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.

 

Where should old clothes go?

Hey Mr. Green,
I've read that the average American dumps about 70 pounds of textiles (clothing, old carpets, etc.) into landfills each year. How do I recycle the stained and hole-ridden jeans that thrift stores won't take?--Jesse in California

Americans dispose of more than 12 million tons of textiles annually, less than 25 percent of which is recycled or reused, dooming most secondhand clothing and carpets to a soggy afterlife crammed deep in a landfill.

Donating items is indeed the best way to ensure reuse. If major thrift stores get clothing that's too ratty to resell, the cloth gets converted into things like industrial rags or sound-dampening material. When donating to a used-goods store, make sure it recycles unwanted materials. If your old duds get rejected, there's not much you can do except deploy them as household rags or support the arts by giving them to quilt makers or other rag-intensive craftspeople.

Recycling carpets is a serious pain because it's so difficult to separate their materials. Some 3 million tons of carpets are dumped each year, with only about 5 percent recycled or reused. Outfits like the Carpet Recyclers (thecarpetrecyclers.com) can extract and recycle carpet components. Go to carpetrecovery.org for more information.

Staying safe from ticks

Hey Mr. Green,
I work outdoors in tall grass that harbors ticks. I've heard that unless you wash your clothes in hot water and dry them in the dryer, ticks can survive in the fabric. True? If so, the daily wash-and-dry routine, plus a shower, seems incredibly energy-intensive. Is there a more efficient way to minimize my risk of Lyme disease from ticks?--Rowan in Aberdeen, Maryland

When trying to save energy, we sometimes forget other environmental hazards. The amount of resources you'd consume de-ticking your duds might be far less than you'd end up burning for doctor visits, hospital stays, or, God forbid, having to drive everywhere because you'd gotten so decrepit.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control recommends removing ticks from clothes, washing the clothing in hot water, then drying it in high heat for a full hour--though the American Lyme Disease Foundation says just 20 minutes will do. The high-heat part is especially important; research shows that these bloodsucking micro-menaces can survive a strong washing but not extended exposure to high temperatures.

Lyme disease is on the rise in the United States, with nearly 30,000 confirmed cases reported in 2009. Ironically, this may be partly the result of two great environmental triumphs: the regrowth of forests and the resurgence of deer, which carry ticks, from a low of 500,000 in the early 1900s to 30 million today.

Whatever the reason for Lyme disease's revival, don't hold back on efforts to avoid it; doing so would represent a false economy.

Mr. Green's Stance on Suds

Hey Mr. Green,

I'm hoping you can settle a debate between my wife and me. I want to use diluted eco-friendly dish soap (e.g., Seventh Generation) to wash my hands, while my wife prefers antibacterial hand soap. I want to avoid the triclosan in her preferred soap, while she says that my dish soap has other nasties that aren't good for the hands. What do you recommend for economical hand soap?

–Toshi in Oakland, California

Antibacterial hand soap is unnecessary for healthy people, and does no more to protect you from bacteria than washing with ordinary soap, according to publications by the American Medical Association and the Centers for Disease Control and research at several universities. It doesn’t even kill all that many germs in the typical five-second hand washing, because it takes longer than that for it to sabotage bacteria. Frankly, the most effective thing about bacterial soap is its marketing, which has whipped up a raging bacteriophobia. Lysol, for one, has now ratcheted up the terror of germs with a new device that excretes its germ-killing soap without your even having to touch that allegedly filthy little pump knob on top, which the commercials show crawling with bacteria. We moderns smugly joke about those medieval scholars debating how many angels could occupy the head of a pin, but the hazards of germs on the plunger of a plastic soap bottle are almost as fictitious, while lacking the charm of the pin’s imaginary inhabitants.

Seventh Generation’s dishwashing soap is safe and claims to be hypoallergenic, so it probably won’t bother your hands. If it did, you could always discontinue using it. Besides, it comes in a 90 percent recycled plastic bottle. By contrast, triclosan, the common agent in antibacterial soap (and many other household and health and beauty-aid products) may be a hormone disrupter that can cause thyroid problems, according to some studies. Of course manufacturers counter with their own studies indicating that it’s safe and effective, but as always, your best bet when there are contradictory findings about a chemical is that old precautionary principle: “Better safe than sorry.”

There is also some concern that antibacterial soaps may breed stronger bacteria, just as overuse of antibiotics in animals and humans has evolved bacteria that can resist antibiotics to the point where the medications are no longer effective.

Finally, since you asked about “economical”: Depending on your personal habits, a bar of cheap, simple soap with minimal additives and scents will give you more hand washes per dollar than the liquid variety—at least according to a test I ran in my independent laboratory.  Plus, the simple paper packaging of bars is obviously more sustainable than those plastic bottles and pumps.

The Enduring Diaper Question

Hey Mr. Green,

A comment rather than a question on your "Great Diaper Debate" answer in Sierra magazine. A benefit you didn't mention for cloth is that those same diapers work for the next kid too. After two kids, about half my supply of prefolded cloth diapers was still in good enough condition to give to an expecting friend, and the rest made great cleaning rags.

The non-prefolded kind are the world's best multipurpose cloth, especially for backpacking: You can use them as head coverings for sun or wind, emergency arm slings, tight wraps for a strained knee, face coverings for dusty trails, quick-drying bath towels, cleaning rags, and so on. My youngest is now 24 and I'm still using and enjoying a few of those diapers!

–Jan in Clovis, California

Thanks for advancing the cause of cloth diapers, in the best tradition of reduce, reuse, and recycle. I didn't have room to note this benefit, but reusability and immense longevity does go a long way toward offsetting the environmental stress caused by growing cotton for the diapers. Unless you're afflicted with empty-nest syndrome, there can be an inexpressible joy and a sense of release in deploying diapers on an outdoor recreational jaunt instead of on—a baby.

Some readers even advise doing away with diapers entirely, though they may be suggesting more "communication" with baby than many of us stay-at-home parents can handle. However, because there’s an obvious environmental upside in backside alternatives, we offer the following description of diaperless baby management from a reader who advocates it:

"All over the world, people employ knowledge and techniques that allow their babies to wear few or no diapers at all. This process of dealing hygienically with babies' waste is variously called 'elimination communication,' 'EC,' or 'infant potty-training' by people who are relearning this ancient art of baby care. Elimination communication involves observing a baby's signs and signals, providing cue sounds, and can be done with or without diaper use. Another bonus, besides reduced diaper costs and laundry: no potty-training necessary, since baby hasn't been diaper-trained in the first place! EC can be practiced full-time or just occasionally, started at birth or at 9 months or older. The best part: learning to communicate with your baby is fun, something that changing poopy diapers really isn't, whether they're plastic or cloth. For more information and resources, visit www.diaperfreebaby.org."

The Great Diaper Debate

Hey Mr. Green,

I've gotten conflicting information about whether cloth diapers are more ecologically correct than disposables. Cloth diapers require both water and energy to wash—two things California has in short supply. But disposables come from plastic, cotton, and trees, and clog our landfill. What's the most environmentally friendly thing a new parent can do?

--Carolyn in El Cerrito, California

You'll find the full answer to your question in the Jan./Feb. issue of Sierra magazine, but it wouldn’t be fair give away its exciting conclusions.

You do, however, provide a fine excuse for me to expound on the water question, which we didn't have room to address in the upcoming column. Most households waste so much water that they should focus on conserving it instead of worrying about how much it takes to wash diapers. Here's why:

The entire process of washing diapers from birth to the joyful day of completion of potty-training will take roughly 24,000 gallons. Sounds like a lot, but many households waste much more than that in three years simply by flushing inefficient toilets. In an arid climate, twice that amount can evaporate from an uncovered swimming pool of modest size.

The math: A typical newborn requires a change every two or three hours. If your baby needs to be changed on the more frequent side, that's around 84 changes a week, or 4,368 a year. Or about 8,736 for two years. Of course, as your bundle of joy matures, it’ll require less frequent changing. There’s considerable variation among young creatures, but it's fair to say that up to 9,000 changes may be needed. Assuming you can wash about 30 diapers per load, that's 300 loads. At 41 gallons per load, what the typical washing machine uses per wash, that's 12,300 gallons. Allow another 2,000 gallons or so for pre-soaking, if indeed you pre-soak. If you flush the creature's excrement down the toilet, you're looking at another 8,000 gallons, for our total of 22,000. You can cut your water use even more if you get one of those water-wise 28-gallons-per-wash machines—which you can easily afford with the money you'll save by not spending it on throwaways.

Besides efficient toilets, there are many other ways to offset water used to wash diapers: low-flow showerheads and toilets, dishwashers and washing machines operated at full capacity, and less water on lawns and ornamental plants. Almost a third of a typical household’s water use goes on lawns and plants, half of which gets squandered as runoff and evaporation from overwatering and inefficient irrigation systems. For useful advice about saving water, see the EPA's ideas here. Your tax dollars at work.

But don't be satisfied with confining your conservation efforts to your own household. It's high time we got a lot more political about water and pushed much harder for rules to curb waste both by households and agriculture. Getting back to your state, California now has a proposal for a bond to improve its water system, but I don't think it demands nearly enough basic water conservation. To learn more about this, click here.

And it's not just California that needs to cut its guzzling, as you can see when you fly across the country and look down at those huge green circles of pivot irrigation systems drawing massive amounts of water. As I've previously noted, more than 35 states now face serious water issues. For an overview of all sorts of water issues, I highly recommend a visit to the Pacific Institute’s Web site.

Just Do It. (Recycle, That Is.)

Hey Mr. Green,

What do I do with my old stuff, like used shoes? I hate the thought of filling our landfills if my junk can be someone else's treasure. How do I learn what can be reused or recycled and where to send unwanted items?

--Kirstin in Oconomowoc, Wisconsin

My favorite resource for information about recycling almost anything is Earth 911. You specify what you want to recycle, type in your ZIP code, and get the location nearest you.

Regarding footwear, there are an estimated 1.5 billion pairs of unworn shoes languishing in U.S. closets—enough, maybe, for the most desperate shopaholic, or all the world's shoeless. But there are plenty of organizations that recycle them, including Soles4Shoes, which takes all types of "gently worn" shoes. For women's shoes, there's SimplySouls. For sports shoes only, there's Nike—but don't let its recycling program convince you that Nike is environmentally innocent, and don't get all utopian about recycling, as Sole4Soles does with its slogan "Changing the world, one pair at a time," or SimplySouls'  "Saving the Earth, one shoe at a time." It's gonna take a bit more effort than basking in the glow of a recycling ritual to fix the environment.

Nike takes worn-out athletic shoes and grinds them into Nike Grind,  which sounds like runner’s boredom but is actually a substance used in those cushiony athletic surfaces. Critics charge that while Nike has made some improvements since the 1990s, it dumps or burns scrap rubber in Indonesia—and that laborers in Nike and other shoe and sportswear factories in Asia lack the right to organize, are fired for union activity, and cheated out of pay. See, for example, this site or this one. Since Nike itself admits that there are still problems,  it wouldn't hurt to remind the company to try harder to solve them.

Bed Bugs Keeping You Awake?

Hey Mr. Green,

How can I effectively cope with bed bugs in as green a way possible – if that’s even possible, given how difficult they are to treat in the first place. What is most frustrating is that many of my low-impact strategies aren't working because I live in a small studio apartment and my bed is near, well, everything, including all of my reuseable cloth bags, napkins, and towels.

Anyhow, all of these wonderful items which made a low impact are out the window right now due to these critters. Now my life is being lived out of plastic tubs and countless plastic bags until I am declared bug-free and can revert back to my low-impact ways again. Help?

–Victoria in Brooklyn, New York

If anybody still doubts the bed-bug resurgence, they missed the big news about the EPA's Bed Bug Summit, where public-health people and entomologists gathered to strategize about curbing the latest arthropodic vampire menace.

As far as I can tell, no single low-impact method exists to cope with these tormentors. You have to rely on an ensemble of measures to combat the bloodsuckers, whose American renaissance has resulted from their sneaking in on international travelers and luggage, our reluctance to use toxic pesticides, and their growing resistance to any pesticide.

It seems that you’ve already taken some measures to contain them by sealing up objects in which they can hide. They live in any clutter or tiny crack, so the first line of defense is a very thorough cleaning, not just of beds and bedding, but of anything that might be infested. Seal all crevices where they might lurk, down to cracks in the wall. The creatures can't fly, but they do crawl out for their gruesome meals. (University of Kentucky bed-bug authority Michael Potter says they "feed by piercing the skin with an elongated beak through which they withdraw blood. Engorgement takes about three to 10 minutes." And they don't merely pierce and suck, but inject an anticoagulant to facilitate the process.

Go over box springs, beds, and couches, inside and out. They also live inside and under furniture, at the edges of wall-to-wall carpeting, behind headboards, picture frames, mirrors, and switch plates and outlets. They can even take up residence inside electronic equipment.

Advice About Wrinkled Clothes

Hey Mr. Green,
I recently got an Energy Star washing machine. To make the switch complete, I also put up a solar dryer (i.e., a clothesline). But now my work shirts look all wrinkled, and I feel compelled to iron them--which I never did after pulling them out of the electric dryer. What is the greenest solution: ironing or using the dryer just for that load of shirts? --Ramona in Crownsville, Maryland

Before addressing your pressing needs, let me congratulate you on having an Energy Star washing machine. Those babies save lots of money, energy, and water. You'll net up to $550 in operating costs over its life at today's utility rates. They're at least 40 percent more energy efficient than other washers. And while conventional machines use up to 40 gallons of water per load, Energy Stars cut it down to 25; smaller models whittle it to a measly 10. The EPA's Energy Star program, by the way, represents your tax dollars working to save energy sources instead of fighting wars over them.
Two other tips about being green while getting your clothes clean: (1) Use the warm or hot setting only for heavily soiled items--most people don't know that up to 90 percent of a typical washer's energy consumption is dedicated to heating water. (2) Front-loading washers don't use as much water.
Now as for those wrinkles, unless you are very slow or inept, the iron takes less energy than the dryer. A dryer's typical 45-minute cycle takes 3.3 kilowatt-hours. An iron that's been on for 60 minutes uses about 1.2 kilowatt- hours. So even if you squandered a whole hour ironing, you'd still consume less energy than if you ran the dryer.
Some readers claim to achieve Botox-level erasure of clothesline-induced wrinkles by letting clothes get almost dry on the line, then flipping them in the dryer for just a few minutes. As a hypercasual (some would say slovenly) creature who rarely dons anything unrumpled, I can't personally vouch for this technique, so I'll leave the env-iron-mental R&D to you.

The Right-to-Dry Movement

Sometimes a bit of back-and-forth with you, beloved readers, can bring up useful and even thrilling ideas. Consider the following, wherein you'll read of a revolt against uptight homeowners’ associations that forbid clotheslines. The exchange starts with an idea for improving dryer efficiency and ends with a bold pro-clothesline stance. 
 
Hey Mr. Green,
In Phoenix the outside air is very hot and dry in summer. If a hot-air dryer for clothes could use this air as the intake, then it wouldn't need as much energy to dry the clothes. Does this make sense? --Joseph in Chandler, Arizona

Your idea of using warm, dry air coming into the machine sounds interesting. I don't know how much energy it would save, and it will take some serious calculating to figure out. But surely if a dryer is drawing indoor air at, say, 68 degrees and quite likely higher in humidity than the 110-degree outside air, there has to be some sort of savings. The big question would be whether the energy savings would justify the cost of fitting the dryer (and the house) with a duct to bring in the outside air.

If I succeed in figuring this out, I'll let you know. Of course I remain a staunch advocate of the common-sense, old-fashioned, solar-drying clothesline!

Hey Mr. Green,
Thanks for the feedback. Our homeowners’ association has a specific provision against using clotheslines, but I think I should start using one anyhow. I grew up in cold, wet, windy Ireland where everyone used a clothesline, and moved to hot, dry Phoenix where hardly anyone uses one. --Joseph in Chandler, Arizona

Well, I've got just right ally for you: the Right-to-Dry Movement. Yep, some sensible folks are fed up with those silly anti-clothesline rules and they're fighting back with a refreshingly amusing campaign to liberate clotheslines and restore them to their once-glorious place in the American landscape.

I'm quite fond this cultural zinger from Helen Caldicott: "Where in Victorian times, clotheslines were ubiquitous, Mrs. Brown's brassiere blowing in the breeze has apparently become scandalizing to some modern Americans. A strange brand of prudery has made it impossible for some people to conserve energy and money by using a clothesline."

Let linen flap defiant!