Turkey gumbo: the Thanksgiving centerpiece finds its true calling. All photos by April McGreger

Before accepting a Thanksgiving dinner invitation, I ask my host two questions: Will you be roasting a turkey and may I have the leftover carcass? The best part of the Thanksgiving turkey has long been about leftovers for me, but a few years ago I upgraded from mundane turkey sandwiches to the exceptional turkey bone gumbo.

I have long been a fan of wild-duck gumbo, but the first that I heard of turkey bone gumbo was from my friend Sara Roahen, who devotes a whole chapter to it in her charming book about living and eating in New Orleans, Gumbo Tales. The idea appealed to both my thriftiness and to my holiday homesickness. The first year that I made the gumbo was the first year that I bought a heritage-breed turkey. Whereas the carcasses of previous Thanksgiving birds at my parents’ house had ended up in the trash, I had paid a small fortune for this bird and was determined to get every bit of use from it that I could. Making a gumbo from the leftover bird seemed a lot more exciting than just a simple turkey stock. Heritage breed birds have a richer, fuller flavor and make wonderful soups, so making gumbo turned out to be a perfect use for the leftovers.

Making gumbo is also huge part of who I am. I grew up at the northern end of the gumbo belt, and I got my first lesson in making a roux in college from my friend’s mother in her Baton Rouge home. I also got copies of both Marcelle Bienvenu’s charming Who’s Your Mama? Are you Catholic? And Can You Make a Roux? and Paul Prodhomme’s resourceful Louisiana Kitchen during those years and began my own gumbo making efforts in earnest. Gumbo eating was a year round affair, but the holidays were a particularly fruitful time. After our college holiday breaks, students from the Gulf South would show up with a gallon or two of their mama’s gumbo and invite everyone they knew over for a feast. There is nothing quite like a bowl of steaming gumbo and good friends on a cold winter night.

I now live far outside of gumbo territory, but I still like to make it every chance I get. There is nothing inherently difficult about making gumbo, but for some reason, it is extremely difficult to find a good bowl of it outside of the Gulf South. For that reason, I see myself as a gumbo ambassador to the Up South and beyond. I am looking forward to making a delicious turkey bone gumbo for friends who are gathering in D.C. this weekend to celebrate Thanksgiving together.

You won’t roux the day. Before you make your gumbo, I feel it’s important to tell you a bit about this epic dish. It is a stew popular in Louisiana and the Gulf South whose name most likely comes from the Central African Bantu word for okra, gombo. There are as many different gumbos as there are cooks. Most start with a roux but there are exceptions. Some contain okra, particularly seafood gumbo. Some contain the Choctaw Indian file powder, or ground sassafras, particularly wild game gumbos. It is usually served with rice and sometimes, peculiarly over potato salad.

If you’ve never made gumbo, it’s actually very simple. You should allow a relaxing 4 hours to make your first gumbo and enlist your friends or family to help with the chopping. I like to break this prep time up by getting my chopping and turkey stock making done early in the day, then allowing just a couple of hours in the evening to make them gumbo. A nice bottle of wine helps, too. Gumbo can be thought of in three parts: the roux, the seasonings, and the stock.

Stir the pot: gumbo’s holy trinity of aromatic seasonings. The roux is usually what intimidates people from trying to make gumbo, but it is actually quite simple. It is just a paste of flour and fat that is stirred constantly over heat until it browns. There are just two secrets to browning your roux without burning it: use a heavy-bottomed pot, and don’t stop stirring. There is a range of acceptable levels of of roux “brownness.”  Some recipes tell you to make a “red” roux, others say cook your roux until it’s the color of peanut butter, dark brown sugar, or as dark as coffee. Coffee-colored rouxs are intensely flavored and overpower subtle flavors like those of seafood, but go lovely with wild game or a richly flavored heritage turkey.

In gumbo-speak, seasonings include the holy trinity of vegetables: onion, green peppers, and celery. Sausage is also common—preferably a smoked andouille, but a good smoked country or garlic sausage makes a fine substitute. You should have all of your seasonings chopped and ready to go before you begin making your roux.

Your third component is the stock. Before making your stock, first pick off all of the bits of meat that you can from the carcass, and reserve for adding to the gumbo just before serving.  You will be pleasantly surprised by how much meat falls off the well-carved turkey while it is simmering. The bones and cartilage will make a very flavorful stock when slowly simmered.

So what are you waiting for? Get out your pots, gather your friends and family and start cooking!

Turkey Bone Gumbo
Roux:
1 cup fat—I used a combination of sunflower oil and lard from pasture-raised hogs
1 heaping cup all purpose flour

Seasoning vegetables & sausage:
1 ½ cups chopped celery
1 ½ cups chopped green pepper
3 cups chopped yellow or white onion
Salt
Black pepper
1 pound Andouille or country sausage, preferably smoked, cut into bite size pieces

Turkey & turkey stock:
Turkey carcass, picked of at much meat as possible and reserved
1 gallon water
3 Bay leaves
A pinch of cayenne
A handful of fresh thyme sprigs or a teaspoon of dried thyme
A handful of Parsley stems
1 onion, quartered, plus the skins from your chopped onion seasonings
1 carrot, cut into 1-inch chunks
2 stalks of celery, plus ends and pieces from your chopped celery seasonings
Ends and pieces from your chopped green pepper seasonings
A couple of smashed garlic gloves
1 tablespoon whole peppercorns
2 whole allspice berries, optional
A few drops of hot sauce
Several pinches of salt

To Finish:
1 cup chopped scallions, thinly sliced
1 cup chopped parsley
Buttered white rice
File powder, delicious, but optional
Hot sauce

1. First assemble all of your seasonings and have them at the ready and your stock well under way before you begin making your roux.
2. In a large stock pot, start your turkey stock. Your carcass needs to be fully submerged under water. It will likely be necessary to cut your carcass down the breast bone or into several pieces to make this happen. Bring the stock to a gentle boil, then turn down to a steady slow simmer and cook for about 2 hours. Taste stock for seasoning and add more salt if necessary. Remove the carcass from the stock and set aside to let cool. When cool enough to handle, meticulously pick the meat from it and set aside. Strain the stock and reserve.
3. Make your roux: In a large, heavy bottomed pot, heat your oil over medium to medium high heat. Whisk in your flour. Stir continuously (I really like my square-edged wooden spoon for this task) until your roux is the color of dark brown sugar or chocolate. This may take 45 minutes or more. Take turns stirring with your friends or family, but keep stirring. A burned roux is a sad, sad thing. If you are afraid that your roux is burning, turn down your heat.
4. Dump your vegetable seasonings - onion, celery, and green pepper- into your roux and stir.  Add a good pinch of salt and pepper and cook until wilted, about 5 minutes. Add your sausage and cook 5 minutes more.
5. Next whisk in gradually about 8 cups of stock. Bring to a simmer and cook uncovered for 1 ½ hours. Add your reserved turkey meat and simmer another 10 minutes then stir in your parsley and scallions. Taste for seasoning and add more salt and pepper as desired. Serve over hot, buttered rice and pass the hot sauce and file powder at the table.

Related Links:

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

A tasting of four meatless “turkeys” for the holiday table

Courtesy AdbustersFor twenty years, the people behind Buy Nothing Day have been pleading with consumers to avoid the frenzy inherent in "Black Friday," the no-holds-barred shop-o-rama that comes the day after Thanksgiving. This year, they're ramping things up and calling for an all-out Wildcat Strike against the "capitalist consumption machine." Socialists, you say? No, just worried people who want to take a stand in the face of "crises of ecology, psychology, and faith."

Dearest readers, I'll let them say it themselves -- give this a look, and visit the Buy Nothing Day site to learn more:

This year we’re calling for a wildcat general strike. On November 27/28 we’re asking tens of millions of people around the world to bring the capitalist consumption machine to a grinding – if only momentary – halt. We want you to shut off your lights, your televisions and other nonessential appliances. We want you to park your car, turn off your phones and log off your computer for the day. We’re calling for a Ramadan-like fast. From sunrise to sunset, we abstain en masse. Not only from shopping but from all the temptations of our five-planet lifestyles.

Instead we’ll feed our spirits and minds with a feast of subversive activities: pranks, shenanigans, credit card cut-ups, bicycle swarms, mall invasions and all manner of culture jams and creative détournements … and some of us will take things even further with sit-ins, demonstrations, passive resistance and acts of nonviolent defiance, anarchy and civil disobedience. If we can create a big enough ruckus on November 27/28, then we may be able to catalyze what the Situationists tried to set in motion half a century ago: a chain reaction of refusal against consumer capitalism … a sudden, unexpected moment of truth … the first ever global revolution.

So think about it -- and at the very least, I encourage you to rein in your shopping this holiday season. Here's an interesting look at the role of products and packaging in our current climate crisis; when all is said and done, they can be tied to 44 percent of our greenhouse-gas emissions. In the words of Santa's seamstress, "Yikes."

Related Links:

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Growing up green: How to shop for a green baby

Q. Dear Umbra,

Municipal and individual composting operations are gaining steam nationwide. Some obvious benefits include space-saving in landfills, and cheaper and (hopefully) "greener" fertilizer. While I am an avid supporter of composting, I am curious if municipalities with composting facilities could see decreased decomposition rates in their landfills. Do yard and plant scraps even play an integral role in landfill decomposition? Thank you.

Todd
Vancouver

A. Dearest Todd,

Give thanks -- then compost!Since this is Thanksgiving week here in the U.S., a time when we are at our most gluttonous, composting is a timely issue. In fact, I'm putting together a video with tips for getting started -- keep an eye out for it.

In the meantime, your question is an interesting one. Are yard and food scraps the key to quicker decomposition in landfills? The answer is no. In fact, such organic waste is the bane of a landfill operator's existence; it takes up a quarter of the space and is a major source of methane, a greenhouse gas that's twenty times more potent than carbon dioxide. Paper is also a problem: it's another major source of methane, and accounts for about a third of our municipal solid waste.

This is why composting and recycling are so important. Here in the U.S., we are better about "recovering" paper and yard waste than food waste: In 2007, according to the EPA, we recycled 54 percent of our paper and composted 62 percent of yard waste. When it comes to food waste, however, we compost only about 2-3 percent. In fact, we flat-out throw away more than 25 percent of the food we buy. Pigs.

Composting, as you say, frees up space and creates a nice rich fertilizer. Because it reduces methane, it's also a tool in the climate fight. In short, it's a win all around, and we'd be turkeys not to participate.

Caruncly,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

We typically try to minimize the impact of our buying decisions. We carefully considered buying some Thai mats, handcrafted by a family the shopkeeper knows. Then she told us that all textiles and furniture, whether organic or not, are all fumigated with methyl bromide before entering the States. It seems no one is talking about this issue -- is it a problem? Are my mats messed up? What about all the cool hemp clothing, is it all contaminated?

(m)Ethyl M.
San Francisco, Calif.

A. Dearest (m)Ethyl,

This here is one of those good news, bad news situations. The good news is, methyl bromide has been banned under the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement that seeks to stop the destruction of the ozone layer. The bad news is, the U.S. keeps getting exemptions that allow it to continue spraying the stuff, though it uses far less than in the past.

Methyl bromide, used primarily as a soil fumigant and on food imports, is toxic and will, as the EPA delicately puts it, "affect not only the target pests it is used against, but non-target organisms as well." That's us! The greatest danger, the agency says, is at the fumigation site itself. After that, the stuff wafts up and gets busy eating ozone.

I cannot say for sure whether your Thai mats and hemp pants have been sprayed with methyl bromide or one of the "safer" alternatives, because imports are subject to a labyrinth of federal regulations that depends upon where they come from, what they're made of, and whether the inspector got a good night's sleep. Sometimes a visual inspection is enough, and finished products are often treated less suspiciously than raw materials. I can tell you that the good people at the Pesticide Action Network are doing consistent, thorough, obsessive work on this topic, and you should definitely check them out.

Phytosanitarily,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

I am planning to reuse my boyfriend's old melamine chest of drawers for our baby's nursery. But since it's a bit low, I would like to build an additional module on top of it to make a changing table of the correct height. My in-laws are currently remodeling their kitchen and have dozens of cabinets I could reuse to build the changing table top. Now I know melamine and particleboard are evil, but is older melamine OK? If their kitchen cabinets are 20 years old, can we assume they have already off-gassed most or all of the formaldehyde they had to off-gas? It makes no sense to throw it all out in the garbage!

Raphaëlle
Montréal

A. Dearest Raphaëlle,

Congratulations on your impending arrival and your commitment to reuse. I can tell already that you are going to raise a wise child.

You're right that melamine, which combines with formaldehyde to make the plastic resin we know, is -- well, tricky, if not outright evil. For a long time it was hailed as the key to a sort of miracle plastic, even an eco-friendly-ish choice, and then it got into our pet food and our baby formula and some of our Halloween candy and it started to seem dangerous and creepy. And then we realized that, like any plastic, melamine could leach chemicals when heated -- in the microwave, for instance. More creepy.

Having said all that, however, I think your particular reuse is a fine idea. We know that you and your boyfriend and your baby are not going to heat or eat the chest of drawers. You are relieving your in-laws, and your landfill, of at least some of the waste from their kitchen-remodeling project. And you are being crafty! Any offgassing should have happened long ago -- it is generally most intense in the first year, and dwindles from there. I say go forth and modul-ify -- and let me know how it goes.

Awwwwly,
Umbra

Related Links:

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Q. Dear Umbra,

I've taken to washing my hair less and less often to keep it from drying out. Since I've switched to the "no-'poo" method (baking soda followed by a vinegar rinse) it stays cleaner longer. However, I still take a shower (brief and lukewarm) most days. To keep my curly hair from becoming totally frizzy in the humidity of the shower, I typically cover it with a shower cap. My current cap is wearing out and I'm going to need a new one soon -- but your simple rule of "no vinyl and that's final!" keeps resounding in my head. Every shower cap I've seen is made of vinyl, except for those cheap plastic ones in hotel rooms. What's a girl to do?

Curly Girl
Pittsburgh, Penn.

A. Dearest Curly Girl,

Or a nice felt hat always does the trick.Have you ever noticed that the hair is always greener on the other side of the fence? I know straight-haired gals who would kill to have your tress-related troubles, and I imagine there are days when you wouldn't mind a mane that's a bit more manageable.

I commend you on your shift away from conventional beauty products, which are so often toxic, and on your commitment to a vinyl-free lifestyle. How cockle-warming to see my message sinking in!

I've done a bit of scouring on your behalf, and I think I've found a couple of possible solutions, though they may be difficult to track down. You're certainly right that vinyl is the most common, but I also came across caps made from other, marginally better materials, including nylon and polypropylene. But here is my big discovery: cotton and silk! It seems counterintuitive, but according to reliable sources, these are lovely materials for shower caps. You can buy cute patterned varieties from various places online, with a little looking. Of course, cotton and silk have their own eco-impacts -- so, dearest readers, one of you should create an organic-cotton shower-cap business, stat.

I suppose your other option might be to ... wear a plastic grocery bag over your hair, securing it with clips or a headband? An ingenious reuse for a pesky object.

Tangly,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

I started a green team at my office and one of our initiatives is reducing energy consumption. The team had recommended turning off the computers at night and when not in use. Seems logical, right? Well, the IT department denied our efforts and recommends keeping computers on 24/7. I'm horrified! The rationale is that turning on and off your computer changes the internal temperature of the equipment and adds to the wear and tear. I need some data to back up our green claim that it is better and safe to shut down the computers. Can you please help?

Nervously awaiting,
Jennifer

A. Dearest Jennifer,

Little-known fact: I actually keep my computer turned off 24 hours a day. I just peek at my inbox over my editor's shoulder, scribble my answers on recycled paper, and make her type them in. Saves boatloads of energy.

Congratulations on the formation of your green team, and condolences on the fact that you have already been strongarmed. I suspect it will not be the last time, as earnest eco-efforts are not always welcomed by those whose habits and patterns they affect.

There are two answers to your question, as far as I see it: a factual one and a philosophical one. The factual answer is, reputable sources including the U.S. Department of Energy say it is A-OK to turn your computer off at night, and that the various "wear and tear" arguments are no longer accurate. (Here is a fact sheet from the Oregon DEQ that, while a bit dated, cites many useful resources you might peruse.) The philosophical answer is, don't ever, ever, ever alienate your IT department. Even for the sake of saving the planet.

I think there may be some middle ground here: more and more computers have a "hibernate" function, which is similar to a sleep function but even, well, sleepier. Talk to your IT people to find out if there's a way to send all the computers happily into hibernation at the end of the day. Yes, they will still use a bit of energy, but far less than if they were left in full on mode, humming along. Other key things to do: turn off your monitor whenever you won't be using it for 15 to 20 minutes. And remember that a screen saver is not an energy-saver; in fact, most screen savers are energy hogs.

Now go buy the IT guys some cookies, and keep up the good work.

RAMly,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

I am so utterly sick of getting junk mail, is there anything we can do to stop it? In the age of the internet spam, is it really so impossible to just outlaw it? I can swallow deleting junkmail, but I can't swallow how much of it has to be tossed.

Carey S.
Missoula, Mont.

A. Dearest Carey,

In a sense, old-fashioned junk mail is less offensive than spam. After all, when was the last time an envelope arrived at your house promising to enlarge your manhood or sell you cheap Rolex watches?

On the other hand, the sheer mass of junk mail is offensive indeed: each of us in the U.S. receives about 560 pieces a year, according to Co-op America, and all that "direct mail" (that's the nice name for it) adds up to the equivalent of more than 100 million trees. While the bad economy has led to a steep decline in junk mail sent this year, "they" predict a comeback; real mail is still considered more effective for advertising than e-mail, which is too easy to delete.

The good news is, there are steps you can take to slow the stream of junk mail to your home. First of all, avoid entering contests, filling out warranties, and giving your address on forms -- if you must do so, write "do not rent or sell my information" alongside. Go to the Direct Marketing Assocation site to register your preferences, or use a service such as 41pounds.org (which charges $41 for five years of mail stoppage, but promises a more thorough excavation than DMA). To reduce the catalogues that come (and 'tis the season, 'tisn't it?), visit Catalog Choice or contact merchandisers directly. To be removed from the list for credit card offers, call 888-5-OPTOUT. And if you're a business, see this list of tips for junk-mail reduction from our friends here in King County, Washington.

As for outlawing junk mail entirely, it seems unlikely to happen. And various efforts to create a federal "Do Not Mail" list along the lines of the "Do Not Call" list haven't led to much (except for a suspicious industry-led imitation). If you're feeling feisty, and you believe in online petitions, you can sign this petition urging Congress to take action. Otherwise, take the steps above -- and recycle, recycle, recycle.

Papercutly,
Umbra

Related Links:

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Dearest readers,

Colin Beavan, aka No Impact Man.You've perhaps No-ticed the No Impact swirl of late: there's been lots of buzz about No Impact Man, the New Yorker who committed his young family to a year of zero-waste living, and his eponymous film. In late October, five thousand people participated in the first-ever No Impact Week. If you missed it then, here's your  second chance: the Natural Resources Defense Council is sponsoring another No Impact Week beginning this Sunday -- you can sign up here, then learn how to plan and carry out your own consumption revolution. (If the timing is no good for you, conduct your own No Impact Week with this handy how-to guide.)

No matter what you think of the No Impact phe-No-menon, the idea of a week of "pre-holiday mindfulness," as NRDC terms it, sounds pretty darn refreshing to me. The event is part of NRDC's new Simple Steps campaign. Wander over to the site, and you'll find the beginnings of a solid set of resources, including household calculators, tips for greening your community and your family, and pointers for understanding product labels. Near and dear to my heart is a section called This or That -- much like my own set of FAQs, it aims to answer those pesky "paper or plastic" questions that make so many of us a little twitchy.

Kudos to NRDC for its site, which is full of bright candy colors and making me dream of lollipops. While I go in search of sweets, take a look at Simple Steps yourself and let me know what you think. Useful? Inspiring? Vapid? Making you crave corn syrup?

And let me know if you give No Impact Week a shot, or if you're experimenting with consumption in some other way. The more stories, the better!

Sweetly,
Umbra

Related Links:

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Q. Dear Umbra,

I know it's a little early, but I had this great idea for a New Year's resolution. Every month in 2010, I pick a certain eco-area of my life and focus on that for a whole month. So far I have: reduce energy consumption; reduce water consumption; reduce material waste; reuse; recycle; volunteerism/activism; eating local. Finally, I think December will be trying to use everything I've learned and put it all together cohesively. However, my list isn't full, and I'm out of ideas. Do you have any suggestions?

Happy Hippie
Alexandria, Va.

A. Dearest HH,

It's never too early to make good resolutions! I bet you are also stocking up on organic, fair-trade chocolate for Valentine's Day. Three cheers for organization.

Personally, I think a better resolution might be to try to spend the year really, seriously improving on one or two of these areas, rather than flitting about from topic to topic. As you well know, you cannot just "reuse" for a month and be done with it. However, I admire the somewhat wackadoodle structure of your list, and I think you've made a great start on it. You have seven good categories, plus your December free-for-all. So here are four more ideas from me to round out your year: go carless for a month; serve as a public information officer on climate change for a month, helping your friends and family and perhaps strangers understand the issue; spend a month weatherizing your house; and spend a month without the TV on. This last step will help you not only reduce your energy consumption, it will help you reconnect with the real world. You could use the time instead to read deeply on the eco-topic of your choice, or to brush up on green classics.

Readers, any other ideas for HH? Or resolutions of your own? Please share in the comments section below.

Resolvedly,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

I was recently appalled when my 9-year-old son came home from school and related that his teacher had denounced human-caused climate change to the class. I immediately searched for the Grist link I once saw that listed scientists (and academic institutions) who believe otherwise. Unfortunately that link appears to be missing. If not for Grist, where can I find such a list? How should I deal with this situation?

A very worried mother stewing in the climate change pot,

Cate J.
Whitefish, Mont.

A. Dearest Cate,

Just the facts ... please?This really boils my butter. Let me direct you and others to our thorough series on "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic," which refutes various attempts to debunk the science -- it includes a list of some of the scientific organizations that agree about anthropogenic climate change. I'm not sure if it's the list you had in mind, but it should help. And here is a letter sent in late October to every U.S. senator from the country's leading scientific organizations, confirming that research has shown climate change is primarily human caused.

You might also point your child's teacher to the U.S. EPA's resource page for students and educators, or print out the agency's climate FAQ. It is called, notably, "Back to Basics." Because at this point in time, this is basic information: our current climate problem is caused by human activity.

Does this teacher also suggest that gravity may be false and the moon is made of cheese? If he or she insists on continuing to plant seeds of doubt in young minds about scientifically solid information, I would not hesitate to take your concerns to a higher authority.

Factily,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

I am looking for advice about purchasing the best low-flow and/or dual-flush toilet to replace my current one, which I've been told needs a complete replacement due to its age and inability to flush sufficiently. I've heard some use a very low amount of water, but that can often translate into a lack of, well, doing their duty. I'm having a hard time navigating all the brands and claims to fame. Help me wash it all away!

Erica
Portland, Ore.

A. Dearest Erica,

This notion that low-flow toilets are somehow not powerful enough to do their duty lingers on, despite being largely false. It's true that the first generation of low-flows lacked a little oomph, but at this point the major manufacturers have figured out how to keep things moving. And it's worth making the switch: toilets can use up to 30 percent of all our household water. A low-flow toilet uses just 1.6 gallons per flush compared to an older model's three or more gallons, while a high-efficiency model uses a measly 1.28 gpf. Dual-flush toilets, which are my favorite option but tend to be more expensive, usually use less than a gallon for liquid waste and about 1.6 for solid waste.

To be honest, I think if you identify your price range and go with one of the major manufacturers, you'll be fine. But if you are really in the mood to dork out, the California Urban Water Conservation Council has done some extremely thorough "maximum performance" testing, and makes various PDFs available that sort the results by performance, by manufacturer, and so forth. The EPA also offers a list of high-efficiency toilets that have earned its WaterSense seal, as good an endorsement as we currently have. Good luck.

Whooshily,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

In your last column, you talked about what people can do in the weeks leading up to the Copenhagen summit. I wanted to share a site called www.hopenhagen.org that is working on that very issue. There is a useful Facebook application that is associated that has a myriad of actions for just that audience: change out a lightbulb, turn down your water heater, etc.! Is there any way you can write a bit about it in the next post in response to the question? Thanks!

Mary
Santa Cruz, Calif.

A. Dearest Mary,

I think you just have. Thank you for adding to our resources.

Hopily,
Umbra

Related Links:

Kids just say no—to fossil fuels

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Dearest readers,

OK, so bees might not be your primary concern these days, what with health care and jobs and foreclosures to worry about. But we depend on our buzzing buddies more than you might think: for one thing, they play a key role in producing a third of the food we eat.

So here's an easy way to show your love for the bees this week: tweet!

Through a campaign called Help the Honey Bees (#HelpHoneyBees), Haagen-Dazs is raising funds and awareness. As part of the campaign, from now through November 11, the company will donate $1 per tweet with the proper hashtag, up to 500 per day. The money will support honeybee research at UC Davis. Of course, they could just cough up the $3500 and be done with it ... but that wouldn't be viral and all that good stuff!

Show the world you're as viral as colony collapse disorder ... tweet for the bees today.

And check out my bee hugs video, below. It's one of my favorites. Spread the honey love!

Related Links:

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

I am worried that your hotness may be contributing to global warming. I'm not sure what can be done to fix this.

O Zone

A. Dearest O,

You are making me blush. But I am using your letter as a springboard to report some exciting news: In an effort to make my operations more energy-efficient, I am combining my previous twice-weekly column into one weekly, multi-question column. Experts say the shift will result in 26 fewer milligrams of carbon emitted each week. I'll also be popping up in other places on Grist during the week now, and asking you dearest readers for more input. So keep the questions, suggestions, and blush-inducing compliments coming -- we'll lick this climate thing yet.

Efficiently,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

What is the most effective thing each of us can do over the next six weeks to help stop global warming?

Ned T.
Columbia, Md.

A. Dearest Ned,

I assume your six-week timeframe is pinned on the Copenhagen climate conference, to which we are all looking with bright eyes and big hopes. My advice for the interim is two-pronged: first, pledge to make one change in your own life that will reduce your energy use. Because I'm getting in the holiday spirit, I'll even say changing one light bulb counts, though I'd like to see you take some bigger steps as well. Second, but only because I couldn't blurt both ideas at once: Contact your representatives and senators. Tell them you support the passage of strong climate legislation, and tell them Obama would be insane not to go to Copenhagen. Tell them if they don't do something about climate change immediately, you are going to distribute photographs of them in compromising positions. We all know you don't possess any such photographs, but that sort of threat will always send a shiver down a politician's spine. When it comes to the climate crisis, we are no longer above such maneuvers.

Shiveringly,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

Do you have any recommendations on how to make the annual corporate 'gift basket' sustainable, yet memorable?

Erin K.
Portland, Ore.

A. Dearest Erin,

Want not, waste not.Good for you for thinking about how to make this consumption-y tradition more sustainable. The obvious choice, of course, would be to forgo the gift basket entirely. Can you get away with that at your company? Why not send your supporters and customers a gift certificate for a nice meal, instead, or donate to a worthy non-profit organization in their name. It seems to me that, in an age when 83 percent of people report receiving gifts they don't want, the corporate gift basket has run its course. However, if you absolutely must dole out tangible items, see if you can draw any inspiration from our list of creative green gift basket ideas. If all else fails and a more traditional basket is required, make sure you are thoughtful about choosing local, sustainable products. You live in a land of good cheese, beer, and wine, so it shouldn't be hard.

Scroogily,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

Can I recycle my receipts? I'm worried that the type of paper they're printed on will contaminate the regular paper I'm recycling.

BadRabbit
Richmond, Va.

A. Dearest Bad,

What a good question as we approach Holiday Shopping Madness. I can say with nearly 100 percent confidence that you cannot recycle your receipts -- at least, those printed on thermal paper, which is the sort of shiny, sheeny paper that faxes used to arrive on. (Remember faxes?) However, as with all such "can I recycle this or that" questions, I'll advise you to doublecheck with your municipality. Two more things on the receipt front, one creepy, one promising. The creepy one is that some receipts are coated with BPA, the estrogen-mimicking chemical found in baby bottles and can linings. At present, the best advice for avoiding this form of BPA exposure seems to be to decline receipts when you can, and wash your hands after handling them when you can't. Now for the more promising news: I've been hearing about a business model in which you, the customer, can associate your debit card with an e-mail account and request digital receipts, so instead of ending up with a pocket full of non-recyclable thermal paper, you end up with an inbox full instead. Many people seem to be trying this notion, but I have not located one good, central resource that's figured out how to get it up and running -- readers, any insights?

Totally,
Umbra

Related Links:

Kids just say no—to fossil fuels

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Hi Umbra,

Do you have any suggestions for an environmentally friendly Halloween treat, and something that parents won't worry about?

Thanks,
Kim W.
Ann Arbor, Mich.

A. Dearest Kim,

Or there's the ever-popular "hot mama Earth" costume.Grist TVWe've said lots about Halloween over the years, but there's always more to say. Which is why I dug your letter out of the e-mail archives to suit my needs. Will my ghoulish charm convince you to overlook that haunting maneuver? This year, I've found a new list of non-food items for trick-or-treaters, and I'm ready for the 2009 Climate Change Costume Closet.

I have made alterna-candy suggestions before, and now I've discovered the Green Halloween non-food treat list, which includes basic but brilliant ideas such as acorns, Band-Aids, polished rocks, and whistles (and also strange things such as recycled glass tiles). We also have a handy how-to guide to greening the rest of the holiday, and of course costume suggestions by moi.

This year's costume suggestions focus less on witty and sexy (yep, that CFL costume got us all some action) in order to reflect the seriousness of the climate situation and, perhaps more important, remind people that there is a climate situation. In all fairness, I do feel that the Health Care Debate offers richer costume possibilities than the Climate Debate. But Tea Party activists and a rabid Fox are good costumes that can lead to conversations about either hot political topic.

Here are my as usual brilliant ideas (some supplied by friends and family), sure to offer all of us a brief chance for informative conversation with a baffled co-Halloweener. You know, like a more-likely-to-occur elevator pitch.

High Albedo: A shiny, shiny costume, which could integrate silver lame, a silver umbrella, silver boots, a space blanket, or all white items along the same lines. When they ask what you are, you say something along the lines of, "I'm albedo, you know, highly reflective like the melting ice caps." You may want to research and rehearse your response to make it less awful than that.

Kerry-Boxer: Just you and a friend dressed up like John Kerry and Barbara Boxer -- or you dressed up like John Kerry wearing boxing gloves -- armed with talking points about why your Senate Climate bill is important. This costume will work best if -- well, if you can look like the two of them, first of all, but also if you are able to inhabit your role and take on a politician's earnest enthusiasm. Then, you'll be able to trap your questioner with a barrage of helpful information about the vital importance of an effective climate bill. Say their name repeatedly and touch them on the upper arm several times in a comradely way.

Waxman-Markey: Kerry-Boxer for the advanced costumer. Does anyone know what these two guys look like?

Homeless Polar Bear: Sad, but true.

Fundraising Maldivian: Dressed in summery clothing, with a sign and a jar, asking for donations toward resettlement since your home is about to be underwater. If Halloween weather does not prohibit being damp, be damp.

Wind Turbine: Body is pole, turbine is atop head. ‘Nuf said.

The Atmosphere: Probably best as a group costume in which each member chooses an atmospheric component, with most going as carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc. Do not be scientifically correct in proportioning the number of carbon equivalent costumes. When individual members of the atmosphere are questioned, say something like, "I'm methane, part of the atmosphere [point to other group members]. I'm small but influential, and I can really mess those guys up." If the questioner looks askance or seems doubtful, start muttering about extreme weather events coming to the party soon.

Cap and Trade: I can't quite figure this one out, other than a vague and unsatisfying idea involving swapping piles of hats. The person who does pull it off in a clever way deserves some kind of award. Keep us posted.

Happy Halloween, everyone!

Affectionately,
Umbra

Related Links:

Obama administration officials grateful for early spring

Kids just say no—to fossil fuels

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

For those times when fresh vegetables are not available, are canned or frozen veggies the way to go from a sustainable and nutritional standpoint? Assume that we recycle in our household. Cheers!

Mark L.
Sanford, Fla.

A. Dearest Mark,

I thought you Floridians would just live on fresh oranges and lemons all winter. Scurvy must have its opposite, I suppose, and one never hears of orange casserole or orange stew.

On the sustainability front, there is no clear and dominant difference between canned and frozen veggies -- or, to say that another way, studies differ. The major ding on frozen food is the energy you use to keep it frozen; for canned, it's the energy used to make the cans.

Based on what I read, I would recommend that if you cannot purchase fresh vegetables for some reason, you purchase high-quality processed vegetables with no additives, that you eat frozen vegetables within two weeks, and that you religiously recycle your steel cans. Of course, you should first be buying whatever fresh produce is available in wintry Florida.

Grade A frozen foods are harvested when ripe and quickly taken to the freezing plant, where they are (even more quickly) flash frozen at extremely low temperatures. The modern industrial freezing process retains almost all the original nutritional value of the food (according to nutrition guru Marion Nestle's helpful book What to Eat). Good to go on the nutrition angle. But it's important to have an efficient freezer. One study using 1970s data found that the longer frozen foods sit in the freezer, i.e., are using energy in storage, the more they fall behind canned goods in the efficiency smackdown.

The canned goods are a bit less nutritious, but a study that looked closely at this issue found the differences between frozen and canned carrots to be insignificant. Carrots in syrup, or whatever they might put carrots in, would of course fall in to the category of dessert or a processed food, and cannot be favorably compared to fresh. As you know, the ecological issue with canned carrots is the steel can itself, which has high embodied energy costs. If a study assumes the recycling of the steel can, then canned vegetables can compete favorably with frozen vegetables on the sustainability index. (One health consideration is that BPA is often used in the linings of such cans.)

All this to say, the two forms of commercial preservation are ecologically comparable, so we can all put this issue out of our minds and focus on eating our recommended daily allowance of fruits and vegetables. As we discussed last week vis bike helmets, it is ecologically important to remain in good health and away from hospitals. Fruits and vegetables help us achieve this goal. They also help us eat low on the food chain, an even more vital objective in the sustainable kitchen.

Five a Day-ly,
Umbra

Related Links:

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

As a frequent cyclist, I've inevitably been in my share of collisions and accidents. Most bike experts recommend replacing your helmet after any crash, even if the damage isn't visible. Obviously the two most important qualities of a bike helmet are lightweight-ness and strength. That is best achieved by petroleum-based, non-biodegradable substances. Can you recommend how to avoid hurting the environment with these disposable Styrofoam helmets (other than being a more careful cyclist)?

Julia A.
Washington, D.C.

A. Dearest Julia,

Small eco-price to pay for an intact head.Please continue to wear your helmet and replace it after each crash. Cut the straps of your old helmet and write "crashed" on it with a permanent marker, then throw it in the garbage. Biking safely is an ecologically correct practice, even if it occasionally results in a small amount of waste. Two, three, four helmets a year is a small ecological price to pay when we consider the benefits of cycling (though for your body's sake I hope you don't go through this many).

Let us remember that biking is emissions-free transportation. Whether you are commuting by bike or simply taking a brief trip to the store every week, you are ecologically ahead of almost every form of transport save walking. If your bike is simply an exercise device, you are keeping yourself fit and providing inspiration for other would-be cyclists.

Secondly, a lightweight helmet made out of plastic is a fairly innocuous object on the environmental scale. As we have learned over the years, plastic is evil due to the raw materials (petroleum) from which it is made and the eons that will pass ere it degrades. On the bright side, helmets are light, and hence do not require overly much fuel on their trip to the bike store or the landfill -- which would be a concern were they made of gold. Some companies are tinkering with eco-friendly helmets, but I think you should not lose your head over this issue. You could always save your used helmets for some kind of trash sculpture.

Julia, a hospital visit has the potential for much more ecological impact than does your discarded helmet. Your fitness level keeps you (hopefully) from general ill health, and hence reduces the need for greenhouse-gas emitting trips to the doctor. More important, of course, the helmet protects you from serious head injury and/or death, both of which are far more environmentally costly than a piddling nine-ounce helmet. Let's say you were not wearing a helmet and bonked your head in a crash. First the ambulance or a friend's car has to transport you to (and from) the hospital, emitting Earth-damaging gases en route. Then perhaps you have to get a CAT scan or MRI, neither of which would be solar powered. What if you have a bleeding abrasion that requires multiple washings and several sets of bloody sheets and piles of gauze? Maybe they bring you a hospital meal which certainly includes terrible not-shade-grown coffee and some kind of mystery meat from a confined animal feeding operation. In a worst-case scenario, you could scrape off your nose and require years of plastic surgery -- certainly not ecologically OK, and sadly a real-life example.

Wear a bike helmet without worrying too much about the environmental consequences. Umbra, also known as Safety Pup, has spoken.

Cautionarily,
Umbra

Related Links:

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Related Links:

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Bill McKibben says time is running out on climate delays

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

I am starting an internship at a sustainability consulting firm and was asked to blog about relevant issues. I am blocked by a few mind obstacles: I can't help but think that I'm stealing other writers' ideas, or that my audience is in the same bucket as those that may have already read what I'm referring, or that I do not have the expertise to make substantive claims outside of the claims of the piece I am blogging about. Otherwise, what makes a successful entry? Please help if you can.

Kang
Washington, D.C.

A. Dearest Kang,

What to say, what to say.Just start writing. Whatever a mind obstacle is, writing a letter to me will not make it go away. In addition, you are not writing the next great American novel while holed up in a garret, subsisting on peanut butter and praying to find an agent. You are an intern. The obstacle that should most concern you is your supervisor's mind approval. If your sustainability firm wanted someone who had nothing but fresh, genius-level epiphanies to report, they would have hired a professional.

Boldly move forth with your work. An internship is a fabulous opportunity to be open to learning without feeling like you need to know all the answers. Try to write well and clearly about topics that interest you. Do your background research. If you have an opinion, share it. If you don't have the expertise, let your readers know that you are making an assumption or have missing data.

Quite a bit of writing, especially of the weblog variety, involves interpretation, translation, or exploration of news or data that the writer's audience might already have read. I suppose people read this sort of blog precisely to get a new perspective on information, just as we might read the opinion pages of a newspaper. Or they read them so as to avoid putting their own time and effort into synthesizing the information. Or, they know it all already and read the post because the writing is strong. You might succeed with all three of these types of reader.

You can't please all of the people all of the time. It will be possible to figure out how many people are reading your posts by tracking the unique visitors to them -- which hopefully your organization will do. Or, if they don't track the hits, mayhap they primarily care about your experience as a writer instead of your effectiveness as a proselytizer for their firm. In any case, you are in the lucky position of needing to look only to your supervisors for approval. These persons should not expect you to be good at everything already. So relax. Focus on writing readable, clear, purposeful posts, and enjoy yourself.

Slalomly,
Umbra

Related Links:

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

AP: Since 1997 “climate change has worsened and accelerated”

Here at Grist, we like to think of ourselves as trendspotters. And this is one trend we didn’t mind spotting: hot actresses are starting green websites left and right. With the launch of the most recent addition from Alicia Silverstone, we thought we’d take a peek at what lies beneath the glitz and glamour. Oh, and we figured we’d check out the websites, too.

Alicia Silverstone, thekindlife.com
Motto: “Sign up and spread the kind”
Mood: A chat with your spacy childhood friend
Worth a damn?: Too soon to tell

thekindlife.comSilverstone’s site, a cross-promotion for her book The Kind Diet, kicked off this week with a welcome video in which she describes her vision for a “blog-community thing” where she’ll give advice on the health and environmental considerations behind consumer choices. “I’m just trying to fill a need ... and I’m hoping that you’ll help me do that,” she says in this stoner-in-the-desert style confessional. Silverstone has made her eco-leanings public before, most notably through a naked PETA ad. And contrived as it may be, her presence here somehow feels authentic, as if you could write her a note (which people are starting to do) and she’d get right back to you (um, so far she’s not).

Gwyneth Paltrow, goop.com
Motto: “Nourish the inner aspect”
Mood: Spare and elegant, bordering on insufferable
Worth a damn?: Sure as Margo Tenenbaum smokes

Dominique Charriau/WireImage.comMuch has been made of this vanity website, in which Paltrow introduces marvelous, wonderful things into the lives of mere mortals. How you feel about it depends largely on how you feel about her, but we give props for the fact that it weaves in sustainability—almost naturally. Vegan recipes and recyclable socks nestle alongside accounts of taking weekend jaunts to London and getting fashion advice from Vanity Fair—you know, the stuff we all do when no one’s looking.

Tricia Helfer, triciagreen.com
Motto: “Chronicling the adventure of building a green, off-the-grid house”
Mood: Clouds and prairies and legs that go on forever
Worth a damn?: Good for a Cylon or solar fix

triciagreen.comUnlike the others on this list, Helfer—who’s either pervaded your every dream after her star turn in Battlestar Galactica or never blipped across your radar—hasn’t created a glitzy consumer site. Hers is actually an account of investigating the green options for a vacation home in her native Alberta, Canada. The quest may not garner many real-person points, but Helfer and her husband, a showbiz lawyer, manage to sound legitimately inquisitive and down to earth.

Rachel McAdams, greenissexy.org
Motto: “Tiny changes, big impact”
Mood: Bright and fun ... until you start reading
Worth a damn?: Eh, it’s a fine place to poke around for a while

Attit PatelThe Notebook beauty downplays her celebrity on this site, which she started with two friends when they realized that they were exchanging green “quips and tips” on a daily basis (and which now boasts a small slate of contributors). Her modesty is appealing, as is the green-lipstick kiss that graces every entry—but the writing is downright dull: “Hair dryers can really suck. Energy, that is.” A guide to taking action exhibits signs of life, and offers templates for writing to companies about their good (and bad) behavior, but to be true to its name, this site needs a little spark.

Julia Stiles, juliastilesstyles.com
Motto: “Helping the environment. You’re welcome.”
Mood: In your face, eco-poseurs
Worth a damn?: If you’re in a meta-mood

juliastilesstyles.comWe love a celebrity with a sense of humor, especially when it’s least expected. Which is why the eco-knockoff site created by Julia Stiles makes us just a little bit happy. The lippy actress deadpans her way through a video featuring her fashions, including a tie made from Swiffers and a shirt that doubles as pants, and then offers a “purchase” link that actually encourages visitors to donate to a food-rescue organization. Snark for a good cause? For some reason, that really resonates.

Related Links:

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

What does a carbon offset do today for the planet? It seems to me like these vehicles are more for our guilty conscience than for real change. What do you think?

Ingrid G.
Chicago, Ill.

A. Dearest Ingrid,

Get involved in the climate fight -- become a Climate Citizen today.I am about to leave carbon offsets behind, but I want to use your letter to do two things: clarify a comment I made in Monday's column, then step up on my cap-and-trade soapbox.

First: I got a little too extreme on Monday what with averring that voluntary personal offsets did not "negate" our actual emissions. It is true that they don't magically erase the nasties you emit. However, if you have chosen a solid, verified provider and your money is going toward projects that would not otherwise exist (again, that's called "additionality"), and the offsetter is accurately counting the tons of carbon removed by the project ... if all those terms are met, the offset does keep an amount of carbon equivalent to your real emissions out of the atmosphere.

However! As I've said before, the voluntary offset market is frustrating because it has no overarching entity determining the quality of proffered products. Hence it seems suspicious, to you and to others. For this reason and many more, we need a national cap and trade program.

And that brings us to my second -- but actually primary -- purpose today: to emphasize that if we get a decent national cap-and-trade program going, all this voluntary offset stuff will be less urgent. The voluntary system, which is a passel of organizations patching together divergent methods, does not equal a well-planned national scheme with a target, a proven methodology, and rigorous accounting. It's great that individuals have an interest in creating and buying into small-scale offset projects. But it'll be even better when we have a national system that forces industry and hence consumers to internalize the cost of carbon.

The national system will not be perfect. But we will all be working together to reduce our global footprint, and reducing the chance that our footprint will be wiped out by giant waves from rising seas. It won't just be those of us with a guilty conscience who are trying to build an alternative energy system.

We need a decent cap-and-trade bill, and our politicians need to know that we want one and are willing to be part of the U.S. Stop Global Warming In Its Tracks Team. Contact your elected representatives and let them know how you feel -- visit our Climate Citizens section for tips on getting started.

Repetitively,
Umbra

Related Links:

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Bill McKibben says time is running out on climate delays

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

Lately I have been traveling a lot for work. This has made me seriously consider buying offsets for these trips. I know that it is better to not travel at all, but outside of quitting my job I can't get around it. I have considered spending money on projects around the house to lessen my footprint, but using a carbon offset seems to give you more bang for the buck. My question is, are these offsets really helping or should I save my money for a bigger ticket item like a solar water heater?

Kevin E.
Raymond, Wash.

A. Dearest Kevin,

Or you could find another way to go.What an elegant weaving together of our two most recent discussions, on carbon offsets and solar water heaters. Bonus points for you!

As we discussed last week (don't I sound like your mom or dad? was there a discussion, or just a monologue?), it may be most helpful to think of personal offsets as a contribution to a renewable energy project. In the best-case scenario -- with all the usual caveats about sussing out the quality of the offset here -- offsets help support renewable energy. This is good, because we do need more renewables capacity on our electric grid, people in deforested areas need solar ovens, landfill methane should be captured, wind turbines should be built, etc. However! Remember that voluntary offsets do not erase, vacuum up, cancel out, or otherwise negate the actual emissions you produce.

As we also discussed last week, solar water heaters are a proven, easily adopted technology that can make a real difference in your home emissions, replacing up to 70 percent of your water heater's footprint with galaxy-derived, renewable, carbon-neutral energy.

If we consider your travel emissions as but a subset of your total life emissions, it may help you see a bit more clearly how to choose a compensatory action. Installing a solar water heater, or any equivalent proven environmental home investment, will reduce your actual total emissions. The actual amount of greenhouse gases for which you are personally responsible -- Kevinpogenic greenhouse gases -- will shrink. Achieving this real shrinkage is what I would recommend.

I'm not alone, either. Voluntary climate offset advisories recommend the same, including the Stockholm Environment Institute, Suzuki Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund ... Do what you can to improve your personal footprint. This, by the way, should include discussing with your employer whether there are ways to reduce the amount you travel, or reduce the impact of your travel. You haven't said much about where you go, or why, or how you get there, but there may be creative solutions that could help -- carpool, or conference call, or even train instead of plane.

If you still must travel for work and if you have money left after you take more concrete emissions-reduction steps at home, by all means support renewable energy projects via offsetting or other methods. Vocally supporting a solid national cap and trade program, and your regional climate plan, are also vital actions that shouldn't cost you much money at all.

Umbrapogenically,
Umbra

Related Links:

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Renowned journalist Bill Moyers has seen a thing or two during his career, including the incredible social change wrought during the LBJ administration. He talks with Grist about what it takes to change direction in America, whether it’s too late to act on climate, and what he thinks of climate skeptics.

Related Links:

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!

AP: Since 1997 “climate change has worsened and accelerated”

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

I've been hearing about carbon offsets for awhile and even have purchased some for my car emissions through Terrapass. But I just got an email from my local power company saying that I can pay to offset my own carbon emissions at the low rate of just $8 per month. Is this a good idea? I hear such conflicting stories about the "greening" of coal power plants. How do I know what they are doing with the money?

Mary B.
Winston-Salem, N.C.

A. Dearest Mary,

Is your power company partying in the tropics thanks to you?If a utility is offering carbon offsets or "green power" to their customers, details are usually available on the utility's web site. A customer must then wade through the self-congratulatory text on the site and determine whether or not the utility is actually taking Acapulco vacations with their $8 a month.

Don't put too much emphasis on this being a power company issue, though -- carbon offsets are a puzzle no matter how and where you buy them. There are a variety of "certifiers" and ratings for offsets, and some generally accepted ideas about what makes an offset project acceptable, but as of yet no overarching body with one stamp of approval.

Offsets themselves are an interesting and contentious issue, as you may have seen in these pages. (Check out our recent special series on offsets for a taste.) I got a bit harrumphy about offsets this past weekend, as I drove past a car with a boasting bumpersticker. Not that I could throw any stones (though we did have five people in the car, hooray). I ranted for a while, but am now prepared to offer a calm assessment of how we might all view offsets: Purchasing an individual carbon offset from a company, which then supports renewable energy development, is great. It is a wonderful chance to financially support projects that would not otherwise be able to get up and running. It does not erase whatever emissions we are emitting. So driving around in an SUV with a "My emissions are compensated for" kind of bumpersticker is ... is ... is -- ooh! I'm getting agitated again. Let's just say I think it misleads the uninformed.

If we think of our offset purchases as a charitable contribution to renewable energy development, then the question about whether we purchase them gets a little clearer. Without worrying too much about the financial logistics of green power credits (though they are clearly explained here by moi) we can simply ask: Will my money help create new, long-term projects that otherwise would not have happened (also called "additionality"), and are these projects approved and vetted by somebody? There are other questions, too (a good introduction can be found at CORE) but these are the basics. The answer should be yes.

In North Carolina you have an unusual opportunity to support renewable power generation in your very own state. NC GreenPower is your statewide non-profit green power program, supported and created by your state government, power companies, and fellow citizens. Utilities can offer offsets to consumers such as yourself, then pass the fees over to NC GreenPower, which then uses about a quarter of the money for administration and gives the rest as production incentives to renewable power producers. The idea is to slowly build up North Carolina's renewable energy capacity through what amounts to a small grant system. I found all this out by following the trail from Duke Energy. It all looks legitimate. And if you hate your power company and their coalish ways, you can support NC GreenPower directly.

Locally,
Umbra

Related Links:

‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Is there a tradeoff between economics and the environment?

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

We are a family of five, with three little boys growing bigger every day. Which is the better environmental investment for our family: to replace our existing hot water heater with a solar model, or to switch to an on-demand, "instantaneous" hot water system?

Thanks!
Gillian and Grant
Toronto, Ont.

A. Dearest Gillian and Grant,

Whaddaya mean, my bath is heated with coal?Solar hot water is the better choice and would still be so if your children grew not one inch taller. Solar hot water takes advantage of the sun hitting your roof, which hopefully happens regularly without costing you money, nor the Earth anguish. A tankless heater will still use a polluting energy source to heat the water. It is a rare ratepayer who gets electricity from all-renewable sources, and Torontoians (?) seem to have the usual mix of coal, gas, nukes, hydro, and so forth.

All a tankless model does differently from your (I assume conventional) hot water heater is heat water as you need it, rather than storing hot water for hours. Like your tank heater, it uses either an electric coil or a gas fire to do this. A tankless on-demand model is, in the best scenario, a bit more efficient than your existing hot water heater. But it still has all the problems of using a non-renewable resource: pollution, greenhouse gas production, a sufficient power generation and delivery system, and of course reliance on the supply of whatever resource is used. You might be interested in reading my earlier column on tankless heaters.

A solar hot water system, on the other hand, can provide the bulk of your hot water needs without using any non-renewable resources (other than those used to make the equipment). Solar hot water is neither a new nor a highly complex technology, so you need not be a brave early adopter to have a system installed. There are a wide variety of systems (again, see a previous Umbra solar water love-fest) to choose from, and there are often financial incentives from one's city or state. Toronto seems to have a solar hot water initiative heating up right now, in fact, and here is a list of system suppliers to peruse.

The two potential drawbacks that I see are the initial financial outlay and whether your roof and home are well situated. But you won't know whether these are actual or theoretical drawbacks for your specific situation until you investigate the systems available where you live, their costs, and the fabulous financial incentives that might be coming your way. Here are some resources from the U.S. government on solar water heaters and how to calculate their costs.

Always choose the sun over the coal mine.

Sootily,
Umbra

Related Links:

Freeing the grid

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

My daughter's Girl Scout troop wants to start an anti-idling campaign at her school. We need help justifying why a car should be turned off for more than 30 seconds. Although they have found that it saves gas and wear and tear on the engine and other parts, very few people believe that 30 seconds is long enough. Most believe that their starter, in particular, will need to be replaced, thereby reducing the gas savings. Can you point us to definitive information about idling and when and why to turn off your engine? Thanks.

Kew100
Brentwood, Tenn.

A. Dearest Kew,

Stop idling (and stop worrying about your starter).madame.furie via flickrIsn't a car made to last through tens of thousands of stops and starts? You don't find these same pro-idling people assiduously avoiding frequent car trips in order to lengthen the overall life of their car. I'm missing some piece of the logic train wherein the engine knows that the driver maybe could have chosen to leave it running, and it takes revenge by breaking down sooner.

In my own personal car experience, the failure of starters is more closely linked to car manufacturer than to age or anti-idling. But personal experience is not definitive information, so instead I am going to point you to bossy federal agencies and a helpful nationwide anti-idling campaign.

First, let us reflect on why we are anti-idling. Idling a passenger car is almost always unnecessary, it wastes gas, and it produces myriad air pollutants (as detailed in one of my previous columns). Schoolchildren's mouths are closer to both engine and tailpipe (by virtue of their height, not because they are licking engines), so these polluting emissions enter their sensitive young bodies with ease. Larger diesel engines, such as would be found in a school bus or delivery truck, have the same issues, only diesel fuel is dirtier than gasoline. Most idling emissions research has been done on these diesel engines, and there are idling regulations now in many states (some include all engines, not just diesel). Tennessee does not appear to have anti-idling regulations.

One helpful resource for you might be Earth Day Network's No Idling Campaign. It's based on a Georgia No Idling campaign, is aimed at schoolchildren, and includes toolkits, data collection charts, and lesson plans. In terms of the "definitive information": Here is a serious refutation of the starter damage myth from the California Energy Commission; some data and resources on school bus idling from the EPA (including curriculum materials); and a short EPA sheet that references the 30-second rule. Another way to look at it is that no reputable source recommends idling.

If you commence your campaign and still have trouble with families worried about the imminent failure of their car, it might be effective to find a reputable local mechanic or car dealer who will vouch for the durability of the starter. The federal government is simply not persuasive enough in some situations -- too far away, too easily linked to a disliked leader. A community expert might be just the person you need. Best of luck.

Alternatorly,
Umbra

Related Links:

How to turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Environmental education in Guinea Bissau

This Friday, don’t just Buy Nothing—use nothing!