Green Parent Chicago

EarthTalk: What is the so-called Green New Deal proposed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and is Congress likely to go for it?

Dear EarthTalk: What is the so-called Green New Deal proposed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and is Congress likely to go for it?           -- Mark Talarico, Brooklyn, NY

The concept of a “Green New Deal” (GND), first called for in a 2007 New York Times op-ed by Thomas Friedman, has been in the news lately thanks to a protest outside of Nancy Pelosi’s office in mid-November a week after the 2018 mid-term elections when Democrats took back the House. The goal of the GND is to put America at the forefront of green technologies to meet or exceed our Paris climate treaty commitments while boosting the economy and reducing economic inequality.

Think of it as like President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s original “New Deal” that helped get Americans back on their feet economically after the Great Depression through the creation of millions of federally-funded jobs that not only employed people but boosted U.S. economic productivity. The GND aims to give Americans a leg up in profiting off the transition to greener energy sources while simultaneously reducing the divide between the haves and have-nots.

At that November protest, hundreds of activists affiliated with the so-called Sunrise Movement showed up to call on Pelosi to back omnibus economic stimulus legislation that would put millions of Americans to work on facilitating the transition to an economy powered by 100 percent renewable, emissions-free energy. Later that day incoming Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez showed her support by proposing the creation of a new House Select Committee on a Green New Deal tasked with detailing a “national, industrial, economic mobilization plan capable of making the U.S. economy 'carbon neutral' while promoting 'economic and environmental justice and equality’."

“There are so many different progressive issues that are important, and climate change and addressing renewable energy always gets to the bottom of the barrel,” Ocasio-Cortez told The Intercept. “That can gets kicked from session to session and so what this just needs to do is create a momentum and an energy to make sure that that it becomes a priority for leadership.”

At least 45 House members have expressed support for the GND, while eight likely Democratic presidential candidates (including Jay Inslee, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren) are also behind it. And with the majority of Americans favoring taking strong action against climate change even if it means higher taxes, implementing some of kind of GND seems like a no-brainer.

But environmentalists might not want to hold their breath. For starters, Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal for the creation of a new House Select Committee on a Green New Deal won’t be ready for a full House vote until 2020. Also, just because 40 members of Congress are supportive now doesn’t say anything about where the other 395 Congresspersons stand, let alone the 100 members of the still-Republican-controlled Senate. Meanwhile, conservative critics point out that a Green New Deal could actually hurt the economy more than help it given how reliant we are on abundant and cheap fossil fuels. Even some liberals worry that the GND is trying to bite off more than we can chew. Only time will tell if something like the GND will become the law of the land—and many greens are keeping their fingers crossed.

 

CONTACTS:  Thomas Friedman’s “A Warning from the Garden,” https://goo.gl/zQ324A; Sunrise Movement, www.sunrisemovement.org; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, ocasio-cortez.house.gov.

 

EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss for the 501(c)3 nonprofit EarthTalk. To donate, visit www.earthtalk.org. Send questions to: [email protected].

EarthTalk: What is Environmental Justice?

Dear EarthTalk: What is meant by “environmental justice” and how is it under assault in the new Trump administration? -- Mike Garner, New Orleans, LA

Environmental justice is defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin or income, with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.” In layperson’s terms, it means making sure specific groups of people don’t bear a disproportionate burden from potential and existing environmental threats.

Traditionally, we think of situations like the siting and construction of a pollution-spewing factory in or near a low-income minority community as an example of an environmental injustice. Some recent examples ripped from the headlines include the lead contamination of the water supply of predominantly African-American Flint, Michigan, and the siting of the potentially hazardous Dakota Access Pipeline adjacent to sacred and ecologically sensitive Standing Rock Sioux tribal land.

“The federal government has recognized for decades that air and water quality are especially poor in low-income areas and communities of color, and some of that imbalance stems directly from government permitting decisions, such as where to allow the dumping of toxic materials,” reports the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading environmental advocacy non-profit.

Environmental justice has been a hot topic lately as it relates to who bears the brunt of climate change impacts. According to EPA research, city dwellers and the poor are among the Americans most likely to suffer from climate change. NRDC points out that 24 to 27 percent of urban African-Americans, Latinos and indigenous people in the U.S. are now living below the poverty line, compared with only 13 percent of urban whites—meaning that minority groups are at the greatest risk from the heat waves, bad air, stronger storms and other negative consequences of a warming climate.

The federal government has been working on environmental justice issues since at least 1992 when then-President George H.W. Bush created a White House office dedicated to “environmental equity.” Bill Clinton took up the mantle when he assumed the presidency in 1994 and issued Executive Order #12898 calling for the federal government to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” Clinton’s order created the Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice to coordinate and oversee implementation of the rule across different federal agencies, and spawned the Environmental Justice Small Grants Program, which has awarded upwards of $24 million since then in funding to more than 1,400 community-based and tribal organizations working in communities facing environmental justice problems.

But that all is likely to change now that Donald Trump has proposed slashing the EPA’s overall budget by $2 billion and cutting funding for environmental justice programs specifically by 78 percent, from $6.7 million to just $1.5 million. “These cuts are a direct attack on low-income communities and communities of color everywhere who are on the front lines of toxic pollution,” says NRDC’s environmental justice head Al Huang.

CONTACTS: EPA Environmental Justice, www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice; NRDC, www.nrdc.org.

EarthTalk® is produced by Roddy Scheer & Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of the nonprofit Earth Action Network. To donate, visit www.earthtalk.org. Send questions to: [email protected].

EarthTalk: What can I do to boost fuel efficiency and help my car run better on my upcoming summer road trip?

Dear EarthTalk: Summer is near and I am planning a big road trip. Do you have any tips for boosting my car’s fuel efficiency on long, hot drives? -- Esther McCoy, Burlington, VT

Ah, the summer road trip, that classic American experience. But long drives through steamy weather can burn through a lot of gas and cause untold wear and tear on your car’s engine and systems while putting you at risk for overheating. Doubling down on tactics to help your car run better will not only improve fuel efficiency, but could also help you avoid spending a large chunk of your vacation time in the breakdown lane waiting for a tow.

According to the American Automobile Association (AAA), there are lots of ways to conserve fuel on hot weather road trips that also will help prolong the life of your car. “In summer, drive during cooler parts of the day,” reports the group. “Cooler, denser air can boost power and mileage.”

While it may seem counter intuitive, using your car’s air conditioning is actually a smart idea in hot weather. “Today’s air conditioners create less drag on the engine than driving with the windows open,” says AAA. Meanwhile, if you have a hybrid, pre-cool it before you get in so it can devote more electricity to driving when you are out on the road. But don’t warm-up (or pre-cool) a conventional car, as the extra idling doesn’t do the car any good and just wastes fuel and creates extra heat. Another key tip for hot weather driving is to park in the shade when you can.

The Green Car Reports website suggests utilizing cruise control and overdrive features on cars that offer them on long summer roads trips; these features help normalize the energy demands of the engine which in turn helps conserve fuel.

According to AA1car.com, a leading online information resource on auto repair and maintenance, placing a sunshade under the windshield and cracking the windows when parked can help keep the interior cool between drives. This can also “lighten the cooling load on the air conditioner when the vehicle is first started.” The website also reports that changing old dirty motor oil with a fresh higher viscosity one will help keep your car’s engine lubricated and running smoothly on those summer road trips.

“For example, you might want to change from 5W-30 to 10W-30, 10W-40 or 20W-30 for hot weather driving,” reports AA1car.com. “Synthetic motor oils are even better for high temperature protection.”

Of course, some fuel saving tips apply any time of year. For instance, jackrabbit starts are a big no-no; drivers should always try to accelerate gradually. Taking your foot off the gas as early as possible when approaching a red light is another way to save gas. Keeping filters clean, maintaining recommended tire pressure and driving at the speed limit are additional ways to conserve fuel, reduce emissions and treat your ride nicely.

Summertime road trips can also be hard on drivers and passengers, so pack plenty of sunscreen — especially if you plan to have the windows open (or top down)—and bring along a cooler with healthy drinks so everyone can stay hydrated.

CONTACTS: AAA, www.aaa.com; Green Car Reports, www.greencarreports.com;AA1car.com, www.aa1car.com.

EarthTalk® is produced by Doug Moss & Roddy Scheer and is a registered trademark of Earth Action Network Inc. View past columns at: www.earthtalk.org. Or e-mail us your question: [email protected].

EarthTalk: Microbeads and Marine Pollution

Products like facial scrubs, soaps and toothpaste contain thousands of polyethylene and polypropylene microbeads, ranging from 50-500 microns (or ½ mm) in diameter. Credit: 5 Gyres Institute.

Dear EarthTalk: What on Earth are plastic “microbeads” and how are they threatening the Great Lakes? -- Billy Alexander, Macon, GA

Can brushing your teeth or using an exfoliating face or body wash be an act of pollution? Perhaps so, because over 1,000 personal care products contain tiny plastic “microbeads,” each about a half millimeter in diameter. The Los Angeles-based 5 Gyres Institute, which works to end plastic pollution in the world’s oceans, found about 360,000 of these plastic beads in one tube of Neutrogena Deep Clean face wash. Hardly visible to the naked eye, these tiny objects flow straight from bathroom drains into sewer systems.

In July 2012, 5 Gyres went on an expedition with researchers from the State University of New York (SUNY) at Fredonia to determine the micro-plastic pollution of the Great Lakes Region. Data from this study, which was published in the December 2013 edition of the peer-reviewed Marine Pollution Bulletin, revealed an average of 43,000 plastic microparticles per square kilometer in the Great Lakes. The highest concentrations were observed in Lake Erie, and accounted for about 90 percent of the total plastics found.

“We found high concentrations of micro-plastics, more than most ocean samples collected worldwide,” said Marcus Eriksen, the study’s lead author and co-director of the 5 Gyres Institute. “These were of similar size, shape, texture and composition to plastic microbeads found in many consumer products used as exfoliants, giving us circumstantial evidence that these products, designed to be washed down the drain, are not adequately being captured by sewage treatment.”

Sewage treatment facilities are not designed to capture tiny microbeads, and during rainy days sewage can overflow into waterways. Once they enter waterways, they move into fish, which confuse them for food, then into those who eat the fish, including wildlife and humans.

“People simply don’t like washing their face with plastic, and the fact that it’s designed to go straight into the environment makes microbeads a particularly egregious source of plastic pollution,” says Stiv Wilson, Policy Director at 5 Gyres. “These beads are similar in size to fish eggs and can absorb and concentrate toxins found in the aquatic environment, making them an ecosystem wide threat to the food chain.”

Once they determined the scale of plastic microbead pollution in the Great Lakes region, the 5 Gyres Institute launched a campaign asking personal care product manufacturers to remove plastic microbeads from their products. The response has been very positive: Unilever said that it would complete a global phase out of plastic scrub beads from personal care products in 2015; Procter & Gamble said that all of its products will be free of microplastics in 2017; Johnson & Johnson, the maker of Neutrogena facial products, has already begun the phase out of polyethylene microbeads in its personal care products and has stopped developing new
products containing plastic microbeads; and L’Oreal has decided not to develop any new products with microplastic-pearls and is also working on a substitute for these exfoliating agents in existing product formulas.

You can determine if there are microbeads in your personal care products by checking the ingredients for polyethylene or polypropylene, or by using the 5 Gyres Institute app, Beat the Microbead, which scans the barcode of products and informs you whether or not they contain plastic microbeads and if the manufacturer has agreed to remove them.

CONTACTS: 5 Gyres Institute, www.5gyres.org

EarthTalk® is produced by Doug Moss and Roddy Scheer and is a registered trademark of Earth Action Network Inc. View past columns at: www.earthtalk.org. Or e-mail us your question: [email protected].

EarthTalk: Is a Smart Thermostat Worth the Investment?

Dear EarthTalk: Will I really be able to save money and energy in the long run by shelling out hundreds of dollars now for a so-called “smart” thermostat?-- Bill Cone, Aptos, CA

Spending $200 or more to replace that older, still functioning thermostat with a new whiz-bang “smart” variety might seem like a waste of money, but it can be one of the best small investments a homeowner can make, given the potential for energy and cost savings down the line.

The coolest of the bunch of new smart thermostats, the Nest, was created by former Apple employees who had been instrumental in designing the original iPod and iPhone years earlier. This simple looking round thermostat is reminiscent of old-school thermostats that one would manually adjust by turning the temperature dial. But the auto-awake feature that turns on the bright blue digital display when someone walks nearby gives the Nest away as an ultra-modern piece of high tech gadgetry.

The Nest’s software “learns” the habits in a given space by logging when inhabitants tend to be home and awake and noting when they tend to turn up or down the heat—and then sets a heating/cooling schedule accordingly. Owners can also program the Nest, which connects to the Internet via Wi-Fi, to heat up or cool down the house at a set schedule or go into “away” mode from any web browser or smart phone.

While the Nest is likely the best known smart thermostat available—especially since Google acquired the company behind it in early 2014—several other manufacturers (including Honeywell, ecobee, Hunter, Radio Thermostat, Trane and Lux) have Wi-Fi-enabled smart thermostats available now as well.

While only some of them have the auto-sensing and “learning” capabilities of the Nest, those without that feature also cost less. And merely programming in a weekly schedule to any smart thermostat will be the main source of cost and energy savings. People who were diligent about turning their old thermostats up and down throughout the day might not see any substantial savings with a smart thermostat, but most of us aren’t so diligent—especially when it comes to turning the heat down at night when we are sleeping.

Many smart thermostat owners report savings of between $10 and $30 per month on their heating/cooling bills—and research has shown that such an upgrade can save upwards of 10 percent of the total energy consumed by a given household. Smart thermostats range in price from $50 to $250, so upgrading could pay for itself within a year or two at most, with long-term savings racking up month-by-month after that.

Many utilities now offer free or discounted smart thermostats to customers. Getting in on such a program is a great way to reduce energy costs without the up-front expense of installing a smart thermostat independently. According to the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE), incentives to install smart thermostats are available through utilities in 45 states. New York’s Con Edison, California’s PG&E and Texas’ CPS Energy are just a few of the larger utilities offering such incentives.

Those that do upgrade certainly won’t be alone. Navigant Research reports that the number of smart thermostats in operation around the world will jump from 1.4 million currently installed to some 32 million by 2020. These kinds of numbers will help utilities meet or exceed energy efficiency goals regardless of other upgrades on the power plant side of their businesses. Likewise, the efficiency boost also can play a key role in reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and our emissions of greenhouse gases.

CONTACTS: Nest, www.nest.com; DSIRE, www.dsireusa.org; Navigant, www.navigantresearch.com.

EarthTalk®is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: [email protected].

EarthTalk: Essential Oils Not As Light on the Environment As Marketed

Dear EarthTalk: What’s the skinny on essential oils? I love them, but a friend told me they are no good for the environment. -- Mary M., via e-mail

Essential oils are more popular than ever for medicinal and therapeutic purposes as well as in fragrances and flavorings for food and drinks. Typically produced by harvesting and distilling large amounts of various types of plant matter, essential oils are in many cases all-natural and can take the place of synthetic chemicals in many consumer applications. But some wonder whether our fascination with essential oils is so good for the planet, now that their popularity has turned them into big business.

“It often takes hundreds of pounds of plant material to make one pound of essential oil,” reports aromatherapist and author Mindy Green of GreenScentsations.com. She adds that it takes 50-60 pounds of eucalyptus to produce one pound of eucalyptus oil, 200-250 pounds of lavender for one pound of lavender oil, 2,000 pounds of cypress for a pound of cypress oil and as many as 10,000 pounds of rose blossoms for one pound of rose oil. Production of these source crops takes place all over the world and is often organized by large multinational corporations with little regard for local economies or ecosystems.

“Growing the substantial quantities of plant material needed to produce essential oils results in a monoculture style of farming, with large swaths of land dedicated to a single species,” says Green. “These systems are most efficiently managed by intense mechanization, and irrigation is frequently used for optimal oil production of the plants.”

“As global citizens we have not learned how to equitably distribute vital resources like food, and water resources are trending toward a crisis of the future,” adds Green, “so there are deep ethical concerns about devoting croplands to essential oils destined for use in candles, bath oils, perfumes, or lavish massage and spa purposes.” Green also warns that many essential oils are not produced from sustainable sources. “Some species are at risk, particularly those occupying marginal habitats such as dwindling tropical forests,” she reports, adding that the poverty-stricken in developing countries will harvest and sell whatever they can, in order to put food on their own tables.

Cropwatch, a non-profit that keeps tabs on the natural aromatics industry, maintains a list of wild species threatened by the fast-growing essential oil trade. Of particular concern are essential oils derived from rosewood, sandalwood, amyris, thyme, cedarwood, jatamansi, gentian, wormwood and cinnamon, among others, as they may well be derived from threatened and illegally harvested wild plant stocks.

Also, some essential oils must be treated as hazardous if spilled and should be kept out of sewers and local waterways. Mountain Rose Herbs, a leading retailer of essential oils, reports that if its tea tree oil spills, it should be absorbed with inert material and sealed it in a container before disposal at a hazardous waste collection site. Such information is included on the company’s Material Safety Data Sheet for every essential oil and includes information about flammability and chemical composition. Consumers would be well served to check the MSDS for any essential oils they might like—Mountain Rose will supply them to customers by request—to make sure they are using (and disposing of) them correctly.

CONTACTS: Green Scentsations, www.greenscentsations.com, Cropwatch, www.cropwatch.org, Mountain Rose Herbs, www.mountainroseherbs.com.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: [email protected]. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

-photo credit: JustABoy, flickr

EarthTalk: Rise in Early Puberty May Have Environmental Roots

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that American kids are going through puberty earlier today than in previous generations, and are there any environmental causes for this? -- Paul Chase, Troy, NY

Research indicates that indeed Americans girls and boys are going through puberty earlier than ever, though the reasons are unclear. Many believe our widespread exposure to synthetic chemicals is at least partly to blame, but it’s hard to pinpoint exactly why our bodies react in certain ways to various environmental stimuli.

Researchers first noticed the earlier onset of puberty in the late 1990s, and recent studies confirm the mysterious public health trend. A 2012 analysis by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that American girls exposed to high levels of common household chemicals had their first periods seven months earlier than those with lower exposures. “This study adds to the growing body of scientific research that exposure to environmental chemicals may be associated with early puberty,” says Danielle Buttke, a researcher at CDC and lead author on the study. Buttke found that the age when a girl has her first period (menarche) has fallen over the past century from an average of age 16-17 to age 12-13.

Earlier puberty isn’t just for girls. In 2012 researchers from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) surveyed data on 4,100 boys from 144 pediatric practices in 41 states and found a similar trend: American boys are reaching puberty six months to two years earlier than just a few decades ago. African-American boys are starting the earliest, at around age nine, while Caucasian and Hispanics start on average at age 10.

One culprit could be rising obesity rates. Researchers believe that puberty (at least for girls) may be triggered in part by the body building up sufficient reserves of fat tissue, signaling fitness for reproductive capabilities. Clinical pediatrician Robert Lustig of Benioff Children’s Hospital in San Francisco reports that obese girls have higher levels of the hormone leptin which in and of itself can lead to early puberty while setting off a domino effect of more weight gain and faster overall physical maturation.

Some evidence suggests that “hormone disrupting” chemicals may also trigger changes prematurely. Public health advocates have been concerned, for example, about the omnipresence of Bisphenol A (BPA), a synthetic chemical in some plastics, because it is thought to “mimic” estrogen in the body and in some cases contribute to or cause health problems. BPA is being phased out of many consumer items, but hundreds of other potentially hormone disrupting chemicals are still in widespread use.

Dichlorobenzene, used in some mothballs and in solid blocks of toilet bowl and air deodorizers, is also a key suspect in triggering early puberty. It is already classified as a possible human carcinogen, and studies have linked prenatal exposure to it with low birth weight in boys. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently made screening Dichlorobenzene for hormonal effects a priority.

Parents can take steps to reduce our kids’ so-called “toxic burden”: Buy organic produce, hormone- and antibiotic-free meat and dairy and all-natural household cleaners. And keep the dialogue going about healthy food and lifestyle habits so kids learn how to make responsible, healthy choices for themselves.

CONTACTS: CDC, www.cdc.gov; AAP, www.aap.org.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: [email protected]. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

-photo credit: Christiana Care, Flickr

 

EarthTalk: Avoiding Environmental Cancer Triggers

Dear EarthTalk: I know that some of us are genetically predisposed to get cancer, but what are some ways we can avoid known environmental triggers for it? -- B. Northrup, Westport, MA

Cancer remains the scourge of the American health care system, given that four out of every 10 of us will be diagnosed with one form or another during out lifetime. Some of us are genetically predisposed toward certain types of cancers, but there is much we can do to avoid exposure to carcinogens in our environment.

According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), a non-profit working to protect public health and the environment, a key first step in warding off cancer is lifestyle change—“stopping smoking, reducing drinking, losing weight, exercising and eating right.” The American Cancer Society reports that smoking and poor nutrition each account for about one-third of the 575,000 U.S. cancer deaths each year.

But smoking and obesity are obvious and other cancer triggers aren’t so easily pinpointed. In 2010 the President’s Cancer Panel reported that environmental toxins play a significant and under-recognized role in many cancers, causing “grievous harm” to untold numbers of Americans. And EWG reports that U.S. children are born “pre-polluted” with up to 200 carcinogenic substances already in their bloodstreams.

Given this shocking fact, it may seem futile to try to reduce our bodies’ chemical burden, but it could be a matter of life and death. EWG lists several ways anyone can cut their cancer risk. First up is to filter our tap water, which can include arsenic, chromium and harmful chemicals. Simple carbon filters or pitchers can reduce contaminants, while more costly reverse osmosis filters can filter out arsenic or chromium.

The foods we choose also play a role in whether or not we get cancer. Eating lots of fruits and vegetables is healthy, but not if they are laden with pesticides. Going organic when possible is the best way to reduce pesticide exposure. And when organic foods aren’t available, stick with produce least likely to contain pesticides (check out EWG’s “Clean 15” list of conventional crops containing little if any pesticide residue). EWG also suggests cutting down on high-fat meats and dairy products: “Long-lasting cancer-causing pollutants like dioxins and PCBs accumulate in the food chain and concentrate in animal fat.”

Eliminating stain- and grease-proofing chemicals (Teflon, Scotchgard, etc.) is another way to cut cancer risks. “To avoid them,” says EWG, “skip greasy packaged foods and say no to optional stain treatments in the home.” And steer clear of BPA, a synthetic estrogen found in some plastic water bottles, canned infant formula and canned foods. “To avoid it, eat fewer canned foods, breast feed your baby or use powdered formula, and choose water bottles free of BPA,” reports EWG. Personal care products and cosmetics can also contain carcinogens. EWG’s “Skin Deep” cosmetics database flags particularly worrisome products and green-lights others that are healthy.

Another cancer prevention tip is to seal wooden outdoor decks and playsets—those made before 2005 likely contain lumber “pressure-treated” with carcinogenic arsenic in order to stave off insect infestations. Of course, avoiding too much sun exposure—and wearing high-SPF sunscreen—when using those decks and playsets is another important way to hedge one’s bets against cancer.

CONTACTS: EWG, www.ewg.org; President’s Cancer Panel, http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: [email protected]. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

EarthTalk: Chlorine is in our tap water, but is it okay to drink?

Dear EarthTalk: I was wondering how toxic chlorine is, because my well water was just chlorinated yesterday and today the smell is still strong. I have a 4-year-old daughter and I’m concerned. -- Rose Smith, via e-mail

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), chlorine levels of four parts per million or below in drinking water—whether from a private well or municipal reservoir—are acceptable from a human health standpoint. Inexpensive home drinking water test kits (from $5 on up) that can detect levels of chlorine and other elements in water are widely available from online vendors. Administering the tests is easy and can provide parents with a way to involve kids in science for a practical purpose right at home.

Chlorine was first used in drinking water to reduce waterborne infectious diseases in Jersey City, New Jersey more than a century ago. It was so effective at destroying potentially harmful bacteria and viruses that the practice soon spread far and wide. Today some 98 percent of water treatment facilities in the U.S. use some form of chlorine to clean drinking water supplies. The American Water Works Association (AWWA), a trade group representing water utilities across the country, credits the presence of chlorine in drinking water with a 50 percent increase in life expectancy for Americans over the last century. Indeed, some consider the chlorination of drinking water to be one of history’s greatest public health achievements.

But others aren’t so sure that any chlorine in drinking water should be considered safe. Opponents of chlorination point to studies linking repeated exposure to trace amounts of chlorine in water with higher incidences of bladder, rectal and breast cancers. The problem lies in chlorine’s ability to interact with organic compounds in fresh water to create trihalomethanes (THMs), which when ingested can encourage the growth of free radicals that can destroy or damage vital cells in the body. Besides cancer, exposure to THMs has been linked to other health issues including asthma, eczema, heart disease and higher miscarriage and birth defect rates.

Those with their own private wells who are skittish about chlorine have other options for disinfecting their water. One baby step would be to replace chlorine with chloramine, an ammonia derivative that doesn’t dissipate into the environment as rapidly as chlorine and has a much lower tendency to interact in bad ways with organic compounds in the water. However, traces of chloramine in the water may not be to everyone’s liking either, because it causes rashes after showering in a small percentage of people and can apparently increase lead exposure in older homes as it leaches the heavy metal off old pipes.

Another option, though somewhat costly, would be to purchase a machine to purify the water. Ozonation units, which disinfect by adding ozone molecules to water and leave no residues, start at around $9,000. Another choice would be a UV light treatment machine—at $6,000 or more—which cancels out viruses and bacteria by passing the water through UV light rays. The Clean Water Store is a reputable vendor and good online source for such water treatment equipment.

Perhaps the most sensible and affordable approach is to filter the water at the faucets and taps. Carbon-based tap- or pitcher-mounted filters can work wonders in removing impurities from drinking water. They can even be installed on shower heads for those with sensitive skin.

-photo credit: iStockPhoto

CONTACTS: AWWA, www.awwa.org; The Clean Water Store, www.cleanwaterstore.com.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: [email protected]. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial. 

EarthTalk: How to Avoid Getting Greenwashed

Dear EarthTalk: I hear the term “greenwashing” a lot these days but am still not sure exactly what it means. Can you enlighten? -- Ruth Markell, Indianapolis, IN

In essence, greenwashing involves falsely conveying to consumers that a given product, service, company or institution factors environmental responsibility into its offerings and/or operations. CorpWatch, a non-profit dedicated to keeping tabs on the social responsibility (or lack thereof) of U.S.-based companies, characterizes greenwashing as “the phenomena of socially and environmentally destructive corporations, attempting to preserve and expand their markets or power by posing as friends of the environment.”

One of the groups leading the charge against greenwashing is Greenpeace. “Corporations are falling all over themselves,” reports the group, “to demonstrate that they are environmentally conscious. The average citizen is finding it more and more difficult to tell the difference between those companies genuinely dedicated to making a difference and those that are using a green curtain to conceal dark motives.”

Greenpeace launched its Stop Greenwash campaign in 2009 to call out bad actors and help consumers make better choices. The most common greenwashing strategy, the group says, is when a company touts an environmental program or product while its core business is inherently polluting or unsustainable.

Another involves what Greenpeace calls “ad bluster”: using targeted advertising or public relations to exaggerate a green achievement so as to divert attention from actual environmental problems—or spending more money bragging about green behavior than on actual deeds. In some cases, companies may boast about corporate green commitments while lobbying behind the scenes against environmental laws.

Greenpeace also urges vigilance about green claims that brag about something the law already requires: “For example, if an industry or company has been forced to change a product, clean up its pollution or protect an endangered species, then uses PR campaigns to make such action look proactive or voluntary.”

For consumers, the best way to avoid getting “greenwashed” is to be educated about who is truly green and who is just trying to look that way to make more money. Look beyond advertising claims, read ingredient lists or ask employees about the real skinny on their company’s environmental commitment.

Also, look for labels that show a given offering has been vetted by a reliable third-party. For example, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Certified Organic label can only go on products that meet the federal government’s organic standard. Just because a label says “made with organic ingredients” or “all-natural” does not mean the product qualifies as Certified Organic, so be sure to look beyond the hype.

Even some eco-labels are suspect. If you see one you don’t recognize, look it up on Ecolabel Index, a global directory tracking 400+ different eco-labels in 197 countries across 25 industry sectors. The free online resource provides information on which company or group is behind each certification and whether or not independent third-party assessments are required.

CONTACTS: CorpWatch, www.corpwatch.org; Greenpeace Stop Greenwash, www.stopgreenwash.org; Ecolabel Index, www.ecolabelindex.com.

EarthTalk® is written and edited by Roddy Scheer and Doug Moss and is a registered trademark of E - The Environmental Magazine (www.emagazine.com). Send questions to: [email protected]. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe. Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

-photo credit: iStockPhoto