Is Congress Going to Handcuff the EPA? What's the Deal?

Hey Mr. Green,

I hear that the U.S. House of Representatives is considering a bill that will do big-time damage to the EPA’s ability to protect the environment. What’s the deal? —Mel, in Ames, Iowa

The deal is bad, extremely bad. Treacherous enough that Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune calls it “one of the most devastating pieces of legislation to America's environmental legacy ever.” The official name is “H.R. 2584: Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,” sponsored by Michael Simpson (R-Idaho). My advice is to call your congressional representative right away—click here to get the phone number—and urge him or her to oppose it.

Why? For starters, by drastically slashing EPA funds this legislation would prevent the agency from reducing water pollution and from cutting other toxic emissions, including mercury (If you been following this blog you know about the dangers of mercury, and if you don’t, zip up above and search). This proposal, which cuts EPA’s budget by 18 percent, would also allow oil companies to avoid clean air standards for offshore drilling, while limiting EPA’s ability to protect national parks and wildlife refuges. In a crowning, almost nihilistic gesture, it would allow uranium prospecting near the Grand Canyon. (How about that, folks? Geiger counters and lead lined tents as the new trends in camping gear.)

The bill’s backers justify this literally scorched-earth policy with shopworn arguments about how environmental regulations have wrecked the economy, a laughable twist when everybody knows that the economy was not wrecked by environmental regulation, but by drastic economic deregulation.

Finally, if your congress person is a Republican, you might remind him or her that it was a Republican, Richard M. Nixon, who created the EPA, and that you would really, really hate to see it destroyed by Republicans. Because make no mistake, if the anti-environment crowd has serious success in weakening the EPA, it could be just their first step in turning our land and water over to industries that would dearly love to plunder it.

 

 

Mercury in Fluorescent Bulbs. How Much, and How to Clean Up?

Hey Mr. Green,

What about the mercury in the fluorescent bulbs, and what do you suggest if one falls and breaks? —Donna, in Ojai, California

Your concern is shared by many others, judging by the number of questions I keep getting about mercury in bulbs.

The bottom line is that mercury in fluorescent bulbs does not add to the total amount of mercury in the environment, and they may even reduce it. To set things straight, you simply have to compare the lives of a fluorescent and an incandescent bulb as follows: A) Because our coal-burning power plants emit around 50 tons of mercury each year, and because we use a staggering 3.9 trillion kilowatt hours a year, each kilowatt hour is, on average, responsible for emitting around .012 milligrams of mercury. B) A 13-watt fluorescent can replace the light of a 60-watt incandescent. C) Therefore, in 8,000 hours of use—the typical lifetime of a fluorescent lamp—a 13-watt fluorescent will be responsible for emitting an average about 1.25 milligrams of mercury at the power plant. By contrast, operating a  60-watt incandescent for the same amount of time will be responsible for 5.75 milligrams of mercury. D) A fluorescent lamp typically contains about 4 or 5 milligrams of mercury. Therefore, even if the fluorescent bulb is thrown into the garbage there is little or no more total mercury released on average than would be emitted from coal burned to power the lamp. (Actually, the fluorescent will account for less than the full 4 or 5 milligrams, because not all the original mercury is released anyway, as a considerable amount is bound to other substances in the lamp.) Moreover, newer fluorescents contain less mercury, with some down to only 1 milligram, which takes the possible net mercury emission from fluorescents well below that caused by incandescents. Of course if the bulb is properly recycled, then the mercury content is even less of a concern. 

Yes, fluorescent bulbs must be recycled, and I do wish that the manufacturers would state this more emphatically on their packaging. If you don’t know where to take the dead ones, go to earth911.com to find the nearest location.

Okay, that’s all well and good in general mathematical terms, but what if you bust a bulb right in your own home, and it falls onto the carpet where toddlers crawl and cats sprawl? That’s obviously different from having mercury gradually evaporating from a faraway power plant. But don’t panic. If you break a fluorescent bulb, the first thing to do is open doors and windows to the outside, shut off the heat or air conditioning, and leave the room for 10 minutes. This allows vaporizing mercury to escape. Then do a careful cleanup, following the EPA’s super-cautious procedures. Go print it out now and put it in a place where you can find it.

As noted, the EPA is being cautious. The mercury released by a busted bulb doesn’t go into the air in one toxic sigh, and not much of it can possibly get breathed in before it dissipates. So clean up a broken bulb, but don’t freak out. The stress might be worse for your health than the mercury. Now if you break something like one of those mercury thermometers, you’ve got some real trouble, because they contain 120 to 450 times as much mercury as a fluorescent bulb. In the event of release of this amount, follow the EPA cleanup guidelines as fast as possible.

Finally, to put things in perspective, the biggest worry about mercury is the amount emitted by power plants and other industrial processes. The EPA is proposing stricter limits on emissions, but of course faces the usual opposition from businesses that claim it’s too expensive to cut the pollution. If you want stricter rules on mercury and other pollutants, sign the Sierra Club’s petition to keep soot, smog, and mercury out of your air. After all, it's still your very own, unprivatized air.

Fluorescent & LED Dimmers, Switches, and Dirty Politics

Hey Mr. Green,

Name calling reduces your credibility. And, I'd like to see an answer to one of the comments here that asks about dimmers, timers, and LED lights. I have dimmers and timers, some 40 years old, all over my house. Which ones must I replace and with what? —Gard

Yes, I called George Bush a “dear dim bulb” in my June 24 blog about fluorescent lighting. But honest, Gard, it was a term of endearment, because back in 2007 Bush signed an energy bill that some right-wing Republican whackos are doing their damnedest to undermine. Despite Bush’s anti-environmental agenda, he had a far more honest grasp of energy issues than these clowns, who are the energy industry’s dope-pushers (the substance-abuse being that of oil, which Bush acknowledged we were addicted to). There you go: three name calls already, and I’m barely warmed up! But seriously, not to call names at this point in history might actually reduce my credibility, because I am not content just to dispense advice on the most environmentally righteous personal behavior or the niftiest energy-saving gadget. The last section of my book is a plea to go beyond the personal and to get political. And there are times when politicians become so intractable and so unwilling to listen to reason that name-calling becomes the last resort to pry them and their disciples out of their intellectual foxholes. This is why even some well-known, relatively polite mainstream pundits are saying that the G.O.P. has been driven "crazy" and "insane" by its right wing. 

I’m happy to report that the Republican proposal to repeal energy standards for light bulbs lost by just two votes last week. But they’re back at it, trying to cut funds for enforcing the energy standards that Bush signed. If you support clean energy or any pro-environmental policies, keep the pressure on your congress person and senators.  

To return your lighting question: the bottom line is never use any fluorescent light or LED with a dimmer, timer, or motion detector that is not specifically approved for these devices, because such devices can damage the lights. I doubt that any older controls would be safe to use, and even with newer ones, the only way to be absolutely sure is to contact the manufacturer.

Finally, a word regarding the wonderful, old-fashioned, environmentally beneficial idea of turning the lights out. If, like most families, you have people in the household who simply cannot master this operation, I suggest a motion detector that automatically turns the light out if no one is in a room for 10 or 15 minutes. Of course if you are using fluorescent lamps, make sure it is a type that is compatible with them.

 

E-Books: Better or Worse than Old-Fashioned Paper?

Hey Mr. Green,

How come your book is only available in paper? Isn’t it a little hypocritical to help people learn how to better live green when you don’t even offer your book in eBook format (all top selling eReaders can view the epub format)? Or perhaps the carbon footprint of manufacturing eReaders is worse than printing books on paper. I really would like to know the answer because I’ve had a hard time giving up the tactile experience of reading a book. —Cyndi, in Chicago

Well, the short answer is that my book first appeared before e-readers really took off. Maybe the time is at hand for an e-version. But I’m not convinced that e-readers are environmentally superior to old-fashioned books. To see why, go to “Pixels or Print,” http://sierraclub.typepad.com/mrgreen/2010/08/paper-or-pixels-.html, which shows how making and using one e-reader can have a carbon footprint as big as that of at least 20 books.

But if the dread of the carbon footprint of your books is ruining your reading, you can actually pay to plant trees, at a dollar a tree, to offset the books’ carbon emissions, thanks to Eco-Libris, http://www.ecolibris.net/sales.asp?trees=10&x=38&y=12 a publishers’ group that works to reduce its carbon footprint.

Since traditional books and e-books involve such radically different technologies, and there are so many variables, comparing them is quite dicey. One study of Amazon’s Kindle by  Cleantech reported that Kindle’s footprint equals that of 22.5 books. This seems to be in the ballpark, because a comparison Apple’s estimate of the carbon footprint for its iPad to a study done for the book industry  shows that the iPad’s carbon footprint is as big as that of 14 to 26 books. But keep in mind that if a paper book is read multiple times, its footprint just keeps on a-shrinkin’. This shrink, however, could be partly reversed because of the carbon footprint of artificial lighting when you read at night. A comprehensive analysis has to include such factors. Those blasted variables.

This observation about multiple readings speaks directly to the nature of my book, which, as I boldly declare in the introduction, I hope will take its rightful place on “every toilet tank in America.” In a bathroom, a book’s possibilities of achieving the virtues of multiple readership are indeed greatly enhanced. It’s difficult, however, to imagine an e-reader serving the same function, especially if the device is hooked to a charger and vulnerable to a fizzing burnout in a sink or toilet bowl.

So, be not ashamed of your fondness for “the tactile experience of reading a book.” A book experience is obviously different from an e-reader experience, because a book has a tactile and visual presence that puts it more in the category of an art work than a mere data-carrying gadget. A book can call to us from an airport kiosk, a library shelf, a coffee table, or the hands of a commuter reading on a train, just like a dog-eared old issue of Sierra in a dentist’s office can beckon us to environmental wisdom. I do not believe we need to become so environmentally puritanical that we surrender all such small pleasures and serendipitous delights.

Considering the vast amount of paper we waste, concern about books may be a bit fussy in any case. Books account for less than 2.5 percent of the total volume of paper and paperboard produced each year in the United States. Strange coincidence: the 1.65 million tons of paper used to manufacture books is about equal to the weight of electronic gear that gets dumped each year, according to EPA data.        

It might even be possible to play Devil’s advocate for the sensible use of paper, challenging the widely held papyrophobic doctrine of the moral superiority of a paperless universe. After all, paper is derived mostly from a renewable resource obtained near the source of its manufacture, made relatively close to home, can last 500 years, and is easily recycled. By contrast, e-readers (and computers in general) are built from non-renewable resources and may contain toxic substances gathered from Lord knows where, often made at a great distance from home, doomed to a short lifespan, and difficult to recycle. Over 60 percent of paper gets recycled, compared to  20 percent of electronic devices. Also, 50 to 75 percent of the energy used to make paper is obtained as a byproduct of processing pulp, therefore much of the carbon emitted by papermaking is reabsorbed by the forest from whence it came, in contrast to the fossil fuel energy consumed by e-reader manufacture and use.

Because paper has an obvious physical presence that can be messy (or even distressing, as in my office), we believe that avoiding it automatically makes for a cleaner environment. By contrast, we view computers and their function as neat, almost immaterial, angelic presences. Consider terms like “The Cloud,” “wireless, “network,” “cyberspace,” not to mention “Web” itself, a transparent gossamer. “Hardware” is about as close as we come to materiality in cyberspeak, but it’s usually less prominent than the “software” and “memory” that comprise the soul of that small plastic body. (And our technological  genius keeps making that body itself smaller, lighter, and, well, less material.)

This is emphatically not a Luddite knock on e-books and computers, but a plea to recognize their sheer materiality and to do something about it, instead of deluding ourselves about their true impact. We’ve made some progress in safer processing of their toxic guts, in that 16 states now have electronics recycling laws, but far more needs to be done in this area. We also need to face the materiality of computer energy use. Servers alone now take about 3 percent of the total electricity in the United States, according to EPA projections. Quite the cloud—of carbon dioxide. Many more tons of the stuff are added to that cloud by people who simply neglect to turn off their devices when not in use, or who don’t bother to set a quick sleep mode. The increased use of appliances and electronic devices is beginning to offset big gains in energy conservation such as improved insulation and more efficient heating and cooling. The International Energy Agency indicates that unless we demand much greater efficiency and more prudent use of electronic devices, their share of energy consumption will grow to the point where they equal major energy uses such as water heating and refrigeration.

 

 

How Much Global-Warming Methane from Food Waste?

Hey Mr. Green,

I think it’s been calculated what percentage of greenhouse gases from landfill are attributable to food waste. Our large senior apartment complex does not collect food waste from individual apartments (due to pest problems), but there’s more and more of this waste as increasing numbers of new residents only go to the dining room for one meal a day. We hope to find a way to combine individual waste with composting already done by our kitchen. Details of how bad it is for the world may help our case. —Mary, Oakland, California

Seems to me that the sheer volume of food waste is shocking enough in itself that it’s not even necessary to venture into the arcane calculations of methane from landfills (a method for which I’ll present later on). First, there’s the matter of sheer ridiculous volume: In the USA we presently dump about 33.5 million TONS of food “waste” into the landfills each year, or about 14% of some 240 million tons of stuff that goes to municipal dumps every year—and this doesn’t even count what zorks down garbage disposal units.

On top of this, garbage trucks burn well over 1 billion gallons of diesel fuel a year, according to a study by Inform, an environmental group that advocates for kinder, gentler garbage transport. So the food waste share is least 140 million gallons of fuel, and of course there are a lot of other pollutants emitted from diesel fuel.

Of possibly greater interest to you fellow seniors is another shocking discovery from Inform: there are twice as many garbage trucks as municipal buses in our country. Since many seniors are dependent on public transportation, they should be especially dedicated shifting resources from hauling garbage to hauling people.

Landfills in the United States contribute around 17% of our total global warming methane, which itself accounts for about 10% of the global warming gas generated in the United States, stated in terms of carbon dioxide equivalents. (Carbon dioxide from combustion accounts 83% of the total—so driving your car is still way worse than dumping food. While the volume of methane generated is only a fraction of  the volume of carbon dioxide, methane has 23 times the global warming potential, hence the effect of methane is stated in terms of how much carbon dioxide its effect equates to.)

Now to the complex calculations alluded to above. If you’re trying to determine the true global warming potential of your food waste, the actual volume of methane is only one part of a mighty complex scenario. A lot depends on how far away the dump and compost facility are from your town and how efficient the trucks are. Further complicating the matter is the fact that many dumps either just burn off the methane, which greatly reduces its global warming potential, while others actually run pipes through the dump that channel methane to be burned to run electric generators. A few even use their landfill’s methane to run their garbage trucks. (Mind you, while these solutions are technically intriguing, it would be way simpler to stop generating so much waste in the first place. While technically intriguing, using methane from waste in the landfill to haul waste to the landfill that didn’t need to land in the landfill in the first place seems to me a classic example of the growing absurdity of our economic system.)

Anyway, to find out what the score is in any given location, you have to start with a fair amount of investigation by contacting your local garbage haulers and landfill operators to get the details on trucking and landfill operations. If and when you manage to ferret out such data, you can then plug it into a calculator developed by the EPA to help municipal garbologists figure out the most cost effective and environmentally benign way to deal with garbage: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_Form.html

Yep, it’s your tax dollars at work, unless the right-wingers presently infesting Congress succeed in defunding the EPA in a nihilistic spasm that, as the poet Baudelaire said, “would willingly swallow down the earth.” OK. Enough politics, already. If any of you readers would like to undertake such calculations for your fair city, I would love to see the results of such dedicated citizen science, and thereby continue this discussion.