institute a shoes-off-in-the-house rule. This will extend a carpet’s life and reduce its need for cleaning.