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:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Ask Umbra on shower caps, computers, and junk mail

Ask Umbra on climate-skeptic teachers, low-flow toilets, and more

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:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

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:

State of the Climate Movement: Can fasting and asceticism save the world?

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Seventh GenerationAt first blush, one’s enthusiasm for the Million Baby Crawl would seem to depend largely upon three things: 1) enthusiasm for babies, real and animated; 2) a penchant for baby-related puns (we’re going to rattle Congress!); and 3) interest in frittering away time on the interwebs.

But that does a disservice to the intention behind this effort, which is to rally support for reform of the nation’s chemical policies. You don’t have to have babies—or even wuv them!—to want the feds to better regulate the toxics that find their way into our homes and bodies.

The facts are out there, and they are not cuddly-wuddly:

Scary stuff, and you can read much more about it, as well as the push for reform, on the Environmental Working Group site.

Erin Brockovich lends her star power to the launch of the Million Baby Crawl.So the Crawl has commenced. A creative spin on the traditional online petition, it finds legendary green-products manufacturer Seventh Generation partnering with consumer-rights advocate Erin Brockovich, eco-pediatrician Alan Greene, and a coalition called Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families. Visitors can “create a crawler” (again, you don’t have to have a baby, or ever have had a baby, or ever have thought about having a baby, to participate) or “find a crawler” by zip code or name. The goal, say organizers, is to deliver (ha! deliver!) the signatures to Congress in January—so far they’re at 12,160 and counting.

Related Links:

State of the Climate Movement: Can fasting and asceticism save the world?

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Toward a medically defensible energy policy

Ray Anderson set out to make his business sustainable long before green was the flavor of the month.  Reading Paul Hawken's The Ecology of Commerce in 1994 literally changed his life, inspiring him to overhaul his carpet company, Interface, and aim for zero waste and zero environmental impact.  Now, with his new book Confessions of a Radical Industrialist, he wants to spur other business leaders to "climb Mount Sustainability." 

Anderson recently dropped by the Grist office and we asked him how his own ascent is going so far. 

-----

Q. You've been working for the last 15 years to make your company sustainable. What do you know that other companies need to know?

A. Well, it's hard. It's the work of a lifetime. It takes an awful lot of patience and stick-to-itiveness.

We're 15 years into a 26-year journey -- that's how long we calculate it will take us to get to a zero footprint, taking nothing from the earth that's not naturally, rampantly renewable and doing no harm to the biosphere.

Q. How long did it take your company to recoup the investment that you initially made?

A. No time. From day one, we were ahead of the game. Tackling waste -- that's where the low-hanging fruit is. We declared war on waste: only zero is acceptable. Doing everything right the first time, every time, including making no scrap and no off-quality. When we measured ourselves against that kind of perfection, we found 10 percent of the sales dollar going down the drain as waste, most of it considered allowable, expected.

Fifteen years later, we're only halfway there. But we've saved over $400 million, which has more than financed everything else that we've done -- the R&D, the capital expenditures, the process changes, employee training, the whole ball of wax.

Q. Is that a technique that's replicable?

A. Yes. We ought to be doing this anyway in business. When you set that bar at zero, that's a stretch, but it's easy to understand.

Q. Are there things you thought would be easy to do that have turned out to be really difficult?

A. The technologies didn't exist and we didn't know what it was going to take to create them. We couldn't have done it by ourselves. We didn't know how long it would take to get suppliers involved, or get new inventors inventing things that we'd never heard of. So there was a big mystery about it all.

But we had a clear vision and that was the main thing. Climb that mountain clear to the top.

Ray Anderson. 

Q. In the whole lifecycle of your products, what was the hardest aspect to get within that sustainable margin? Transportation?

A. No, transportation is miniscule in the grand scheme. The important thing is the technologies for recycling. Today they have been invented and we're increasing recycled content. Like 35 percent now of our raw material comes from used products, post-consumer recycling. At the time I wrote the book, I think it was 28 percent, so it's moved up since.

Q. You're not turning plastic bottles into carpet -- you're turning old carpet into new carpet, right?

A. Yeah, the ideal product is our own product from 20 years ago. And we're also recycling other carpet manufacturers' carpets too.

Q. As a business leader, what do you want to see Congress do about climate change?

A. Put a price on carbon. I'd prefer to see it done through tax shifts, taxing bad things instead of good things. A shift in those taxes even in a revenue-neutral way that just puts a price on carbon so that an honest market can then work. Today it's a dishonest market, blind as a bat, just stumbling around ignoring the externalities.

Q. As you've made sustainability core to your business, have you gotten new customers through that effort? 

A. Yes. There was a survey done of commercial interior designers three or four years ago, who very heavily influence our marketplace, and 91 percent said they preferred recycled content.  Not just accepted it, but preferred it. Today it's probably even higher than that.

It was that community, interior designers, who were asking us the question 15 years ago: "What's your company doing for the environment?"  So when we began to actually do something, they began to embrace us for what we were doing. The goodwill of the marketplace is amazing. 

If you had to state the pure dollar-and-cents business case for sustainability, our cost is down, not up -- the waste-elimination effort alone has more than paid for all the rest of this. Our products are the best they've ever been. Biomimicry has had a huge influence; it's a wellspring of innovation. Our people are galvanized around a shared higher purpose. You can't beat it for attracting people and motivating people. And the goodwill of the marketplace is just astonishing. What else is there that underlies shareholder value but cost and products and people and market? That's it. It's a better business model without doubt.

Q. Do you think the business community at large is capable of a shift to sustainability?

A. They will either do it or be superseded by those who do. The industrial system that operates today is undermining the basis of the industrial system; it's committing suicide because nature is that undergirding factor. There's no business that can operate without air and water and food and energy and materials and climate regulation and ultraviolet radiation shields and pollination and seed dispersal and distribution. All of those are supplied by nature. If we kill nature, we will certainly kill the economy. When somebody sits down and tries to figure out the value of nature, it's very simple: Whatever the economic GDP is today, that's the value of nature, because none of it would exist without that undergirding.

Q. Are there examples of other businesses you've influenced?

A. I claim some credit for Wal-Mart. They sent two teams to our factory in Lagrange, Ga. -- one lead by Mike Duke, who is the president/CEO now, and one lead by Doug McMillon, who is now the No. 2 man. Each of them came and spent the day there understanding what we were talking about and what we were doing. They went away satisfied that it's doable, which was a huge hurdle for them to get over before they went to 60,000 suppliers and said, "You gotta do this too." I think that was a hurdle that we helped them clear. Since then they've been going gangbusters.

Q. So what's next for you?

A. We've got the rest of this mountain to climb.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

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:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

What? Take away my Aqua Net?!nyki_m via flickrOK, really just one high and one low. It’s been a busy day.

The high, fittingly, is related to hair. When I first saw an email subject line that began “Directional Runway Hair” float into my inbox earlier today, I honest-to-god thought it had something to do with airports. Even when I realized it was fashion-related, my brain was still confused, and I found myself picturing a runway model with “directional” hair shaped like an airplane. But the news here has to do with inhalation, not aviation: A company called John Masters Organics is—deservedly, it would seem—boasting about its ability to create high-fashion ‘dos without “a toxic cocktail of chemical styling products.” (Masters and crew put their gunk to the test at New York Fashion Week’s green shows—find out more about the green scene courtesy of our friends at Inhabitat.)

One need look no further than EWG’s Skin Deep database to realize that everyday cosmetics are full of nasties. Just imagining the cloud of chemicals backstage at a fashion show makes me woozy. So ... here’s to progress, and to companies like Masters that are seeking less-toxic approaches to glamour. Now someone give those models a grass-fed burger, and we’ll be good.

The low for the day is down by the toes: This week, the EPA sued the owner of clothing company North Face for failing to register an antimicrobial agent used in more than 70 styles of shoes (which appear to have been discontinued). Which, bummer about the failing to register part. But more to the point: Really? Do we need antimicrobial shoes? As one staffer put it in our news meeting this morning, “It’s called a shower. Look into it.”

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Recently, the web has been abuzz with stories about (and press releases from) companies ranked highly by the Dow Jones Sustainability Index review. The vaunted stock ticker-picker turned its eyes to green a full ten years ago to track the financial performance of “sustainability-driven companies worldwide.” Each year it releases a review of the companies in the index, using their economic, environmental, and social performance to rank them (and sometimes remove them). And the companies, in turn, use it as an excuse to make eco-happy headlines.

So what’s with all the hubbub? And is it important to us mere mortals, or just to companies and investors? We checked in with a couple of our favorite eco-business experts, Joel Makower of GreenBiz.com and Auden Schendler of Aspen Skiing Co., to get their take. Here’s what they had to say.

Should average consumers pay attention to the DJSI review? Why or why not?

Makower: No. Being named to the DJSI may be a badge of honor (or seems to be, based on the stream of press releases I get from those companies), but it isn’t really a marker for “green.” DJSI refers to these as “leading sustainability-driven companies,” and there may be some truth to that, in that these are companies that stand to benefit from growing attention to energy, water, toxics, and carbon. But being named as “components” of DJSI doesn’t necessarily mean that these companies have comprehensive green policies and practices, let alone performance.

Schendler: Consumers should pay attention, absolutely, because whether they admit it or not, corporations are paying attention, and are striving to get on, or advance up this list, meaning the the index is influencing practices. We badly need third-party assessments of corporate responsibility, no matter how flawed. We have never had any. We’ll improve on it eventually, but the DJSI is what’s for dinner right now, and it represents an honest effort to assess businesses

Of the 19 companies identified as “supersector” leaders, are there any that jump out at you as particularly surprising?

Makower: I can’t claim to be fully knowledgeable about some of these companies, particularly the non-U.S. firms. In general, it’s what I’d expect from Dow Jones: a marketbasket of companies representing a range of industries and geographies. But I could have picked other companies in the same sectors. It’s all so subjective.

Schendler: When Forbes recently headlined an issue by declaring ExxonMobil a green company because it has invested in natural gas exploration, I blew spaghetti out my nose. But on this list, there weren’t companies that jumped out at me as flagrant offenders. Some jumped out as especially deserving: these include Panasonic, Swiss Re, and Roche.

When it comes to evaluating sustainability, how should one measure a company’s performance vs. its products?

Makower: It’s a big problem. Right now, there’s no standard way of assessing a company. ISO 14001 is a good standard for company performance at the facility level, but it doesn’t speak to activities at the corporate level, or any aspect of sustainability beyond environmental. The Global Reporting Initiative helps companies report their sustainability performance in a standardized way, so we can compare company to company, but it doesn’t say anything about how good companies need to be. Same with other current standards. Someday there will be a global standard for a “green” or “sustainable” company (two different things, by the way). But for now, consumers are left to their own devices.

Schendler: There’s a hierarchy when it comes to sustainable business measures. Climate change is the issue of our time. So addressing climate with the biggest lever is by far the most important thing a corporation can do. And because our failure to solve climate and health care is fundamentally a function of the influence of corporate money on politics (politicians can’t make the right decision, they have to make the decision that keeps them in office), how businesses spend money on politics is perhaps the hallmark of how responsible they are. (If the Supreme Court allows corporate financed ads, as they well may, we can kiss our democracy goodbye.) If a business is working on its carbon footprint (good!) but not lobbying for climate policy, it’s missing the big picture. And if a business is working on factory water use but not climate, same deal. Again, this sounds harsh, but we have a climate problem first. Toxics in cosmetics is something we need to address, but it doesn’t get the same point allocation as climate action. If we don’t solve climate, we won’t be worrying about BPA in our water bottles anymore.

Along the same lines, what do you make of resulting press coverage like this: “Want an eco-friendly car? Buy a BMW!” Does it do a disservice to companies making greener products? Or does it uncover deeper, more useful information? Might it help or confuse consumers?

Makower: The mainstream media does a superb job of trivializing most environmental issues, and is particularly adept at using meaningless, hyped phrases—“Company X is going green!” (sometimes including the exclamation point). What, after all, is an eco-friendly car? Is it an electric one, or one that guzzles 20 percent less gas than it used to? The answer is probably “Yes.” Or “No.” It’s all in the eye of the beholder. Much like the DJSI companies.

Schendler: I was recently at the swimming pool talking to a friend about her family car purchase. She said: “Yeah, we heard Priuses weren’t that green—there are some issues with battery disposal. So we got a Subaru.” There’s a problem with that logic though. We don’t have a battery disposal problem, we have a climate problem. And even if we were overrun with batteries we couldn’t dispose of safely, the climate problem would still trump the battery problem. And the Prius is much better at solving climate than the Subaru.  One of the issues I have with sustainability indexes in general is that, like people do, they tend to value multiple criteria equally. So BMW, not known for efficient cars, gets a good rating, presumably for some of its other practices. But those practices, while admirable, are not as important as producing an efficient fleet of vehicles. Toyota is doing that. So is Honda. Ranking BMW so highly is therefore misleading to consumers.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

OliBac via flickrAh, back-to-school season. The rustling of leaves, the squeak of new sneakers, the reassuring sound of chalk on a blackboard. Wait, does anyone still use chalk? And if they do, is it emitting some sort of toxic dust that’s dooming our children to a life of bad health and environmental despair?

School, once that bastion of knowledge and wholesomeness, has become a sort of devil’s playground, presenting dilemmas ranging from toxic threats (probably not chalk, but what about radon or asbestos?) to junk-food lunches to diesel buses. We hereby present a few useful links and resources for navigating the hallways of your educational institution, whether it’s the local Kindergarten or a top-tier college.

Study up on the issues and think about whether your school makes the grade—then give yourself recess. You deserve it.

For the younger (swing)set

Most of you organized parental types have no doubt finished buying school supplies, but in case you’re scrambling—or all the colored pencils mysteriously break at once—here’s our guide to greener back-to-school shopping and a rundown of materials to avoid and embrace. Think about whether you can buy less overall, and remember: shopping online is better than driving to the mall.

Now that your kiddo is stocked up and off to school, will the bus ride be a source of bad fumes? Visit EPA’s Clean School Bus USA site to find out more about the issue of diesel buses and what school districts are doing to address it.

The toxic fun doesn’t stop when the bus puts on its brakes: unhealthy schools across the country are dealing with a legacy of bad building decisions. Once again, our friends at the EPA have a thorough (if not very pretty) site dedicated to making schools healthier places. You can also visit the Healthy Schools Campaign for a look at the issues and solutions (and enter their photo contest!).

One more major component of your child’s day: school lunch. Today’s lunches are a pale, plastic-wrapped imitation of the hot lunches of yesteryear (which were nothing to write home about, but at least they involved vegetables). A growing contingent is pushing for healthier lunches, and Congress is taking up the Child Nutrition Act this fall. Don’t let them keep feeding your kids crap. Get involved today.

And if you’re off to college ...

Take a look at our list of the 20 greenest colleges in the U.S. If you’re going to one of them or another green-leaning school, good for you! If you missed the boat, you could always transfer ... or better yet, check out our green campus special for inspiring profiles of student activists, tips for helping your school see the light, and handy links and resources for making this school year the greenest yet.

And keep an eye out for the newest Umbra Fisk video, coming soon: Umbra visits College of the Atlantic, the country’s first carbon-neutral school.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Not my window. But this is how they feel sometimes.TottoBG via flickrOnce upon a time, I was full of unswayable romantic notions about old houses. Then I bought one.

I’ll refrain from going into too much detail about the quirks of our house, and of course I’m grateful to have a roof over our heads. But we’ve come up against a particular challenge that I can’t seem to figure my way around. It’s a little thing called window shopping.

No, not window shopping like pressing your nose up against the glass (thanks, wordplay-loving co-workers!). Window shopping like, “We have got to replace these old, rattling, single-paned, glazing-falling-out beasts before another winter sets in.” Even weatherstripping doesn’t help at this point.

The good news is that friends and family and This Old House keep telling us how easy it is to replace windows yourself. The bad news is, we’re pussies. I mean, of all the projects to screw up, is that really the one you want to test your skills on? So we started scouting around for installation estimates.

But that’s where the bad news got worse. Not surprisingly, it costs a lot to have someone else put windows in your house. And furthermore-not-surprisingly, it costs a lot more if you choose a material whose production doesn’t devastate planetary and human health.

The most affordable option? Vinyl.

If there’s one thing that echoes in my head after editing Ask Umbra for years, it’s this: “No vinyl, that’s final.” Vinyl’s drawbacks are many, varied, and well documented. We had two companies visit so far; one spent the entire time talking up vinyl (and assuring us that “it doesn’t bleed”) while the other spent the entire time talking it down. I look around my neighborhood, and everyone seems to have it. I research online, and everyone seems to sell it—but I’m also noticing another interesting trend, which is a sort of vinyl-window backlash. They don’t actually perform that well. They warp and wear out. There are other more modern options (fiberglass, for one, which is a relative newcomer to WindowLand and brings its own set of pros and cons).

I’m thrilled to see vinyl getting its due. But here’s the thing: of the estimates we’ve gotten so far, only vinyl came even within spitting distance of our budget. This is one of those moments where I get a fresh reminder of why everyone doesn’t just “Go Green It’s So Easy and Fun!” Reality intervenes.

I know new windows—whether vinyl or not—should eventually pay for themselves in energy savings. So I figure I have a few options: Keep getting estimates in the hope that someone will magically be willing to install non-toxic windows for a reasonable price. Suck it up and buy the vinyl windows, installation and all. Buy more expensive windows and try to install them ourselves, thus coming out at about the same place. Or really suck it up and buy non-toxic windows and installation. (This last one is, frankly, nearly impossible given our current budget.)

What should I do? Now you get to vote. And/or rant in the comments about what a fool I am. Meanwhile, I’ll be window shopping.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets

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

Some assembly required.GM.comAt one of our news meetings last week, I mentioned a story I had seen. “GM says the Chevy Volt will get 230 miles per gallon,” I told my fellow editors. The number struck me funny because it was ludicrously far beyond any current mpg rating, and because GM acknowledged that the Volt, due in late 2010, would be difficult to recharge given current infrastructure. It’s as if you had a pony that delivered lollipops door to door, except it didn’t have anywhere to buy them. But to a couple of staffers, it was funny for a whole different reason: “Miles per gallon of what?” they asked. “It’s electric!”

The Volt does use some gas, and the 230 mpg figure is based on some fancy-footwork math. But as this Time article points out, a more realistic measurement for the new generation of vehicles might be kilowatt-hours per mile or even, when we get really high-tech, miles per kilogram of hydrogen.

I wasn’t the only one intrigued by the car company’s hype. Hundreds of stories repeated GM’s claim—breathlessly at first, then with a creeping note of skepticism, then with level-headed analysis. It didn’t take long for the EPA, which faces the unenviable task of figuring out how to develop fuel-economy measurements for plug-in electric hybrids, to clarify that it had not actually tested a Volt and couldn’t confirm the 230 mpg figure.

For me, the most entertaining part of the whole episode was this quote from a blog entry by GM Vice Chair Bob Lutz: “I’ve said before that Volt is like our moon shot, and I stand by that statement. It’s exactly like a moon shot, if the lunar landing module were getting 230 miles per gallon.”

Exactly!

So to today’s “moon shot”: GM is floating the idea that it might produce a $4,000 compact car. The model would likely be made and sold in Asia, though VP of International Operations Nick Reilly said the company can’t scooch down as low as the $2,500 Tata Nano because of emissions standards, among other reasons. This news, too, is being greeted fairly warmly; writes Derek Thompson in The Atlantic: “[Whether or not the car sells in the U.S.], it’s nice to see GM trying to compete with emerging market auto makers, because it tells me that somebody is serious about making GM an auto company that’s thinking globally and long term.”

Is that what we’re seeing—the transformation of a near-dinosaur into a far-sighted global giant? Or are we watching that dinosaur thrash around helplessly in a shady swamp, occasionally spitting out shiny driblets of PR that make the media go wild? Can a dinosaur make a moon shot and survive?

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on trash, toxics, and tots

Toxic suds want to watch you shower

Home Economics of the JP Green House, Part 1

Apparently I have a confession to make: I was, until this time, unaware of the fascinating depth of the world of paper napkins.

Word.osde8info via flickrTo begin with, there was my discovery that there are “lunch napkins”—the square, scratchy kind—and “dinner napkins,” the comparatively elegant, rectangular, softer kind. Seriously? I’d never noted this distinction at the store, let alone honoring it at my dinner (I mean lunch) table.

More to the point, there are my newfound feelings of confusion over my lifelong paper-napkin use. Do I, like the average American, really use 2,200 paper napkins a year? Could I, along with my fellow Americans, use one less napkin a day and save a billion pounds of tree-killing, chlorine-bleached napkins from heading to the landfills? Should I invest in bamboo cloth and PVC-free rings and join the ranks of virtuous wipers who reuse their napkins for several days?

The cloth vs. disposable debate has a certain ring of familiarity to it, and your leanings will depend upon squeamishness, upbringing, and other factors. If you are among those who use disposable napkins regularly or occasionally, this great offense can be somewhat ameliorated by buying those made from recycled paper. But do the suckers work?

I found six brands of lunch napkins and put them through a series of tests. First there were the everyday encounters: pizza grease, grape jam, maple syrup, spilled water. Then there were the wet and dry strength tests. Then there were the in-a-pinch tests: How did the napkin perform as an ersatz rag for stove cleaning? Mirror polishing? Nose blowing?

Here’s what I found:

Scott Naturals by Kimberly-Clark
Eco-claim: A “sensible blend” of 80 percent recycled fiber
Price/quantity: $4.29/400 one-ply napkins
Cute slogan: “Green done right”

Just a few months ago, the launch of the Scott Naturals line incurred the wrath of activists including Forest Ethics’ Ginger Cassady, who wrote a scathing op-ed right here on ye olde Grist. But last week’s news of sustainable commitments by parent company Kimberly-Clark has given treehuggers new hope. Still, this product is the least impressive of the lot, in eco-terms: with a comparatively piddling 80 percent recycled fiber and a pretty flimsy feel, it’s more pretender than contender. It did rank among the most absorbent in these tests, but loses major points for scratchiness.

365 Everyday Value by Whole Foods
Eco-claims: 100 percent recycled paper (80 percent post-consumer content), whitened without chlorine bleach, fragrance free
Price/quantity: $2.99/250 one-ply napkins
Cute slogan: None

As usual, we’ve included the 365 “brand” in this lineup, even though it’s secretly someone else’s brand in Whole Foods’ packaging. That’s how private-label products work, friends! In this case, I’m fairly certain the secret brand is Marcal (see below), judging by the identical pattern, performance, and price point. Would these do as everyday table napkins? Absolutely. Do they hold up under heavy-duty oven-cleaning and strength tests? Not hardly.

Green Forest by Planet Inc.
Eco-claims: 100 percent recycled paper (minimum 90 percent post-consumer content), whitened without chlorine, unscented
Price/quantity: $3.69/250 one-ply napkins
Cute slogan: “Soft on nature”

The curious history of this brand wends from its creation at a small Wisconsin paper company to near-demise under the Georgia-Pacific umbrella to rescue by “Planet Inc.” in 2005. Methinks, based on pattern and performance, that these too are a private-label version, this time of Seventh Generation’s product*. [Apparently methought wrong; click on the asterisk for details.] Unlike that company, Green Forest uses a reclosable bag and boasts of a “special partnership” with River Network. Performance-wise, the napkins were strong, although they crumbled a bit under pressure. They’re on the softer side of the spectrum, which is sweet on the schnozz.

Small Steps by Marcal
Eco-claims: 100 percent premium recycled paper, whitened without chlorine bleaching, no dye or fragrance added
Price/quantity: $2.99/250 one-ply napkins
Cute slogan: “A small, easy step to a greener Earth”

Based in New Jersey, Marcal says it’s been “saving trees since 1950” by making paper from recycled paper. The company has gotten super PR-savvy of late, rebranding its napkins, TP, tissues, and paper towels as “Small Steps” products and encouraging customers to “help us save 1 million trees” (a ticker on its website counts more than 21 million trees saved since 2000—three cheers for underpromising and overdelivering!). While these napkins would be fine for everyday use, they did not hold up as well in strength tests. However, I give Marcal extra points for its reusable drawstring package.

Full Circle Foods Paper Napkins
Eco-claim: 100 percent recycled paper (80 percent post-consumer content), whitened without chlorine bleach
Price/quantity: $2.99/300 one-ply napkins
Cute slogan: “Return to a natural way of living”

At first blush, these napkins struck me as the weakest of the bunch. They were softer than the others, and seemed thinner—they almost felt like a facial tissue or toilet paper. But damned if they didn’t perform like a champ. They handled maple syrup, grape jam, and pizza grease with aplomb, scored up there with eco-faker Scott’s on absorbency, and held their own in a drip test too. Give me a reusable package, and I’d be in lunch-napkin heaven.

Seventh Generation Recycled Napkins
Eco-claims: 100 percent recycled paper (80 percent minimum post-consumer content), whitened without chlorine bleach, free of dyes and fragrances; this recycled paper product helps fight global warming; saves natural resources, reduces pollution
Price/quantity: $3.69/250 one-ply
Cute slogan: “In our every deliberation ...”—you know the drill

The grandpappy of green household products scores fairly well in the napkin department—commendably strong when both wet and dry, they left the least residue when wiping maple syrup and were bearably soft on the nose. But they landed on the weak side when pressed into oven-cleaning service, and felt a bit drippier than some of the others.

The Bottom Line: Full Circle wiped away the competition, based on performance, softness, and strength. While the Seventh Generation/Green Forest* version fared slightly better than the Small Steps/365 version, any of them would make a fine table napkin. And all are better than Scott’s Unnaturals, which uses less recycled content and is bleached with chlorine; it’ll be interesting to see whether Kimberly-Clark greens up this product over the next few years in light of its new sustainability commitments.

*The public affairs manager from Planet, Inc., contacted me after publication to clarify that Green Forest is “absolutely not” a sub-brand or private-label version of Seventh Generation and that the companies are in fact competitors.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

I've been noticing lately a lot of "green" businesses and restaurants in my area using compostable plastics, usually made of corn, if I recall correctly. I can't compost (I know, I know, but I live in a tiny apartment on the third floor with no porch or yard), and I was wondering if you could tell us any more about this plastic. Should I recycle it, or throw it away? What to do?

Becky B.
Jamaica Plain, Mass.

A. Dearest Becky,

Corn plastic = not fantastic.USDA.govDoes anyone find pictures of food appetizing? Right now I'm looking at a picture of some artistically arranged marinated olives in a bio-plastic deli container. I love olives. These are just repulsive. Perhaps the key to weight loss is photos of food.

I have a bit of scandale for you with these compostable plastic containers. The clear plastic #7 (which really just means "other") cups and deli containers are made with PLA, which is usually a corn derivative but could also come from cane sugar. I was all ready to dork out on the science of PLA, polylactic acid, but then I read this: "Instead, lactic acid is oligomerized and then catalytically dimerized to make the cyclic lactide monomer." The weather is too nice to spend time unraveling those polymers. Suffice to say they bacterially ferment the corn, then do all sorts of other stuff to stabilize it and turn it into a plastic. They can then make cups, fabrics, upholstery ... but who are "they"?

PLA is manufactured by agribiz giant Cargill at a plant in Blair, Nebraska. Cargill is a major player in the genetically modified corn market, is apparently the world's largest grain handler, and operates its PLA product division under the name NatureWorks. The long and short of it is that this "green" plastic is made from GMO corn by one of the largest private companies in the United States, one with a terrible track record on environmental issues. Here is a useful overview of the Cargill-corn plastic connection that our own Tom Philpott penned a few years back. There are actual mini-scandals regarding Cargill and PLA, such as them trying to make a partnership with Patagonia for a PLA fleece. Somehow they neglected to mention the GMO corn behind the whole product.

So when we use these cups, we are supporting GMO crops and industrial ag. And we are not necessarily creating less waste; yes, the cups are biodegradable, but only in commercial composting facilities or other composts that reach 150 degrees with 90 percent humidity. So even if you composted in your apartment -- which you could! -- you likely would not have the right conditions. And there are problems with recycling corn plastic too -- check with your friendly JP recyclers to see what they prefer. In the end, these cups can be equal to some products made from oil-based plastic: you just throw them out.

The only lifecycle assessment I could find was obviously pro-Cargill, so I can't say how much petroleum it takes to make them. But I can say that products from conventional corn, a petroleum-intensive crop, are not the magic bullet. The magic bullet is to bring your own cup (on your bike, of course).

Polylactically,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Greenpeace USA

Engaging in a bit of a lovefest, Greenpeace and Kimberly-Clark announced today that the paper-products giant has finally agreed to clean up its act. It will source the fiber for its tissue products, under brand names that include Kleenex, Scott, and Cottonelle, from “environmentally responsible sources,” including those that are FSC-certified and recycled. The company has also committed to end the purchase of non-FSC fibers from Canada’s Boreal forest by 2011. For its part, Greenpeace will drop the five-year-old Kleercut campaign that has long urged Kimberly-Clark to quit destroying the Boreal just so cold-sufferers can experience a softer blow.

In a fit of hard-earned mutual admiration, Kimberly-Clark VP Suhas Apte said, “We commend Greenpeace for helping us develop more sustainable standards,” while Greenpeace USA Forest Campaign Director Scott Paul called Kimberly-Clark a “responsible company” and said its “efforts are a challenge to its competitors. I hope other companies pay close attention.”

Those other companies include Georgia Pacific and Procter & Gamble, both of which Greenpeace is still pressuring on the sustainable sourcing front.

I contacted Michael Conroy, who wrote a book on corporate greening and grassroots campaigns called Branded (and whom I interviewed last year for Grist), to see what he made of the news. “This is a huge victory for global forests, the FSC, and Greenpeace,” he replied. “Kimberly-Clark is the world’s largest manufacturer of tissue paper products. The nature of the commitments, the specific timetables provided, and the Kimberly-Clark agreement to report back regularly on what proportion of the fiber sourced for its tissue has come from recycled and FSC-certified sources makes this a very credible commitment.”

Conroy also pointed out that the conclusion of Kleercut, which “used print media, social networking, YouTube videos, and incredibly creative ways to wear down Kimberly-Clark resistance, shows that the new tools for communicating with consumers are bringing even more power to civil society as we seek to transform the social and environmental practices of the world’s largest corporations.”

Ginger Cassady, senior campaigner for ForestEthics, was also pleased as punch by the news. As Cassady wrote in an op-ed for Grist this spring on Kimberly-Clark’s “Scott Naturals” line, “Kimberly-Clark has no trouble with innovation—if they can make an anti-viral tissue product, for god’s sake, they can make Kleenex with 100 percent post-consumer recycled content.” Angry that the company was still “wiping away ancient forests to make Kleenex,” Cassady used that piece to advise consumers to avoid the distraction of a single product line and keep their eyes on the entire company.

The company’s new policy, she told me today, “is among the strongest in the world ... truly impressive.” Along with Greenpeace, she says she hopes the move by Kimberly-Clark will influence other companies. “ForestEthics congratulates Greenpeace and allies for a campaign well run,” she said.

In short, it’s an ugly situation with a hugfest ending—as evidenced by this goofy Greenpeace video:

Related Links:

Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success

Obama going to Copenhagen

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

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

I recently spent several months in New Zealand and was impressed with the simple energy-saving electrical outlets they used. Every outlet is equipped with a small switch allowing you to "turn off at the wall" whatever device you have plugged in. I want to replace my current outlets with ones such as those in NZ but I've never seen anything similar being used in the States and cannot find a retailer. I'm sure they have to be out there somewhere -- any ideas?

Casey F.
Austin, Tex.

A. Dearest Casey,

No outlet?Since telling Jonathan he might kill himself by using GFCI breaker buttons for this very purpose, I have been gripped by a small obsession with plugs. Not only does New Zealand appear to have these sensible switch-off buttons on outlets, other fine nations such as Australia, Fiji, perhaps the U.K., and more I have not yet discovered do as well.

I can't find any outlets with on-off switches for the U.S. either. I have found a series of devices which are almost such a thing but not quite, and we will see if any of them sound useful.

Currently our two mainstream choices for avoiding phantom power draw from overeager appliances are power strips and manually unplugging the appliance. Each of these has an unwieldiness and cord-tangling potential that makes it a wee bit annoying. Ideal substitutes would be on-off switches at each individual outlet, a master switch that turns off multiple outlets in a room, or, of course, devices without a standby mode. (Or how about less stuff?)

It is possible to buy a two-prong plug with an on-off switch (here is one such; there are others out there), which is itself plugged into the wall outlet and receives the plug of a two-pronged device such as a coffee maker or wall wart. A variety of these are available for under $10. I've never used and do not endorse them, but they seem straightforward.

At the next level are a series of similar interlocutor plugs which are wired to turn off the outlet through remote control. You plug them into the outlet, plug the appliance into them, then sit back and impress friends and visitors with a wave of your wireless remote. One product provides multiple wireless plugs with a programmable remote, so that with a series of masterful clicks you can turn off power to multiple outlets. The remote requires a battery, but to me the more daunting requirement is keeping track of yet another vital small object in the home. I'm kind of losing it already with just my car keys and a few pacifiers.

Yet another step up from these mere over-the-counter objects is a whole-home system you can hire a company (GreenSwitch and perhaps others) to install. It, too, is a wireless system with a remote, and some master wall switches as well. This is far from an endorsement, just something I found that might work.

My current residence is wired in a way that I have found annoying up to now: in some rooms, wall switches control the power to the outlets. It can be a little confusing if you forget which switch is which and accidentally turn off an appliance you are using. But now that I pause to think, this system could be used as a way around power strips. Something to consider next time we have to rewire our homes.

Shockingly,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Nothing hits the spot on a hot day like an icy glass of all-American root beer. (Okay, if you want to split hairs: Nothing hits the spot on a hot day like an icy glass of all-American root beer when you must stay sober.) The problem is that when you take your wilting self to the cool respite of the beverage aisle, you discover that nothing in this life is simple.

Perhaps, like me, you go with the simple criterion of avoiding anything produced by Big Soda and loaded with high-fructose corn syrup. Ha! If only it were this straightforward. What started as a handcrafted, medicinal-tasting beverage devolved during the last century into a mass-produced cloying shadow of its former self. The good news is that root beer, like Mickey Rourke, is making a comeback, and the results can be kinda wild.

Today, your beverage aisle might showcase retro, handcrafted "root sodas" with exotic spices, certified organic root beers, a green-tea root beer, and a diet root beer spiked with an eco-sounding plant-based sweetener. You might even be able to find a local root beer with an ostensibly lighter carbon footprint. OK, so what's a green-minded, confused consumer like you to do, short of licking your cracked lips, throwing up your hands, and heading to the nearest vending machine?

Answer: Let taste be your guide. Because if it tastes awful, it's not going to matter if it's eco, healthy, or handcrafted by pygmy monks chanting hymns to Gaia -- you aren't going to buy it. At least not twice.

So for you, and only you, I assembled a tasting panel consisting of my spouse, a few willing friends, and our gleeful, sticky progeny (see video at bottom) to try some of the root beer alternatives to Big Soda. Herewith, our Highly Unscientific Results:

Maine Root
Ingredients: Carbonated pure water, organic fair trade–certified cane juice and spices (according to the website, the company uses extracts of wintergreen, clove, and anise).
Eco-claim: Organic fair trade–certified cane juice (though not USDA organic certified). Also, if you happen to live near Portland, Maine, you can take a small comfort in knowing that this root beer will be delivered via a biodiesel VW Jetta.
Price: $7.16 / four-pack of glass bottles

This is a fizzy rather than creamy root beer. Aside from the one comment that this root soda has a "nice nose," all of the adult tasters felt that it was way too sweet, and one went so far as to describe it as a "marshmallow in a glass." While you'd assume that the overly sweet quality might appeal to kids, it didn't. One claimed that it "smelled like mushrooms."

Boylan's Root Beer
Ingredients: Carbonated water, cane sugar, pure essential oils of sweet birch, cinnamon, sassafras, and anise, extracts of bourbon vanilla, yucca and licorice, and other natural flavors and spices, caramel color (from cane sugar), citric acid.
Eco-claim: Touts itself as "100% natural," which means no artificial flavors, colors or preservatives -- which is, methinks, a reasonable place to set the bar, considering that soda basically consists of three things: water, sweetener, and flavoring.
Price: $5.96 / four-pack of glass bottles

The online description says this traditional-tasting beer was developed as antidote to the super creamy, vanilla-laden style of root beers that is popular today. Interestingly, more than one taster described it as "traditional" and one described it as thin, perhaps owing to its lack of creaminess. Another said it had a "slightly astringent finish." One of the kids tasted pepper.

Zevia Natural Diet Soda Root Beer
Ingredients: Triple-filtered carbonated water, natural erythritol, natural GMO-free caramel color, stevia, citric acid and natural flavors (citrus peel oil, winter green oil, cassia oil, anise seed oil extract, ginger root extract).
Eco-claim: Touts itself as "100% natural" and "nature's answer to diet soda," but the marketing emphasis is on stevia's superiority to artificial sweeteners, not its environmental impacts. (My take is that stevia, at this point in time, doesn't seem particularly environmentally destructive. Read more of what I have to say about stevia.)
Price: $5.69 / six-pack of cans

After several expletives and exclamations, it was clear that my panel would rather suffer dehydration headaches than drink this root beer. One of our tasters said it "tastes like the snacks at my diabetic father-in-law's house." Another sighed, "That's definitely a diet drink." I found it sickly sweet and only vaguely root beer–like. The kids found it "weird" and "bad" but worst of all like "polishing toothpaste." (Q: Since when do kids use Topol?)

Whole Foods 365 Everyday Value Root Beer
Ingredients: Filtered carbonated water, cane sugar, natural root beer flavor, citric acid, caramel color (from cane sugar).
Eco-claim: None on the packaging, but Whole Foods has a notoriously green agenda.
Price: $2.49 / six-pack of cans

"A good, solid root beer," said one taster, and another approved of its "caramel nose." Another said, with obvious relief, "No funny aftertaste!" I found it to be smooth and straightforward and neither too sweet nor too weird. The kids deemed it spicy, sweet, and root-beery. Our panels (adults and kids) separately ranked it No. 1, with no dissent.

Blue Sky Certified Organic Root Beer Encore
Ingredients: Filtered carbonated water, organic cane juice, natural root beer flavor, caramel color and citric acid.
Eco-claim: Uses USDA-certified organic cane sugar. Why pony up for organic sugar? Although you don't have to worry about GMOs yet when it comes to cane sugar (GMO sugar beet crops have been planted in the U.S.), conventionally grown sugar does have enormous impacts on the environment. Read all about it in a World Wildlife Fund report.
Price: $5.69 / six-pack of cans

This was the neither-here-nor-there root beer. Although it had a "nice nose" and was "pleasantly effervescent," its aftertaste bugged the tasters who described it as sour, flat, or medicinal. The damning comment: "No worse than any other root beer." One of the kids said it was "more like Coke," which shocked her parents, who would never let their kids drink Coke.

Santa Cruz Organic Root Beer
Ingredients: Sparkling filtered water, organic evaporated cane juice, natural root beer flavor, organic lemon juice concentrate, organic vanilla extract.
Eco-claim: In addition to using USDA-certified organic ingredients, the company itself makes green efforts. The can also carries a Green-e label that states that this root beer is made with 100 percent certified renewable energy.
Price: $6.99 / six-pack of cans

That fact that this soda is clear may telegraph that it doesn't use artificial color, but our tasters found its transparency "kinda freaky" and "trippy." A child commented that it looked like white wine. After sipping, someone blurted out, "That's root beer?" No one actively disliked this soda, but every taster complained that it was not root-beery enough. Two tasters said it was "like a ginger ale" and one thought it was like a Sarsaparilla (a drink made from the eponymous root rather than the sassafras root that gives real root beer its flavor). Kid zinger: "It tastes like the fluoride I hate the most."

Virgil's Microbrewed Root Beer
Ingredients: According to the website: carbonated water and unbleached cane sugar along with these natural herbs and spices (including point of origin): anise from Spain, licorice from France, vanilla (bourbon) from Madagascar, cinnamon from Ceylon, clove from Indonesia, wintergreen from China, sweet birch from the southern U.S., molasses from the U.S., nutmeg from Indonesia, pimento berry oil from Jamaica, balsam oil from Peru, cassia oil from China.
Eco-claim: Like Boylan's, its ingredients are "natural." Although artisan consumables and green-mindedness often go hand in hand, it's worth remembering that this isn't always the case. This product aims to be tasty rather than to save the world. Upside: no greenwashing. Downside: What, no freakin' biodiesel Jetta?
Price: $6.36 / four-pack of glass bottles

This beer is brewed and flash-pasteurized as opposed to "cold-brewed," which allegedly produces a sub-standard product. "Nice and dark," someone cooed as we poured it. Strangest comment: "Dark and bubbly like a good Jacuzzi." Every taster noted the licorice taste and used the polite-but-damning adjective "different" to describe it. Refreshingly, this entry is not too sweet.

Steaz Organic Sparkling Green Tea Root Beer
Ingredients: Sparkling filtered water, organic evaporated cane juice, organic caramel color, natural flavors, organic fair trade–certified green tea, citric acid, ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), Sodium citrate.
Eco-claim: UDSA organic ingredients plus organic and fair-trade green tea. Triple-bottom-line company.
Price: $3.99 / four-pack of glass bottles

Does green tea really belong in root beer? "Damn hippies," spat one taster. Most tasters found the dominant taste not to be root beer–like or tea-like but akin to caramel or syrup. Thin, watery texture made one taster lament that it had, like limp hair, "no body." One kid said it tasted like Sprite.

Saranac Root Beer
Ingredients: Filtered water, high fructose corn syrup, caramel color, sodium benzoate (preserves freshness), natural and artificial flavors, citric acid.
Eco-claim: None on the bottle, but according to its website, Saranac's green initiatives include recycling its spent grains into cattle feed (insert boo-hiss from grass-fed beef fans) and recycling the CO2 from its fermentation process. Although people in my neck of New England think of it as a "local" root beer, it's brewed 144 miles from my house, according to MapQuest.
Price: $6.29 / six-pack of glass bottles

I was so peeved to discover that this beer contained HFCS that I almost didn't include it in the tasting. (Alas, HFCS is not uncommon in comeback root beers, as Eric Asimov discovered in his taste-test.) I included it because I was curious: Would anyone taste it? Sure enough, the very first comment was, "The sugar is different in this one!" Another taster said, "Overly sweet." Ultimately, tasters liked its texture, which was so creamy and smooth that one taster said it was "like whipped cream in my mouth." I thought it had an overly tangy aftertaste. It was the runner-up for the kids, who said it was a "plain-old root beer."

The bottom line: Whole Foods 365 Everyday Value Brand root beer tastes great and doesn't contain HFCS. It may not be earnestly green, handcrafted, exotic, or zero-cal, but its low price means that you might be able to afford to top if off with a big dollop of really yummy organic vanilla ice cream. Enjoy!

Watch the Junior Tasters at work:

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

The following essay was written by Paul Tukey, founder of SafeLawns.org and the author of The Organic Lawn Care Manual.

The perfect lawn doesn’t require gasoline or synthetic fertilizer.Muffet via FlickrGrass Happens.

As a former lawn care professional, I couldn’t help but laugh out loud when I first saw that bumper sticker on a passing pickup truck full of lawn mowers. Insert any word of your choice to replace grass - Death, Tax, Greed, Hunger, you name it - and you will be commemorating the same fundamental inevitability.

Call it twisted landscape humor, an inside joke for anyone who has spent part of his or her life trying to keep landscapes under control. Including all the various species, grasses are some of the most prolific and resilient flora on the planet. Virtually anywhere you live, chances are you will have some spiked, green plants sprouting on your property, whether or not you want them there.

Lawns have always been another matter entirely. They haven’t just happened, but have instead necessitated all manner of conflict resolution. From the earliest days of civilization, an area of short-cropped vegetation required decisive action to meet the definition of a lawn. At first, goats and sheep were put out to forage plants to the ground; in the 1700s, peasants and slaves wielded machetes and scythes.

Almost two centuries ago tinkerers and machinists in Europe and North America began competing relentlessly to be first to create devices that would make the practice of mowing more accessible to everyman. By 1871, Elwood McGuire won Round 1. The resident of Richmond, Indiana, developed a cutting machine that could be mass-produced and, in the process, unleashed a latent lawn lust that seemed to have been secretly encoded in America’s collective DNA. By the beginning of the 20th century, inventors had created a steam-powered lawn mower and then in the 1950s came the machine that almost single-handedly painted the American Dream: the gas-powered rotary mower.

“The appearance of a lawn bespeaks the personal values of the resident,” declared a trade association known as The Lawn Institute in 1953, commenting on a post-World War II boom in mower purchases. “Some feel that a person who keeps the lawn perfectly clipped is a person who can be trusted.”

We may have moved on from our grandfather’s politics, but haven’t budged a bit from our collective definition of American success: Nice home, shiny car, big green lawn. According to NASA satellite images, the United States is blanketed in approximately 50 million acres of turf, with several hundred thousand acres of grass being added each year.

All that mowing, trimming and blowing contributes up to 10 percent of our nation’s air pollution every summer in the form of hydrocarbons (a major component of smog), particulate matter (which damages respiratory systems), carbon monoxide (a poisonous gas) and carbon dioxide (a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming). Gas-powered lawn mowers, blowers and trimmers are 10 to 30 times more polluting than combustion-engine automobiles and, well, we all know where the car industry is headed.

It should come as no surprise, then, that today’s Elwood McGuires are waging a new race: to develop kinder, gentler technologies for taming America’s little green patches of paradise. Like it or not, the grass is still growing. More and more folks are mowing it with machines that are human- or electricity-powered. A new campaign co-promoted by the non-profit SafeLawns.org of Washington, D.C., and the for-profit Black & Decker company of Maryland challenges homeowners everywhere to “Get Your Grass Off Gas.”

“By choosing electric or cordless outdoor power equipment, you’re not only helping the environment, your neighborhood and your family, but you are also freeing yourself of the mess and hassles associated with gas-powered products,” said DeAnn Romjue, director for Black & Decker’s Outdoor Products division.

The statistics in support of the change are staggering. A traditional mower running for 45 minutes consumes about 50,000 BTUs of energy in the form of gasoline. An electric mower doing the same job requires just 2,500 BTUs in form of kilowatts. Some estimates put the electric mowers at 90 percent less polluting than gas models and the cost savings per season is ample. About $5 of electricity will run your electric mower for the whole season on a third-acre lawn that would otherwise require about $40 to $50 in gas and oil.

After four years of kicking the gas habit in my own yard, however, my favorite aspects of the switch to an electric mower have nothing to do with money. The machine always starts, it’s far quieter and my clothes don’t smell like fumes when I’m done. The process, believe it or not, has become kind of fun.

Grass, after all, may be inevitable. The agony of caring for it shouldn’t have to be.

—

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

You know how it goes: you’re in your kitchen, happily chopping veggies for that night’s meal, when an ant comes wandering by to check out the menu. Or you turn on the light in the bathroom and spot a silverfish scuttling away. Or you finally lie down for a well deserved rest, only to be plagued by the incessant whine of a bloodthirsty mosquito.

This sucks.dr_relling via flickrThere’s a reason they’re called pests, and modern science has come up with plenty of sprays, baits, and potions to kill them or keep them at bay. But those remedies aren’t just bad for the bugs, they’re bad for you, too. Conventional pesticides contain toxic ingredients that can, according to the EPA, affect the nervous system, cause skin and eye irritation, affect hormones and the endocrine system, and cause cancer. As the New York State Department of Health delicately puts it, “The improper storage, application, or disposal of pesticides present potential health risks to the entire family, especially children.”

Yuck. So are there alternatives?

The short answer is yes. The longer answer is, it might take some experimenting on your part to find out what really works. Here are a few “natural” suggestions people seem to swear by; leave your own solutions in the comments section below.

ANTS

Get out: Things ants do not dig include citrus, mint, cinnamon, cucumber, dried chili pepper, and paprika. Try spraying or sprinkling these in anty areas. Other effective combat-ants include diluted liquid soap or boric acid (but keep the latter out of the reach of children and pets).

And stay out: Keep ants away by storing food in tightly closed containers, vacuuming crumbs, and putting pet food away for the night. Try spraying their usual pathways with a citrus-derived cleanser or vinegar. Some swear by the use of dry grits—ants apparently explode after eating them. Whatever sits easiest with your conscience.

BEDBUGS/ DUST MITES

Get out: Heat is the best weapon against these pesky critters; wash infested items in hot water or seal in plastic and place in the sun.

And stay out: Vacuum and wash bedding regularly, and clean up clutter. When buying used furniture, examine it thoroughly—and when it comes to mattresses, you can cast your “secondhand only!” rules aside.

EARWIGS

Get out: Two “natural” traps include a clean cat-food or tuna can filled with water and vegetable oil (if you can stomach a can full of drowned earwigs) or a damp, rolled-up newspaper (they’ll crawl inside to escape the heat). Or sprinkle boric acid or diatomaceous earth along known thoroughfares.

And stay out: Seal cracks in windows, doors, and screens, and remove wood piles or leaf piles by your house (earwig he love the damp and dark). Put up birdfeeders to entice more feathered friends to visit—they’ll spot the earwigs and chow down.

FLEAS

Get out: There are a few herbal remedies said to work for dogs (though they may not be safe for cats): spray diluted eucalyptus, rose geranium, or tea tree oil on your dog’s fur. Rub diatomaceous earth powder on your pet, or use an herbal shampoo. Or comb your pet’s fur with a comb dipped in soapy water, then freeze the water to kill the fleas—just warn your ice cream-hunting roommates first.

And stay out: Vacuum carpets and furniture frequently. And if you’re really up for an adventure, spray your yard with freeze-dried nematodes; the tiny worms eat flea larvae. Yum!

FLIES

Get out: Deterrents include citronella, pine oil, eucalyptus, cloves, basil, and bay leaves. And you can make your own flypaper by spreading a mixture of boiling water, corn syrup, and sugar on strips of brown paper bags! If you’re feeling really sadistic, suck flies up with your (solar-powered) hairdryer and listen to ‘em fry.

And stay out: Cover trash with a tight-fitting lid, and remove it regularly. Keep an especially close eye on compost and your fruit bowl—your bruised pear is a fertile fly’s dream.

LADYBUGS

Get out: They’re harmless, and they eat other pests—so don’t be too quick to get rid of them. But if you’re tired of a windowsill full of ladybugs, you can ward them off with essential oils (eucalyptus, lavender, cedarwood, etc.), lemon, or ammonia.

And stay out: Make sure screens are intact and properly sealed. The magical diatomaceous earth can come in handy here—sprinkled around the perimeter of your house—and planting cilantro, fennel, dill, and geraniums can help keep the ladybugs happy in the garden instead of seeking sustenance in your home.

MOSQUITOES

Get out: Ye olde essential oils come in handy once again; apply them straight, or look for natural insect repellents that contain them. Citronella candles or torches are a tried-and-true method for outside gatherings. And inside, sometimes just turning on a fan can do the trick.

And stay out: Make sure screens are intact and sealed. Remove standing water from gutters, pet dishes, toys, wheelbarrows, plant saucers, etc. Spray garlic oil on the shrubs and plants around your yard; this step is said to repel mosquitoes for up to four weeks. Of course, it might also repel your friends.

SILVERFISH

Get out: Plant-based repellents include cucumber (try placing strips or peelings in cabinets, closets, and basements, replacing them when they dry out), camphor, rosemary, cloves, and costmary. If you’re feeing trappy, set out a glass container with tape on the outside—the tape gives them enough traction to climb in, but leaves them with no way out.

And stay out: Like earwigs, silverfish thrive in dark, damp environments. They also think wallpaper paste is a mighty yummy treat. So repair or replace old wallpaper, seal cracks in walls and floors where possible, and consider a dehumidifier.

SPIDERS

Get out: They might creep you out, but most spiders are harmless—and are actually a good bet for keeping other insect populations down. Still, if you’d prefer to keep your house web-free, spraying a citrus essential oil in spider-prone areas can help keep them out. Placing chestnuts on windowsills and around exterior walls could also do the trick.

And stay out: Clean up clutter—especially wood and cardboard, which spiders find quite alluring. Dust regularly. But mostly, get over your arachnophobia! Ultimately, spiders might be the best form of non-toxic pest prevention you can find.

For more extensive advice on green pest control, check out these suggestions, or these.

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Hi Umbra,

I'm in the book business, and there are many who try and make sure books never make it to landfills and are donated to worthy causes. However, I have been wondering for some time about the environmental impact of such authors as Danielle Steel, Nora Roberts, and Tom Clancy, whose books quickly become worthless, and how they feel about their environmental impact, and what if anything they are doing to improve the clearcutting they might be causing? Just a thought.

Joe Hoppe
Austin, Tex.

A. Dearest Joe,

Is this misplaced blame? They are in the book business, you are also in the book business. They write books, you sell or collect or ship or edit or in some other way earn your living off of books. Like it or not, you and Danielle Steel have a mutual interest in the success of and continued circulation of books. And you also share a mutual responsibility for urging the book industry to be more eco-minded.

Your plots are delicious, but your eco-impacts suspicious.justin via flickrI looked into the authors you mentioned whose books "quickly become worthless." All three have engaged in various philanthropic causes, mostly involving children's health. I don't see any obvious messages about clearcutting coming from them, although Nora Roberts has done a bit of donating to Defenders of Wildlife. And Tom Clancy wrote Rainbow Six, involving terrorist environmentalists! From the Wikipedia summary: "After living in sealed redoubts ... and protected by the secret 'B' vaccine, they will come out to rebuild the world in an environmentally friendly way."

Sounds exciting! What may be more exciting, in light of your question, is some of the progress the book industry is making. The industry, like all others, contributes to global warming and other environmental problems. Glancing over at our friend the Carnegie Mellon EIO-LCA database, we find that for every million wholesale dollars of book printing, 717 MT of CO2 equivalent are produced. We also know that 30 million trees are used to make books sold in the U.S. each year.

So what are some of the steps publishers are taking? Random House, which publishes Steel's novels, has committed to increasing its use of recycled paper from 3 percent to 30 percent by 2010. Penguin, which publishes Clancy's and Roberts' work, has an even more substantial-seeming green effort, which includes using FSC-certified paper, publishing work by environmental-minded authors, partnering with various green groups, and taking concrete steps to green its in-house business. Then, of course, we have electronic publishing, which is taking the trees out of the equation; as I have written before, e-books may be the greener option -- and your authors have made their work available in that format.

That is good news. But more to the point, I do not share your concern about the obsolescence of popular literature. I'd particularly like to direct you away from the idea that bestselling mainstream books quickly become "worthless." There is a reason that Steel and her ilk have sold millions and millions of books: People like to read them. Not just once, but again and again. My small window into vacation homes, library book sales, airplane and bus reading, shows that it is these very books that are repeatedly proving their worth. Perhaps not monetarily -- and maybe this is where your gripe comes in -- but certainly as reading material. It's the intellectual stuff that weighs down the table at a yard sale.

I say not to worry. Unlike many other manufactured objects -- cell phones spring to mind -- books are endlessly reused. Paperbacks have two great benefits: they are easily recyclable alongside old phonebooks. And they are highly portable. After all, no one is going to take their leatherbound copy of The Mill on the Floss to the beach.

Relaxedly,
Umbra

Related Links:

Ask Umbra on ditching dirty things

Ask Umbra’s video advice on composting

Turn your turkey carcass into a spectacular gumbo