Laundry poll

I got a new clothes drying rack the other week and it made me wonder about how many of you line dry your laundry. Which led me to wonder about your laundry habits in general.

We always wash in cold water, have a high efficiency washing machine, use an eco-friendly detergent that comes in a cardboard box and use a bleach alternative. Where we fall behind is in the drying arena (except for all my pants which gets line dried since I am not a fan of high waters).

We try to dry some outside during the summer, but it's so humid the rest of the year that we end up getting musty smelling clothes if we dry too many of them inside. Since it takes so many days for them to dry, we run out of space fairly quickly.

But, enough of my excuses. As you can see, I, for one, need some encouragement on getting motivated to hang laundry outside.

What about you? What are your laundry habits?

1. What kind of laundry detergent do you use? Is it an eco-friendly brand or traditional?
2. Do you worry about the plastic packaging and choose cardboard packaging and powders instead?
3. Do you have a high efficiency washer (HE)?
4. Do you wash your clothes in cold water?
5. Do you ever line dry your clothes?
6. Do you live in an area with a clothesline ban?
7. Are you happy with your laundry routine or do you wish you could do more to lower your impact in that area?

Earth Hour hanky panky

Every year I complain a little (okay, a lot) about Earth Hour and what it means and all that. Last year I caved in at the last minute and felt compelled to participate for a variety of reasons. It didn't go very well, mostly because the kids kept getting up and couldn't figure out why it was dark, but anyway, the point being that I have issues with Earth Hour.

This Saturday is Earth Hour 2010 from 8:30pm to 9:30pm your local time. In spite of all the corporate greenwashing sponsorship, how can we turn Earth Hour around? I've got an idea. This year I propose that, in order to spice things up and make it more personally meaningful, we spend the hour not just with the lights off, but that the hour is spent doing some hanky panky with your favorite partner.

Now, I know for many of you, it is difficult to get your significant (or not so significant) other to play along with your environmentally or eco-friendly green shenanigans. But, if you propose the Earth Hour as a Carnal Hour and sweeten the pot with some of your honey, I bet they'll be plenty of takers out there.

They shouldn't be too hard to convince. Sometimes all it takes is a little motivation! And, unless contraception is an issue, what could be more environmentally friendly than a little lovin'? With the lights off?

Anyway, not to be a total killjoy, but if you are planning on lighting candles to improve the mood, make sure you avoid paraffin and choose soy or beeswax instead. Don't make me repeat last year's admonishments. We, personally, have so many books piled up in our bedroom, lighting candles would be a serious fire hazard. Which isn't environmentally friendly. So, let the sparks fly, just not in that way.

Are you planning on participating in Earth Hour, in any fashion?

Blow me

There's a sign above the electric hand dryers at work encouraging employees to skip the paper towels and use the blowers instead, stating that bathroom paper towel usage equates to twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as using the air dryers.

I don't mind using them these days, mostly because it's been so cold and having the hot air blow on my hands has been pleasant, helping me warm up, particularly after being outside when it's sub-20 degrees out. I'd use them more often if it were a force of habit. I'm so used to washing my hands and then grabbing the paper towels that half the time I'm just not thinking about it.

The dryers we have at work are the old school, wave your hand underneath and dry your hands kind. When we were in New York we experienced these phenomenally cool Dyson Airblade driers that you "insert" your hands into and draw them slowly out. They dry your hands in rapid time, although you feel like your skin is being stretched out in a wind tunnel. It is a 400 MPH blast of air, so that shouldn't come as a surprise. And, not too surprisingly, I made my husband take pictures of them in the bathroom at The Met.

The Dyson high-speed jet air dryer is supposed to use 80% less energy than the kind we have at work, but I'm sure they are more expensive. Hopefully, at some point, our work blowers can be replaced with a similar jet air dryer.

One thing to also consider is that our energy in Seattle comes from mostly green sources. So, not only do the dryers beat the pants (greenhouse gases-wise) off the paper towels, but since the electricity is most likely generated from wind or the like, it's a win-win hand-drying situation.

A while back, I got in the habit of either air drying my hands or using a handkerchief that I kept in my office for drying my hands. Sometime along the way, I stopped doing that and reverted back to paper towels - mostly out of habit. So, now I'm trying to make a concerted effort to use the blowers.

What about you? Do you air dry, blow dry or use paper towels when using a public restroom?

Freeze Yer Buns Challenge 2009

Holy smokes! It's nigh time for the third annual Freeze Yer Buns Challenge. The first year we had great participation and last year there were tons of you giving your thermostat the finger, so this year I'm expecting even more frozen crunchy bottoms.

Because of the economic situation, most everyone is tightening up their purse strings, plus heating costs (oil, natural gas and electricity) aren't exactly cheap, so you have even more incentive to hop on board the chapped cheeks express.

This year, as per usual, we'll all share hints and tips for keeping the thermostat low without really freezing our buns off. For those of you who use a form of heating without a thermostat, you are still invited to play. The challenge for you is to use less fuel.

Since I know a lot of you can't commit to as low temperatures as others, it's just fine if you pledge to drop it down one degree or so from where you usually keep it. Even that makes a huge difference. You'll find that, as the winter wears on, you'll be able to drop it lower as you adjust to the new, lower temperatures. So, if you don't want to take the icy plunge, don't feel like you have to drop it 10 degrees right away.

To sign up for the challenge, add a comment to this post and pledge what temperatures you will keep your thermostat. I'm wimping out this year and pledging for 65 day and 58 night. You are more than welcome to meander through the posts from last year's challenge if you want to know what you're in for.

As in the first year, this year's challenge mascot is the Arctic Seal. That roly poly little snow covered baby seal needs our help. Help prevent his extinction by preserving the Arctic environment by using less energy, reducing the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere and stopping global climate change.

How low can you go?

Men and carbon footprint reduction

Well, since we were focusing on men yesterday I figure we should do another "all things man" today. As it was clear from many of the answers given, women hold a certain influence over what the man in their life uses from shampoo to soap and beyond.

But, what kind of influence do you have over them when it comes to other things? Have you been able to help them reduce their carbon footprint or are they the one instigating it? And, if you are one of my male readers, are you the one leading the climate saving efforts at home?

Here are some more questions for you (if you are "the guy" answer for yourself):

1. Does your guy help with cooking/food purchase choices? Is he on board for buying local, sustainable, organic or less meat?
2. Is he interested in sustainable yard care - using an electric or push mower, no pesticides/fertilizers, or do you do it all?
3. Does he help if you grow some of your food at home?
4. Does he help with adaptations to your home to make it more energy efficient or environmentally friendly (low flow showerhead, use recycled paper products)?
5. Is he willing to take public transportation, walk/bike, telecommute or otherwise reduce his mileage?
6. Does he help with recycling, food composting and generally reducing waste?
7. Is he willing to turn off the lights when not in use, turn off the water when shaving or brushing teeth, keep the heat low and other conservation techniques?
8. Is he game for more "fringe" things like no poo, cloth wipes and the like?
9. Do you fight with him over these things or is he on board? If so, is he on board just to appease you or because he believes it's the right thing to do?

I'm always curious how people's partners react when their significant other makes lifestyle changes. Do they follow along or just ignore it and hope it goes away on its own? How much grief and/or marital strife does this cause? (I think Greenpa has a thing or two to contribute on this one :)

Grass fed beef and methane

I'm sure you've all heard the argument - raising cattle for beef is a high green house gas emitting activity. It breaks down to about 19 kilograms of carbon dioxide emitted for every kilogram of beef eaten. [1] But what about the other end? The methane emitted from all that cattle belching and farting is high as well. Cows emit between 2.5 and 4.7 ounces of methane for each pound of beef they produce, depending on production. The big problem with methane is that it has roughly 23 times the global-warming potential of CO2. [2]

Another issue I'm sure you've read is that grass fed cattle are even worse for the environment than grain or corn fed cattle because they emit even more methane. In some studies, they suggest that grass fed cattle emit 50% more methane. The reason, according to Nathan Pelletier of Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, is that "it’s related to the much higher volumes of feed throughput and associated methane and nitrous-oxide emissions." Additionally, most pastures were highly managed, and subject to "periodic renovations and also fertilization." Pelletier also added that, with grass-fed cattle, "there is also a high [grass] trampling rate. So the actual land area that you need to maintain magnifies that difference". [3]

Sounds like a pretty stinky problem for proponents of grass fed beef. Well, Mother Earth News recently published an article on grass fed beef and stated that:

There are studies to suggest grain produces less methane, but those studies, by and large, compare conventional pastures with feedlots. However, conventional pastures contain high-fiber, low-quality forage, which produces more methane. On the other hand, studies of rotational grazing have shown decreases of as much as 45 percent in methane production, when compared with conventional pastures. All studies seem to agree cows produce less methane when nutrition is best, and the very reason for rotational grazing is to improve forage quality.

So what's a concerned consumer to do? If you are going to eat beef, make sure that you choose meat from cows that are raised in a sustainable manner. Get to know your producer and find out how the cattle is raised, if it is grass raised or if it is just grass finished. Finally, make sure that the grass fed beef you choose is from a farm that practices rotational grazing. But, really, when it comes down to it, what's the best thing to do? Eat less beef or none at all.

Is air travel selfish?

I can't remember what blog I was reading the other day, but someone in the comments had mentioned that they considered air travel to be something that they weren't willing to give up mostly because they felt that what they got out of the experience was worth the carbon consumption, or something like it. In other words, they felt that some of the pristine scenes or natural sights weren't going to be around for much longer, so they should go see them while they could.

And this struck something in me - the question of, do we as affluent Americans have the right to pleasure travel the globe, catching the last of the sights and sounds before the environment changes, all the while contributing to that decline? And what does that mean for the billions of people who can't even travel outside of their region, let alone afford to get on a plane, these same billions who are the ones most adversely affected by climate change? What rights do they have? As an example, with one round-trip flight to Europe (with 3-4 tons of CO2 emissions) you will have caused more emissions than 20 Bangladeshi will cause in a whole year. Unfortunately they are the ones who will lose their homes and livelihood once sea level rise inundates their low lying country. [1]

To put things in perspective, aviation presently accounts for 4 to 9% of the total climate change impact of human activity. And, instead of the amount going down, as it should be to mitigate climate change, since 1990, CO2 emissions from international aviation have increased 83%. [2] Not all of this is due to pleasure travel, but it does represent a huge chunk of climate change, such that all the carbon trading / tree planting you do to offset the impact really won't make up for it.

So, I wanted to ask you guys how you felt. Do you think air travel for tourism sake is selfish? Can't we all get by seeing the world the way people have always done so, through the experience of a few through travelogues, pictures and, more recently, film and documentaries? Must we all see it first-hand? Is the argument that travelling makes one more aware of worldly problems a sufficient one to make up for the impact or is really just a justification for self-satisfaction and consumption?

If you plan on doing Earth Hour

Earth Hour this year is Saturday, March 28th from 8:30 pm to 9:30 pm, where participants are urged to turn off all their lights for an hour as a show of support against global warming. These sorts of events oftentimes seem like an empty gesture to me that tend to have far too many commercial interests.

Sure, they get people excited and make them feel like they are participating in a global movement, but the overall impact is fairly minimal, particularly given the fact that the majority of participants end up burning paraffin candles instead. The end result is that Earth Hour burns more CO2 than keeping one low-watt CFL bulb burning instead.

Here's the trade-off: if you get your electricity from green sources (wind, hydro, solar, etc.), switching over to a seemingly innocuous candle is a bit of mental legerdemain. Are the candles 100% beeswax or soy with a 100% cotton wick? Or are they the cheaper paraffin (fossil fuel) kind? Do they burn cleanly or do they actually contribute to increased carbon dioxide emissions?

For those of you not intimately knowledgeable about standard paraffin candles, paraffin is essentially hydrocarbon, or a heavy alkane fraction distilled straight from crude oil. Even if 80% of your electricity comes from coal and fossil fuel fired power stations, burning candles is very polluting and certainly very greenhouse gas and carbon dioxide emissions intensive, even more so than electric lighting. In other words, for every paraffin candle that is burned to replace electric lighting during Earth Hour, greenhouse gas emissions over the course of the one hour are increased by 9.8 g of carbon dioxide.

Beeswax candles, on the other hand, can be considered "carbon neutral" in the sense that, even though it produces carbon dioxide when burned, it’s carbon that is naturally cycled through the ecospheric carbon cycle - not from fossil fuel.

So, if you are doing Earth Hour, stock up on beeswax candles if you really want to make a statement. Another alternative is a hand-crank or solar lantern. Or, you can just hang out in the dark and enjoy yourself with other, more carbon neutral activities.

Are you going to do Earth Hour this year and what kind of alternative lighting will be used, if any?

A bout of bad gas

As I was coming home from picking my daughter up from school yesterday, I noticed that regular unleaded gas is creeping up towards $2.00 a gallon again. On one hand, this is good, because increased gas prices forces consumers to think about not only their driving habits, but also their car choices. Smaller cars and better fuel efficiency is better for our environment.

Increasing gas prices also will hopefully smack the car manufacturers getting bailed out into rethinking their horrid choices in "fuel economy" vehicles. I think it's laughable that any car manufacturer can state that their hybrid behemoth, that gets 30 mpg, is "fuel efficient". Hell, my Honda Civic gets better mileage than that, costs $22,000 less and it ain't even a hybrid.

On the other hand, increasing gas prices puts pressure on the pocketbooks of many Americans that are hurting from the flailing economy, many of whom don't have many options with alternative forms of transportation. Of course, farmers are hurt tremendously as well, particularly those who are dependent on petroleum-based fertilizers, but even organic farmers are hard hit as their farm equipment depends on petroleum fuel.

So, should we be rooting for higher gas prices or crying over it? I honestly don't know. The whole issue is a double-edged sword. Either way, we lose something. It would, of course, be ideal for gas prices to be low and have people still choose the most fuel-efficient car or opt for public transportation and/or walking or biking instead of private vehicles.

It also would, of course, be nice if last summer's gas price inflation had struck enough fear into the hearts of consumers that their future choice in vehicles primarily revolved around how many miles per gallon they got instead of how prestigious/cool/big it is.

As an aside, the other day at work I got a chance to fondle one of our fleet hybrid vehicles that was converted to a plug-in electric. It's a Toyota Prius that is now sporting a standard plug on its bumper (see above photo), a set of batteries in the trunk and 100 mpg. Swoooon!

Anyway, what about you? Do you have mixed feelings about gas prices or are you happy about them being low?

Related posts:
Life without oil: Part 1
Who Killed the Electric Car: movie review
Fuel cell: Fool sell
Hypermilers

Related books:
Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that will Recharge America
Build Your Own Plug-In Hybrid Vehicle
Build Your Own Electric Vehicle

Reefer madness

I know you all are busy voting today (or at least should be), or preoccupied with how to live more like a pioneer (or at least should be), but I thought I'd ask a question that we haven't discussed in a while.

And, no it doesn't involve marijuana. I'm talking about refrigerator usage and the willingness to give it up. You see, not too long ago, the best thing going was an icebox. The energy expenditure for making and delivering ice was not inconsequential, particularly since the main mode of energy and transportation was coal driven, so we certainly can't look back on those days with any environmental romanticism. Although I'm sure some still do.

Others will look back to the days when no refrigeration was even possible and either think it's totally doable today or that only people totally off their rockers will attempt to go sans refrigeration. I think that it's a doable project if you are extremely organized or don't eat anything (or little amounts) of food that require refrigeration.

In spite of the energy costs and related environmental impacts (production, packaging, distribution, chemical components, disposal), refrigerators seem to be the last holdout that environmentalists are willing to give up. Who can resist the welcoming arms of a refrigerator, wide-open, beckoning you inside to sample its refreshingly cool contents?

Ask any environmentalist to give up their clothes dryer? Piece of cake. Ditch the heating and air conditioning? No problem. No toilet paper? Sure thing! No refrigerator? Back up slowly and don't make eye contact lest you lose a limb.

We've seen fridge-less experiments come and go. Green as a Thistle gave it a whirl during her year long foray into reducing her impact. No Impact Man also tried giving it up. Yet, when their low-energy experiments were over, both went back to the cold, steely grip of refrigeration. It definitely has its hold on us, doesn't it?

What do you think about your fridge? Would you be willing to give it up? Have you already given it up and, if so, what's been your experience living "warm"?

Related posts:
Appliance freedom
Produce preservation products
Extreme Eco Throwdown

Freeze Yer Buns Challenge 2008

Okay, chickens, I just can't tell you how excited I am to kick off this year's Freeze Yer Buns Challenge. Last year we had such great participation and I'm expecting even more frozen hindquarters this year.

Because of the economic situation, most everyone is tightening up their purse strings, plus heating costs (oil, natural gas and electricity) are expected to be a lot higher this year than last, so you have even more incentive to hop on board the chapped cheeks express.

This year, we'll all share hints and tips for keeping the thermostat low without really freezing our buns off. For those of you who use a form of heating without a thermostat, you are still invited to play. The challenge for you is to use less fuel.

To give you all some additional inspiration, see if you can name the president that made the following speech:

I again ask every American to lower the thermostat settings in all homes and buildings to no more than 65 degrees during the daytime and to a much lower setting at night...

...I must say to you quite frankly that this is not a temporary request for conservation. Our energy problems will not be over next year or the year after. Further sacrifices in addition to lowering thermostats may well be necessary. But I believe this country is tough enough and strong enough to meet that challenge. And I ask all Americans to cooperate in minimizing the adverse effect on the lives of our people.

I know a lot of you can't commit to those types of temperatures and it's just fine if you pledge to drop it down one degree or so from where you usually keep it. Even that makes a huge difference. You'll find that, as the winter wears on, you'll be able to drop it lower as you adjust to the new, lower temperatures. If you don't want to take the icy plunge, don't feel like you have to drop it 10 degrees right away.

To sign up for the challenge, add a comment to this post and pledge what temperatures you will keep your thermostat. I'm pledging for 62 day and 55 night. You are more than welcome to meander through the posts from last year's challenge if you want to know what you're in for.

As I did last year, I will keep a tally of participants (with your high and low numbers) in the right sidebar. Feel free to grab the graphic if you want to promote the challenge on your blog as well.

This year's challenge mascot is the Arctic fox. Help prevent his extinction by preserving the Arctic environment by using less energy, reducing the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere and stopping global climate change.

How low can you go?

Reducing school bus emissions

This month you'll see all sorts of posts regarding back-to-school issues and environmentalism. I'm sure many of you are already sending your kids off to school with eco-friendly school supplies and healthy, organic lunches packaged in reusable containers. Additionally, many school districts are mostly on top of issues regarding lead in the drinking water of old school buildings and asbestos related problems.

But what about the enormous health and environmental impact of those yellow school buses? Over 99% of the U.S.'s 600,000 school buses run on diesel fuel, placing millions of children at risk each day.

Few districts seem to be doing anything regarding the inherent dangers of diesel school bus emissions. Regardless of whether or not you have kids in school this is a community issue and one that affects everyone living in it. Because the exhaust just doesn't harm kids but also other citizens that breathe it in. People with asthma or other lung issues are particularly susceptible to increased air pollution.

It's that time of year where the school buses are out in force, but it's also a good time to actually try to do something about it. Not all school districts have the money or the resources to switch to using biodiesel, but the more we ask the more they will listen. I'm sure all the grease being used in the school kitchens for those extremely healthy school lunches could be used for waste vegetable oil driven school buses. And, at the very least, you can request that the bus drivers do not idle and that they implement an idling reduction program.

So, where do you start? If it feels like one little voice isn't going to affect much change then getting parents together to demand clean school buses is one way to go. Discuss the issue with other parents while you are waiting to pick up your kids, at PTA meetings or even sending out information to your child's classroom email list.

Don't know what to say once you get organized? Well, here's a sample letter with some statistics for you to use to make your case. If you want to send it to your school district or local representatives, just replace the [XX] with the appropriate information for your region.

------------------------------------------------
Dear Superintendent of Public Instruction,

As a parent and citizen of [XX], I am deeply concerned of the impact that [XX] city school buses have on the health of not only the children riders and bus drivers, but on the community as a whole. School bus emissions have been directly linked to problems such as asthma, bronchitis, pneumonia, retarded lung development, and increased emergency room visits for respiratory illnesses. After long-term exposure, diesel exhaust can cause cancer.

Aside from the health issues resulting from school bus emissions, diesel exhaust also contains pollutants that contribute to ozone formation, smog, acid rain, and global climate change.

There are a number of changes that can be employed to reduce the amount of exhaust emitted from diesel school buses. From the obvious switchover to alternative fuel types such as biodiesel to policies reducing idling and technologies like diesel particulate traps and filters, it is imperative that our community look to reducing this very significant health and environmental threat.

Based on a 2001 study, the Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that, "for every one million children riding the school bus for 1 or 2 hours each day during the school year, 23 to 46 children may eventually develop cancer from the excess diesel exhaust they inhale on their way to and from school."

Please help protect our children and community by looking into making changes to the district's fleet of school buses. If you would like to learn more about the issues surrounding school bus diesel emissions as well as information regarding reducing idling and retrofitting school buses, please refer to the US EPA website (http://www.epa.gov/oms/schoolbus/index.htm). If steps are being made to reduce diesel emissions, I would like to be informed.

Thanks in advance for your consideration,

John Smith
123 Main Street
Anytown, ST 12345
john.smith@gmail.com
------------------------------------------------

So, as your kids head back to school, take a moment out of your day to help address this very large problem so we can all breathe easier.

Movie Night: The 411 on electric cars and fuel cells

I recently had a poll regarding what people's opinions were on the "car of the future". I do realize that it's likely that our SOV mode of transportation may be at an end, or very likely, supplanted by an admixture of personal transportation (car, bicycle, foot) and public transportation.

I also recently watched, Who Killed the Electric Car, and learned a bit about the viability of the hydrogen fuel cell and the marketing machine behind it. Hence the poll. I wanted to get an idea of what people's impressions were of the alternative vehicles on the horizon.

So, I was a little saddened to see that a good 31% of respondents (out of 112 at this writing) thought that hydrogen fuel cells (HFC) were the way to go. Not that I can say anything negative of those who voted that way - that's not my intention and, frankly, up until a few weeks ago I didn't know squat about any of this. Which is why I feel like sharing this movie with y'all.

Car manufacturers have basically killed off their electric vehicle programs, citing that the battery technology was insufficient. Unfortunately (or fortunately), this is incorrect. The battery technology exists, it's just not being used by the major manufacturers. Why, you ask? Because Chevron (Cobasys) owns the patents to the battery technology and has been mostly unwilling to sell the batteries.

Another reason cited by the car manufacturers was that they claimed there was no demand for their electric cars in spite of having waiting lists. The actual reasons are probably still debatable, but let me share at least what I picked up as the reasons why car manufacturers and big oil don't like electric cars.

Actually, let me back up and just mention why car manufacturers like Honda and General Motors even developed them in the first place. California. Back in the 90s, California passed the Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV) mandate. Several car manufacturers started making electric vehicles to meet this mandate, leasing them to consumers to "test" them out. In the meantime, California was being sued by big oil, car manufacturers and the Bush administration so they couldn't enforce the mandate. As a result, the state's air resources board backed down on forcing manufacturers to produce a ZEV if they wanted to do business in California.

Subsequently, the car manufacturers killed their electric car programs and then went about recalling the vehicles they had leased out as part of the program and destroyed them all (save for a few that went to museums). In spite of the fact that the people leasing the cars were willing to purchase them outright.

Now, why doesn't big oil like the electric car? Well, there are still trillions of dollars of oil profits to be made, so why encourage consumers to stop buying it? With electric cars, energy can come from a myriad of sources, least of which is oil. Makes sense, no?

And, why don't car manufacturers like electric cars? What difference does it make to them as long as they can sell them? In order to sell cars, manufacturers have dealerships. And dealerships make a big chunk of their profits from.... maintenance. That's right. Well, with the electric car there's little maintenance. No oil changes, no complicated machinery. Just pump up and rotate the tires every now and again. I'm sure there are other reasons, like being in bed with big oil, but suffice it to say, they seem not interested in electric cars for a variety of reasons.

Damn, this is getting long.

Anyway, HFCs are being pushed as the next bestest thing by car manufacturers and the oil industry. Why the hydrogen fuel cell? Well, perhaps oil companies can supplant their profits by switching over to this "new" energy source and replacing their gas stations with HFC fueling stations. This makes the consumer still dependent on big oil (or big hydrogen?) for transportation rather than just charging up your car at home.

Of course, this assumes that the technology will ever become available. Ha ha ha. I'm kidding, right? No, we're still looking at a technology that is potentially decades off, if at all. In the meantime, let's all buy some more gasoline until we run out. Or until the profits run dry. It's a case of bait and switch.

There are a lot more details that I'm obviously not covering. If you want more information about all this and aren't impressed by my slip-shod reporting, I urge you to watch the movie or read the book, Plug-in Hybrids (I haven't read it but it's worth checking into).

The car of the future

Since we're discussing emissions, I thought I'd take an opinion poll...

Between climate change and peak oil, the standard gas-driven internal combustion engine may be going the way of the dinosaur.

Let us all just reflect for a moment

.... on how stupid the EPA is for refusing California and 16 other states the right to control their air quality by requiring their own car emissions standards (from the NYT):

The Bush administration said Wednesday night that it would deny California's bid to set stricter vehicle emissions standards than federal law required as part of the state's efforts to fight climate change... The E.P.A's decision was a victory for the American auto companies...

Isn't the EPA supposed to be protecting the environment and not the oil companies? This just really makes me sick. Especially after watching the movie, Who Killed the Electric Car, last weekend.

Do you feel like the United States is stepping down as a world leader? Do you feel like the American public is completely hand-tied by the oil industry in all of our current policies?

Sometimes, unfortunately, I do.

Freeze Yer Buns Challenge

Okay, so I admit it. I did suggest that this new challenge didn't involve butts. However, it refers to your posterior in the title alone.

What's it all about, you ask? Well, let me tell you! Last winter I was all proud of myself at how I was keeping the thermostat low, trying to save energy and all. I kept it at a numbing 60 degrees at night and 68 degrees during the day. Which I thought was low. Until I got spanked by the people who took my poll. Almost half kept it at 59 degrees or lower.

This year I'm trying to outdo myself. I'm keeping the daytime temperatures at around 62 degrees. 65 if people are complaining. Nighttime temps will be 55.

So, starting November 1st, I'm challenging all of you to keep your thermostat low until the spring. Whip out those fuzzy binkies and down comforters and put on those sweaters and fleece slippers.

To sign up for the challenge, add a comment to this post and pledge what temperatures you will keep your thermostat. I'll be updating you all with hints and tips to keep warm as well as semi-interesting facts about the history of home heating. Plus, I'll regale you with reasons why you should keep your thermostat down (in case it just isn't patently obvious already)!

As per usual, I will keep a tally of participants (and your numbers) with a list in the right sidebar. Feel free to grab the graphic if you want to promote the challenge on your blog as well.

So, this one's pretty darn easy. How low can you go?

[P.S. For those of you in more toasty zones or those heading into summer, you can pledge to keep your thermostat higher and keep the A/C off.]

[P.P.S. I just love that powdery baby seal]

Biofuel quandary

I wanted to get y'all's opinion on something that I was thinking about as I was driving home. I was sitting at a stoplight next to a car running (quite proudly given the number of bumper-stickers) biodiesel. This is rather common in Seattle as there are several biofueling stations in the area. In fact, we were considering buying a diesel vehicle to replace one of our Honda's a few years back.

What I was thinking was about what we were reading in Omnivore's Dilemma regarding how much oil was involved in growing the corn (or soy) and the manufacturing of biodiesel. At least one person commented on how the amount of oil required to produce one gallon of biodiesel was so high that we might as well just burn the gasoline directly.

This led me to ruminate about how the local biofueling stations acquire their biodiesel. I don't know if they go through the trouble of getting spent oil from restaurants or how they get it. I know that the local Safeway is installing a biofueling station and I suspect that maybe they are getting the biofuel from processing the spent oil from the Safeway bakeries and delis in the areas, but I'm just making it up at this point.

So, I'm thinking that a biodiesel car isn't such a hot idea and that a hybrid car in the future would be better or, if they ever get off the ground and are more available, an electric car since we can charge the batteries using our wind/hydro energy.

I know you all can argue that I should just get rid of the cars altogether and, for the most part, I could agree with you there. We really could easily eliminate one vehicle as we don't really use it, but it's paid off, has low miles and it's nice to have around just in case we need it. My husband takes the bus to work as I did before we had kids. Once both kids are in elementary school (within walking distance) it's quite plausible we could easily live without cars, but more likely we'll pare down to one car.

And here comes the more imminent quandary - while I was digesting all of this (the stoplight wasn't really that long, it's just that my mind tends to race), I thought of the BioHeat that we buy for our oil furnace. It's a blend of traditional oil fuel and biodiesel. I have no idea what the source of the biofuel for that is and I suspect if I called and asked they may not know either. But if it takes more oil to produce the same burning "amount" of BioHeat, isn't it just better to buy the oil directly? Am I spending extra money on BioHeat and doing more harm than good? I know it burns cleaner, but somewhere along the way, I'm sure other pollution was produced in the manufacturing.

Help! What do you think?

'Low Impact Week' starts June 1st!

A few people over on No Impact Man's blog were chatting about having a "No Impact Camp" or a "No Impact Week" for people to try out living lighter on the earth. Similar to the "Turn off your Television Week" thing.

I suggested having a "Low Impact Week" since there are a lot of barriers to truly having no impact for only a week. Plus, it's a lot more doable for the average family.

So, in the usual state of things, I decided on the spot to host my very own "Low Impact Week" starting the first week in June.

UPDATED: See this post for the guidelines!

Dental makeover

No, nothing cosmetic. I'm talking about our dental products here.

I was at my favorite co-op store getting a few things and ran across some ecologically sound dental products made by Eco-DenT. I've been wanting to get a recyclable toothbrush (where you mail back the toothbrush for recycling) for a while now, but the fuel costs turned me off (see "Lone Ranger" Recycling for more info).

The Eco-DenT toothbrush has a replaceable head which is an improvement as you are only throwing out essentially the bristles and a tiny bit o' plastic. They even have kid sizes.

In addition, I picked up some Eco-DenT tooth floss. It's packaged in a recyclable cardboard box of sorts, so no more throwing away so many of those non-recyclable plastic boxes. Plus there's really no extra packaging except a little piece of cardboard at the top that you tear off.

I wish that the major brands of dental floss would offer a cardboard alternative. I like Eco-DenT enough, it has some other happy features too (like the wax is vegan if that matters to you), but it would be nice to have other choices. And its not like the technology to switch to paper is so hard.

CO2 compensation credit cards

I was recently reading about how in the Netherlands you can get a credit card where, instead of earning miles or the like, your purchase helps offset carbon emissions. It's called Greencard Visa and, at this point, is only available to residents of the Netherlands.

For every purchase made, new trees are planted or other methods of offsetting carbon emissions are taken in order to make erase the cardholder's climate footprint.

An American company, called Bright Planet, is set to launch a similar program in May where "points" earned are invested in new clean energy projects. Bright Planet's web site leaves much to be desired, but this article helps sort things out.

If you're looking for a more recognizable bank card, later this year Bank of America will be offering its consumers an eco-friendly credit card. For every dollar spent on this new card, Bank of America will make a contribution to an environmental organization to invest in greenhouse gas reduction projects.

Stay tuned!