Independence Day

       I did a good thing for the environment today. I had a company come to do cleaning and maintenance on our air conditioning system, hopefully ensuring that the air conditioner will be both more effective and more energy efficient throughout the summer.
       I had expected to have made other improvements this week, including a change to recycled toilet paper (not toilet paper which has been recycled, mind you, but toilet paper made from recycled paper products). Indeed, I have asked readers a few times for a recommendation for a recycled toilet paper. To date, however, I have not received word of a single acceptable product. 

       And to be honest, that’s okay with me. The fact is that I am a Charmin devotee.
       Certain dates in my adult life have been indelibly imprinted on my memory. I remember perfectly, for instance, the day I met Tom, the day we got engaged, our wedding day, the day we bought our current home and the day Olympia joined our family.
        And I remember the day Charmin toilet tissue made its first beautiful, fresh, glowing appearance in my life. It was July 4, 2002. 

        Tom and I had decided to join my oldest brother, David, for an Independence Day celebration in Philadelphia. Philadelphia is known for putting on a great July 4 party. Some have equated it with New Year’s Eve in New York City. We planned to watch a parade, listen to music and entertainment and attend the late night fireworks. And because Tom can’t stand being late for anything, we left our hotel long before the parade started and began eleven sweltering hours in nearly lethal Philadelphia heat.
       It was maybe 95 degrees Fahrenheit, with 90 per cent humidity, and not enough of a breeze to lift the thousands of starred-and-striped flags drooping everywhere. Even so, it might not have been so bad if not for the fact that the main part of the Independence Day event was taking place, as it does every year, on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway leading up to the Philadelphia Museum of Art.
        In case there is any confusion, this parkway has little to with parkland – grass, shade trees and ponds. Rather, it is a broad, long, paved road – covered in black asphalt, already softening that day in the summer sun. Celebrants had been advised to come early to “claim their spots” on the parkway. So we obediently laid a blanket out on the blistering pavement. We couldn’t sit on the blanket, however, as the heat rising from the street was too much to bear. Instead, we spent hours wandering the area, waiting for the headline acts to begin.
       It would not be a great day for the environment. As the day progressed, a vast quantity of litter was dropped by the nearly comatose attendees. The event itself was sponsored by Sunoco, which two years earlier, had spilled 200,000 gallons of oil into a nearby wildlife refuge. The fireworks, likely propelled by gunpowder, would later rain toxic pollution over the city.  And Tom, David and I, in a losing battle against dehydration, drank bottle after bottle of lemonade and water. At the end of the evening, we would have over a dozen plastic bottles to add to the nation’s landfill…and we had already thrown out many others over the course of the day. And remember that we were only three of hundreds of thousands of people in attendance.
       Our dehydration luckily meant that we had no need for a toilet for several hours. But in the early evening, as the air cooled by a degree or two, we decided to seek out a place to relieve ourselves. The stinking porta-pottys drove us away before we could get close. We tried entering into a nearby museum or two to use their facilities, but found all doors closed. 

       Eventually, a city worker waved us into a long, snaking line…  (to be continued)

Switching Light Bulbs

       In another attempt to go green, I have now switched many of my light bulbs to compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs. Reportedly, these bulbs use significantly less energy (up to 80% less than incandescent bulbs), not only helping the environment, but also passing on energy cost savings to consumers. They are also said to last as long as nine years per bulb, saving on bulb replacement costs.
       It is said that if every American home replaced just one light bulb with an Energy Star CFL bulb, enough energy would be saved to light more than 3 million homes for a year, greenhouse gas emissions would be significantly reduced, and more than $600 million in annual energy costs would be saved
       We were already using the bulbs in a couple of places, meaning that we were perhaps already doing our part to reduce energy usage. But maybe it didn’t really count, because we had not changed the bulbs in order to be green.  Rather, we had done it because some of our lighting fixtures are rather difficult to get at, and it was appealing to think we might be able to wait nine years before having to drag out the ladders to change the bulbs again. Can one be green without intent?
       To prove my true determination to help the environment, a few days ago I made a switch in some of our other lighting fixtures, including two five-light-bulb lamps which had previously held only 40 watt incandescent bulbs. The resulting light is bright and a bit harsh – certainly brighter than before. But Tom and I like it, since the lamps finally seem to be doing what they were designed for – providing light. Indeed, the re-bulbed lamps now have made additional lamps unnecessary in two of our rooms, saving still more in energy use and costs.
       This change is one of the very “in” ways to go green. Indeed, the swirled fluorescent bulb has become something of a symbol of the green movement.
       I do have some concerns, however. As pointed out by a poster to this blog a few days ago, the bulbs contain a small amount of mercury. While some argue that the amounts of mercury involved are insignificant, others argue that the lightbulbs are “about as good for the environment as a toxic chemical spill”.
       Indeed, these bulbs are not to be simply thrown in the trash where they will become part of our landfills. They are supposed to be disposed of at special depots, similar to other hazardous chemicals. When the time comes, I will be willing to go through the extra effort of disposing of the bulbs properly, but do worry that not everyone will go the extra mile(s) to do so.
       And I am troubled as well to hear that other bulbs are being developed which might not contain the mercury. So what should an environmentalist do when the new, improved bulbs come out, perhaps in a year or two? Do we all replace our CFL bulbs years before their nine-year expiry date – perhaps adding mercury waste to the environment in large cumulative amounts and using additional energy for manufacturing, transporting and packaging the new bulbs so that we can all have the improved and less toxic “green” bulbs in our fixtures?
        It makes me wonder if it wouldn't be more "green" to simply wait until the next generation of energy-efficient bulbs is readily available.

Viva my Viva. Please!

       A few years ago, I made a life-changing decision. I decided that I was going to always have great paper products in my home – soft, luxurious and decadent tissues, toilet paper and paper towels. I figured that I’m worth it, and that this was something on which I was unwilling to compromise. I have enjoyed these products immensely ever since.          

        Visitors to my home have occasionally even been moved to comment on the softness of my paper offerings. My lush, thick, nearly velvety paper towels, in particular, have led not only to exclamations of shock, but also to declarations of admiration for my lifestyle choice. They are the Viva brand, by Kleenex, and if any of you get an opportunity to try these nearly cloth-like super-absorbent towels, you too will experience paper towel Nirvana.
       With that in mind, you can imagine my dread when I switched to recycled paper towels a couple of days ago. The recycled product is called “Small Steps” by Marcal. It is made of 100% premium recycled paper, and according to the package they are STRONG and ABSORBENT, hypoallergenic, and made without chorline dye.
       They also are neither white, nor fluffy, nor lush, nor velvety. Compared to the Viva brand, they are rather gray and desiccated. There is no way I would ever choose to use them to clean a wound, as I did with my Viva and my bloody knees last week. The recycled towels are more likely to add to injuries than soothe them.
       Indeed, to add insult to injury, they actually cost more than my lovely Viva. 

       Why is that? Does it cost more to make paper towels out of paper than it does to make them out of trees? Or is the extra fee a sort of tax on environmentalists? I picture the CEO and CFO saying, “Well, if consumers truly care about the environment, they won’t mind paying a bit more.” I can just imagine them rubbing their hands together and chuckling with a mad-scientist laugh – “heh, heh, heh…”
       However, in the interests of my resolution and the environment, I bought them.

       But I found myself hoping the Marcal towels would be so awful that I would have no choice but to switch back to Viva. I figured that after a few days of trying them, it would be clear that the recyled product is such a complete non-absorbent waste of recycled paper that it would actually be better for the environment to simply make prudent use of my effective (and oh-so-soft) Viva.
       But, to my chagrin, the dry, scratchy paper towels have been more than okay. They are more absorbent than I had expected, and even proved themselves yesterday in a tough situation when Tom decided to take over the kitchen.
       Although Tom is an adventurous cook, he isn’t the neatest one.  I tried to stay out of the way as much as possible, but occasionally simply had to creep in to wipe spills off the counters, floor, stovetop and inside of the refrigerator. And the ugly recycled towels held up to all of it.
       Then, late last night, I devised another Marcal challenge. I tore off two small Marcal “u-size-it” sheets, and used them for cleaning the dining room glass-top table. Then I used the same two sheets to clean off the top of the kitchen island (still delightfully clutter-free, after my Martha Stewart month). Then I used the same sheets to wipe off the seats of the bar stools around the island. And then I used them to wipe down the sink. And, the same two Marcal sheets held up through it all, just like I know the Viva ones would have.
       How incredibly annoying…
       I guess I will continue to use them for now, at least until the end of the month-long resolution. Maybe I’’ll discover something bad about them yet. Perhaps they’ll give me a rash.
       But if not, at the end of the month, I’ll have to make a choice between my commitment to soft, cushiony paper products and my commitment to saving some trees in a forest somewhere.  Hmmmmm....

Daylight Saving Time

Early this morning, Tom and I moved our clocks forward for Daylight Saving Time (DST).
       I mention this not only because it’s timely (that's a pun, I guess), but because some have argued that the switch to DST is good for the environment. This could mean that maybe many of us have actually helped the world today, even if we weren’t trying to. So should we congratulate ourselves on a job well done?
       Well, maybe not.

       The generally accepted purpose of Daylight Saving Time (not Daylight Savings Time, by the way) is to allow us to make better use of longer summer daylight hours in the evening.
       And for many years, it was believed that DST reduces energy consumption as well. Daylight Saving Time means that the sun sets one hour later than it otherwise would -- reducing the period between sunset and bedtime by one hour. It has been argued that this means less electricity would be used for lighting late in the day. Indeed, according to a 1975 U.S. Department of Transportation study, the switch to DST reduced the country’s electrical usage by about 1 per cent a day. (The same might also be true in the winter, except that days are so short that more lighting would be needed in the early morning darkness, offsetting any savings in the evening.)
       It all sounds good, except that it’s not clear that it’s entirely correct. In fact, a 2005 University of California study on power usage in Indiana concluded that longer evenings lead to an increased amount of energy use. This is thought to be because when people come home from their day at work and it is still warm and sunny out, they are more likely to use air conditioning. And certainly more people have air conditioning now than 30+ years ago -- when the last study was completed.
       So much for being green today. I'll just have to do more.

Helping or Hurting (Part 2)

I'm not the only one who must face questions about how best to go green and what the implications are of each decision made.

       I just finished reading David de Rothschild's "Global Warming Survival Handbook".  This delightful book discusses 67 ways to help stop climate change, and lists 10 additional ways to cope with a climate meltdown if all else fails (including buying a camel, and developing scaly skin). 

    But the very fact of the book itself raises some environmental questions. For example, although the book is 160 pages long, its content might have been reduced to a simple list of the 77 essential skills.  This might have been printed on perhaps three pages of paper, instead of 160.  Although it is printed on recycled paper, surely recycled paper should not be wasted any more than non-recycled paper.  

       To save even more paper, the contents might simply have been e-mailed or posted on a web site, thereby avoiding not only the use of paper, but also the electrical power required to print and manufacture the book. And consider the further environmental costs of transporting the book to bookstores and book distributors -- the fuel used to truck or fly it from where it is produced to where it is sold, the paper or plastic used to package it, and so on. And if you order it from Amazon, for example, there will be the further packaging and transportation costs of getting it to you. Don't get me wrong. It's a worthwhile book, but is it helping or hurting?

       And consider the life of the author, David de Rothschild, who Wikipedia calls an "adventurer and environmentalist".  I mean, it sounds like the guy has some noble causes in mind, but the fact is that he draws attention to them by skydiving, traveling the world, etc.  He might want to consider the environmental costs of these actions.  His own book points out that flying on an airplane is a highly effective way to "dump a whole lot of warming gases into the atmosphere really quickly". For all the good he is doing for the planet, he might do a whole lot of good simply by spending his life sitting really still.  Not that I mean to attack him. Indeed, I would be happy to marry the cute, smart, 30-year-old multi-millionaire. Sorry, Tom.  But his life choices do have environmental implications. And who knows exactly where the line should be drawn?

       I do not intend to spend the whole month questioning such decisions, however. And to prove my own commitment to change, I drove my healing body parts to the store yesterday to buy recycled paper towels and compact flourescent light bulbs -- using fuel and adding CO2 emissions to the atmosphere along the way, and carrying the items in plastic bags made only partially from recycled materials. I'll discuss these purchases in the future. 

       But I do hope the environment comes out ahead, in the end.

Helping or Hurting?

       After only one day of effort, I can already say that turning green can be both bewildering and painful.
       There are so many ways to be more environmentally caring that it’s hard to know where to start, and even more difficult to know what value to put on each effort, or if that should even be done.
       Take yesterday for example. I had a doctor’s appointment in the afternoon, and knowing that I had another errand to run near to the doctor’s office, I decided to drive my car to the doctor’s parking lot, have my appointment, and then leave the car there while I walked to the nearby locale to run my errand -- which seemed like a good thing.

       But first I felt bad while driving my car, since in theory, I could have ridden my bike -- if I owned one. But if I had ridden a bike, I’d probably want to wash up a bit by the time I got the the doctor’s office, and that would waste water and possibly add some soapy residue to the water system. So driving seemed like an okay idea, but I figured I’d better not use air conditioning, so I opened the windows instead. I also chose a route down side streets so I could avoid having the car idle while stopped at traffic lights. And I think I actually got to my appointment in less time than I would have otherwise, so maybe I learned a lesson there. 

       All went well with my appointment and my errand, until I tripped over some broken sidewalk while returning to my car, and scraped both my knees and one hand, and likely sprained my thumb. My lesson there is either that walking is dangerous or that I need to practice it more.
       Since I was bleeding and barely able to turn the steering wheel with my injured hand, I drove home the more direct way, and stopped at many traffic lights which meant that the car was idling frequently.  The bigger problem (in addition to the blood) was that if not for my injuries, I would have run a few more errands on the way home, including buying some “green products”, which would have saved me another car trip today, which would have saved fuel overall, and reduced emissions.
       Instead, I went straight home, and cleaned my various wounds. I used some of our super-absorbent paper towels to soak up and wash off the blood, and then felt guilty about that since there wasn’t that much blood and I might have managed it without paper towels. Or maybe I should have used a washcloth to stem the flow? But the washcloth is made of cotton, and farmers use a lot of pesticides while growing cotton and I didn’t want to be encouraging that. And I would have had to clean the washcloth afterwards, using up water and electricity and adding more soapy residue to the environment.
       I considered saving the paper towels so that I could re-use them in case I later spilled something on the floor, for example. But as wiping the floor with bloody paper towels seemed wrong somehow, I decided to throw them out, adding guilt to my pain and future mass to a garbage dump.
       And since I was in pain and unable to cook, Tom brought home some chicken and side dishes from a take-out place, packaged of course in disposable foil pans and plastic containers -- and all inside a plastic bag inside a paper bag. After eating, I rinsed the food containers for recycling, but at what cost in water?
       And all this was because I hadn’t driven the car to my second errand. 

       At the end of the day, had the environment come out ahead? I know I hadn’t.

Turning Green

       It's another new month, and time for another new resolution. So for the month of March, I resolve to turn green. The easy way to do this might be to simply eat some tapioca pudding and then ride a Tilt-A-Whirl.  

       But since I have a whole month,  I am planning to do it the hard way. I have resolved to do more -- in my own life and my own household -- to take better care of the environment.

       Frankly, I feel a bit unenthusiastic about this proposal. Indeed, I have been actively resisting it for some time -- not because I don't care about the environment -- but because I often try to avoid overly "trendy" things. And green is definitely the in color of the times.

       Despite my lack of greenthusiasm, I already do some typically green things.  For example, I have recycled for many years -- even before it was required by law.  I try not to buy goods that come in excessive packaging.  I use bio-degradable bags to pick up Olympia's dog poop.  But I do all of this casually -- simply because it seems the right thing to do. In other words, I do it without a true commitment to saving the planet.

       For the coming month, I am going to do more.  I am going to involve green thinking in as much of my life as possible.  I am going to seek out advice, do my research and work harder to insert green choices into my life and my household. I am going to consider reasons, results, costs and consequences.  As I  have done for the last two months, I want to try to determine what seems right and good and appropriate for my life --and what might simply seem silly, misguided or just plain annoying.

       And any advice or input from readers will truly be appreciated -- especially on the topics that will truly touch me deeply... For instance, what brand of horrific recycled toilet paper should I use???