How To Save Energy Through Conservation

Haven't Subscribed to
This Series ?
Every week or so we'll e-mail to you notice of the next conservation suggestion, as well as what new articles on alternative energy and the climate threat we've published on the website. Just send us your e-mail address by clicking here .

♦ THERE'S MUCH MORE TO KNOW ♦
For articles about alternate sources of energy and what's being done (or not done) to make them a reality, be sure to visit the other pages of PlanetWatch by clicking the topics below:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

WHAT WE CAN DO #9:
Kick the Bottled Water Habit, Drink Out of the Tap

In the wake of high gasoline prices, presidential candidates and pundits are debating drilling offshore and in ANWAR or recovering oil from tar sands or shale. However, there is something that all of us can do immediately to reduce our addiction to oil while contributing to the health of the planet.
     Though some products appear to be benign on the surface, or even guarantee some positive results, their production and distribution may have side effects which are less than positive. Bottled water meets that criterion since no one would question the benefits of consuming pure water or the human body’s need for hydration.
     However, at least two ounces of oil are used to produce every plastic water bottle, which given the 50 billion plastic bottles consumed last year in the United States, adds up to millions of gallons of gasoline. Not only are the plastic bottles made from crude oil, which has to be transported thousands of miles across oceans or through pipelines, but once bottled, the water is shipped thousands of miles across oceans and national boundaries.
     One study estimates that 18 million barrels of oil are being converted into plastic water bottles every day, while the bottled water industry consumes 41 billion gallons of fresh water everyday for a product which American consumers already possess.
     In some cases, communities have complained that local bottling plants are depleting local water sources and there is an international movement to maintain a fundamental human right to clean water by opposing attempts to privatize water. Because consumers have been sold a bill of goods that tap water is unsafe and the packaged product is superior, there is a risk that the public will not support or maintain their public water systems.
     Since 40% of bottled water is taken from public water sources, or out of the tap, and health standards are less stringent for bottled water than tap water throughout the United States, consumers are paying for a product which is basically free and with no guarantee that the bottled product is healthier than their tap water. If water is produced and sold within a state, the FDA has no jurisdiction and it lacks adequate staffing to inspect national or imported brands.
     There is also increasing concern that the chemicals used in plastic bottles are toxic and that water left in these bottles for periods of time or in warm settings will carry traces of these harmful chemicals. If you need to carry water with you, avoid using any plastic bottles numbered 3, 6 or 7 (in triangle on the bottom) since they contain potential carcinogens and avoid leaving water for long periods of time even in the safest #1 bottles. Do not reuse bottles intended for single use or leave bottled water in hot places.

     To compound the problem, less than 25% of plastic bottles are recycled and end up being hauled to landfills, consuming more gasoline or diesel, where they will slowly decompose over thousands of years. The Great Pacific Garbage Patch. a mass of floating plastic in the remote Pacific, northeast of Hawaii, not only graphically illustrates our plastic dependency, but also our profligate lifestyle.
     The benefits of recycling plastic bottles is also questionable, given the fact that the bundled bottles are shipped to Asia where they are reprocessed into other products and then shipped back to Europe or the United States, further consuming energy and releasing carbon emissions.
     Because of their concern, some major cities have banned the use of bottled water in their facilities or events and have also banned the use of plastic bags for many of the same reasons. While a number of companies are researching bioplastics made from plant material, which would be biodegradable as well as cheaper, given the rising cost of oil, they would not reduce the energy consumed or emissions produced in the transport of bottled water to distant markets nor protect community water sources.
     In view of the above, the best way to combat this unnecessary waste of energy is to kick the habit of buying water in plastic bottles and switch to drinking water straight from your tap, either direct or filtered, and if necessary, carried in a safe reusable plastic, ceramic, aluminum or stainless steel container, all of which are available in local stores. In the process, you will cut costs and know that your water is safe, while decreasing your carbon footprint, reducing our dependency on imported oil and helping to preserve the planet.
     If you are convinced of the above, you can not only boycott bottled water but also join others by making a pledge declaring that water is a human right, not a commodity to be exploited for profit, at thinkoutsidethebottle.org. Tell them we sent you!
      - Tony White

  WHAT WE CAN DO #10

 How to save energy and pay your food bill at the same
 time—just take the bus

According to a new study by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the time-honored strategy of “leave the driving to us” has become a new economic strategy at today’s gas prices.
     APTA’s calculations show that a person can generate savings of more than $8,000 per year by using public transportation and living with one fewer car in the family garage. This is a savings greater than the annual food budget, according to the Food Institute.
     The APTA conclusions are based on today’s gas prices of $3.909 a gallon as reported by AAA, and the cost of the monthly transportation pass charged in the 20 cities with highest transit ridership. Applying those factors to the top twenty cities generates monthly savings ranging upwards from $590 in Washington DC to $725 in Honolulu, which translates to a weighted annual average savings of $8,059 per year.
     Adjusting the family life-style to accommodate the
single car household will require some compromises, but avoiding the costs of owning and operating the second car is no trivial savings, not to mention the opportunity for productive time on board transit instead of behind the wheel in rush hour traffic.
     As William W. Millar, president of APTA said, “In these tough economic times, a record number of Americans are saying my other car is the train or bus and it helps me balance my budget.” Transit ridership has been rising steadily over recent years, with a recent spike reflecting the cost of gasoline. Last year, transit trips totaled over 10.3 billion, a fifty-year high, and during the first quarter of 2008, ridership rose by 3.4% while vehicle miles on the highway were down by 2.3%.
      To calculate your own potential savings, you can access the APTA calculator at www.publictransportation.org.
    - Mort Downey
  FOR WHAT WE CAN DO #1 THROUGH #5, CLICK HERE

WHAT WE CAN DO #8:
If You Haven't Converted to CFLs Yet...

You can buy them (compact flourescent bulbs) almost anywhere conventional incandescent bulbs are sold. (Home Depot, Lowe’s, Walmart, Target, Costco, Sam's). Most have a telltale twist that looks a bit like a soft vanilla ice cream cone. Low in wattage (7-watt CFL equals 40-watt incandescent, 26-watt CFL equals 100-watt incandescent, for example). They They cost more than incandescents., but the power savings they produce offer a return on investment of which we would all be proud. Don’t look for “CFL” on the label, as manufacturers give them their own catchy names, such as G.E.’s “Energy Savers.”
     As with so many advances, there are downsides to CFLs. Each bulb contains about 5mg of mercury, which means you should not put them in the trash when they give out (usually after several years), which would route them to landfills. CFLs are also slightly hazardous if they break, as they release mercury vapor, which is toxic, especially to the newborn. (The Center for Disease Control says that 8% of all women of child bearing age – 4.9 million – have mercury levels high enough that the 830,000 children they bear each year are at risk of brain damage.
     Roddy Scheer, in an E-Magazine article entitled "The Dark Side of CFLs, had this to say about the problem:
     “While the world embraces compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL) as an energy-efficient alternative to the incandescent bulbs that have reined supreme for 125 years, a new crop of concerns has arisen about the potential for mercury contamination from the newer bulbs. While each CFL contains only a trace amount of mercury, landfill managers are worried that large numbers of them ending up in their facilities could pose problems for employees, not to mention surrounding communities.
     The Environmental Protection Agency recommends switching over to the bulbs for the energy and greenhouse gas emissions savings, but it acknowledges that the newer bulbs pose a contamination problem when they break. The agency’s website provides a detailed outline on how to air out a room to dispose of the pieces of a broken CFL so as not to endanger family members or the environment.
     Currently only seven U.S. States ban putting CFLs in the regular trash, and there are still very few CFL recycling centers. “I think there are going to be hundreds of millions [of CFLs] in landfills all over the country,” says Leonard Worth of Illinois-based CFL recycler Fluorecycle.
     CFL manufacturers are working hard to minimize the mercury in their bulbs while simultaneously ramping up R&D on other high-efficiency bulbs that do not contain these toxic elements (such as light-emitting diode bulbs and high-efficiency incandescents). A solution is needed urgently, as Australia, China and now the U.S. have made big commitments to CFLs in order to lower their carbon footprints.”
     It is worth remembering that most of us have been dealing with the disposal of conventional fluorescent bulbs for many years, and have learned what to do with them in our respective locations. The CFL problem is not as complex as that.
     While we are considering the mercury in CFLs, it is important to realize that mercury is also emitted by burning coal, a pollutant not restricted by the Clean Air Act. Keeping this in mind, remember that CFLs draw one-sixth the electricity of incandescents. If everyone uses them, there will be less coal consumed by utilities, and hence, lower emissions of mercury. Incandescent bulbs spend most of their lives making heat, not light.
     Some will say, that is OK in the winter, right? Yes, it is true, but it is the opposite in the summer, when the AC needs to overcome the heat from light bulbs on top of the atmospheric heat. But, it is interesting that the economics of CFLs improve at the higher Latitudes because there the balance between heating and cooling is more even.
     According to the New York Times, 22% of electricity is used for lighting. About 42% of that 22% are incandescents, say NRDC and Phillips Lighting, as part of a group that has been formed to totally eliminate them. “A complete phase-out would save $18 billion per year in electricity, and obviate the need for 30 nuclear reactors or 80 coal-fired power plants." Just a quick note about the coming-of-age of light-emitting diodes (LEDs), which don’t have a mercury problem. Today, they work well as accent and dash lights, as well as desk and floor lamps. (More about LEDs in a future article.) For now, however, if you want to replace your average light bulb, CFLs are the wave of the present and near future.
      - John Burr

WHAT WE CAN DO #7:
A Beef About Beef

It is not news that there is a mounting food crisis in the world. In the U.S. what makes the biggest headlines is that corn has been diverted to ethanol production, raising the price of corn as food. But the problem goes well beyond corn. The World Bank reports that in the past year the price of grains has risen 42%, corn has doubled in price since 2006, and rice, the staple the world relies on most, is up a horrific 147%. Just when the world’s poor had been reduced to a billion – a staggering number, to be sure – the U.N.’s world food program believes that 100 million have been thrown back into the poverty pit.
     The problem also goes well beyond ethanol, and that’s where all of us can help. Some 80% of U.S. grain is fed to livestock. A 1050-lb steer eats 2700-lbs of feed during the 3 years preceding its slaughter. Instead of feeding humans with grain that is needed around the planet, we are feeding on average four to five pounds to animals so as to put one pound of meat on our family’s plates.
The message? Let's eat less meat.
     Wasted grain is not the only reason to cut back on meat. Worldwide, the meat industry contributes about 18% of greenhouse-gas emission, said a report from the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization. That’s even more than transportation generates. The emissions take the form of methane, which — we’ll let the New York Times choose the words for us — is "the natural result of bovine digestion”. As a greenhouse gas, methane is 23 times as potent as carbon dioxide. Then there is the manure and its nitrous oxide — with a greenhouse effect almost 300 times greater than CO2. Once used to fertilize the fields when family farms raised both livestock and crops, manure today has nowhere to go other than the giant “poop lagoons” that are asphyxiating states like North Carolina.
     As for CO2 itself, doubly-emitting refrigerated trucks bring the meat from feedlots and slaughterhouses that may be half the country away from you, contributing to the statistic that we have probably all seen: that our average mouthful has traveled 1,500 miles.
     It’s easy to cut down on meat, and in today’s economy, you will certainly save money. You can cut meat consumption in half by combining it with other ingredients — with a big boost in flavor variation in the bargain. Instead of throwing steaks on the grill, buy half as much, skewer it with mushrooms, peppers and onions and make shish-kebab; instead of pork chops, buy half as many, dice them and combine with peas, scallions, ginger, soy sauce and sesame oil to make pork fried rice. There is no end of possibilities, and the Internet with its uncountable recipes will think of them for you. Just enter ingredient pairs, such as “beans+steak” into a search engine .
     And, of course, every meal does not need to have meat. It is high in calories, adding to America’s waistlines, potentially leading to diabetes and — red meat in particular — cardiovascular diseases. So you would be cutting back for health reasons as well.
      Michael Pollan, author "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and more recently, "In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto"", sums it up as follows: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants”.
      - Stephen Wilson

WHAT WE CAN DO #6:
Nostalgia Recommended As Your Washday Softener

What could be more basic than a rope strung between two hooks for drying clothes? Using the energy of the sun and an occasional breeze, and no fossil fuels, wet fabrics dry with a minimum of effort, subject, of course, to season or climate. Best of all, it is free!
     Many of us also have fond childhood memories of playing under a line of fresh smelling drying linen. Lacking a drier, and wanting to conserve money and energy, our mother hung her clothes out year around in Vermont, after her sons shoveled a path in winter. While the sheets froze stiff and hung like boards from the line, they were fresh and soft when thawed. Years later, in her nineties, she still refused to use a drier and insisted on hanging her clothes in her backyard.
     Around the world, villagers wash their clothes in streams or lakes and drape them on grass, shrubs or rocks to dry. Equally familiar is the scene of clothes hanging from apartment windows or balconies, adding color to the community while nature slowly dries blankets, shirts, pants and underwear.
     In San Francisco, during the Gold Rush, Chinese immigrants hung out laundry they washed for their customers. Banned from the gold fields of California and many other occupations by anti-foreigner legislation, Chinese men, who constituted 95% of the immigrants from China, turned to washing clothes to support themselves. Little capital was required, only a tub, hot water and soap, and the lack of English could be solved by circles indicating the coins to be paid for different loads. Besides, no other males were interested or willing to do the work.
Bans on Clotheslines and Energy Conservation      Yet, in our exclusive urban and suburban communities, homeowners associations or apartment and condo boards prohibit the outside display of drying clothes. While some residents may consider the appearance of clotheslines or drying clothes objectionable, others might find them a matter of convenience and appreciate the satisfaction of clean, freshly dried clothing, without consuming energy or releasing carbon emissions.
     Given the increasing use and cost of energy, perhaps we should reconsider these bans on clotheslines. Like any other appliance, an electric or gas drier consumes energy, increasing the demand for and cost of energy, unless it is derived from wind or solar installations. Next to the refrigerator, clothes driers consume the greatest amount of electricity of any household appliance.
     One study concluded that 60% of the energy consumed by a piece of clothing is from washing and drying it over its lifetime. According to the California Energy Commission’ Consumer Energy Center, 5% of your energy bill can be cut by using a clothesline, saving $100-300 dollars a year, depending on your drier, wardrobe, habits and the size of your family.
Community Cooperation, Planning and Solutions      Certainly the appearance of drying clothes should not be that objectionable and given our energy crisis, a full clothesline could be viewed as part of a shared effort to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gasses. In order to mitigate an excess of crisscrossing clotheslines, special arrangements or designs could be developed, or residents could use stationary wood racks or umbrella-style rotating clotheslines in patios or on decks or balconies.
     Or why not encourage designers to plan future living spaces to include areas or devices for drying clothes, creating efficient and attractive structures or facilities which would utilize the sun, much as in passive solar systems, to dry clothes. Many urban communities have created community gardens so that residents can grow and enjoy fresh produce. Since this assumes a sense of community and trust, why couldn’t the same spirit be used to save energy and contribute to reducing emissions by incorporating drying racks or retractable lines in new buildings, or even designing a space for a common clothesline or drying area?
     While constructing or installing a clothesline is a simple project, requiring rope, hooks or pulleys, all of which are available at most hardware stores, there are also ready-made devices or racks for drying clothes. A couple in California has created a new business (linedry.com) by designing attractive redwood trellises with a retractable clothesline. Erected in a patio, it can also double as trellis for flowering vines. Other specialty vendors feature traditional hardware from wooden clothespins, cloth bags for pins to ropes and pulleys for a window or deck to a pole system.
National Campaign Activists in New England have also launched a national movement to lift bans on line drying clothes. The Project Laundry List (laundrylist.org) promotes “The Right to Dry” through public education, including a National Hanging Out Day (April 19), and actively lobbying to pass legislation to eliminate restrictions on clotheslines by homeowner associations or condo boards.
     According to the campaign, line drying not only saves money and energy, but the sun also bleaches and disinfects items, naturally dried fabrics last longer (without lint), and clothes, sheets and towels smell better. Driers, on the other hand, cause millions of dollars of damage every year by causing fires.
Precedents In the Hamptons, known worldwide as the fashionable address of millionaires and celebrities, the Town Board of Southampton lifted the ban on clotheslines. Although it will probably be maids or servants who will do the washing and hanging of the clothes, at least the stigma of having a clothesline will have been hung out to dry.
     At a senior housing project in Sebastopol, California, the residents were divided over lifting a ban on clotheslines. While some cited the energy crisis, the need to reduce their carbon footprint and sustainability, others adamantly opposed any change. After extensive negotiations, residents compromised and agreed to a 90-day trial of 5 clotheslines. In another nearby retirement community, consisting mainly of separate residences, the ban on clotheslines remains firmly in place.
Psychic Benefits      Finally, the act of washing and drying one’s garments using the sun and the wind is not very time consuming and both hanging and gathering can be viewed as a time of reflection and satisfaction, knowing that one is not wasting energy or causing harm to the environment. It might also be a time of meditation, a relaxing escape from the pressure of a hectic, stressful life style and a pleasant outdoor physical activity.
     While drying garments using the sun will save energy and reduce emissions, the washing of the same items also consumes energy but can be minimized by waiting for full loads or using cold water, especially since most detergents work in cold water. Keep tuned to Planet Watch for more on what you can do to make your laundry green.
     With a minimum of effort, all of us can make a difference by using the sun to dry garments, sheets, blankets and rugs, weather permitting. If your community has regulations which prohibit the use of clotheslines, or even drying racks, why not discuss these restrictions with your neighbors and persuade other members to join you in lifting these bans? Assert your “right to dry!” Go solar, join your neighbors in bringing back a valuable tradition!      - Tony White