EarthTalk: Eco-clubs and Bush's legacy

Dear EarthTalk: I’m thinking about starting an environmental club in my middle school.  Can you give me some ideas about how to start?  Can you connect me with other school clubs?
-- Rosemary, Andover Township, N.J.

Starting an environmental club at school is a great way to get students energized about taking care of the Earth and helping their community while learning about some of the most important issues facing the world in the 21st century.

EarthTeam, a non-profit environmental network for teens, teachers and youth leaders, offers many tips on how to start an environmental club. First and foremost is to make sure there are at least a half dozen or so other students interested in forming such a club to begin with, and then also finding a teacher, community leader or parent who is willing to serve as an adult sponsor. The sponsor’s role is to provide advice along the way and to help ensure the stability of the group from year-to-year given that all of the students, even the founders of the club, will eventually graduate, or move on to other interests or endeavors.

Once the core membership and adult sponsor have been established, EarthTeam suggests all sitting down together to decide on the club’s vision (“Why are we here?”) and to brainstorm about possible activities or projects to undertake (“What do we want to accomplish?”). Once these questions have been answered, it’s time to hold the club’s first official meeting, which should be advertised as widely as possible to other students who may be interested in finding out what the group is about and how they can get involved, too.

The next step, according to EarthTeam, is to forge an action plan that focuses on one group-oriented, year-long project that has measurable benefits to the school or community and that can keep the interest of the student members—who will no doubt be spending long hours volunteering. Whatever project(s) the group decides on, members should develop a timeline that clearly lists goals, dates and responsibilities.

In addition to undertaking the one major project, clubs can also host or sponsor special events for extra visibility. EarthTeam suggests getting students outside for a river or beach clean-up, a tree planting day, or a field trip to a local wetland, zoo or nature reserve. Another popular idea is to hold an Environmental Awareness Day to educate the entire student body about relevant green issues.

EarthTeam is also a networking platform so clubs can work together and share experiences with each other to help get a sense of the bigger picture beyond one individual school’s locale, given the global nature of most environmental issues. Another great networking resource is the Greenspan website, which lists clubs in 21 different U.S. states as well as in Australia, Canada, Japan, Ghana and Malaysia.

Another great resource for those starting up new or managing existing school environmental clubs is the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Student Center website, which offers dozens of ideas for projects that both stimulate and enlighten participants while helping the local community. The website also provides links to several partner non-profit groups with club-worthy activities.

CONTACTS: EarthTeam, www.earthteam.net; Greenspan Environmental Club Network, www.greenspanworld.org/environmental_club_network.htm; U.S. EPA Student Center, www.epa.gov/students.

The Bush administration has certainly been no friend to the environment. Besides working for eight years to overturn the Clinton administration’s “Roadless Rule” that prevented road building (and the logging that usually follows) on 58.5 million acres of national forests, the Bush White House has opened up 45 million additional acres of public land across the American West to oil and gas drilling during its tenure.

Right now Bush is pushing to open up thousands more acres in sensitive areas around three national parks in Utah to more oil and gas extraction. According to The New York Times, these new oil and gas “leases” (the government leases drilling rights on public land to private companies) will be auctioned off on December 19, 2008, the last day the White House may carry out such transactions before leaving office.

Obama transition team insiders have already hinted that they will work to overturn the Utah oil and gas leases once they are in power. Obama’s trump card might be the fact that Bush failed to give his own National Park Service (NPS) sufficient opportunity to comment on the proposed leases before forcing them through. Green leaders hope that Obama can at least re-set the decision-making process to give the NPS and other interested parties time to voice their concerns before the oil rigs and gas pipelines move in. Green leaders also hope that, beyond stopping the Utah leases, Obama will curtail the number of leases sold altogether, in part by forcing extraction firms to develop sites they already have rights to before leasing more acreage. Oil companies have already leased 68 million acres of lands they have yet to access.

On the Roadless Rule, itself an 11th-hour executive order by Bill Clinton that has been mired in the courts since Bush tried to overturn it in 2001, Obama promised during the campaign that he would work with Congress to codify it as the law of the land. Luckily for greens, the back-and-forth on the issue over the past eight years has meant that only seven miles of new roads—yielding access to just 500 acres of timber—have been cut on lands slated for protection under the Roadless Rule during Bush’s tenure.

Obama also has his work cut out on a number of other environmental initiatives ignored or opposed by the Bush White House. Chief among them is taking action on global warming. If one can believe the campaign rhetoric, Obama will work to get the U.S. on track to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050 through a number of initiatives. Jason Grumet, the Obama campaign’s lead energy and environment advisor, has indicated that the president-elect plans to move quickly on getting climate change legislation through in 2009 and working to make the U.S. a leader on mitigating global warming.

Another way Obama can win green friends is to undo a Bush proposal, slated to take effect in December, to cut wildlife experts out of decisions affecting plants and animals protected under the Endangered Species Act. Bush has faced sharp criticism for disregarding or ignoring the input of scientists on many issues. Obama seems likely to want to re-assert the importance of science in policy decision-making.

CONTACTS: Barack Obama on the Issues, www.barackobama.com/issues; U.S. Forest Service Roadless Rule Information, roadless.fs.fed.us.

Dear EarthTalk: My wife and I drive more than 20,000 miles a year in our recreational vehicle (RV) which gets about seven miles to the gallon, but high fuel prices are eating into our nest egg. Are there more fuel efficient ways to enjoy the RV lifestyle?
-- Walter Hendricks, Tampa, Fla.

Major RV manufacturers all report a downturn in sales since the price of fuel started to skyrocket a few years ago. A typical RV weighs more and gets worse gas mileage than an 18-wheeler truck, and those who might have bought one in the past to save money on lodging and food on their road travels are now realizing that filling ‘er up might end up costing more than hotels and restaurants.

But as with the auto and truck industry overall, some RV manufacturers are scrambling to incorporate new features and design new models with better fuel efficiency and a lower overall carbon footprint.

According to the website RV.net, several factors go into designing a greener RV. First and foremost is reducing weight, which can be accomplished by using lighter materials and improving the structural design. Reducing the size of RV engines also can help reduce fuel consumption (as well as overall weight)—if owners can live with trading off some horsepower, that is. More efficient transmissions, better aerodynamics and increased non-powered engine cooling round out the suggestions on RV.net.

Some of these features can be found in the new Avanti line of RVs from Indiana-based Damon Motor Coach, which offers a 70 percent or more increase in fuel economy over other large (“Class A”) RVs. Damon essentially converted the ultra-efficient chassis, engine and transmission of a leading parcel delivery fleet truck—package delivery companies optimize for fuel efficiency in their fleets to save on fuel—for use as an RV. The Avanti’s chassis also sits lower than other RVs, so it gets less wind resistance. These factors add up in fuel efficiency—14.5 miles per gallon—double that of other RVs in its class.

Of course, size isn’t everything. Ontario-based Roadtrek takes stripped down commercial vans—such as the Chevrolet Express or Dodge Sprinter—and converts them into deluxe, albeit smaller, motor homes with fuel efficiency ranging from 15 to 30 miles per gallon. Meanwhile, Sportsmobile also offers a wide range of converted GM and Ford vans customized as motor homes. Owners of Volkswagen’s popular “pop-top” Eurovan, discontinued in North America in 2003, can reportedly sell their vans for what they paid for them new, even with high mileage, due to surging demand and lack of supply.

Another option for reducing fuel consumption is to put a “slide-in” camper-top onto an existing pick-up truck. The additional weight will decrease fuel efficiency slightly, but you’ll still get much better mileage than with any kind of large RV. Those used to roomier accommodations might opt to tow a “fifth-wheel”—a large RV-style trailer with all the amenities—behind a suitable car, pick-up or SUV with a trailer hitch.

But no matter what, living on the road is not going to be good for your carbon footprint or for the environment in general. If the environment is a big concern, giving up the RV—and outfitting your home with energy efficient windows and appliances—might just be the most responsible thing you can do.

CONTACTS: RV.net, www.rv.net; Damon Motor Coach, www.damonrv.com; Roadtrek, www.roadtrek.com; Sportsmobile, www.sportsmobile.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I caught the tail end of a discussion about “ecopsychology” recently on the radio, something about the negative impacts of people not communing with nature enough, spending too much time watching TV, sitting at computers, etc... Can you enlighten?
-- Bridget W., Seattle, Wash.

The term ecopsychology, first coined by writer and theorist Theodore Roszak in his 1992 book, Voice of the Earth, is loosely defined as the connection between ecology and human psychology. Roszak argues that humans can heal what he calls their “psychological alienation” from nature and build a more sustainable society if they recognize that we all have an innate emotional bond with the natural world.

The basic premise is that we operate under an illusion that people are separate from nature, and that humans are more apt to derive comfort and even inspiration from contact with the natural world—with which they evolved over the millennia—than with the relatively recent construct of modern urban society. Distancing ourselves from nature, Roszak maintains, has negative psychological consequences for people and also leads to ecological devastation at the hands of a society that, as a result, lacks empathy for nature.

In a more recent essay called “Ecopsychology: Eight Principles,” Roszak, who went on to start the non-profit Ecopsychology Institute, states that the core of the mind is the ecological unconscious, which, if repressed, can lead to an “insane” treatment of nature. “For ecopsychology, repression of the ecological unconscious is the deepest root of collusive madness in industrial society,” he writes, adding that “open access to the ecological unconscious is the path to sanity.”

While many psychotherapists have adopted aspects of ecopsychology in treating various mental illnesses and psychological disorders, the teachings of Roszak and other contributors to the still-evolving field can be helpful even for those not in need of a therapist’s care. John V. Davis, a Naropa University professor who teaches and writes about ecopsychology, for example, says that meditating in the outdoors, participating in wilderness retreats, involving oneself in nature-based festivals or celebrations of the seasons or other natural phenomena, joining in Earth-nurturing activities such as environmental restoration or advocacy work, and spending time around animals (including pets, which have been shown to have healing effects with the elderly and with people with psychological disabilities) are just a few ways in which the discipline can be used by everyday people to the benefit of their psychological health.

Getting kids involved with nature and the outdoors is viewed by ecopsychology fans as key to their development, especially in the technological age we occupy now. Richard Louv, author of the book, Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature Deficit Disorder, argues that kids are so plugged into television and video games that they’ve lost their connection to the natural world. This disconnect, Louv maintains, has led not only to poor physical fitness among our youth (including obesity), but also long-term mental and spiritual health problems. His work has sparked a worldwide movement to introduce more kids to the wonders of nature through various planned and spontaneous activities.

CONTACTS: Ecopsychology Institute, ecopsychology.athabascau.ca; John V. Davis, www.johnvdavis.com; Richard Louv, www.richardlouv.com; International Institute for Ecopsychology, www.ecopsychology.org; Project NatureConnect, www.ecopsych.com.

Dear EarthTalk: What’s the story with LED light bulbs that are reputed to be even more energy-efficient than compact fluorescents?
-- Toby Eskridge, Little Rock, Ark.

Perhaps the ultimate “alternative to the alternative,” the LED (light-emitting diode) light bulb may well dethrone the compact fluorescent (CFL) as king of the green lighting choices. But it has a way to go yet in terms of both affordability and brightness.

LEDs have been used widely for decades in other applications—forming the numbers on digital clocks, lighting up watches and cell phones and, when used in clusters, illuminating traffic lights and forming the images on large outdoor television screens. Until recently LED lighting has been impractical to use for most other everyday applications because it is built around costly semiconductor technology. But the price of semiconductor materials has dropped in recent years, opening the door for some exciting changes in energy-efficient, green friendly lighting options.

According to HowStuffWorks.com, LED bulbs are lit solely by the movement of electrons. Unlike incandescents, they have no filament that will burn out; and unlike CFLs, they contain no mercury or other toxic substances. Proponents say LEDs can last some 60 times longer than incandescents and 10 times longer than CFLs. And unlike incandescents, which generate a lot of waste heat, LEDs don’t get especially hot and use a much higher percentage of electricity for directly generating light.

But as with early CFLs, LED bulbs are not known for their brightness. According to a January 2008 article in Science Daily, “Because of their structure and material, much of the light in standard LEDs becomes trapped, reducing the brightness of the light and making them unsuitable as the main lighting source in the home.” LED makers get around this problem in some applications by clustering many small LED bulbs together in a single casing to concentrate the light emitted. But such LED “bulbs” still don’t generate light much brighter than a 35-watt incandescent, much too little light for reading or other focused tasks.

If LEDs are going to replace incandescents and CFLs, manufacturers will have to make them brighter. EarthLED is lighting the way with its EvoLux and ZetaLux bulbs, which use multiple LEDs in a single casing to generate light. The EvoLux delivers light equal to that of a 100-watt incandescent, the company says. But the $80/bulb price tag may be tough to swallow. The ZetaLux, which retails for $49.99, delivers light equivalent to a 50- or 60-watt incandescent, will last 50,000 hours and costs only $2/yearly to run.

Other bulb makers are working on similar designs for high-powered LED bulbs, hoping that an increase in availability will help spur demand, which will in turn lower prices across the board. Until then, consumers can find LED bulbs suitable for secondary and mood lighting purposes in many hardware and big box stores. C. Crane’s 1.3-watt LED bulb, for example, generates as much light as a 15-watt incandescent bulb. Check your local hardware store for other options, as well as online vendors such as Best Home LED Lighting, Bulbster, SuperBrightLEDs.com and We Love LEDs.

CONTACTS: How Stuff Works, www.howstuffworks.com/led.htm; EarthLED, www.earthled.com; Best Home LED Lighting, www.besthomeledlighting.com; Bulbster, www.bulbster.com; SuperBrightLEDs.com, www.superbrightleds.com; We Love LEDs, www.weloveleds.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Used motor oil is a big contributor to the pollution in our waterways and drinking water. How can I make sure I am not contributing to this problem?
-- John Eckerle, Jupiter, Fla.

Motor oil leaked from individual vehicles—or outright dumped by homeowners and commercial garages—constitutes a significant chunk of storm water runoff, the fallen precipitation that runs off of roads and parking lots and inevitably finds its way into local water bodies.

These pollutants include not only leaked motor oil—which may contain toxic substances like lead, benzene, zinc or magnesium—but also fertilizers, insecticides, plastic debris, cigarette butts, paints, solvents, sediments and other hazardous waste. Topsoil and natural vegetation would ordinarily filter many of these pollutants out, but the impermeable pavement that covers much of the surface where these pollutants originate carries it right into storm drains and into streams, rivers, lakes and the ocean where it can poison marine life—which we might eat—as well as entire riparian or coastal ecosystems.

This pollution also finds its way into underground aquifers that supply our drinking water, so reducing it is a human health measure and could also save municipalities millions of dollars a year in drinking water treatment facilities and operational expenses.

While government agencies try to craft and implement development and zoning standards to help reduce storm water runoff problems caused by commercial and industrial entities, there is still much that individuals can do to reduce their impact as well. Indeed, upwards of 40 percent of oil pollution in the U.S. comes from the improper disposal of used motor oil by individuals.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends keeping on top of automotive maintenance to prevent and repair leaks, and disposing of used motor oil and other automotive fluids and batteries at designated drop-offs or recycling locations (consult Earth911.org to find one near you). Also, it is preferable to wash your car at a commercial car wash instead of in your driveway. By law, car washes must treat their wastewater before disposing of it.

Besides handling and discarding your motor oil and other automotive fluids responsibly, cutting back on or eliminating fertilizers and pesticides from your lawn or garden will also reduce your negative impact. Also, don’t over-water your lawn, as that can create extra run-off as well. And if you are embarking on a residential landscaping project, try to incorporate permeable pavement (which allows run-off through it into the soils below) as well as rain barrels to collect water, and rain gardens, grassy swales and driveway-side vegetative strips—all planted with region-appropriate native plants of course—to help filter contaminants out before they hit the storm sewers.

Taking these small everyday steps may seem like a hassle, but the benefits for the environment and human health are immeasurable.

CONTACTS: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov; Earth911, www.earth911.org.

Dear EarthTalk: What are these “ocean deserts” I’ve been hearing about? Also, didn’t I read that there was a huge mass of plastic bottles floating around somewhere on the ocean surface?
-- Wally Mattson, Eugene, Ore.

So-called “ocean deserts” or “dead zones” are oxygen-starved (or “hypoxic”) areas of the ocean. They can occur naturally, or be caused by an excess of nitrogen from agricultural fertilizers, sewage effluent and/or emissions from factories, trucks and automobiles. The nitrogen acts as a nutrient that, in turn, triggers an explosion of algae or plankton, which in turn deplete the water’s oxygen.

According to the Ocean Conservancy, a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico—where the Mississippi River dumps untold gallons of polluted water every second—has expanded to over 18,000 square kilometers in the last decade. Many other such dead zones have also undergone rapid expansion in recent years.

A recent study by German oceanographer Lothar Stramma and a team of prominent international researchers confirms this phenomenon and also points the finger at global warming. Their data show that oxygen levels hundreds of feet below the ocean surface have declined over the past 50 years around the world, most likely a result of human activity. And as ocean waters warm due to climate change, they retain less oxygen. Furthermore, warmer upper layers of water stifle the process that brings nutrients up from colder, deeper parts of the ocean to feed a wide range of surface-dwelling marine wildlife.

The expansion of these dead zones is bad news for most marine inhabitants and the ecosystems they thrive in. Thousands of different species already stressed from over fishing and other threats, now must contend with expanding hypoxic areas throughout regions that once constituted healthy habitat.

The accumulation of plastic debris and other trash in the ocean is not necessarily related to hypoxic zones, but is yet another major problem facing the world’s fragile marine ecosystems. California-based sea captain and ocean researcher Charles Moore discovered what is now known as the Eastern Garbage Patch—an aggregation of plastic and other marine debris occupying some 700,000 square kilometers in the North Pacific Ocean—during a crossing of the North Pacific in 1997. In a 2003 article in Natural History Magazine, Moore reported being astounded that he couldn’t be further from land anywhere on Earth yet he could see plastic bags and other debris coating the ocean’s surface as far as the eye could see.

Individuals can help the oceans and their inhabitants by making smart daily choices that can have collective, positive impact. Lowering your carbon footprint—driving less, biking more, donning a sweater instead of turning up the heat—is one way to help stem the spread of hypoxic zones, which is directly related to industrial activity and the amount of greenhouse gases we spew into the atmosphere.

And limiting plastic and plastic bag use is the best way to prevent such litter from ending up swirling around mid-ocean. Some countries, such as China, and many large cities—San Francisco, for example—have banned plastic grocery bags. If your city hasn’t yet taken this step, pressure them to do so—and in the meantime bring your own reusable bags to the market and avoid plastic wherever else you can.

CONTACTS: Ocean Conservancy, www.oceanconservancy.org; Natural History Magazine, www.naturalhistorymag.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve followed the trends in “eco-homes” now for many years. Are there equally encouraging things happening in the world of condos?
-- Charlie Anderson, Seattle, Wash.

Believe it or not, condominiums may be some of the most environmentally responsible housing out there today, especially since more and more developers are paying attention to sustainability from the get-go.

By their very nature, many condo complexes adhere to some of the most basic tenets of green housing: density, to maximize surrounding open space and minimize buildings’ physical and operational footprints; proximity to mass transit, given their typical location in urban areas; and reduced resource use per unit, thanks to shared systems, walls and common spaces. Builders can elect to layer on other green elements, such as high-efficiency appliances and HVAC systems, green roofs and organic landscaping.

“Projects are embracing green [to] be more responsive to what the buying public is looking for,” says Gail Vittori, chairperson of the U.S. Green Building Council, which produced and manages the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) design and building standards. “They also want to have the built environment become much more in line with environmental and health considerations.”

One example is Florence Lofts, a new development of 12 townhouses and a 4,200 square foot commercial building in downtown Sebastopol, California. The LEED-certified project features a photovoltaic solar system on the roof for hot water and other electrical needs, a commercial scale “gray water” system to divert sink and shower water for irrigation purposes, and a tank that collects storm water from roofs to prevent excessive run-off.

Another example is The Riverhouse overlooking the Hudson River in New York City’s Battery Park district. The LEED-certified, 320-unit building—the new home of actor/environmentalist Leo DiCaprio—has geothermal heating and cooling, twice-filtered air, non-toxic paint, and landscaped roof gardens.

But not all developers need to break the bank to go green on their condo and apartment projects. Two-thirds of the units in Harlem’s much-publicized 1400 Fifth Avenue building—touted as New York’s first green condominium, are considered affordable, priced at $50,000 to $104,000 and restricted to families of moderate income. Also in the New York metropolitan area, Habitat for Humanity recently announced it has assembled a green design team to build “real affordable condos” in New Rochelle and other parts of Westchester County.

“If you’re doing a moderately green building, the premium to build is typically in the 1.5 to two percent range. It’s very small,” says Leanne Tobias of Malachite LLC, a Maryland-based green real estate consulting firm. Additionally, the carrying costs for green units are lower, since such buildings operate on less energy and water and generate less waste than conventional high-rises. “All of those will be savings every month for the homeowners or residents of those buildings,” Vittori adds. “That’s a big plus.”

CONTACTS: U.S. Green Building Council, www.usgbc.org; Habitat for Humanity, www.habitat.org; Malachite LLC, www.malachitellc.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Are there natural headache remedies that can get me off of Tylenol, Advil and other medicines whose side effects can be as bad as or worse than the pain that led me to use them?
-- Jan Levinson, Portland, Maine

Many of us may be too dependent on over-the-counter painkillers to treat the occasional headache, especially given the side effects of such drugs. Ibuprofen (Advil, Motrin) can increase the risk of heart and circulation problems—including heart attack and stroke—and is also tough on the digestive tract. Too much acetaminophen (Tylenol) has been linked to nausea, diarrhea, and kidney and liver problems. Many natural health care practitioners disparage drugs for merely masking the symptoms of larger problems.

All headaches are not the same and gobbling down pain pills will not address the causes, whatever they may be. Some headaches are caused by tension; others stem from sinus congestion, caffeine withdrawal, constipation, food allergies, spinal misalignment or lack of sleep. And then there are migraines, which researchers think are neurological in nature: The brain fails to constrict the nerve pathways that open the arteries to the brain, resulting in a pounding headache as blood flows in unchecked. Assessing what kind of headache you may have can help lead the way to a solution beyond deadening the pain with a pill.

To make tension headaches go away, the Farmers’ Almanac recommends applying an ice pack to the neck and upper back, or, even better, getting someone to massage those areas. Also, soaking the feet in hot water can divert blood from your head to your feet, easing any kind of headache pain in the process.

Another all-natural headache cure is acupressure (like acupuncture, but without the needles), which promotes healing throughout the body by stimulating channels of energy known as meridians. Victoria Abreo, alternative medicine editor for the website BellaOnline, says that anyone suffering from a tension headache can employ a simple acupressure technique to help relieve the pain: “With one hand, press the shallow indention in the back of the head at the base of the skull. Simultaneously, with the thumb and forefinger of the other hand, press firmly into the upper hollows of the eye sockets, right where they straddle the bridge of the nose and meet the ‘t’ of the eyebrow bridge.” She says to press softy at first, and then more firmly, holding for three to five minutes.

As for migraines, avoiding certain trigger foods might be key to staving them off. Abreo says migraine sufferers should try steering clear of dairy products, processed meat, red wine, caffeine and chocolate. New research has shown that some people with specific dietary deficiencies are more prone to migraines.

According to Dr. Linda White, who writes about natural health for Mother Earth News, some recent clinical trials have shown three nutritional supplements—magnesium, riboflavin and coenzyme Q10—to be particularly effective at reducing the frequency and severity of migraines. Also, a number of herbs—including feverfew, butterbur, lavender, gingko biloba, rosemary and chamomile—have proven track records in preventing or stopping migraines. Since herbs can be potent and are not regulated or tested, headache sufferers should consult a trusted doctor or naturopath before using alternative remedies.

CONTACTS: Farmers’ Almanac, www.farmersalmanac.com; BellaOnline, www.bellaonline.com; Mother Earth News, www.motherearthnews.com.

Bicycle commuting has long been a symbol of greener living, and it is great exercise, too. But most people are probably not up to commutes much beyond five or 10 miles one-way in the interest of time and in not arriving at work too pooped (or sweaty) to pop.

Now a number of battery-powered two-wheelers are coming on the market that won’t get you your exercise but will get you from point A to B and back with minimal environmental impact. Consumers can start greening up their commutes on such vehicles for as little as $1,500 plus about 25 cents a day in electricity costs—not bad at all when you consider that a new car costs thousands of dollars more up front and chugs mass quantities off expensive and polluting gasoline.

Many of us conjuring up images of electric bikes and scooters may envision the finicky mopeds of the 70s and 80s, but today’s offerings are much improved and quite diverse.

Those who want to go fast but stay green should check out some of the electric scooters made by Miami-based EVTAMERICA. Each of the company’s three models tops out at a maximum speed of 45 miles per hour—respectable even on the highway. “People want to go at least 40 mph,” says the company’s co-owner, Fernando Pruna. “Everything built before could only do 25 or 30.”

Meanwhile, eGO of Somerville, Massachusetts makes electric bikes that can speed along at 25 miles per hour in “go fast” mode, but also have a “go far” mode, which trades off speed for distance (some 24 miles on a single charge). While eGO’s bikes may look diminutive, they are known for their strength. “Our bikes are powerful enough to tow a car,” says Kevin Kazlauskas, the company’s operations manager. “These are not toys, and customers aren’t treating them like toys.”

Another option might be an electric scooter made by Houston-based Veloteq. These scooters only go 20 miles per hour at top speed, but they can cover up to 50 miles on a single charge, which is more than enough distance to get most commuters back and forth to work, as long as they can avoid fast-moving highways along the way. A side benefit of the speed limitation on Veloteq’s vehicles is that they are typically exempt from licensing, registration and insurance regulations in most jurisdictions—yet another way to save money over those car drivers still mired in their 20^th century car commutes.

Opting for one of these new scooters or bikes over a car commute will take a big bite out of your carbon footprint, but the future promises even greener versions. The lead-acid batteries that most models use today will soon be replaced with greener and more efficient varieties, lithium ion and nickel zinc being two of the more promising formats. These new fangled batteries will make the vehicles cost more, at least initially, but they will also trim bike weight significantly and provide a lot more distance per charge. And eGo is working on a model with a small solar array behind the seat to extend the bike’s range once its electric charge starts to run low.

CONTACTS: EVTAMERICA, www.evtamerica.com; eGO, www.egovehicles.com; Veloteq, www.veloteq.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve suddenly been seeing a lot of those tiny “Smart Cars” around. Who makes them and what is their fuel efficiency? And I’m all for fuel efficiency, but are these cars safe?
-- David Yu, Bend, Ore.

Originally the brainchild of Lebanese-born entrepreneur/inventor Nicolas Hayek of Swatch watch fame, Smart Cars are designed to be small, fuel-efficient, environmentally responsible and easy to park—really the ultimate in-city vehicle. Back in 1994, Hayek and Swatch signed on with Daimler-Benz (the German maker of the venerable Mercedes line of cars) to develop the unique vehicle; in fact, the company name Smart is derived from a combination of the words Swatch, Mercedes and the word “art.”

When initial sales were slower than hoped for, Hayek and Swatch pulled out of the venture, leaving Daimler-Benz full owner (today Smart is part of Mercedes car division). Meanwhile, rising oil prices have driven up demand for Smart vehicles, and the company began selling them in the U.S. earlier this year.

Measuring just a hair over 8 feet long and less than five feet wide, the company’s flagship “ForTwo” model (named for its human carrying capacity) is about half the size of a traditional car. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rates the car’s fuel efficiency at 33 miles per gallon (mpg) for city driving and 41 mpg on the highway (although actual drivers report slightly lower results). Three ForTwos with bumpers to the curb can fit in a single parallel parking spot.

And with soaring gas prices, the cars have been selling like hotcakes in the U.S. The company’s U.S. distributor is working on importing an additional 15,000 cars before the end of 2008, as its initial order of 25,000 vehicles is almost depleted. Some four dozen Mercedes Benz dealers across the country have long waiting lists for new Smart vehicles, which sell for upwards of $12,000.

As for safety, the ForTwo did well enough in crash tests by the independent Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) to earn the group’s highest rating—five tars—thanks to the car’s steel racecar-style frame and liberal use of high-tech front and side airbags. Despite such good safety performance for such a tiny car, IIHS testers caution that larger, heavier cars are inherently safer than smaller ones.

Beyond safety concerns, some analysts bemoan the ForTwo’s price tag as unnecessarily high given what you get. The cars are not known for their handling or acceleration, although they can go 80 miles per hour if necessary. The website Treehugger.com suggests that eco-conscious consumers might do better spending their $12,000 on a conventional sub-compact or compact car, many which get equivalent if not better gas mileage not to mention likely faring better in a crash.

But for those who need a great in-city car for short errands and commutes, today’s ForTwo might be just the ticket. Environmentalists are hoping Smart will release the higher mileage diesel version of the ForTwo, which has been available in Europe for several years, in the U.S. soon. And they are keeping their fingers crossed for a hybrid version which could give the hugely successful Toyota Prius—which looks almost huge in comparison—a run for its money in terms of fuel efficiency and savings at the pump.

CONTACTS: Smart USA, www.smartusa.com; IIHS, www.iihs.org.

Dear EarthTalk: There seems to be a large selection of soy and other non-dairy milks out there today, even right in the dairy sections of major supermarkets. Why should I opt for soymilk over cow’s milk and how do I get the calcium I would lose?
-- Barbara Conant, Tacoma, Wash.

There is a lot of debate about whether or not cow’s milk is good—or appropriate—for people at all. On the plus side, it is a valuable source of protein, as well as calcium, necessary to help build bones and keep them strong. Some researchers believe that drinking cow’s milk reduces the risk of kidney stones, colon cancer and other health problems. But others counter that the saturated fats in cow’s milk are big contributors to America’s weight problems, let alone high cholesterol levels and artery blockage.

Famed pediatrician Dr. Benjamin Spock, in the last edition of his best selling “Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care,” argued that cow’s milk was for baby cows not human children, suggesting that it may be a factor in childhood onset diabetes and in kids’ respiratory and ear problems. He encouraged mothers to give infants only human breast milk and to consider soy and rice milk products for older kids.

Chief among available alternatives to cow’s milk is soymilk, which has about the same amount of protein but much more fiber than cow’s milk. In striking contrast with cow’s milk, soymilk actually reduces the body’s cholesterol levels. It also contains isoflavones, natural plant hormones that act as antioxidants and have been linked to many human health benefits including the easing of menopause symptoms, protection against prostate problems, better bone health and even a reduction in heart disease and cancer risks.

Many people assume that soymilk has less calcium than cow’s milk, which is true—in its pure form, soymilk has only a sixth of the calcium of an equal amount of cow’s milk. But producers address this problem by simply fortifying soymilks with calcium to equal the amount in cow’s milk. And studies have shown that most people’s bodies absorb 75 percent more calcium from soymilk than from cow’s milk.

But while the health benefits of soymilk are substantial, it may not be for everyone. Dr. Joseph Mercola, who runs one of the most highly trafficked natural health websites, warns that soymilk can inhibit thyroid performance, so those with pre-existing thyroid issues might want to avoid it. Also, some researchers have shown that soymilk can inhibit the body’s absorption of protein and minerals in some cases.

Other tasty and healthy alternatives to cow’s milk include those made from rice, almonds, oats—and even hemp. According to the health and wellness website Sixwise.com, almond milk is rich in magnesium, potassium, manganese, copper, the antioxidants vitamin E and selenium, and calcium and “may be one of the more nutritious milk alternatives on the market.” It is very low in calories and contains no cholesterol. Rice milk, Sixwise reports, is mainly a source of carbohydrates, and should not be considered a nutritional replacement for cow’s milk, though it is “a useful replacement for milk for taste and cooking purposes.”

Hemp milk, which is made from the seeds of hemp plants but contains none of the psychoactive ingredients in marijuana, can be a good source of protein, calcium, omega fatty acids and other vitamins and minerals. Another good alternative is oat milk, which is high in fiber, free of cholesterol and lactose, and contains vitamin E, folic acid, and other healthy elements and minerals.

CONTACTS: Dr. Joseph Mercola, www.mercola.com; Sixwise, www.sixwise.com.

Dear EarthTalk: How can I measure — and then improve — my overall “carbon footprint?” What are the major areas of one’s daily life that one measures?
-- Andy Fusco, Passaic, N.J.

With global warming dominating so many headlines today, it’s no surprise that many of us are looking to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases our activities produce.

By assessing how much pollution each of your individual actions generates—be it setting your thermostat, shopping for groceries, commuting to work or flying somewhere for vacation—you can begin to see how changing a few habits here and there can significantly reduce your overall carbon footprint. Luckily for those of us who want to see how we measure up, there are a number of free online carbon footprint calculators to help figure out just where to start changing.

One of the best is the University of California at Berkeley’s Cool Climate Calculator. The free web-based tool takes into account daily driving mileage and grocery and electricity expenses, among other factors, to assign a carbon score, which users can compare to similar households across the 28 largest urban areas in the U.S. Some of the results are surprising. For example, residents of eco-aware San Francisco tend to have bigger carbon footprints than those in more conservative Tampa, Florida. The reason: San Francisco has a higher cost of living and colder, wetter winters (requiring more fossil-fuel derived heat).

Another great carbon footprint calculator is available at EarthLab.com, an online “climate crisis community” that has partnered with Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection and other high-profile groups, companies and celebrities to spread the word that individual actions can make a difference in the fight against global warming. Users just take a three-minute survey and get back a carbon footprint score, which they can save and update as they work to reduce their impact. The site provides some 150 lifestyle change suggestions that will cut carbon emissions—from hanging your clothes to dry to sending postcards instead of letters to taking the bike instead of the car to work a few days a week.

“Our calculator is an important first step in educating people about where they are, then raising their awareness about what they can do to make easy, simple changes that will lower their score and positively impact the planet,” says Anna Rising, EarthLab’s executive director. “Our goal isn’t about convincing you to buy a hybrid or retrofit your house with solar panels; our goal is to introduce you to easy, simple ways that you as an individual can reduce your carbon footprint.”

Other websites, green groups and corporations, including CarbonFootprint.com, CarbonCounter.org, Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy and British Oil Giant BP, among others, also offer carbon calculators on their websites. And CarbonFund.org even allows you to assess your carbon footprint—and then offers you the ability to offset such emissions by investing in clean energy initiatives.

CONTACTS: Cool Climate Calculator, www.berkeley.edu/calculator.html; EarthLab, www.earthlab.com; CarbonFootprint.com, www.carbonfootprint.com; CarbonCounter.org, www.carboncounter.org; Conservation International, www.conservation.org; The Nature Conservancy, www.nature.org; BP, www.bp.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Why are some environmental groups jumping on the immigration issue? What does immigration have to do with the environment?
-- Ginna Jones, Darien, Conn.

What to do about booming legal and illegal immigration rates is one of the most controversial topics on Americans’ political agenda these days. More than a million immigrants achieve permanent resident status in the U.S. every year. Another 700,000 become full-fledged American citizens. The non-profit Pew Research Center reports that 82 percent of U.S. population growth is attributable to immigration.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that U.S. population will grow from 303 million people today to 400 million as early as 2040. While many industrialized nations, including Japan and most of Western Europe, are experiencing population growth slowdowns due to below replacement birth levels and little immigration, the U.S. is growing so fast that it trails only India and China in total numbers.

Advocates for U.S. population stabilization, including some environmental organizations and leaders, fear that this ongoing influx of new arrivals is forcing the nation to exceed its “carrying capacity,” stressing an already overburdened physical infrastructure. David Durham of Population-Environment Balance says that Americans who care about the environment should insist on reducing immigration, to recognize “ecological realities such as limited potable water, topsoil and infrastructure.” He also cites studies showing that a permissive U.S. immigration policy drives up fertility rates in the sending countries “which is the last thing these sending countries need.”

To others the problem is larger than immigration itself. “People don’t just materialize at our border, or at any border,” says John Seager of Population Connection. “When you talk about immigration, you’re talking about the second half of a process that begins when people decide to leave their homes.” And they are usually leaving their homes because of hunger, lack of work, oppression, or any number of other often-desperate reasons. Seager and many others argue that by helping poor nations better address the economic and family planning needs of their citizens, Americans can not only help improve the lot of millions of people living in dire poverty, but also slow down the tide of immigration.

Groups focusing on the immigration-environment nexus are keen to get their voices heard, but many mainstream green groups shun the highly divisive topic, preferring instead to encourage Americans, who are infamous around the world for their huge homes, gas-guzzling cars and extravagant consumption habits, to curb their unsustainable lifestyles, which they see as more fundamental to U.S. environmental problems than population pressures. With just five percent of the world’s people, Americans use a quarter of the world’s fossil fuels, own more private cars than drivers with licenses, and live in homes that are on average 38 percent larger today than they were in 1975. By scaling back, Americans can take a big bite out of pollution, sprawl and other environmental problems, while also setting a good example for those who land in the U.S. every year, lowering the nation’s collective carbon footprint significantly in the process.

CONTACTS: Pew Research Center, www.pewresearch.org; Population-Environment Balance, www.balance.org; Population Connection, www.populationconnection.org.

Dear EarthTalk: What’s the story with animal cloning? Is the meat industry really cloning animals now to “beef up” production?
-- Frank DeFazio, Sudbury, Mass.

Cloning has been controversial ever since Scottish scientists announced in 1996 that they had cloned their first mammal, a sheep they named Dolly. While Dolly lived a painful, arthritic life and died prematurely, possibly due to the imperfections of cloning, industry nonetheless began seeking out ways to capitalize on the new technology. Meanwhile, critics bemoan cloning as immoral and a potential health and safety risk, given the as-yet-unknown consequences of eating foods generated in this way.

In January 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the sale of cloned animals and their offspring for food, despite fierce opposition from animal welfare and consumer advocacy groups, environmental organizations, some members of Congress, and many consumers.

“Our evaluation is that the food from cloned animals is as safe as the food we eat every day,” said Stephen Sundlof, the FDA’s chief of veterinary medicine. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has asked that producers withhold cloned animals, but not their offspring, from the food supply while farmers, processors, grocery stores and restaurants decide how they will respond to the FDA’s landmark decision.

Unsurprisingly, industry groups also argue that beef and milk from cloned animals is safe to consume. They cite a 2005 University of Connecticut study, which concluded that beef and milk from cloned cows did not pose any health or safety threats to people consuming it. But critics say that the oft-cited single study was far too limited to yield any meaningful conclusions: Milk and beef was taken from just six cloned animals, and the study did not take into account whether clones were more susceptible to infection or other microbial problems, as many scientists suspect. Other researchers have noted severe deformities in many cloned animals, as well as a higher incidence of reproductive, immune and other health problems.

The Washington, DC-based Center for Food Safety, in a petition it filed in late 2006, declared: “The available science shows that cloning presents serious food safety risks, animal welfare concerns and unresolved ethical issues that require strict oversight.” The group announced on September 2, 2008 that 20 leading U.S. food producers—including Kraft Foods, General Mills, Gerber/Nestle, Campbell’s Soup and Ben and Jerry’s—will not use cloned animals in their products. “The move by these companies represents a growing industry trend of responding to consumer demand for better food safety, environmental and animal welfare standards,” the group said in making the announcement.

Given the FDA’s green light, consumers’ only hope of avoiding cloned animal products may be to appeal to businesses directly not to peddle such items. The Pennsylvania-based American Anti-Vivisection Society, which opposes all forms of animal research and testing, has mounted a campaign to urge McDonald’s to forego cloned animals in its 30,000 restaurants worldwide.

CONTACTS: U.S. Food & Drug Administration, www.fda.gov; Center for Food Safety, www.centerforfoodsafety.org; American Anti-Vivisection Society, www.aavs.org.

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve read that household cleaners contain cancer-causing toxic ingredients. What should I do, then, to keep my house clean but also safe for my kids?
-- Christine Stewart, via e-mail

While much of the research is mixed or inconclusive, a variety of human and animal studies have linked chemicals common in household cleaning products with a wide range of health risks.

The most offensive common ingredients, according to a 2006 study by the University of California Berkeley and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, are ethylene-based glycol, used commonly as a water-soluble solvent in cleaning agents and classified as a hazardous air pollutant by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and terpenes, a class of chemicals found in lemon, pine and orange oils that can morph into carcinogenic compounds when they mix with ground-level ozone.

Also, chlorine, often labeled as “sodium hypochlorite” or “hypochlorite,” is almost ubiquitous in household cleaners, unfortunately for the inhabitants of many homes. Breathing in its fumes can irritate the lungs, and as such poses a serious health risk to those with pre-existing heart or respiratory problems.

According to the non-profit Cancer Prevention Coalition, some other problematic chemicals found in many household cleaners include crystalline silica, an irritant to the eyes and lungs and a likely carcinogen, and butyl cellosolve, which has been linked to kidney and liver problems and is reportedly toxic to forming cells. The group lists dozens of other potentially dangerous ingredients in household products on the “Hazardous Ingredients in Household Products” PDF available for free on its website.

Gaiam, a leading purveyor of green household and lifestyle items, reports that the average American household contains between three and 25 gallons of toxic materials, mostly in the form of household cleaners filled with petrochemical solvents designed to dissolve dirt. The company bemoans the fact that no law requires cleaning products manufacturers to list ingredients on their labels or to test their products for safety, leaving it up to consumers to make sure their homes are not only clean, but also non-toxic.

Luckily there are plenty of “greener” alternatives now widely available from manufacturers like Gaiam, Earth Friendly Products, Citra-Solv, Ecover, Mrs. Meyers, Sun and Earth, SimpleGreen, Method, and Seventh Generation, among many others. Even big players are getting in on the act. Clorox recently released a new line of home cleaning products under the Green Works label to attract a greening clientele.

For those so inclined, making your own green cleaning solutions is easy and cheap. According to The Green Guide, consumers can “circumvent the armada of commercial cleaners” by keeping handy an ample supply of eight ingredients for nearly every do-it-yourself cleaning job: baking soda, borax, distilled white vinegar, hydrogen peroxide, lemons, olive oil, vegetable-based (liquid castile) soap, and washing soda.

CONTACTS: Cancer Prevention Coalition, www.preventcancer.com; Gaiam, www.gaiam.com; Earth Friendly Products, www.ecos.com; Citra-Solv  www.citra-solv.com; Ecover, www.ecover.com; Clorox Green Works, www.greenworkscleaners.com; Mrs. Meyers, www.mrsmeyers.com; Sun and Earth, www.sunandearth.com; Seventh Generation, www.seventhgeneration.com; SimpleGreen, www.simplegreen.com; Method Green Home Care Products, www.methodhome.com.

Dear EarthTalk: My body doesn’t tolerate cheese well. Are there dairy-free cheeses that will be easier on my constitution and better for the environment, too?
-- Steve Sullivan, Seattle, Wash.

With some 30 to 50 million Americans suffering from various degrees of lactose intolerance, and an estimated three million of us now eating animal-free (vegan) diets for humane, environmental and/or health reasons, the production of alternatives to dairy products has started to become big business.

But while substitutes for milks and ice creams abound, mostly soy- or rice-based blends that have come a long way since they first appeared on grocery shelves, finding satisfactory alternatives to the many varieties of cheese can be a challenge. But the choices are expanding rapidly.

The first place to look might just be your regular supermarket’s produce section—that’s often where you’ll find Galaxy Foods’ Veggie line of non-dairy cheeses. After all, they are made from soy, a crop. Galaxy’s offerings come shredded, grated, in slices and in hunks. Fans swear they taste just like the real thing. And they are all excellent sources of calcium without cholesterol, saturated/trans-fats or lactose.

Galaxy also offers cheeses made from rice. And while some of both the Rice Brand and Veggie line contain small amounts of cultured milk salt, dried skim milk protein and trace amounts of lactose, Galaxy also make two purely vegan varieties, usually found in the dairy sections of grocery or health food stores.

A few other popular brands made with rice include Rice Slices and Lifetime Low Fat Jalapeno Jack Rice Cheese. Check the shelves of your local organic or natural food market to find one or more to sample.

Another leading producer of dairy-free cheeses is Scotland’s Bute Island Foods. The company began making its own vegan hard cheese alternatives (sold under the Sheese brand name) in 1988, and has since expanded into cream cheese alternatives (Creamy Sheese) as well. From pizzas to sauces to sandwiches to spreads, Bute Island has vegan and lactose-intolerant cheese lovers covered.

Some other soy-based choices that get good reviews include Good Slice Cheddar Style Cheese Alternative (great for sandwiches), vegan-friendly Tofutti Soy Cheese Slices, Follow Your Heart’s Vegan Gourmet (pizza, anyone?), and Teese (it melts with the best of them), among others.

Do-it-yourselfers might want to experiment with making their own non-dairy cheese using ingredients such as tofu and yeast. A quick web search will yield many recipes for making cheese and for using non-dairy cheeses in favorite dishes. Many of the best are collected in Joanne Stepaniak’s The Ultimate Uncheese Cookbook, available in some bookstores as well as from Amazon.com and other online vendors.

With so many good choices, not to mention recipes for home cooked varieties, many a vegetarian may just make the leap into full-fledged vegan eating. And existing vegans can rejoice: French Onion Soup (dairy-free, of course) is back on the menu.

CONTACTS: Galaxy Foods, www.galaxyfoods.com; Bute Island Foods, www.buteisland.com; Follow Your Heart, www.followyourheart.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Can those energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs that are popular now cause headaches because of the flickering they do? I converted my whole house over last fall and both my kids were complaining of headaches on and off.
-- Sandy, Eugene, Ore.

With a switch to energy efficient compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs already in full swing in the U.S. and elsewhere—Australia has banned incandescents, Britain will soon, and the U.S. begins a phase-out of incandescents in 2012—more and more complaints have arisen about the new bulbs causing headaches.

Many experts say that the issue is being overblown, however, that there is no scientific evidence that the bulbs cause headaches and that a kind of hysteria has grown out of a small number of anecdotal reports.

Industry experts acknowledge that day-to-day exposure to older, magnetically ballasted long tube fluorescent bulbs found mostly in industrial and institutional settings could cause headaches due to their noticeable flicker rate. The human brain can detect the 60 cycles per second such older bulbs need to refresh themselves to keep putting out light.

However, modern, electronically ballasted CFLs refresh themselves at between 10,000 and 40,000 cycles per second, rates too fast for the human eye or brain to detect. “As far as I’m aware there is no association between headaches and the use of compact fluorescent lamps,” says Phil Scarbro of Energy Federation Incorporated (EFI), a leading distributor of energy efficiency-related products—including many CFLs.

But Magda Havas, an Environmental & Resource Studies Ph.D. at Canada’s Trent University, says that some CFLs emit radio frequency radiation that can cause fatigue, dizziness, ringing in the ears, eyestrain, even migraines. You can test to see if CFLs in your home give off such radiation, she says, by putting a portable AM radio near one that’s on and listening for extra static the closer you get. She says that such electromagnetic interference should also be of concern to people using cell phones and wireless computers.

Sometimes headaches are due to eyestrain from inadequate lighting. When replacing an incandescent bulb with a CFL, pay attention to the lumens, which indicate the amount of light a bulb gives out (watts measure the energy use of a bulb, not the light generated). A 40-watt incandescent bulb can be replaced by an 11-14 watt CFL because the lumen output is approximately the same (490); a 100-watt incandescent can be replaced by a 26-29 watt CFL, both providing about 1,750 lumens. If you’re still skeptical, replace a 40-watt incandescent with a 60-watt equivalent 15-19 watt CFL, which will boost lumens to 900.

Another consideration is color temperature (measured in degrees “Kelvin”). CFLs rated at 2,700 Kelvin give off light in the more pleasing red/yellow end of the color spectrum, closer to that of most incandescents. Bulbs rated at 5,000 Kelvin and above (usually older ones) give off a less pleasing white/blue light.

The Environmental Defense website provides a handy chart comparing the watts and lumens of incandescents versus CFLs, along with further discussion about color temperature.

CONTACTS: EFI, www.efi.org; Environmental Defense, www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagid=630.

Dear EarthTalk: What is “community based tourism” and how does it purport to safeguard pristine places?
-- Erin O’Neill, Tukwila, Wash.

Community based tourism refers to situations in which local people—usually those that are poor or economically marginalized in very rural parts of the world—open up their homes and communities to visitors seeking sustainably achieved cultural, educational or recreational travel experiences.

Under a community-based tourism arrangement, unique benefits accrue to both the traveler and the hosts: Travelers usually accustomed to chain hotels and beachfront resorts discover local habitats and wildlife and learn about traditional cultures and the economic realities of life in developing countries. And the host communities are able to generate lucrative revenues that can replace income previously earned from destructive resource extraction operations or other unsustainable forms of economic support.

Locals earn income as land managers, entrepreneurs or food and service providers—and at least part of the tourist income is set aside for projects which provide benefits to the community as a whole. And just as important, says ResponsibleTravel.com, which promotes community based tourism in a partnership with Conservation International, the communities become “aware of the commercial and social value placed on their natural and cultural heritage through tourism,” thus fostering a commitment to resource conservation.

Travelers indulging in a community based tourism trip might follow a local guide deep into his tribe’s forest to spot otherworldly wildlife, eat exotic regional delicacies around rough-hewn tables, watch and even take part in celebrations of local culture, and sleep on straw mats at the homes of local families.

In many cases, local communities partner with private companies and nonprofits that provide money, marketing, clients, tourist accommodations and expertise for opening up lands to visitors. In 1997, eco-travel operator Rainforest Expeditions wanted international visitors to learn about threats to the rainforest. Natives in Peru’s Esé-eja community of Infierno wanted to generate income without destroying their rainforest home, central to their subsistence lifestyle. So the two joined forces and the resulting Posada Amazonas lodge to this day offers visitors an exotic way to learn about rainforest ecology directly from English-speaking Esé-eja staff, who in-turn earn a living sharing their local knowledge and traditions.

Another example is the partnerships that the nonprofit Projeto Bagagem (Project Baggage) has forged with several Brazilian communities to bring in tourist dollars to support sustainable choices. A third of the cost of every Projeto Bagagem trip goes to the villagers and another third to a local nonprofit. Last year the group won a Seed Award from the United Nations and the non-profit World Conservation Union for its efforts to translate “the ideals of sustainable development into action on the ground.”

Extreme poverty coupled with abundant natural resources makes the Amazon basin an ideal place for such programs to thrive, but community based tourism can be experienced anywhere. To find qualifying, pre-vetted trips that contribute to local economies all over the world, visit ResponsibleTravel.com.

CONTACTS: ResponsibleTravel.com, www.responsibletravel.com; Rainforest Expeditions, www.perunature.com; Projeto Bagagem, www.projetobagagem.org.

There is much debate in the automotive world over how often drivers of typical passenger cars or light trucks should change their oil. The quick-lube chains usually recommend it be done every three months or 3,000 miles, but many mechanics would tell you that such frequent changes are overkill. Indeed, most car owner’s manuals recommend changing out the oil less frequently, usually after 5,000 or 7,500 miles.

According to the automotive website Edmunds.com, the answer depends more on driving patterns than anything else. Those who rarely drive more than 10 miles at a time (which doesn’t get the oil hot enough to boil off moisture condensation) or who start their car frequently when the oil isn’t hot (when most engine wear occurs) should change their oil more often—at least twice a year, even if that’s every 1,000 miles, according to Edmunds. But commuters who drive more than 20 miles a day on mostly flat freeway can go as far as their owner’s manual recommends, if not longer, between changes. As a car ages, more frequent changes might be in order, but that’s for a qualified mechanic to decide on a case-by-case basis.

“The necessity of 3,000 mile oil changes is a myth that has been handed down for decades,” writes Austin Davis, proprietor of the website TrustMyMechanic.com. He says that the economics of the oil change industry demand pushing customers to get their oil changed more frequently—purportedly as “cheap insurance” against problems cropping up—whether they need it or not. One of the largest oil change chains, Jiffy Lube, for instance, is owned by Pennzoil-Quaker State, and as such has an incentive to sell as much of the company’s traditional petroleum-based oil as possible.

One way to reduce trips to and money spent unnecessarily on quick-lube outlets is to switch to synthetic oils, which last longer and perform better than their traditional petroleum-based counterparts. Davis says that educated drivers should opt for longer lasting, better performing synthetic oils, which are “most likely good for 10,000 to 15,000 miles or six months” whether or not their manufacturers recommend more frequent changes or not. Some synthetic motor oils, like Amsoil, NEO and Red Line, to name a few, are created specifically to last 25,000 miles or one year before needing a change.

While neither conventional nor synthetic motor oils are good for the environment if disposed of improperly or spilled, most environmentalists would opt for the latter since it lasts three or more times longer and thus reduces waste (or energy use if recycled). Researchers have been experimenting with producing greener motor oils—one pilot project out of Purdue University has produced high-quality, carbon-neutral motor oil from canola crops—but consumers should not expect to see such products on store or garage shelves anytime soon, as the costs of production are high and the availability of cropland is limited. But the very existence of such alternatives—no doubt more are in the offing—bodes well for the future as oil becomes more scarce and expensive.

CONTACTS: Edmunds.com, www.edmunds.com; TrustMyMechanic.com, www.trustmymechanic.com.

Dear EarthTalk: What’s going on in the music industry with all the CDs and plastic CD holders undoubtedly generating a lot of plastic waste?
-- John S., via email

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), CDs and DVDs are typically manufactured by combining various mined metals (aluminum, gold, silver and nickel) with petroleum-derived plastics, lacquers and dyes. Given what complicated beasts CDs and DVDs are—products with thin layers of different materials mixed together are nearly impossible to recycle—most municipal recycling program won’t accept them, leaving consumers to fend for themselves in figuring out how to dispose of them. As a result, most discarded discs end up in the trash.

These difficult-to-recycle materials can pollute groundwater and, in turn, contribute to a whole host of human health problems. But the low cost of producing such top-selling consumer items means that replacing them with something greener is not likely anytime soon.

Research has shown that polylactic acid (PLA), a biodegradable plastic-substitute derived from corn and other agricultural wastes, could replace plastic polycarbonate as a disc’s main substrate, but the present high cost of using such a material makes it unlikely to catch on any time soon with those paying to produce mass volumes of CDs and DVDs.

As for jewel cases, most are made out of Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), an inexpensive petrochemical-based plastic that is notoriously difficult to recycle and has been linked to elevated cancer rates among workers and neighbors where it’s manufactured. Furthermore, when PVC is thrown in with regular recyclables it can contaminate entire batches, ruin equipment and cause human health problems. While cardboard and paper jewel cases may be all the rage among a few record labels—Warner Music Group’s U.S. division, for example, has been using 30 percent post-recycled paper for the packaging in all of its CDs and DVDs since 2005—the high cost and low durability of such alternatives have kept them largely out of the mainstream.

So what’s a conscientious consumer to do? Those willing to pay a small processing fee can send old CDs and DVDs to one of a handful of private companies (such as Washington-based GreenDisk) set up to recycle them into high-quality plastics used in auto parts, office equipment, alarm panels, street lights, electrical cable insulation, jewel cases and other specialized items.

A shift in consumer preferences already underway may be just the thing that will make everyone’s personal collections of music and movies greener. Consumers are already able to download some six million individual digital songs via the 500 or so legal online music services now up and running on the Internet. According to the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, digital sales now account for some 30 percent of all U.S. music sales and 15 percent globally. And most consumer analysts expect these percentages to grow steadily in the coming years, which is good news for the environment.

CONTACTS: EPA’s “Lifecycle of a CD or DVD,” www.epa.gov/osw/students/finalposter.pdf; GreenDisk, www.greendisk.com; International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, www.ifpi.org.

Global warming is unquestionably the most pressing environmental issue facing whoever ends up in the White House in January 2009. Not only does climate change impact—and in most cases exacerbate—other environmental problems, it has even wider implications for the economy and society at large. Luckily for all of us, both Barack Obama and John McCain are committed to tackling climate change, although their proposed approaches differ in significant ways.

The non-profit League of Conservation Voters (LCV), America’s leading voice for environmental advocacy within electoral politics, would prefer to see Obama elected president given his environmental track record and plans for the future. While both candidates favor instituting a mandatory “cap-and-trade” program (whereby the federal government allows polluters to trade for the right to emit a reduced overall amount of greenhouse gases), Obama is for more strident cuts. He would like to see the U.S. reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by some 80 percent by 2050, while McCain supports only cutting back by 65 percent. Both candidates have authored legislation in the Senate designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, although no such bills have come close to passing.

Even though McCain is by far the most forward-thinking of the original Republican presidential contenders on global warming and the need to take action, LCV still gives him poor marks, only a 24 rating (out of 100) lifetime and zero for 2007. LCV says that McCain missed all 15 critical environmental votes last year and that he “repeatedly clings to outdated policies and flip-flops on core environmental issues.” By comparison, Obama earned a score of 100 in 2007 and has a lifetime LCV rating of 87.

One area where environmentalists take issue with McCain is his support for expanding the role of nuclear power in cutting fossil fuel use. Obama would rather bolster alternative energy sources like wind and solar power that do not have the nasty side effect of radioactive waste in need of storage and disposal. (McCain also supports the development of new renewables, but not to the extent that Obama is willing to commit).

Some of the other hot button environmental issues sure to occupy the next president’s time include: how to best protect the nation’s water resources and wetlands; whether to allow more drilling for oil and natural gas both offshore and within Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; whether to reinstate the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, a Clinton-era law (subsequently overturned by the Bush administration) calling for protection of some 58 million acres of public land from logging; how to meet U.S. commitments on existing environmental laws in international trade agreements; and whether to bring back the so-called “polluter pays” part of the government’s “Superfund” toxic waste clean-up program.

While Obama is clearly the greener candidate on most of these issues, the fact that McCain even takes them seriously—and is committed to any greenhouse gas reductions whatsoever—is a plus for environmental advocates exasperated by eight years of green naysaying by the Bush administration.

CONTACTS: Obama ’08, www.barackobama.com; McCain for President, www.johnmccain.com; League of Conservation Voters, www.lcv.org.

Dear EarthTalk: Should we expect to see “plug-in” hybrid cars anytime soon? I’ve been hearing they are on the horizon but I wonder if that means in one year or 10.
-- Bill A., Stratford, Conn.

Gasoline-electric hybrids now, like Toyota’s popular Prius, don’t need to plug in—you just fill their tanks with gasoline and the battery keeps charged by the internal combustion engine and by energy generated from the wheels when braking (a feature known as “regenerative braking”). The battery then powers the electric motor when it is called into service during idling, backing-up, crawling in gridlock, maintaining speed while cruising, and for extra uphill power when needed. As such, the electric motor is essentially a back-up engine while the hybrid relies mainly on the gasoline engine.

Plug-in hybrids take the concept further by plugging into a regular electric outlet to enable the vehicle to operate solely on its electric motor for ranges of 40-50 miles or more on a single charge. This has profound implications for commuters who need only drive short distances to and from work every day and who may be able to do so solely on electric power. The gasoline engine then becomes the supplemental one for when the car needs to travel farther than the electric engine can take it.

According to researchers at the University of California Davis, the electricity cost for powering a plug-in hybrid is only about one-quarter of the cost of powering a like-sized gasoline vehicle. Other benefits include far fewer fill-ups at gas stations and the convenience of recharging at home.

Toyota, currently the world’s largest producer of hybrid vehicles by far thanks to the success of its Prius, announced that it expects to have a commercially viable plug-in hybrid available to consumers as early as 2010 and is now testing prototype versions of plug-in hybrids at two California universities.

Felix Kramer of the California Cars Initiative (CCI), a non-profit dedicated to promoting plug-ins, called Toyota’s announcement “stunning and very welcome,” and says that these vehicles will be the cleanest practical cars on the road in a world where gas stations dot just about every intersection. The promise of such cars, says CCI on its website, is that drivers will have a “cleaner, cheaper, quieter car for local travel, and the gas tank is always there should you need to drive longer distances.”

U.S. automakers are also jumping onto the plug-in bandwagon. General Motors says that it will have mass-market plug-in hybrids—modifications of its Saturn Vue and Chevrolet Volt—on the road by 2010. Ford has also developed a small fleet of plug-ins, but is not yet ready to offer them to the public. Fisker, a U.S. start-up focusing on the creation of high performance, energy efficient vehicles, plans to sell an $80,000 plug-in hybrid sports car by late 2009. Chrysler’s Sprinter van was the first plug-in from a major U.S. manufacturer, but it is only presently available to a limited number of institutions as a