Getting the Mercury Out: Part II of What Is Turning Into a Very, Very Long Series

Hey Mr. Green,
Since we have been using mercury-containing fluorescents since the 1940s, the relevant question would seem to be whether it's easier to contain mercury released from a power plant or in our solid-waste stream? —Jerry in Jamaica, New York

Mr. Green answers:
Hey Jerry,
Yes, if done strictly, controlling emissions from power plants would clearly be the most effective way to bring about a large reduction in the amount of toxic mercury in our air and water. Around 48 tons of mercury are emitted each year from power plants in the United States. The EPA has announced a goal of cutting this down to 15 tons by 2018. However, the agency's plan involves a cap-and-trade system critics say will actually not reduce mercury in some areas at all, and almost two dozen states are working to pass their own stricter regulations.

Total human-caused mercury emissions in the United States have declined considerably, thanks to stiff regulations and changing technology. We're now emitting around 115 tons total annually, down from 220 tons in 1990. Emissions peaked at twice this level in the 1950s, when they were ten times higher than in the 19th century.

This is all very good news, the kind of news environmentalists ought to crow about more. (Seems to me that we sometimes get so caught up in dealing with new messes that we don't demand enough credit for cleaning up the old ones.) But we do have a problem with compact fluorescent lightbulbs, because no mercury is good mercury. What we need, in my opinion, is much clearer point-of-sale information and more-prominent information on bulb packaging about the dangers of mercury and the importance of recycling.

As I've noted before, if all home lighting used in the United States were fluorescent, the mercury in dead bulbs would add up to around four tons a year. (Of course, the enviros-are-sissies dudes are in such denial about environmental problems they'll tell you that's such a small part of the total it's not worth worrying about--then down a shot of mercury with a DDT chaser to prove their point.) But because a lot of total mercury emissions are made up of just such "small" parts--3.5 percent from cement plants, 4.5 percent from hazardous-waste incineration, etc.--we neglect any part at our cumulative peril.

Finally, although we know what a major environmental nuisance the United States is--the classic example being that with 5 percent of the world's population, we burn 25 percent of the world's oil--we're far less reckless with mercury, emitting about 2 to 3 percent of the world's whopping total of 4,400 to 7,500 tons a year. Unfortunately, this can't be dismissed as somebody else's issue, because mercury vapor and compounds can drift thousands of miles in the atmosphere. So when we buy imported goods made in countries with lax emissions standards, we might be poisoning ourselves and the unfortunate residents of those nations. Plus, when we ship tons of our worn-out, mercury-containing products overseas for recycling, we're offshoring pollution along with jobs. It's clear that the whole world needs strict limits on mercury.
Environmentally,
Mr. Green

Hey Mr. Green,
How can I persuade the company I work for, a nationwide restaurant chain, to adopt a recycling program? —Trisha in Cincinnati

Mr Green answers:
Try to start a pilot program in your workplace that other outlets can emulate. The first step is to find out what recycling programs are offered by the city's commercial haulers and what types of waste they take. Then ask if they pick up recycling for free or at a discounted rate. If they do, that'll be a big plus.

Next, try to identify an environmentalist in management, if indeed such a creature exists, and explain how recycling can save money (the economic argument) and help reduce global warming (the moral argument). Also point out that recycling is mighty fine PR. If all else fails, ask permission to set up a program yourself and organize your coworkers to help collect waste and take it to the nearest recycling center.

For more ideas, go to earth911.org and click on "Business Resources" or contact the Green Chamber of Commerce. If your recycling venture succeeds, you can move on to promoting energy conservation with efficient lighting, water heating, and insulation. Then you can kick back and listen to your supervisors gloat about how they're saving money and the environment.

Hey Mr. Green,
I recently spent five months touring the country with the American Shakespeare Center and tried my best to be green on the road. I unplugged the clock, microwave, and fridge and kept my water usage to a minimum. What else can we travelers do? — Kevin in Detroit

Mr Green answers:
Turn the heat down to 68 degrees Fahrenheit or lower in winter (60 degrees when you're sleeping), and in summer, turn the air conditioner off or the thermostat up to 78 or higher. Use towels more than once, and take mass transit when possible for your side trips. If you want to go all-out, turn off the TV. (Having to entertain yourself will also build character and sharpen your acting talent.) Avoid wasting energy in your vacant home by unplugging or shutting off as much as is practical, turning the heat down as low as possible in winter (but not so low that your pipes would freeze), and turning the air conditioner off. If you have a conventional tank water heater, turn it off too. Finally, as Shakespeare himself said, albeit under tragic circumstances, "Put out the light, and then put out the light."

Hey Mr. Green,
Why is there air? —Anonymous

Mr Green answers:
Ooo-wee, I just love these big questions. They remind me of those probed in Time magazine cover stories, like "Who Was Moses?" "Is Government Dead?" "Is God Dead?" "Is God Coming Back to Life?" (Verily, folks, thus hath Time spoken.) In the beginning, there was air, but not the marvelous kind in which we now exist. Go back 4 billion years, and the air was made up of assorted combinations of suffocating gases like carbon dioxide, methane, hydrogen sulfide, and nitrogen. Then, around 2 to 3 billion years ago, cyanobacteria (a.k.a. blue-green algae) figured out how to release oxygen by extracting it photosynthetically from carbon dioxide and water.

This was followed by the appearance of plants that produce oxygen, accelerating the 2-billion-year process in which the oxygen content in the atmosphere increased from close to nothing to the 20 percent level of today. Of course, there were all sorts of other complicated geological, chemical, and biological changes that cooperated in this development. Kinda makes you wonder about the arrogant polluters trying to undo this amazing atmospheric accomplishment--and the loopy zealots who deny that evolution ever happened. It's hard to say which group is more annoying: the former, who play God, or the latter, who claim to know exactly what He's been doing since the beginning of time.
Environmentally,
Mr. Green

A Very, Very Hot Topic, or "I Miss My Lung, Bob"

Hey Mr. Green,
In answering a question about the most ecofriendly way to feed a fireplace, you failed to mention the possibility of using a pellet stove. I own such a stove and have found it to be much easier to use and more efficient than a traditional wood-burning stove, but I have yet to see an article in Sierra that talks about this type of heat source. What say you? —David in Highland Park, New Jersey

Mr Green answers:
Hey David,
Thanks for reminding me about wood-pellet stoves. They emit only one-fourth as much fine particulate matter (the tiny and dangerous particles in smoke that are less than ten micrometers in diameter) as EPA-approved stoves, so the agency doesn't even bother rating them. If you can't use oil or natural gas--or won't use them because you're a cantankerous, off-the-grid corporate-fuel hater or survivalist--the pellet stove is your cleanest choice. Also, the pellets are made of materials that might otherwise have been wasted. Still, even the cleanest-burning wood-pellet stove emits a lot more particulates than heating your home with gas or oil.

Thanks also for providing me with another opportunity to warn my wheezing fellow humans about the dangers of wood stoves: Despite the nostalgic image of families snuggling up in the glow of the hearth and listening to tales of bygone days, the old burners could more aptly be called "killer stoves" due to their emissions. The most dangerous of the microparticles are less than 2.5 micrometers, or about a 30th the size of a human hair. These can lodge deep in the lungs, damaging them and the circulatory system. Old stoves can emit up to 15 times more fine particles than ones made after the EPA tightened its regulations in 1988. On top of this, they require a lot more wood to make the same amount of heat.

In some areas, as much as 80 percent of the particulates in the air come from burning wood, when the weather favors such a buildup. Yet of the estimated 10 million wood stoves in the United States, only 20 to 30 percent are the newer, safer EPA-approved models. Therefore, the EPA has been setting up programs to get people to replace old stoves with new models; in some locations, you can even get a rebate for retiring your aged smogster. For more on this topic, check out the EPA's fact sheet on wood-burning efficiency and safety and its list of certified stove models.
Environmentally,
Mr. Green

Hey Mr. Green,
I know organically grown cotton is better for the environment, but is there any difference in the fabric? Do the pesticides wash out in the laundry? --April in Redlands, California

Mr. Green answers:
The clothes shoppers buy don't have pesticides in them, but the clothes farmworkers wear home from the fields might. Conventional cotton growing requires a lot of poison--as much as 25 percent of the insecticides applied to all crops--so organic cotton, which is grown with minimal pesticides and governed under the same standards as organic food, is safer for farmers and the environment. Some organic cotton processors also use natural dyes--another plus. The major minus is a higher price. But if people are willing to shell out for a big name on a little label, they should be able to spend more on fashion that's lighter on the earth. For more information, visit aboutorganiccotton.org.