To Light a Fire

Mr. Green is busy on his world-wide publicity tour for his new book. In the meantime, here's a Mr. Green classic column from July 2007.

Hey Mr. Green,
Can campers still cook over a campfire, or should we use a Coleman stove? —Karen in Los Altos, California

The campfire is part of Americana, with cowboy actors staring into the flames and feeling lonely, philosophical, horny, or homicidal while wolves howl in the distance. But you are not John Wayne or Clint Eastwood or even Roy Rogers, and you should not rely on campfires for cooking--especially in dry areas or regions that are heavily used. Deadwood plays an important role in an ecosystem's life cycle, providing nutrients to the land as well as habitats for small animals, insects, and microorganisms. In many cases, land managers forbid fires, so check with the officials first. Take that Coleman or other stove along, and be sure you know how to use it properly.

If there's plenty of fuel, an occasional campfire is OK, as long as it complies with the cardinal rule of outdoor activity: Leave no trace. That means no carbon scars on the ground, no way for anybody but the shrewdest Old West marshal to know you were there. You can learn how from a Colorado-based organization called Leave No Trace or (800) 332-4100, or get advice from the affiliated National Outdoor Leadership School, at www.nols.edu or (800) 710-6657, ext. 3.

Freezer Burn

Mr. Green is busy on his world-wide publicity tour for his new book. In the meantime, here's a Mr. Green classic column from July 2007.

Hey Mr. Green,
Should we replace our 1990 refrigerator? I know new models are much more efficient, but my husband asked about the environmental costs of replacing the old one before it conks out: Yes, we'd save energy, but what about the downside of removing and disposing of the old fridge, plus manufacturing the new one? —Gwen in Syracuse, New York

I applaud your husband's thoughtful questions, even if he's just deploying them to avoid shelling out money for a new fridge. Fortunately, you can tell him to chill. The average refrigerator today uses a third less energy than those of 15 years ago, thanks to federal regulations mandating greater efficiency. (Take that, you folks who whine about "burdensome regulations.") Because of this improvement, the energy used to dispose of a fridge as old as yours and to make a new one is recovered in just a few years' operation. Plus about 80 percent of the material in old refrigerators gets recycled. Before you buy, take a look at models bearing the EPA's Energy Star rating (energystar.gov), because they use at least 15 percent less energy than federal regulations require. (The refrigerator retirement calculator on the Web site will show you how much you can save.) Some utilities will even offer you a rebate on 'em.

One more thought: Like so many other things in the United States, from Big Gulps to trophy homes, refrigerators have developed a deplorable tendency toward gigantism and superfluous gadgetry. About all that's missing from the most Hummer-esque fridges is a robot to open your beer and chirp "Cheers" in one of a thousand programmable languages. You can easily end up paying four to five times more for space and features you'll never use. If you buy a modest 15-cubic-footer, you'll recoup its purchase price during its lifetime because of its miserly power demands.

Enviro Cost of a Bad-Hair Day

Hey Mr. Green,
I was at a bar the other night with a friend, and we came up with a question we thought you might be able to answer: How many households would need to exchange their incandescent bulbs for compact fluorescent ones to compensate for one Hollywood celebrity flying cross-country in a private jet to get a haircut by his or her favorite beautician?
--Nelson in San Francisco

Finally, a celebrity question more meaningful than "Is Angelina pregnant again?" or "Will Britney get her kids back?" Assuming that the star has a midsize charter jet and takes eight or nine groupies along for a 2,500-mile ride (roughly Los Angeles to New York), his or her share of jet fuel burned would be about 175 gallons, or 22.6 million British thermal units (Btus). Since it takes about 10,210 Btus to make a kilowatt of electricity, the flight would use up the equivalent of 2,214 kilowatt-hours of electricity.

Because a 25-watt fluorescent bulb is four times more efficient than an incandescent one yielding the same amount of light, the fluorescent will save 600 kilowatts in its 8,000-hour lifetime. Therefore, you'd only have to buy four fluorescents to save the energy required to fly the celebrity to the beautician. Amazing but true. Actually, let's make that five fluorescents because there's obviously a lot of energy squandered hauling his or her celebrity ass to and from the airports in a 15-mile-a-gallon limo. And that's not even counting the energy consumption of the paparazzi and media acolytes, which would change the equation considerably.

But time is also a big factor. The above calculation reveals the energy savings for the life of the bulb. If you want to know how many fluorescents you'd have to buy to compensate for the energy wasted for the duration of the celebrity's flight, the number changes dramatically. At a cruising speed of 540 miles per hour, your speculative celeb would be airborne for about five hours on the trip. In that time, a single fluorescent bulb would save only 0.375 kilowatts. So you'd need about 5,900 fluorescents to make up for the energy consumed on that particular flight. The beauty of this is that you can spin the argument either way, depending on how you want to package it!

And whether you buy four or 5,900 fluorescents to offset your favorite celebrity's flight, remember to recycle those bulbs when they die out. Since they do contain toxic mercury (albeit a small amount), that's the only way to truly lighten the burden of the environmental guilt he or she doesn't feel anyway.
Environmentally,
Mr. Green

Podcast: Recycling Paper

"Hey Mr. Green, I asked my employer to start a paper recycling program at work. How many trees would be saved by recycling a 30-gallon bin of paper?"

Click here to listen to the answer!

A Tree in Trade?

Hey Mr. Green,
I've heard that planting one tree is better than buying a Prius or even not driving for a year. What do you think? If one continues to drive an outdated vehicle, could one make up for it by planting a tree every year?
--Cheryn

Hey Cheryn,
There is a teensy-weensy grain of truth in the proposition that planting a tree every year is "better" than buying a Prius, but only if you are thinking exclusively about offsetting carbon dioxide emissions a hundred years or so from now. But sophists do have a way of ramping up a grain into a veritable asteroid, so this sounds like another perverse argument from Prius haters. As noted elsewhere in this column, lots of people have it in for this car. And unfortunately some of them have a lot of power: The EPA under President George W. Bush has ruled that individual states may not propose stricter vehicular emission standards than those set by the federal government. Watch as the lawsuit against this decision unfolds.

Back to your question. Let's grant that a tree's ability to absorb carbon dioxide could match a Prius's ability to reduce CO2 emissions. That's nice. But offsetting carbon dioxide, although it's now getting the lion's share of our attention, is not the only good reason to reduce fossil-fuel consumption. Driving a Prius instead of a regular car also reduces the environmental damage caused by fossil-fuel extraction, refining, and shipping; cuts the unhealthy air pollution caused by burning fossil fuels; and conserves the finite supply of fossil fuels, which common sense tells us to use as efficiently as possible. (Hey, I dislike global warming as much as Al Gore does, but let's be clear: There are plenty of other serious threats to the environment that also merit our attention--like the expanding dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico that will result from stepped-up ethanol production when all the fertilizers used to grow more corn wash down the Mississippi River from the Corn Belt.)

Now let's compare the Prius with an older car. The Prius is rated to get 46 miles per gallon. Let's say your old car gets half as much, or 23 miles per gallon. The average car is now driven about 12,500 miles a year--sad but true, or truly sad. So if you bought a Prius instead of keeping your old car, over that 12,500-mile year you'd save 272 gallons of gas. Since burning a gallon of gas generates 19.5 pounds of carbon dioxide, the Prius would emit 5,300 pounds less CO2 per year than the old car. But because it requires the energy equivalent of about 1,000 gallons of gas to manufacture a Prius--which results in 19,400 pounds of carbon emissions--it would take four years before the Prius started to save that <i>net</i> amount of 5,300 pounds of CO2. In ten years you would have planted ten trees, which together would only absorb about 1,320 pounds of carbon, way less than the almost 32,000 pounds the Prius would've kept out of the air in that period. In the real world, as opposed to the imaginary enchanted forest of Prius haters, it would take 30 or 40 years for the trees to match the Prius's savings on CO2, assuming they all survive--which just might be too long to wait. Seems like we should be buying hybrids and planting trees or, better yet, not driving and planting trees.

You should remember that when a tree dies and decays or is burned, a lot of the carbon it originally stored gets kicked back into the atmosphere anyway. (We've observed this during all the recent fires in the West, the intensity of which some blame on global warming.) So sequestering is not forever, and maybe a much shorter period.

Finally, I don't see the point in arguing that planting a tree is "better" than not driving. Planting a tree is a classy thing to do in addition to not driving. I mean, you do breathe harder walking or biking, but you're hardly emitting enough CO2 to aggravate global warming, and if you take efficient mass transit, you're reducing emissions a lot more than if you keep driving the old car. But if you have to have a car, a hybrid or a very efficient, small conventional model are still the best choices. To explore the possibilities, go to fueleconomy.gov.
Environmentally,
Mr. Green

It Takes a Forest

Hey Mr. Green,
How many trees must I plant to offset a typical auto's carbon dioxide emissions?
--Robert in Hampton, West Virginia

Hey Robert,
There are lots of optimists out there who think we can plant our way out of global warming by growing more trees and/or biofuels, but it just isn't the case. Sure, it would help to plant more trees, as long as they weren't some invasive species that wrecked the ecosytem. And biofuels are useful tools, as long as the crops they come from are raised with enough restraint to prevent erosion and pollution of land and water, and we don't wind up starving people to feed vehicles. But all this horticultural activity can't provide a simple solution to global warming.

The amount of carbon offset a tree can achieve depends on the species, climate, soil type, density of planting, and other variables, so the range can be fairly wide. The faster a tree grows, the more carbon it will sequester, and a fast-growing hardwood has a higher sequestration rate than a fast-growing softwood.

So let's take a fast-growing hardwood, like a red oak. Over 50 years, it can sequester about 10,500 pounds of CO2. A fast-growing softwood, like a red pine, can stow away about 7,700 pounds.
A car that gets the all-too-typical 25 miles per gallon and is driven 10,000 miles a year will use 400 gallons of gas annually. Every gallon of gas burned produces about 19.5 pounds of CO2. So in a year the car would emit about 7,800 pounds of CO2. To offset that carbon, theoretically you'd have to plant one every year for every 10,000 miles driven. Of course, it's a rough world out there, and your tree won't necessarily survive to 50--only about 20 percent do--so you'd better sock in two or three more saplings every year to be on the safe side.

Also, remember that we're talking about a 50-year period of growth, and these trees aren't going to remove nearly as much CO₂ in their youth as they do when they reach maturity. In the first ten years, your tree would only sequester about 315 pounds of CO₂. So if you think we're running out of time with global warming, you should probably plant, oh, another dozen or so trees to be on the safe side.

If you're mathematically inclined and want to play with the numbers, check out the document "Method for Calculating Carbon Sequestration by Trees in Urban and Suburban Settings" (U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, 1998) at ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/sequester.pdf.The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources even provides an Excel spreadsheet to do sequestration calculations at www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/aw/air/registry/quantexamples/example10.html. So besides planting trees, we need to drive much more efficient cars and drive them a whole lot less (or not at all) not only to reduce global warming but also to conserve our precious yet finite supply of fossil fuel.

How 'Bout Honda?

Hey Mr. Green,
All I ever hear about is the Toyota Prius. I have a Honda Civic Hybrid and have never gotten less than 50 miles per gallon. One time, when all the stars were aligned, I got 58 mpg. The Civic is better for highway driving (which I do a lot of) than the Prius too. So if you did a comparison of the Hummer and the Civic Hybrid, the numbers would be even better.
--Susan in Whitney, Texas

Hey Susan,
According to the EPA's latest ratings, the Honda Civic Hybrid gets 45 miles per gallon on the highway and 40 in town, for a "combined" 42 mpg. The Prius is rated at 48 mpg for the city, 45 for the highway, and 46 combined. So the Honda is certainly competitive. (Since you are able to beat the EPA ratings, it's clear that you know how to drive your Honda. The 10-billion-gallon problem is that millions of people don't have a clue about driving sensibly.

Why, then, does the Prius get all the attention? The main reason, I think, is identity. As Shakespeare's Juliet asked, "What's in a name?" Apparently a lot. Toyota distinguished the Prius by giving it a new name and an exclusive identity as a hybrid. Honda took its old Civic name and tacked "hybrid" on, as an afterthought, so the car failed to dramatically distinguish itself. Honda honchos have admitted this mistake. Ford did the same dumb thing with its Ford Escape Hybrid, an efficient choice if you have to have an SUV. This model beats the conventional Escape 34 mpg to 20 for city driving and 30 mpg to 26 for highway. But have you heard about it?

Now you would think that these guys could have put a bit more effort into their hybrid identities, since they're the same ones who dreamed up all those macho outdoorsy names to market their SUVs--an into-the-wild litany that includes Yukon, Mariner, Avalanche, Tahoe, Trailblazer, Aspen, Durango, Magnum, Element, Pilot, Mountaineer, Outlander, Forester, Explorer, Armada, Rogue, Pathfinder, Highlander, Sequoia, and my all-time favorite, Dodge's Nitro. It's amazing that the Civic and Accord are surviving in the world of brutal vehicles, when you recall the demise of those friendly little cars called Colt, Rabbit, Gremlin, Escort, and Fiesta, not to mention the girlie Chevette and kinder, gentler big cars like the Buick Skylark and Dodge Diplomat.

Is it possible that there's something so feminine about hybrids--the term itself hints at androgyny--that the big boys aren't comfortable with them? Does the very word Prius suggest an unmanly mingling of prissy and wuss? Does the fact that part of the hybrid's power emanates mysteriously and silently from inside, from applying the brakes, make macho men nervous? Are they so intimidated by the loss of the testosterone surge triggered by assertive combustion that they actually fear a mass castration by Priuses? Something to ponder. It's got me seriously thinking about helping them process their feelings by staging Mr. Green's Name-That-Sissy-Car Contest.

In the meantime, I'd love to hear from readers who can explain the baddest, meanest name of all, Dodge's Avenger. It's a sedan, for God's sake, so where does the name come from? Is it an attempt to associate a car with the war on terror? Or is it about an enraged sedan lashing out at SUVs for knocking down its once mighty market share to such a humble level?
Environmentally,
Mr. Green

In the Tank

Hey Mr. Green,
Should I purchase a tankless, on-demand water heater?  --James in Scottsdale, Arizona

The tankless version is indisputably more efficient--around 30 percent more--than a conventional water heater, which is why a cheapskate like me wouldn't have anything else. It lasts longer too. One reason the on-demand heater is so common in Europe and Japan is that they have long been keener on saving energy than we North Americans. Even the Germans and Italians, who are more annoyingly car obsessed than Americans, are more energy wise. Another nice thing about tankless heaters is that they take up a lot less space than other models, which gives us pack rats more room to store all that valuable stuff we never use. For the truly pathological hoarder, some heaters can even be installed outside the house.

Sealing the Deal

Hey Mr. Green,
I would like to protect my outdoor wood furniture, but I don't want to use a toxic finish. I'm also wondering what to use for a deck sealer. Any ideas? --Augusta in El Sobrante, California

I wish I'd considered this question before my outdoor tables and chairs began to list and collapse when termites invaded them. For furniture made of softwood, green-building experts recommend a low-toxicity antifungal (and anti-termite) borate salt such as disodium octaborate tetrahydrate, which is sold under the brand name Timbor. Since DOT is water soluble, cover it with a low-toxicity water repellent to protect against mildew. You can whip one up by mixing an ounce of paraffin wax into three cups of exterior varnish and adding enough mineral spirits (a healthier substitute for paint thinner or turpentine) to make a gallon.  Reapply every six months to one year. For hardwoods, try products such as Sunwax, an outdoor-furniture wax with a UV sunscreen and orange oil.

Podcast: Shutting Off the Lights

"Hey Mr. Green: I'd like to encourage my son-in-law to turn off the lights when he leaves the room. To do that, I would have to show him the cost benefit. Can you help?"

Click here to listen to the answer.