What Do Composting and Identity Theft Have in Common?

Hey Mr. Green,

We shred a lot of typical white paper at work because of confidentiality concerns. Is this paper safe to use in garden compost? I'd love to be able to use it but don't know about the chemicals in the paper or the printer ink.

--Katy in La Canada Flintridge, California

As any inmate of a cubicle can tell you, the paperless office has not arrived: we're using 4 million tons of copy paper a year.  The good news is that only a third of the material to make paper comes directly from trees. A third of it is from recycling and another third from sawmill waste, according to the EPA. 

It is indeed safe use this office paper in compost, according to the U.S. Composting Council and other sources. I have even come across studies that show that paper actually has lower levels of contaminants than typical yard waste—not that your typical yard waste is unsafe.  Paper helps absorb water, which can help prevent your compost from stalling into the saturated, odorous gunk that tends to trouble the fastidious composter. It also provides carbon, an essential ingredient in compost,  since a 30-to-1 ratio of carbon to nitrogen is ideal for happy production.

If mulching works in your garden (i.e., doesn't shelter slugs and snails), you could also use the frizzy paper for this purpose.

In general, however, the soundest use of this paper is simply to recycle it to make more paper. After all, paper can be recycled five to seven times before the fibers become too short to be resurrected into new paper.

Did Pesticide Whack My Birdies?

Hey Mr. Green,

I usually don't use herbicides or pesticides on my lawn, but I'm planning to sell the house and wanted to appeal to more buyers, so I used them. I noticed the robins were gone right away and didn't come back. Is this connection possible after one application?

--Maxine in Sauk Rapids, Minnesota

It is indeed possible that the pesticides whacked your robins. According to our friends at the Audubon Society, there are a dozen pesticides approved for home use that could kill birds. The roster of these toxic substances (some of which may also be harmful to humans) is at http://bit.ly/pesticidechart.

U.S. farmers take heat for their pesticide use, but the sad fact is that the country's home owners recklessly slather on the stuff in far greater concentrations. According to the EPA, households apply 85 million pounds to 17 million residential acres, or 5 pounds per acre, while farmers use about 1.4 pounds per acre on 815 million acres of crops and pasture.
We've already done enough harm to the birdies--like my beloved bobolinks and eastern meadowlarks, whose populations have dropped more than 50 percent over the past 40 years.

So let's hope and pray that the real estate crash doesn't prompt millions of panicked home owners to dump yet more pesticides on their lawns to regain property value. I'd hate to see birds become the latest victims of greedy banking schemes and derivative sharks.
It's easy to learn to care for gardens with minimal or no use of pesticides; check out http://bit.ly/lawncare.

A Question of Appliances

Hey Mr. Green,

Can I get a federal tax credit by upgrading the large appliances in my house, which are probably 20 years old? I mean the refrigerator, washer, dryer, and water heater. Even without a tax credit, I'd like to upgrade at least one of these energy hogs. If can't do them all at once, which would be the most cost- and energy-saving one to upgrade?

–Sam in Santa Fe, New Mexico

There are indeed federal tax credits available for some appliances, and for quite a number of other home improvements ranging from windows to roofs to geothermal heating setups. Given our perennial wailing about high taxes, it's a shame we don't hear more about such benefits. According to Energystar.gov, qualifying products purchased up until December 31, 2010 are eligible for a rebate of up to 30 percent of the product's price. And since you live in a sunny state, you might consider solar water heaters, some of which are eligible for a 30 percent credit with no limit on cost. But the water-heater credits (and some others) do expire at the end of this year, so don't procrastinate unless you're sure we can whip Congress into shape and get extensions soon. To find out more about eligibility, click here. Your tax dollars at work—cutting your taxes.

A variety of other rebates are available from utilities and manufacturers that partner with EPA's Energy Star program; click here for more information.

With regard to prioritizing your replacements, a lot depends on the actual condition of the appliances, but I'd start with the refrigerator or the clothes washer, because they use more energy than any other appliances, and huge improvements have been made in their efficiency. For example, a refrigerator made prior to 1993 can use twice as much power as a new model; replacing one that’s more than 10 years old can save you $135 per year. To get more precise savings estimates for appliances, see the EPA's online calculators here (fridge) and here (washing machine).

Next, look at the water heater. Efficient new ones can use 10 to 50 percent less energy than older models, but because it's easy to drastically cut hot water use, I'd make cuts first before getting a new water heater. Simply washing with cold water when feasible can work wonders. You can get further reductions by installing low-flow shower heads and filling the dishwasher completely before running it. Once you've got all that down, then look into new heaters. A tankless or on-demand model is often the most efficient (but expensive) choice, because it doesn't have to keep the water constantly heated.

Dryers get the lowest priority. They generally burn less energy than fridges or washing machines of the same age, and most of the time you don't even need 'em. “Solar drying” on a clothesline or indoor drying on a clothes rack is far more efficient.

The Secret Life of Mr. Green

Mr. Green gets lots of questions from Sierra’s readership of 1.2 million that don't make it into the magazine or onto this blog. But he often replies to individual inquiries anyway, just for fun, and in the process sometimes even stumbles into exchanges that involve scientific discovery. For example, information about saving energy by filling empty fridge space with containers of water may emerge from the following discussion. It starts with a question from Megan in Gibsonville, North Carolina:

My Kenmore side-by-side refrigerator and freezer broke a few months ago and we had it fixed, but since then, the freezer has been empty except for ice. I shop locally and seasonally and we eat mostly fresh vegetables. I never use the freezer. Can I safely turn the freezer off, or is there something about the way the unit cools that will mess up the refrigerator half if I do this? I can't find anything in the owner's manual or online about this.

After several exchanges with one of Kenmore's technicians, who requested details such as the model number, we got the answer: “The freezer definitely needs to be turned on for the fridge to cool. If you turn it down too much, it won't keep the food. The customer has to find the appropriate settings that meet his needs."

To which I added, "So it seems like it should work keeping it on the lowest setting, but to be absolutely sure that setting the freezer too low doesn't affect the fridge, I recommend putting a thermometer in the fridge. It sounds like you guys are tech-savvy enough to do that."

Now I know she's tech-savvy is because while Megan was waiting for an answer, she e-mailed: "In the meantime, we heard the old 'fill it with milk jugs filled with water' thing. So my husband, who’s a physics professor, is trying to test this. He attached a Kill-A-Watt [an electric-use monitor] to the back of the refrigerator and has made a Google spreadsheet showing the temperature changes each hour (!), then tracking the changes after each time we add a milk jug filled with water."

Ever intent on encouraging citizen science, I asked her to share the results of this experiment. The latest word from her: "Our milk-jug experiment is going well. I'll definitely send you the results as we compile them. My husband is a perfectionist so it'll be up to me to actually convince him the data is 'good enough' to ship out."

So watch this space for the results. Or experiment with your own electric-use monitor (available for about $20 to $30) and track how much power individual appliances, computers, and other gadgets are using. You might be surprised at the waste caused by inefficient appliances, "vampire" energy drains from items left plugged in, and assorted stuff that doesn't really even need to be used.

When a Kitchen Counter Top is More Than Just That

Hey Mr. Green,

What's the most environmentally friendly counter top for the kitchen?

–Pat in Redrock, Oklahoma

This is an extraordinarily difficult question because the materials used are so different and have such different impacts on the environment. The length of time a counter will survive before it has to be replaced is also an important factor. So, while ceramic tile might require more energy to produce than, say, recycled wood, its extreme longevity gives it some environmental advantage over wood. My favorite authority on green home topics, the U.S. Green Building Council, notes that traditional ceramic tile and natural linoleum can be green options,  while plastics have some serious drawbacks. 

To help in your choice, you can consult the USGBC's list of countertops that are made with at least 20 percent recyclable materials such as glass, wood, and even paper, or from wood harvested from certified forests, natural linoleum, and bamboo at this link. You might also take a look at the GBS's "Buyer’s Guide to Green Countertop Materials" and "Choosing a Green Countertop that Works with Your Style and Your Life."

Yes, this last "life" concern is important, and because aesthetics are involved, I would hesitate to prescribe a counter on strictly environmental grounds even if somebody did come up with an infallibly green rating system. It's important to like the way things look. So one wonders: Can ugliness cause collateral damage to the environment? Do people rendered restless, irritable, and discontent by their immediate environment go out and buy Hummers to fill an aesthetic and spiritual void? Would the world be a better place if the Cathedral of Notre Dame or the Taj Mahal or other famous edifices had been built like utilitarian, efficiently constructed warehouses? Are soulless shopping malls really crypto marketing devices, the sheer banality of which drives us to drive more and more to buy more and more stuff? How has our sense of architectural beauty affected our relation to nature? What if John Muir hadn't compared mountains to marvelous temples, or Bob Dylan hadn't sung of the wild cathedral evening?

In sum, is a counter top merely a functional culinary workbench, or a path to philosophical inquiry?

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.

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.

The Great Diaper Debate

Hey Mr. Green,

I've gotten conflicting information about whether cloth diapers are more ecologically correct than disposables. Cloth diapers require both water and energy to wash—two things California has in short supply. But disposables come from plastic, cotton, and trees, and clog our landfill. What's the most environmentally friendly thing a new parent can do?

--Carolyn in El Cerrito, California

You'll find the full answer to your question in the Jan./Feb. issue of Sierra magazine, but it wouldn’t be fair give away its exciting conclusions.

You do, however, provide a fine excuse for me to expound on the water question, which we didn't have room to address in the upcoming column. Most households waste so much water that they should focus on conserving it instead of worrying about how much it takes to wash diapers. Here's why:

The entire process of washing diapers from birth to the joyful day of completion of potty-training will take roughly 24,000 gallons. Sounds like a lot, but many households waste much more than that in three years simply by flushing inefficient toilets. In an arid climate, twice that amount can evaporate from an uncovered swimming pool of modest size.

The math: A typical newborn requires a change every two or three hours. If your baby needs to be changed on the more frequent side, that's around 84 changes a week, or 4,368 a year. Or about 8,736 for two years. Of course, as your bundle of joy matures, it’ll require less frequent changing. There’s considerable variation among young creatures, but it's fair to say that up to 9,000 changes may be needed. Assuming you can wash about 30 diapers per load, that's 300 loads. At 41 gallons per load, what the typical washing machine uses per wash, that's 12,300 gallons. Allow another 2,000 gallons or so for pre-soaking, if indeed you pre-soak. If you flush the creature's excrement down the toilet, you're looking at another 8,000 gallons, for our total of 22,000. You can cut your water use even more if you get one of those water-wise 28-gallons-per-wash machines—which you can easily afford with the money you'll save by not spending it on throwaways.

Besides efficient toilets, there are many other ways to offset water used to wash diapers: low-flow showerheads and toilets, dishwashers and washing machines operated at full capacity, and less water on lawns and ornamental plants. Almost a third of a typical household’s water use goes on lawns and plants, half of which gets squandered as runoff and evaporation from overwatering and inefficient irrigation systems. For useful advice about saving water, see the EPA's ideas here. Your tax dollars at work.

But don't be satisfied with confining your conservation efforts to your own household. It's high time we got a lot more political about water and pushed much harder for rules to curb waste both by households and agriculture. Getting back to your state, California now has a proposal for a bond to improve its water system, but I don't think it demands nearly enough basic water conservation. To learn more about this, click here.

And it's not just California that needs to cut its guzzling, as you can see when you fly across the country and look down at those huge green circles of pivot irrigation systems drawing massive amounts of water. As I've previously noted, more than 35 states now face serious water issues. For an overview of all sorts of water issues, I highly recommend a visit to the Pacific Institute’s Web site.

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.

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.