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.

Overpopulation: A Religious Problem?

Hey Mr. Green,

How come you are intimidated by the religion business? Why won’t you talk about the root of all our environmental problems: Overpopulation?

I see a list of environmental criminals in the latest issue of Sierra. But the most notorious environmental criminals, the Duggars, actually have their own TV show: 18 children and counting. The Duggars are thieves, stealing from the rest of us what little is left. We should launch a boycott of that show, write to the sponsors and tell them we won’t buy their product.

Sarah Palin isn't far behind, with five kids already and the next generation beginning at age 16—which will double the number of Palins living at one time. That means that we will have 500 percent more Palins on every creek and river, devouring and murdering every living thing in the name of sport . . . but thanking God for putting them there. Good thing she didn’t win.

–Cliff in San Rafael, California

That some people are actually inspired by the Duggars and their litter might qualify as America's biggest Unsolved Mystery. If you propose to initiate a boycott of their reproductive propaganda machine, I won't stand in your way. But aren't you being a bit rough on the Palin clan? Unless they brew up some in vitro octuplets, they simply can’t outbreed the Duggars.

As far as religion and population are concerned, as I've noted before, it's an oversimplification to single out religion as the cause of high birth rates. The demographics don't show a clear connection between religion and fertility. For example, relatively pious Poland has a fertility rate of 1.28 children per woman, while more secular France is at almost 2 per woman. And Iran, a strongly Muslim country, has a lower rate than France. But poverty-stricken Rwanda's rate is 5.25 per woman.

In general, poverty and lack of education are far more significant factors in high fertility rates than religion. So the real root of environmental problems is not population, but poverty and injustice. Remember, too, that people’s impact on the environment can be more serious than numbers would show. Even if a nation’s fertility rate is low, its toxic waste, sprawl, water and energy consumption, and sheer excess can create problems way out of proportion to the population numbers.

None of this lets religion off the hook. When any religious group attempts to obstruct family planning through legislation or lawsuits, it deserves to be challenged head on. But it's also important to avoid being oppositional because religion can be a strong ally for environmentalists, as you can see from the many ways in which spirituality is being integrated with environmental thought and action. For insight into this, check out the multi-faith National Religious Partnership for the Environment. Though these environmentalists aren't singing “Kumbaya” with the Duggars, they do represent a broad group of religions with a common goal of stewardship of Creation that is grounded in their faith.

Green Weddings, No Nukes

Hey Mr. Green,

My longtime boyfriend has been saving up for a (conflict-free) engagement ring for a while now and I know The Question is coming soon. That said, for those of us looking at planning a wedding over the next year or so, what are some great green ideas that can turn this memorable day into an environmentally friendly event and maybe inspire some of the guests as well? Could you give some ideas that work for larger-budget weddings as well as some for those of us working on a grad student’s budget? Thanks!

–Cass in St. Paul, Minnesota

Thank you for rescuing me from the brink of madness, because I’ve been struggling for two days trying to figure out how much nuclear power really costs per kilowatt, whereas your question has already been nicely answered by one of our fine sister organizations, the World Wildlife Fund. WWF has a wonderful list of 16 ways to green your wedding. Among their suggestions are providing vanpools for out-of-town guests and choosing locally grown flowers.

If you really want to go for all-out environmental zeal, they even have a registry that can enable your guests donate to WWF in lieu of buying gifts. Imagine, instead of dumping unwanted presents, you can help save God’s beleaguered creatures.

And if you really want to dramatize, go ahead and wear a green wedding dress, have green frosting on the cake, make the officiant wear green, and give an environmentally cool door prize. But whatever you do, promise never, ever to ask how many kilowatts are contained in the average prolonged kiss.

Child's Play

Hey Mr. Green,

Is it better to drive my minivan to a playground or to buy a swing set?

–Purvika in Mountain Lakes, New Jersey

This is hardly the most urgent environmental question of our times, but such questions are fun to answer, and give Mr. Green a pretext for pontificating about larger issues.

Obviously, there is a mind-boggling set of variables involved here: how far you have to drive to the park, what mileage the minivan gets, the size and material of the swing set, the distance it is shipped, and every other conceivable impact. Pursuing this down to the last kilowatt and drop of water and microparticle of grime can lead to madness. As one agricultural wit asked, "When we assess the environmental impact of growing soybeans, do we have to include the soap and water used in the farmer's shower?"

But since energy use seems to be your main concern, let's focus on comparing how much is needed to make the swing as compared to the energy required to drive your darling(s) to the park. Assuming that you'll survive the current economic collapse and have a yard in which to plant a swing, you could spring for a steel three-seater that weighs 190 pounds or so. According to the U.S. Energy Information Agency, it takes 16,366,000 British thermal units (Btus) to make a ton of steel. So making almost all of the swing would require 1,554,770 Btus. The typical minivan gets 17 miles per gallon in the city, according to the EPA. Gasoline can contain up to 125,000 Btus per gallon. Therefore, the minimum energy needed to drive the minivan about 220 miles would equal the energy it took to make the swing. If you live only a mile from the park, in just 110 visits—twice a week for a year—you'd burn as much energy as it took to make the steel in the swing set. Of course, if you drive farther and settle for a lighter, smaller swing, the energy disadvantage of the minivan increases proportionately.

But if you're only a mile away from the park, why drive there anyhow? Make ‘em walk or bike. It builds character and helps shed the kid blubber that's getting so much attention nowadays. "But it takes too much time to walk or bike!" I already hear the howls of protest. Well, does it really, when you consider how much time it takes to strap in a kid or two, wend your way through gridlock, find parking, unload, reload, and unload again, not to mention the hours you'll have to work to pay the 54-cent-a-mile cost of owning and operating the average vehicle? Hidden behind the automobile's smiling grill of comfort and convenience are some troubling hassles and expenses.

To Breed or Not to Breed

We received some strong reactions to my comments about population control in the March/April issue of Sierra. Here are a few, with my responses:

Hey Mr. Green,
I found the question from Jeff in Denver about population control very interesting. Has the Sierra Club ever thought about advocating for adoption?  There are millions of children all over the world that need a family, and as my cousin most succinctly put it, “That's the most ecological way to have kids.” –Lucia in Mercer Island, Washington

The Club has adopted many policies, but not one on adoption. Your proposal seems quite reasonable, though most people, I suspect, still favor keeping their own DNA in circulation. Not that you can ever be a whole lot more sure of the result than if you adopt. Consider the fate of William Shockley, who won a Nobel prize for inventing the transistor but later slid swiftly on a downhill path of loopy ideas about eugenics, including a proposal to pay people with genetic defects or low IQs for sterilization—castration for dummies, as it were. His own kids fell so far below his own standards that he claimed they represented "regression." After that, he hived his genes in a sperm bank of geniuses, affording his DNA opportunities for more fortuitious combinations.

Hey Mr. Green,
The theory that population growth will ruin our planet is completely and dangerously false. The world now produces more food on less land than ever before. The fact is that Europe is dying, with most countries fluctuating around the 60 percent replacement level. Each person is unique and has a dignity and worth that is unconditional. –Jeanne in Closter, New Jersey

True, the world produces more food on less land, but that doesn't mean we can feed an infinite number of people, or that runaway population growth doesn't cause considerable misery.

The situation in Europe is nowhere near as simple as the enemies of family planning and women's choice make it sound. The drop in births has by no means been uniform. In France, for example, it has been rising, and 50 years from now is projected be at 72 million, up from today's 64 million. Britain is also projected to rise. By contrast, Spain, Italy, and some other countries have a rate well below replacement.

One convincing explanation of this disparity has to do with differences in social policy and, yes, gentlemen, in the degree of sexism. Among the European countries, the birth rate is generally lower where 1) there are less generous public benefits, and 2) where men remain more sexist and help out much less in the home. A survey of women done by the European Union revealed that in fact women want an average of 2.36 children, which is above the replacement rate. But the governments—and their lazy male chauvinist mates—make it too difficult for women to fulfill this wish.

Therefore, I wouldn't worry about Europeans going extinct; before they allow themselves to vanish, they could jolly well change policies and attitudes to favor a higher birthrate.

Finally, in some countries, immigration will continue to increase the number of Europeans, if not the net amount of European DNA, a development that would doubtlessly perturb the aforementioned Shockley.

Hey Mr. Green,
Why does the Sierra Club refuse to take a stand on illegal migration and historically high legal immigration? The sheer number of immigrants is having a negative effect on the environment and the amount of resources consumed, not to mention the social costs. Why is the Club being politically correct when there is a clear relationship between population and environmental balance? –Michael in Ashburn, Virginia

While some of my environmentally minded readers dread any reduction in procreation, which would also reduce the number of immigrants, others, like you, want to shut the immigrants out. I just hope you’re not in favor of that environmentally destructive boondoggle of a fence they're building on our border with Mexico.

The simplest answer to your question about the Sierra Club’s immigration policy is that the Club's members voted overwhelmingly some time ago to remain neutral on this issue. Many are convinced that it is more helpful in the long run to work to help change the sinister circumstances that drive so many people to immigrate, including poverty, lack of education, lack of women's rights, and lack of family-planning options.

A less-known driver of immigration is environmental devastation, which has produced millions of refugees; they now number more than 10 million per year. By the year 2000, there were 25 million such refugees, actually higher than the number of people who had fled for political reasons. Among the environmentally related causes of displacement are floods, landslides, water shortages, and desertification caused by deforestation and overcultivation, not to mention climate change and the more intense devastation caused by the more intense storms brought on by global warming.

Advice About Procreation

Hey Mr. Green,
Is the Sierra Club willing to acknowledge that population growth overwhelms all efforts to be greener? We can drive less, ride bicycles, and improve insulation until the cows come home, but it ain't gonna be enough. I've yet to find a single person who is willing to forgo having children to bring sanity to our planet. Are you? --Jeff in Denver, Colorado

I've already done my demographic damage. Mea culpa. But I pledge to refrain from future propagation. Even if Britney Spears offers her undying love, meds, and millions for my green genes, I'll "just say no" in the grand tradition of Nancy Reagan.

The Sierra Club has long recognized the problems associated with high fertility rates and been a strong advocate for family planning. Through our Global Population and the Environment Program (sierraclub.org/population), we promote a variety of ways to produce fewer people, such as providing women with better, more affordable access to healthcare (and therefore birth control), improving education, and reducing poverty. The countries that have made the greatest progress in these realms, such as Japan and most of Europe, now have the lowest fertility rates, with fewer than two children per female. Desperately poor nations like Niger, with 5.3 kids per female, continue to produce the most offspring.

While limiting fertility rates is indeed important, if we don't curb runaway consumption, we'll still be in deep trouble. For example, the United States consumes three times as much wood as does the rest of the world (seven times as much as people-packed China), and though we have only 4.5 percent of the world's population, we burn 20 percent of its fossil fuels. Obviously, if we maintain such rates, and if the rest of the world is stupid enough to imitate our profligate ways, humanity will end up burning exponentially more fuel than it already does. So I'll keep harping about lightbulbs and insulation and family planning, education, and ending poverty.

Dryer Diversion: Hot Air or a Good Solution?

Hey Mr Green,

I was in the yard one evening while I had clothes in the dryer in the basement. While watching the warm air from the dryer vent pour outside, I thought, "What a waste." Is there any way to channel all that warm air back into the home during winter? –Kathleen in Weirton, West Virginia

You can install a device called a "dryer duct diverter." It costs only a few dollars and works much like registers in ordinary heating systems. If you want to vent the dryer's hot air into your house, you flip a damper that blocks the hot air from going outside, sending it into the house instead.

Sounds like a clever solution for saving energy, but it does violate the building code (which requires dryers to vent to the outside)? You're perfectly free to bend the code, like millions of people do all the time. But remember, the diverter might not be a perfect solution and can be dangerous if hooked to a gas dryer. Because a dryer's main chore is to extract water from the clothes, the device could vent excess moisture that could cause mold and other damage to your house -- and lungs. It can also blow lint into the room if its lint trap isn't properly maintained. So if you try a diverter, stop using it if it makes things damp or fuzzy instead of just warm.

Flushing Out Alternative Toilets

Hey Mr. Green,

There are a lot of folks who live outside urban areas and have private wells and septic systems. How green are these?  Doesn't this essentially recycle the water we consume and flush?

--J. Lennon in Wake Forest, North Carolina

More than 20 percent of the country's households use septic systems. They are the basic choice where there is no municipal sewage system, although I suppose a composting toilet is the ultimate green sewer machine (some are even designed to capture the methane from the waste to burn in stoves). To be on the cutting edge of sludge, you can explore various models on the internet.

Of course, septic tanks have to be pumped out periodically and should be set up to avoid the risks of health problems or water pollution. But if they’re properly designed and installed, I don't see a problem. Since some of the tanks’ water seeps back into the ground, they actually do recycle. For a wealth of information, visit the EPA's website. Your tax dollars at work!

Whatever system you're on, flush minimally so as not to waste water. In my long-ago farm childhood, we had an old outdoor toilet. It was a used model, its wooden walls laced with graffiti so vivid that it jump-started my literary career. When we finally obtained the long-anticipated indoor alternative, my father enforced minimal flushing because of his concern that the well would go dry. With water, as with everything else, the old-timers practiced reduce, reuse, and recycle long before that phrase became an axiom.

Other water-conservation tools that could be used, whether you live in the middle of nowhere or the middle of Manhattan, are: low-flow toilets, restricted-flow showerheads, aerator screens on faucets, smaller lawns and minimal lawn watering, drip irrigation, use of native plants instead of thirsty exotics, and washing machines and dishwashers run with full loads only. (And yes, a modern dishwasher uses a lot less water than a typical hand-washing process.) It goes without saying that you should make sure no faucets leak.

Some people even collect rainwater and use "gray water" (from showers and laundry) on their gardens. But if you attempt these measures, make sure there aren't toxic materials on your roof or in gutters that would contaminate the water – and that the gray water is safe for your plants.

A Real or Fake Christmas Tree: Which is Greener?

Hey Mr. Green,

Have you reached a conclusion on the real tree vs. artificial Christmas tree debate?

--Kathy in Winston Salem, North Carolina

I have indeed. The real tree is better for the environment than the fake tree. A real tree is a renewable resource, whereas a fake tree is usually made from plastic, which is derived from oil, a nonrenewable resource. The real tree can be recycled as mulch, compost, or wildlife shelter, whereas the fake tree can’t. The real tree does not contain harmful chemicals, whereas fake trees are often made with plastic polyvinyl chloride, whose manufacture releases highly toxic material. Plus, lead may have been added to stabilize the plastic. The real tree also absorbs carbon dioxide while it grows, doing its bit to fight global warming.
 
The belief that using real trees causes deforestation is mistaken. The fact is, real trees are farmed, often on marginal land that can't be used for other purposes.
 
I see only two disadvantages to real trees: First, since they have to be shipped from a tree farm each year, real trees require a lot more shipping energy than the one-time shipment of a fake tree that will be used for an average of nine years before being dispatched to the landfill. Though about 85 percent of fake trees are made in China, and thus shipped farther than real trees, they require considerably less energy to ship.

The other problem with real trees is that many farmers use pesticides on them. It’s doubtful, though, that these cause more environmental problems than the petrochemical stew from which fake trees are confected.
Both of these problems can be ameliorated by either buying a tree from a source as local as possible or by buying an organic tree. Find trees closest to home at www.christmastree.org.

There is a third option: a live tree, which you keep in a pot and bring forth with glad tidings to decorate each holiday season. This would seem to be the best choice of all. But don't get a live tree unless: a) you’re absolutely sure it’s a species well-adapted to your climate, and b) you are plant-savvy and dedicated enough to take proper care of it. In my long years of horticultural observation, I've encountered more dead live trees than living live trees.

A final point: I'm for buying the tree as late as possible. This is because, first of all, dealers tend to lower the prices to unload them late in the game, which has great appeal to people as cheap as me. Also, because the frenzied consumerist buildup to the holidays gives me the willies, early tree-purchasing seems more like a celebration of shopping than of anything cosmic or miraculous.