Energy · Eco-Chick

Browsing all posts tagged with Energy

Nature Kids, Hot Water Woes, and Pellet Stoves

I want my child to connect with nature, but how can a suburban park be designed to both protect visitors from Lyme disease–carrying ticks and restore the natural ecosystem?
—Lena Crandall, Scarsdale, NY

The funny thing about wildlife (even the kind that finds its way into parks and playgrounds in developed areas) is that it’s wild and therefore not completely controllable. In order to eliminate Lyme disease–carrying ticks, you would have to ban all warm-blooded animals and pave over the greenery. Still, you wouldn’t be creating an optimal environment for children. “In a matter of a few decades kids’ interactions with nature have been reduced significantly compared with all of human history,” says Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods. “A new body of evidence suggests getting kids out-
side, which engages all the senses, leads to a longer attention span, increases in cognitive development, and [reduces] stress.”

So unless you want your child to grow up playing in a parking lot, the best way to avoid deer ticks is prevention. “You can’t really prevent ticks from being in outdoor areas, but you can be proactive about your own actions,” says Beth Herr, pro-
gram director at New York’s Westchester County Parks Department. (New York had more cases of Lyme disease in 2006 than any other state.) “Be sure that you tuck your pants into your socks, wear light-colored clothing, and check yourself and your child for ticks right after using outdoor facilities.”
Back to Top

I’m considering buying a tankless water heater. With all their great energy-saving features, why haven’t these systems caught on?
—Louis Weiss, Berkeley, CA

Whoever invented the storage water heaters most of us have in our homes today must have been thinking of how best to waste energy instead of save it. Think about it: Conventional systems keep water warmed to skin-scrubbing temps 24/7 even though hot water is needed for only an hour or two a day. Tankless (or demand) types do just the opposite: Water is heated instantly when you turn on the shower. Since roughly 13 percent of a home’s energy is used for this purpose, making the switch to a tankless kind could save an average of about $180 a year, and also help reduce your family’s carbon footprint.

If you choose a natural gas–burning model, it will use about 30 percent less energy than an electric one, and you can up the efficiency even more by picking a unit with an intermittent ignition rather than a constantly burning pilot light. (Two companies that sell such models are Bosch and Takagi.)

You will also save water. “You don’t need to run the shower waiting for the hot water, which wastes an average of five gallons every time you do it,” says Claudia Chandler, assis-
tant executive director for the California Energy Commission.

So why haven’t these caught on? Tankless heaters supply two to five gallons of water a minute, which might not be enough when you want to take a shower and run the dishwasher at the same time. A simple solution is to just add another unit. You will never run out of water completely, as with other heaters. While a tankless unit might be more expensive up front, you will save so much on your electricity bill it could pay for itself in as little as two years. You might also enjoy a windfall come April 15. The federal government and many states (see Energy Star and DSIRE) now offer rebates and tax deductions for energy-efficient appliances, including a $300 credit for certain tankless water heaters installed between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007.
Back to Top

I might start heating my home with wood pellets. Is this a sustainable resource?
—Jon Bradford, Lancaster, PA

What could be cozier than the smell of wood smoke drifting over a snowy landscape? Until the early 1900s, 90 percent of Americans heated their homes with wooden logs, which are a renewable resource, since trees can be planted to replace those cut for fuel. When fossil fuels became cheaper and more widely available, many people switched from the messy fires that needed constant stoking to furnaces that burned oil or natural gas (which are both finite, nonrenewable fuels).

Concerns about global warming, rising fuel prices, and ground-level air pollution have led some homeowners to rethink how they heat their homes, and wood is slowly making a comeback. Unfortunately, traditional wood stoves and fireplaces contribute to local air pollution, since they produce particulates (few older stoves have an air smoke filter), and they can be high maintenance to keep going. Stoves that run on pellets instead of logs are cleaner and require less upkeep (picture a bag of half-inch-long pellets instead of logs).

The fuel for these stoves is also sustainable, as most pellets are made of compacted sawdust, waste paper, and bark, all by-products of the paper, agriculture, or lumber industries. Sawdust wood pellets produce the least amount of ash. Some stoves can also burn other biofuels, including soybeans, corn kernels, nutshells, barley, and cherry pits, that might otherwise end up in landfills. But make sure your stove can handle alternative fuels before trying them.

You might also have an energy auditor or certified provider come check out your house to see what size stove you need based on the area you want to heat and how well it is insu-
lated. Most pellet stoves do need to be plugged in to run their fans and controls; you can expect to use about $9 worth of electricity per month. Setup for a pellet stove is faster than for a wood stove, and about half the price. Although a pellet stove costs considerably more than a wood stove ($1,700 to $3,000 compared with $400 to $700), the pellet stove could pay for itself in as little as four years.

From my column “Green Guru” at Audubon Magazine.

agriculture, alternative fuel, Animals, cape, car, carbon, carbon footprint, cars, children, clothing, corn, design, eating, Eco-Chick, electric, electricity, Energy, epa, fall, filter, fur, gas, Global Warming, Home, kids, local, magazine, model, models, oil, paper, playgrounds, Pollution, produce, reduce, skin, soy, spa, sustainable, Tea, trees, urban, waste, water, Wildlife, wood

Roam If You Want To (But Not if You're a Bear)

3 Comments

by Starre Vartan · 01/08/08

This map, scanned from Patagonia’s latest catalog, details a grizzly’s 50-mile journey, which in the world of a bear, isn’t even really that far of a trip- they’ve been known to travel 500 miles or more as part of their natural movements.

“For many wild animals, to roam means to survive.” I can relate. I’ve lived all over the world, and feel the deep desire, seemingly necessary to my well-being, to travel to far-off lands (or at least a couple states over) on a regular basis. For people, it’s easy to get around; we just have to choose the method. Car, plane, bike, train, snowboard, rollerblades, or feet?

Us humans are even guaranteed the Right to Roam in many countries. Animals? Not so much.

Since our furry brethern don’t have such rights, there is less land for them as we expand over the landscape. Not only less land overall, but the land that is so munificently set aside by us humans is usually fragmented, conserved in chunks separated from eachother by highways and roads, fences galore, angry humans, and housing developments.

Big animals need big spaces. If territories are balkanized by highways, energy development and housing, the long-term survival of large mammals – as well as the multitude of smaller creatures connected to them – is jeopardized. Imagine it this way: As writer David Quammen has noted, if you cut a beautiful, handwoven Turkish rug into 36 pieces, you don’t end up with 36 Turkish rugs. You have instead 36 worthless remnants.

If you’re a large animal like a bear, moose, or wolf, you’re screwed. Even though you need to roam- to migrate, find new food sources, to find new mates to increase your line’s genetic hardiness…in short, to survive and propagate- you are faced with being run over by a semi or shot for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just for doing what comes naturally to you.

But there IS a solution. Greenways, or wildlife corridors are recognized by conservation biologists as a means by which animals can move from one protected piece of land to another, letting the animals do their thing, with the added bonus of keeping them out of our garbage. I love bears, but I don’t really want to come face-to-face with them in my yard, I must admit.

Freedom to Roam is a partnership of conservations organizations, recreation groups and companies dedicated to establishing migration corridors between protected areas. Patagonia is supporting the organization with the sale of these organic t-shirts, above.

Animals, bears, cape, car, conservation, Energy, epa, farm, Food, fur, garbage, Organic, spa, style, t-shirt, t-shirts, Tea, travel, Wildlife

Smartest Car; Still Worse Than The Dumbest Bike

8 Comments

by Katie Kish · 12/30/07

Pink Car

The process of buying and making new cars isn’t the solution to this enormous fossil fuel problem we’re having. Hackneyed as it might seem, we need to develop long term sustainable community transportation, AND to rethink the way that we structure our lives around cars.

Buying a smart car is kind of like putting a band aid on a giant gash- technically, at a minuscule level, it’s helping- but if your concern stops at your purchase, you’re still going bleed to death… and worse, you may begin to confuse consumerism with activism. Often, trying to change the world by buying things isn’t really creating the change that companies convince us it is.

However, having said all that…

activism, Animals, car, cars, community, consumerism, death, design, driving, eating, emissions, Energy, epa, Europe, gadgets, garden, gardens, gas, hummers, MPG, oil, Plants, produce, recycle, recycled, spa, sport, sustainable, transportation, waste, water

Green Gifts: The Top 5 Regifting Don'ts

6 Comments

by Olivia Zaleski · 12/27/07

It’s the day after Christmas. Aside from feeling fat and hungover, you’re probably wondering how you’ll get rid of all the terrible gifts you’ve collected–the gizmo you’ll never use, the book you’ll never read, the sweater you wouldn’t be caught dead wearing. Rather than toss that hideous scarf or Ricky Martin album in the trash, take a moment to think . . .there’s got to be someone with an upcoming birthday and terrible taste.

Yes, I’m talking about regifting, the act of taking a gift you received, but don’t want and giving it to someone else. Although the practice pre-dates the green trend, regifting is one of the most environmentally responsible things you can do over the holidays.

By regifting you’ll eliminate the need for new gifts, whose production requires the unnecessary dissipation of energy and extraction of natural resources. Regifting will also prevent items from ending up in the landfill or incinerator. According to the EPA, each American throws away an average of four pounds a day. That’s a total of 210 million tons a year. Garbage cans everywhere should now read, “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle . . . Regift!”

Even Emily Post–Madame Manners herself–was a regifter. According to Post, good etiquette doesn’t require you to keep anything. Good etiquette simply requires you pretend you like the gift upon reception.

So there you have it! Regifting is neither tacky, nor cheap. Best of all, it’s good for the environment. But first, a few cardinal rules to keep in mind. Follow these tips and you’ll be sure to regift with finesse and tact.

1. Avoid Perishables.
Next Christmas, that food basket will be a collection of moldy crackers, rancid cheese, and outdated muffin-mix. Unless you’re going to claim it’s vinegar, best to avoid beverages with a funny smell and inch of sediment on their bottle’s bottom.

2. Avoid Out-of-Date/Extinct Products.
Unless your giftee is an avid collector, avoid articles of clothing, music and electronic gear of decades past. Chances are your recipient will know you originally received that home BETA video recorder in 1988.

3. Avoid Dead Giveaways.
Certain regifts are a plain and clear message that a) you’re regifting and b) you’re an idiot. For example, never regift monogrammed items . . . unless you have a plan to explain why your initials should be emblazoned on their bathrobe. Promotional items from your company’s “fun day” are also poor choices.

4. When in Doubt, ReWrap (with recycled or “green” wrapping paper, of course).
Gifts should always be in their original condition (i.e. unused and in box). If you’re not fortunate enough to have “an original-condition situation,” then make sure your gift is covered in non-tattered or faded paper. Nothing says this has been sitting in the bottom of my closet like disheveled wrapping paper.

5. Take Notes.
If you are going to regift, be sure you know who gave you what. Keep track in a notebook or computer file. Yes, it’s nerdy, but you’ll be happy you did. Nothing is quite as awkward as regifting to the person who gave you the gift in the first place, especially if that original giver is a grim-faced and resentful relative. You know, the one with a sense of humor akin to a dead fish?

Check back for more tips on living the green life from Olivia Zaleski every Wednesday on the Huffington Post’s Living Now Page.

bath, book, car, Christmas, clothing, Eco-Chick, Energy, epa, fish, Food, garbage, giveaway, giving, Green Gifts, holiday, Holidays, Home, humor, mom, Music, Olivia Zalesk, Olivia Zaleski, paper, recycle, recycled, reduce, resources, reuse, trash, treehugger, video

The Kids Are Not Going to Be Alright: They're Going to Be Pissed

9 Comments

by Starre Vartan · 12/20/07

Several of my friends have had babies in the last few years, and some are on their second round already. Though it seems to me that there are far too many people on the planet already, it’s difficult to begrudge anyone the basic human drive to reproduce, and my friends’ kids ARE ridiculously cute. I’m pretty sure they are all genius artists who will invent the next version of rock ‘n roll and create world peace, too. But every time I play with them, surrounded as they typically are by plastic toys, educational videos and the other detritus of modern children’s lives, I look into their eyes and I know: in 20 years, they are going to hate us.

Of course all teenagers and college students hate their parents a little bit (or a lot, depending on the hormones), as it’s part of forging one’s own identity. Isn’t it the American way to hold your parents in contempt until you’re at least 25, and then become them?

But these kids are going to have good reason for their anger, and I predict a revolution when these tiny tots grow to understand the legacy their parents have left them. They will inherit a planet-wide environmental mess, and it might not be impossible to fix, but it’s going to take the best minds of their age (plus their offspring), lots of money, and a singular desperation to fix what’s wrong before it’s too late. What these kids face in the coming years will make the mistakes my generation has been left with: Rockefeller drug laws, repeated pointless wars in the Middle East, and lack of marriage rights for homosexuals, seem like quaint oopsies in comparison. They’ll be figuring out how to handle the planet-altering effects of massive droughts (hey, it’s already happening) and global warming has barely gotten underway), disintegration of ecological webs as species disappear during the current mass extinction, and human migration due to the effects of global warming, not to mention changes we can’t even foresee yet.

Well, you say, each generation has to pick up after the one prior to it in one way or another; what gives those kids in diapers more permission than anyone else to let us have it? The answer is that we know what we’re doing to the environment and we still continue to do it.