Green Daily

This or That: Aluminum-framed or steel-framed bicycles?

Ellen Slattery — 2008-05-08T06:00:00 00:00

Aluminum-framed or steel-framed bicycles?

Your four main choices when buying a bike frame are as follows: carbon fiber, titanium, steel, and aluminum.

Now, let's focus on the last two. On the whole, steel bikes are pretty sturdy. They hold up well, and they can be fashioned in part from recycled materials. They're also really durable, and can take a beating.

That said, they're a good investment, because you won't have to buy a new frame as often (unless you're, like, incredibly reckless). And according to The Green Book, when producing a steel frame as opposed to an aluminum frame, 25 kilowatt hours of energy is saved.

The main drawback to steel frames? They're heavy. But unless you're training for the Tour de France or lugging your bike up and down five flights of stairs every day, a slightly heavier frame shouldn't be an issue.

Now onto aluminum frames. Obviously, they're a bit lighter than steel. But in this case, "light" is synonymous with "less durable" and "less well-made." They're also more difficult to repair, which can mean more frames on the landfill, and can only be manufactured from virgin ore, not recycled materials.

If an additional 10 percent of steel-framed bikes were sold each year instead of aluminum-framed bikes, we would save the energy equivalent of a year's worth of gas for 2,400 cars.

Based on use of recycled materials and potential for repair and reuse, steel framed bicycles are a better bet than aluminum ones.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or That: Composting or garbage disposals?

Ellen Slattery — 2008-04-24T06:00:00 00:00

Filed under: This or That

This or That: Composting or garbage disposals?

There's been lots of buzz about garbage disposals lately, and none of it good. Word on the street is that disposals are bad for the environment.

So let's suss this out once and for all.

When you send your food scraps down a garbage disposal, you're sending it either into your septic tank or your city's sewer system. The food can put more pressure on the system (which is not designed to hold this type of waste), making treatment more expensive. Garbage disposals can also "disrupt nutrient balances in water and soil systems, which in turn can harm wildlife," says Thomas Kostigen of The Green Book. And according to Yes! Magazine, a disposal uses two gallons of water per minute, or about 700 gallons per year for the average user.

If you're going to use one, it is recommended that you use cold water. Or, better yet, use a composting system, and follow our handy guide to composting. And composting isn't just for homeowners: if you're an urban dweller or don't own any green space, try an indoor model like this, or make your own. There are tons of benefits to composting: you save energy, water, and landfill space; you help the earth and the ecosystem; you can make your own fertilizer.

And using a garbage disposal? Well, it's easy and convenient, but there aren't any long-term benefits. When in doubt, compost.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or That: Black websites or white ones?

Rigel Gregg — 2008-04-10T06:00:00 00:00

Filed under: Gadgets and Tech, This or That

Black websites or white ones?

Which uses less energy? The answer depends on what kind of monitor you're using. Modern LCD screen? These days they're pretty common, which is a good thing because the difference in energy used to display a mostly white website and mostly black website is practically nil when using LCD technology -- not to mention LCDs take significantly less energy to run overall when compared to other monitor types. Older, larger, cathode ray tube monitors are a whole other story though. Not only do they take way more energy to run period (about 5 times as much as an LCD screen) but displaying a white website makes the energy consumption jump by as much as 10 watts. That's especially not cool considering the majority of websites out there are mostly white (including us!).

Via Smart Planet

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or that: Contacts or glasses?

Ellen Slattery — 2008-04-03T16:00:00 00:00

Filed under: This or That

Contacts or eyeglasses?
Eyeglasses have definitely gotten greener in the past few years. From bamboo specs to better recycling programs, you can now don glasses - and switch up your pairs - sans guilt.

When you've retired a pair, donate them to The Gift of Sight, Unite for Sight, or your local Lions Club (check here for club locales and mailing options). So, essentially, there's no excuse to not recycle your glasses! (At the very least, do like designer Stuart Haygarth and collect old specs to turn them into glittering masterpieces).

Unfortunately, unlike eyeglasses, contact lenses obviously require more maintenance - and that means more potential waste. From lens solution to protective cases, these products eventually get tossed, and many of them can't be easily recycled.

So what to do if you're a contact lens wearer? Well, as a long-wearing lens user, you're saving a ton of packaging and lenses from being thrown away, but you then must buy disinfectants and enzyme solutions. As a disposable lens wearer, you don't have to buy the solutions, but you're throwing away an awful lot of lenses. The good news: many of the saline, disinfectant, and enzyme solutions come in #2 plastic, which is generally recyclable.

Bottom line? In this case, if you can stand it, go with the glasses: they last longer, they can often be repaired and reused if broken, and there are tons of recycling programs available to cut down on waste.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or That: Traditional rectangular homes or newfangled round designs?

Rigel Gregg — 2008-03-27T06:00:00 00:00

Filed under: Home, This or That

Traditional rectangular homes or newfangled round designs?

In this case it seems that newfangled is the way to go, or at least that's what architect Eli Attia says. His latest eco-friendly and energy efficient home design, called "Roundhouse," starts from a prefabricated round shell made of recycled steel and glass. The round shape, versus the old-fashioned rectangular one, is said to offer as much as 150% more floor space inside while minimizing how far pipes and wires have to run (they can all come up through the center of the structure) to reach all the rooms of the house.

There are still some kinks to be worked out (the Roundhouse has a flat roof design, which is prone to leaks) and many of the features (like a garden on the roof) can easily be done on any shape of building.

I'm personally thinking that there are plenty of ways to make a regular square house green, even if you're building from the ground up. It doesn't have to be round to be made of recycled materials, or to be rigged to reuse rainwater, or to be solar powered... I guess I'm just a square.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or That: Styrofoam or paper cups?

Rigel Gregg — 2008-03-13T06:00:00 00:00

Filed under: This or That

Styrofoam or paper cups?

When it comes to which one is more environmentally friendly the answer might surprise you. Although the general consensus has been that paper is greener because it biodegrades faster, the truth is that it doesn't really -- not in a landfill anyway (where nothing biodegrades because of the lack of oxygen). And if the biodegradeable advantage is taken out of the equation then styrofoam suddenly takes the lead -- paper cups use more raw materials and energy to produce, use up precious wood pulp, and cost more.

So it sounds like it unless you're throwing your paper cups out into the backyard compost pile when you're done with them (which isn't practical) or recycling them somehow they really aren't such a green deal after all.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or That: LCD or Plasma?

Bryan Kershnar — 2008-03-06T06:00:00 00:00

Filed under: This or That

LCD or Plasma?

No, this isn't a post about resolution, contrast levels or burn-in. There are plenty of AV sites where fanboys/girls will gladly harangue you on why their brand pwns and most accurately reproduces the color of Yoda's skin tone. This is about something way sexier - that's right...energy efficiency. Because there's nothing hotter than spending a Saturday night calculating how many kWhs and $s you're saving by owning an energy efficient TV, or any other Energy Star appliance for that matter.

So, which TV technology is greener? In general, LCDs use less energy than plasmas. This is because LCDs use florescent backlighting to produce images, while plasmas use electricity to light each and every pixel you see on a screen - even the dark ones. Over the years, Plasma technology has significantly improved their energy consumption. Leading the way is Panasonic, who recently unveiled a more energy efficient prototype plasma display at CES 2008. Their new technology uses new phosphors and cell design technology which boasts doubled energy efficiency, which will put them on par with LCD technology. For now though, plasmas consume about 33% more power when compared to its LCD equivalent. In the interest of full disclosure - I personally own a 42-inch plasma display - but it's a display that doesn't have speakers which cuts down on power consumption considerably and is pretty much on par with an LCD TV (and more importantly, Yoda looks better on my screen than yours!).

The next big display technology is OLED or Organic Light Emitting Diode. The new Sony XEL-1 is the first production model; it features a 3mm thick panel and a 1,000,000:1 contrast ratio, albeit with an 11-inch screen and $2,500 price tag. According to the Sony Style site, "OLED technology delivers a more efficient means of utilizing light, which is generated by the organic material itself instead of an always on backlight; also, when elements are in their "off" state, they consume no power whatsoever." To put this in perspective: electricity consumed by a traditional CRT TV can be halved with LCD TVs, and that number drops another 40% with an OLED. For that price and size though, I'd probably just buy an LCD for now and offset my emissions by purchasing some CO2 credits.

If you're in the market for a new TV, make sure you're buying a display you'll be happy looking at for as long as possible (buying a new set every few years is the opposite of good). And while you're at it, don't forget to take a peek at the spec sheet to evaluate power consumption. The planet and your wallet will thank you.

Sources:

Engadget
AVS Forum

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or That: America's Greenest Car, is it the Toyota Prius or the Honda Civic GX?

Rigel Gregg — 2008-02-28T06:00:00 00:00

Filed under: Cars and Transportation, This or That

America's Greenest Car: Is it the Honda Civic GX or the Toyota Prius?America's Greenest Car: Is it the Honda Civic GX or the Toyota Prius?

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or That: Are cut flowers greener if grown locally or overseas?

Rigel Gregg — 2008-02-14T06:00:00 00:00

Filed under: Shopping Guide, This or That

Cut flowers: Greener if grown locally or overseas?

At this time of year, for many people in the United States, the surprising answer is that flowers grown overseas most likely have a smaller carbon footprint than those grown locally. The problem is that during the winter months it's too cold for flowers to grow naturally pretty much everywhere but in the most southern of the U.S. states, so any local options you may find were probably grown in heated greenhouses or indoor flower farms with grow lights. Flowers grown in the natural outdoor climate overseas in places like Africa generally use less energy overall, even taking into consideration the long-distance transport.

I've always loved having fresh blooms around in winter, but of course cut flowers as a general rule are hardly "environmentally friendly." Consider giving something else entirely to your sweetie this year, like a potted plant (something that can go outside in the yard come spring) or better yet a donation in their name to a favorite green charity.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or That: Should you cook with metal or glass baking pans?

Rigel Gregg — 2008-02-07T06:00:00 00:00

Filed under: Home, This or That

Should you cook with metal or glass baking pans?

Ceramic or glass baking pans are the way to go. Compared to metal, glass and ceramic retain heat much better and so use less energy to cook your food. Many recipes have separate baking instructions that suggest either lowering the oven temperature about 25 degrees or shortening the bake time when using glass or ceramic. Plus, I've always preferred glass and ceramic over metal because they're easier to clean -- no worries about scratching too hard and damaging a non-stick coating.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or That: Wild or farmed fish?

Bryan Kershnar — 2008-01-24T06:00:00 00:00

Filed under: Food, This or That

Wild or farmed fish?
Fish are a terrific source of lean, low-calorie protein and omega-3 fatty acids. According to the American Heart Association, foods high in omega-3 are beneficial to your health and reduce the risk of heart disease. With this in mind, there are some potential health and sustainability issues that should be considered before you order that second plate of fish tacos.

Sustainably caught wild fish would seem to be the best and tastiest choice, but increased levels of mercury and other toxins in our waterways makes eating some fish risky, especially for women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant and young kids. However, fish that are low in mercury can be poor choices for other reasons, most notably because some species have been fished to the brink of extinction.

According to prominent independent reports, overfishing and destructive fishing practices are depleting fish populations and destroying marine ecosystems. Because of the increased global demand for seafood it seems that aquaculture, or fish farming seems to make a lot of sense. Though, like any farming practice, some methods are better for the environment than others. Some fish farms operate much like factory cattle farms; they produce a lot of waste and have increased outbreaks of disease. To control this, fish farms sometimes use antibiotics and other drugs which can increase the numbers of disease-resistant organisms in the surrounding environment. And if farmed fish escape their pens, they can take over habitat from wild fish in the area.

On the whole, tilapia, catfish and mussels are almost entirely farm raised and are a pretty safe bet. Some other popular fish that are farmed, like salmon and tuna, are carnivores that require feed that is made from wild fish which creates an increased demand that wild fisheries can't meet and may have increased levels of PCB's. Personally, I can't tell much difference between wild versus farmed in taste, but some pros say that wild fish benefit from a more varied diet and increased natural exercise. If you're concerned about the growing conditions of farmed fish, much like chicken and cattle, then I guess wild fish would be more "free-range-like."

If you include a lot of fish and seafood in your diet and you're concerned about your health and how your choices impact our shared resources, check out the links below.

Links:

http://www.nrdc.org/health/effects/mercury/guide.asp

http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_regional.aspx?region_id=0

This post comes from guest contributor Bryan Kershnar, who spent five years writing about critical environmental issues at a national environmental organization. He spent his college years in Colorado where he climbed rocks, photographed our national parks, and occasionally went to class. Bryan currently resides in Brooklyn, NY with his fiancé, and canine companion, Poncho.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or That: Tin cans or food pouches?

Rigel Gregg — 2008-01-17T06:00:00 00:00

Filed under: Food, Shopping Guide, This or That

Tin cans or food pouches?

At first blush food pouches appear to be the green leader of this pair, but looks are very much deceiving. Although food pouches, most commonly used for tuna and pet food products (but rapidly making their way into other areas), are easier to manufacture and take up less space and weight than cans, they're also nearly impossible to recycle. Tin cans, however, are not only easily recycled but are often made up of recycled steel to begin with. And taste tests show tuna in a can usually comes out better than tuna in a pouch.

So is the end result of non-recyclable waste worth the immediate result of energy and space saved by pouches? I say no. The whole reason we're in this global predicament is because we were going for the immediate fix and ignoring the end results. Canned goods are the way to go.

[via Environmental Leader]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or That: Brown or white rice

Patricia Mayville-Cox — 2008-01-10T06:00:00 00:00

Filed under: This or That

Brown or white rice?

We know that brown rice is better for your health, but which is better for the earth?

Michael Bloch of Green Living Tips breaks it down for us.

White rice is processed much more than brown rice. In addition to the primary processing that brown rice undergoes, the germ and bran is removed and the final white grain is polished using glucose or talc. Then vitamins are added (back in, in some cases, since the prior step removes a lot of them). All of this processing consumes energy, making white rice the clear loser when it comes to the environment.

So brown rice it is! The winner for your health and the earth.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or That: Which is greener, a cordless or a corded phone?

Rigel Gregg — 2008-01-03T06:00:00 00:00

Filed under: Gadgets and Tech, Home, Tips, This or That

Which is greener, a cordless or a corded phone?
Corded phones win, hands down. Cordless phones are energy vampires, drawing power 24 hours a day, but corded phones use only the smallest bit of electricity that they get through the phone line. And besides the obvious energy savings, corded phones are also great because they aren't affected by power outages and as far as home decor goes: retro is in!

But if you just can't bring yourself to go completely "corded," at least consider switching some of the phones in your home -- especially the less frequently used ones. The savings will add up, and maybe you'll get more used to the idea than you thought!

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or That? Fragrance or unscented?

Patricia Mayville-Cox — 2007-12-27T11:33:00 00:00

Filed under: This or That

Fragrance or unscented?

At first glance, one would think, "Unscented!" Hey, the less chemicals, the better, right?

Well, unfortunately, it's a bit trickier than that. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), fragrances are indeed added chemicals and manufacturers are not required to list the chemicals that make up the fragrance (as not to give away the trade secrets). According to EWG, phthalates are often found in "fragrance," and are known to be hormone disruptors.

However, choosing products that are "Unscented" doesn't quite solve the dilemma either. "Unscented" may mean that the manufacturer has simply added a fragrance to mask the original odor.

The best choice is to choose "Fragrance-Free."

For more information on fragrance, see the EWG's Enviroblog or search their cosmetics database for "Fragrance-Free" products.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or That: Which is worse for the environment, eating beef or driving a car?

Rigel Gregg — 2007-12-20T06:00:00 00:00

Filed under: This or That

Which is worse for the environment, eating beef or driving a car?
Surprisingly, it's eating beef. A new study coming out of Japan shows that the environmental impact of making just 2 pounds of ground beef is bigger than that of driving an average car for 3 hours. A few burgers doesn't seem to compare to the fumes put out by a vehicle on the highway for hours on end, but when you consider all the steps of raising and managing cattle along with raising and transporting their feed it's a little less surprising. And the study notes that the impact of beef is actually much worse than they are officially stating because they didn't take into consideration the impact of farm equipment and transporting the meat after slaughter. But then, as Brian points out, it doesn't sound like they looked at all the steps of driving a car either (refining and transporting fuel).

I believe it, kinda, although it does sound like maybe they need to try again and be a little more specific in what data they're comparing to what.

[Via That's Fit]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or That: Online shopping or in-person shopping?

Patricia Mayville-Cox — 2007-12-13T06:00:00 00:00

Filed under: This or That

Which is greener? Online shopping or shopping in person?

Shopping in person at the stores (could we call this offline shopping?) involves quite a few steps: getting in your car, driving there, picking up your purchase and driving home. On top of that, the store had to ship all of the goods to the store, maintain the store and employees had to travel to and man the store so you could come in make your purchase. Sounds like a big energy waster to me!

In contrast, shopping online seems like a more stream-lined version, at least from the consumer's perspective. You sit on your couch and stuff magically appears at your door. Of course, there is more to it than that, including all of that shipping packaging ... ugh. Doesn't your heart just sink when you see one book arrive in a box filled with bubble wrap? Why?

So, which is greener, online shopping or in-person shopping?

The answer is: The jury is out on this one.

There are a lack of studies on the overall online shopping life cycle, which is the the total net effect on the environment as products make their way from raw material all the way to the landfill, which is where most eventually wind up. So what can a concerned consumer do?

For in-person shopping:

Don't be a mall rat. If you do your shopping in person, strive for max efficiency. Do as many errands and make as many purchases as you can in one trip, rather than heading to the stores every night and picking up one thing each time.
Bring your reusable bags.
Shop locally if you can. Check out that local gift shop, get to know the small business owners in your town. You'll be helping to keep them in business, making local shopping for everyone easier and reducing the amount of miles driven to the mega-malls.

For online shopping:

Generally, the more items you purchase at one time, the more efficient the packaging. As I mentioned, one thin book will take up a whole box just as much as three. This isn't to say you should buy three books, but try to streamline your online purchases as well as your in-person ones.
Also, pick up the phone and make your purchase that way, making a special request for minimal packaging.

And of course, ask yourself this question before you buy, whether online or offline ... Do I really need this?

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or That: Coffee vs. Tea

Lara Gibson — 2007-12-10T06:00:00 00:00

Filed under: Food, This or That

Which is "greener," coffee or tea?

Coffee is the world's most traded beverage (it is actually the most traded commodity after oil) but tea is the world's most consumed beverage. Americans generally prefer coffee but new and different tea varieties like green and white teas are becoming popular. But is one more environmentally friendly than the other?

Both coffee and tea can carry the fair trade seal (which ensures that those growing your beverage have safe working conditions and competitive wages). Both coffee and tea can also carry the organic seal (so you know that your drink wasn't grown with the use of synthetic pesticides and fertilizers).

But cultivation practices for both coffee and tea aren't entirely good for the environment. Many environmentalists argue that today's coffee growing technique (sun cultivation, in which coffee beans are grown in full sunlight rather than shaded areas) contribute to deforestation and require the use of more pesticides. Clear-cut coffee plantations also destroy many natural habitats. Tea, on the other hand, can contribute to land degradation and surface water pollution (when harsh pesticides are used).

In the end, coffee and tea are pretty evenly matched. But despite cultivation drawbacks, coffee and tea offer a variety of health benefits. Coffee lowers the risk of diabetes and protects against Parkinson's syndrome. Tea can lower blood pressure, and prevent kidney stones and Alzheimer's disease.

The choice is really just a matter of taste. So...which do you prefer, coffee or tea?

Sources:
"Coffee. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee

"Coffee vs. Tea. http://www.thatsfit.com/2007/03/22/coffee-vs-tea-which-one-are-you-drinking/

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or That: Who's greener, Mac owners or PC owners?

Rigel Gregg — 2007-12-06T06:00:00 00:00

Filed under: Gadgets and Tech, This or That

Who's greener, Mac owners or PC owners?

A recent study done by Forrester Research took a look at consumers today and found that 12% of U.S. adults can be classified as "bright green" (i.e. are actually putting their money where their mouths are when it comes to being more environmentally conscious) with a whopping 41% more coming up right behind them in the regular "green" group.

And as far as major computer brands go, the study found Apple's customer base to be the greenest, with 17% of Mac buyers falling into the "bright green" category. The next runner up? HP Compaq, at 13%.

[Via Gizmodo]

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

This or That: Digital cameras or film?

Patricia Mayville-Cox — 2007-11-29T06:00:00 00:00

Filed under: This or That

Which is better for the environment, digital or film cameras?

Most of us already use digital cameras, but did you know that your switch to digital was also a really good thing for the planet?

According to Leo Hickman of The Guardian, historically, camera film has been a huge source of pollution, from both the manufacturing and the processing. Another reason to love your digital camera is that far less cow hide and bones are needed, good news for cows. Also, the silver halide crystals in film are no treat either.

Hickman also addresses the downsides to digital film. First up, they require a computer and plenty of space to store all of those images. They eat more energy than their film counterparts, a problem which can be partially alleviated with rechargeable batteries. Also, the camera industry wants to keep us buying new digital cameras, but Guardian photographer Dan Chung says that no non-professional photographer needs more than six mega pixels.

One thing that I have found with our digital is that I take a lot more pictures, like ten shots for every one I used to take on film. I still like to print them and make albums, and it takes a load of time to go through them all and print only the ones I want, to make sure I don't waste money and paper on printing them all and then going through them, (which is actually much easier).

So enjoy your digital camera! But don't upgrade too often and go easy on the printing!

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments