January 2, 2007
The Energy Challenge Wal-Mart Puts Some Muscle Behind Power-Sipping Bulbs
By MICHAEL BARBARO
As a way to cut energy use, it could not be simpler. Unscrew a light bulb that uses a lot of electricity and replace it with one that uses much less.
While it sounds like a promising idea, it turns out that the long-lasting, swirl-shaped light bulbs known as compact fluorescent lamps are to the nation’s energy problem what vegetables are to its obesity epidemic: a near perfect answer, if only Americans could be persuaded to swallow them.
But now Wal-Mart Stores, the giant discount retailer, is determined to push them into at least 100 million homes. And its ambitions extend even further, spurred by a sweeping commitment from its chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., to reduce energy use across the country, a move that could also improve Wal-Mart’s appeal to the more affluent consumers the chain must win over to keep growing in the United States.
“The environment,†Mr. Scott said, “is begging for the Wal-Mart business model.â€
It is the environmental movement’s dream: America’s biggest company, legendary for its salesmanship and influence with suppliers, encouraging 200 million shoppers to save energy.
For all its power in retailing, though, Wal-Mart is meeting plenty of resistance — from light-bulb makers, competitors and consumers. To help turn the tide, it is even reaching out to unlikely partners like Google, Home Depot and Hollywood.
A compact fluorescent has clear advantages over the widely used incandescent light — it uses 75 percent less electricity, lasts 10 times longer, produces 450 pounds fewer greenhouse gases from power plants and saves consumers $30 over the life of each bulb. But it is eight times as expensive as a traditional bulb, gives off a harsher light and has a peculiar appearance.
As a result, the bulbs have languished on store shelves for a quarter century; only 6 percent of households use the bulbs today.
Which is what makes Wal-Mart’s goal so wildly ambitious. If it succeeds in selling 100 million compact fluorescent bulbs a year by 2008, total sales of the bulbs in the United States would increase by 50 percent, saving Americans $3 billion in electricity costs and avoiding the need to build additional power plants for the equivalent of 450,000 new homes.
That would send shockwaves — some intended, others not — across the lighting industry. Because compact fluorescent bulbs last up to eight years, giant manufacturers, like General Electric and Osram Sylvania, would sell far fewer lights. Because the bulbs are made in Asia, some American manufacturing jobs could be lost. And because the bulbs contain mercury, there is a risk of pollution when millions of consumers throw them away.
Michael B. Petras, vice president of lighting at G.E., concedes that “the economics are better with incandescent bulbs.â€
All that has only spurred Wal-Mart to redouble its efforts — and, in typical fashion, it is asking those who may be hurt by the change to help achieve it.
During an extraordinary meeting in Las Vegas in early October, competing bulb makers, academics, environmentalists and government officials met to ponder, at times uncomfortably, how Wal-Mart could sell more of the fluorescent lights.
The proposals discussed at what Wal-Mart dubbed the “light bulb summit†ranged from the practical (advertise the bulbs on the back of a Coke 12-pack) to the quixotic (create a tax on incandescent bulbs to make them more expensive).
Selling 100 million bulbs “is not a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination,†Stephen Goldmacher, an executive at Royal Philips, the Dutch company that is one of the world’s largest light-bulb makers, told the group. “If this were easy, it would have happened already.â€
The attendees did not need to look far for evidence. Wal-Mart had asked the owners of the Mirage Hotel and Casino, where the conference was held, to commit to using the energy saving bulbs in its guest rooms in time for the meeting. The hotel politely declined.
It is not alone. Compact fluorescent bulbs, introduced in the United States with much fanfare in 1979 by Philips just as the nation’s second energy crisis of the decade was getting under way, have never captured the public imagination.
The new bulbs — lighted by sparking an efficient chemical reaction, rather than heating a metal filament — were ungainly, took several seconds to light up and often did not fit into traditional light fixtures.
Since then, refinements have made them far more convenient to use, reducing their size and price as well. But Wal-Mart sold only 40 million in 2005, compared with about 350 million incandescent bulbs, according to people briefed on the figures.
And it would have stayed that way unless Wal-Mart decided to go green. More than a year ago, Mr. Scott, the company’s chief executive, began reaching out to some of environmental groups, telling them that Wal-Mart, long regarded as an environmental offender, wanted to become a leader on issues like fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions.
Mr. Scott viewed such a move as a way to use Wal-Mart’s influence to improve the environment, cut costs and, of course, burnish the company’s bruised image. In September 2005, Mr. Scott and Andy Ruben, Wal-Mart’s vice president for strategy and sustainability, drove 6,000 feet to the Mount Washington Observatory in New Hampshire with Steve Hamburg, an environmental studies professor at Brown University, and Fred Krupp, the president of the advocacy group Environmental Defense.
At the summit, where scientists measure climate change 24 hours a day, the men discussed global warming, acid rain, the hole in the ozone layer and what Wal-Mart could do about them.
“You need to look at what is being sold on the shelf,†Mr. Hamburg recalled telling Mr. Scott over a dinner of turkey and mashed potatoes. He began talking excitedly about compact fluorescent bulbs. “Very few products,†he said, “are such a clear winner†for consumers and the environment.
Soon after returning from the trip, Wal-Mart publicly embraced the bulbs with the zealotry of a convert. In meetings with suppliers, buyers for the chain laid out their plans: lower prices, expanding the shelf space dedicated to them and heavily promoting the technology.
Light-bulb manufacturers, who sell millions of incandescent lights at Wal-Mart, immediately expressed reservations. In a December 2005 meeting with executives from General Electric, Wal-Mart’s largest bulb supplier, “the message from G.E. was, ‘Don’t go too fast. We have all these plants that produce traditional bulbs,' †said one person involved with the issue, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of an agreement not to speak publicly about the negotiations.
The response from the Wal-Mart buyer was blunt, this person said. “We are going there,†the buyer said. “You decide if you are coming with us.â€
In the end, as Wal-Mart suppliers generally do, the bulb makers decided to come with the company.
Philips, despite protests from packaging designers, agreed to change the name of its compact fluorescent bulbs from “Marathon†to “energy saver.†To keep up with swelling orders from the chain, Osram Sylvania took to flying entire planeloads of compact fluorescent bulbs from Asia to the United States.
“When Wal-Mart sets its mind to something with a narrow objective like that, they are going to make it happen,†said Jim Jubb, vice president for consumer product sales at Sylvania.
At the same time that it pressured suppliers, Wal-Mart began testing ways to better market the bulbs. In the past, Wal-Mart had sold them on the bottom shelf of the lighting aisle, so that shoppers had to bend down. In tests that started in February, it gave the lights prime real estate at eye level. Sales soared.
To show customers how versatile the bulbs could be, Wal-Mart began displaying them inside the lamps and hanging fans for sale in its stores. Sales nudged up further.
To explain the benefits of the energy-efficient bulbs, the retailer placed an education display case at the end of the aisle, where it occupied four feet of valuable selling space — an extravagance at Wal-Mart. Sales climbed even higher.
In August 2006, the chain sold 3.94 million, nearly twice the 1.65 million it sold in August 2005, according to a person briefed on the numbers.
But to reach 100 million, Wal-Mart has to do much more — and that, executives concede, is where the biggest challenges rest. In the fall, the company began reaching out to competing retailers, Internet companies and even filmmakers.
The goal was to turn its sales campaign into a broader cultural movement.
One proposal, headed by Lawrence Bender, who produced Al Gore’s 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,†is to create a Web site that would track sales of compact fluorescent bulbs at major retailers like Walgreen’s and Target. The result would be a real-time map, with data collected by a third party, showing how much Americans have saved by using the energy-efficient bulbs.
Mr. Ruben said such a map “helps consumers see this as something bigger than buying a bulb.â€
At the same time, Google and Yahoo are in talks with Wal-Mart about how to use their search engines to promote the bulbs.
But Home Depot and Lowe’s balked at the idea of cooperating with their larger rival. “We don’t think we need an organization like that to sell more CFLs,†said Ron Jarvis, the vice president of environmental innovation at Home Depot, using the bulb’s industry nickname.
Then there is the mercury inside the bulbs, a problem Wal-Mart is working with the federal government and environmental groups to resolve, possibly by collecting the bulbs at its stores or off-site locations for recycling.
In the end, though, the biggest obstacle to overcome is America’s love affair with cheap, familiar-looking incandescent bulbs — a habit 130 years in the making.
For that to turn around, Wal-Mart will have to persuade its traditional consumers that it is worth paying a bit more at the checkout counter to save a significant amount money down the line, a seemingly simple task that few companies ever accomplish. It is particularly difficult at a retailer that has long emphasized “always low prices.â€
“It has taken the American public forever to grasp this,†said Charlie Jerabek, the chief executive of Sylvania.
Helen Capone encapsulates the challenge. Ms. Capone, 68, said she “curses the energy company every month†because of her electricity bill and loves the five-year-old, trouble-free compact fluorescent bulb in her attic. But she won’t switch to the energy-saving bulbs in the rest of her house in Secaucus, N.J. “They are not the prettiest things in the world,†she said, surveying the bulbs at a Wal-Mart.
That has put Wal-Mart in the strange position of racing ahead of its customers and coaxing them, bulb by bulb, toward energy conservation.
“We start with the premise,†Mr. Ruben, “that customers make good choices.â€
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Expert: LEDs could start replacing light bulbs soon
Photos: Lumileds' LED tech
By Michael Kanellos
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
SAN JOSE, Calif.--Light-emitting diodes will become economically attractive as replacements for conventional lightbulbs in about two years, a shift that could pave the way for massive electricity conservation, according to a researcher.
Right now, consumers and businesses can buy a light-emitting diode, or LED, that provides about the same level of illumination as an energy-hogging conventional 60-watt lightbulb, Steven DenBaars, a professor of material science at the University of California Santa Barbara, said at the SEMI NanoForum, taking place here this week. A principal advantage of the LED: It lasts about 100,000 hours, far longer than the conventional filament bulb
Lumileds' LED tech
Unfortunately, the LEDs that can perform this task cost about $60, he said. (Prices vary on the Internet.) But prices have been declining by 50 percent a year, so two years from now the same LED should cost around $20.
"At $20 the payback in energy occurs in about a year," DenBaars said. The rapid return on investment will occur in places such as stores and warehouses, where the light is on through much of the day. A year after that, LEDs will be even more economical for more places as costs continue to decline.
Approximately 22 percent of the electricity consumed in the United States goes toward lighting, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
To make matters worse, traditional lightbulbs are incredibly inefficient. Only about 5 percent of the energy that goes into them turns into light. The majority gets dissipated as heat.
If 25 percent of the lightbulbs in the U.S. were converted to LEDs putting out 150 lumens per watt (higher than the commercial standard now), the U.S. as a whole could save $115 billion in utility costs, cumulatively, by 2025, said DenBaars, and it would alleviate the need to build 133 new coal-burning power stations.
In turn, carbon emissions in the atmosphere would go down by 258 million metric tons.
"Multiply that by three and you get the worldwide savings," he stated. DenBaars then showed a picture of the globe at night. The landmass of the U.S. could easily be picked out by nighttime lights.
"We shoot a lot of light into space that doesn't need to be there," he noted.
Rising prices of electricity, combined with the antiquated nature of lightbulb technology, has prompted several start-ups and large industrial concerns to get into lighting.
Fiberstars, for instance, has come up with a way to replace hot fluorescent tube lights with light-emitting optical fiber in freezer cases in grocery stores. Hewlett-Packard spinoff Lumileds is also producing LEDs for a variety of applications.
LED technology is improving as well. UCSB has created an experimental LED that can put out 117 lumens per watt, while a Japanese company has developed one that can put out 130 lumens per watt.
Getting LEDs to produce white light that is tolerable to humans has also greatly improved. Manufacturers can do it two ways. One is to package red, green and blue LEDs in a way that the combined light shines white to the human eye. The other way is to make blue LEDs and coat them with a phosphor--a luminescent substance commonly used on fluorescent lamps.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:54 pm Posts: 12287 Location: Manguetown Gender: Male
LED rules!
_________________ There's just no mercy in your eyes There ain't no time to set things right And I'm afraid I've lost the fight I'm just a painful reminder Another day you leave behind
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:54 pm Posts: 12287 Location: Manguetown Gender: Male
Its also important to state that LCD screens consume less energy than both tube and plasma.
_________________ There's just no mercy in your eyes There ain't no time to set things right And I'm afraid I've lost the fight I'm just a painful reminder Another day you leave behind
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
news.com wrote:
Approximately 22 percent of the electricity consumed in the United States goes toward lighting, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
If 25 percent of the lightbulbs in the U.S. were converted to LEDs putting out 150 lumens per watt (higher than the commercial standard now), the U.S. as a whole could save $115 billion in utility costs, cumulatively, by 2025, said DenBaars, and it would alleviate the need to build 133 new coal-burning power stations. In turn, carbon emissions in the atmosphere would go down by 258 million metric tons.
these are some serious stats
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
vacatetheword wrote:
news.com wrote:
Approximately 22 percent of the electricity consumed in the United States goes toward lighting, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
If 25 percent of the lightbulbs in the U.S. were converted to LEDs putting out 150 lumens per watt (higher than the commercial standard now), the U.S. as a whole could save $115 billion in utility costs, cumulatively, by 2025, said DenBaars, and it would alleviate the need to build 133 new coal-burning power stations. In turn, carbon emissions in the atmosphere would go down by 258 million metric tons.
these are some serious stats
It also goes to show you how much promise technology can have to prevent some massive lifestyle sacrifices.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
Green Habit wrote:
vacatetheword wrote:
news.com wrote:
Approximately 22 percent of the electricity consumed in the United States goes toward lighting, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
If 25 percent of the lightbulbs in the U.S. were converted to LEDs putting out 150 lumens per watt (higher than the commercial standard now), the U.S. as a whole could save $115 billion in utility costs, cumulatively, by 2025, said DenBaars, and it would alleviate the need to build 133 new coal-burning power stations. In turn, carbon emissions in the atmosphere would go down by 258 million metric tons.
these are some serious stats
It also goes to show you how much promise technology can have to prevent some massive lifestyle sacrifices.
sure. i'm all for having my cake and eating it too, but some of these things, though wonderful- are even seemingly simple, will require significant paradigm shifts for society. i don't want to be too pessimistic, but there will be massive consequences before people will be prompted to act on a large enough scale to make a real difference.
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
vacatetheword wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
vacatetheword wrote:
news.com wrote:
Approximately 22 percent of the electricity consumed in the United States goes toward lighting, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
If 25 percent of the lightbulbs in the U.S. were converted to LEDs putting out 150 lumens per watt (higher than the commercial standard now), the U.S. as a whole could save $115 billion in utility costs, cumulatively, by 2025, said DenBaars, and it would alleviate the need to build 133 new coal-burning power stations. In turn, carbon emissions in the atmosphere would go down by 258 million metric tons.
these are some serious stats
It also goes to show you how much promise technology can have to prevent some massive lifestyle sacrifices.
sure. i'm all for having my cake and eating it too, but some of these things, though wonderful- are even seemingly simple, will require significant paradigm shifts for society. i don't want to be too pessimistic, but there will be massive consequences before people will be prompted to act on a large enough scale to make a real difference.
I think we've mentioned this before, but one fault I've always seen with many environmental movements is that they try to bite off more than they can chew. It's a lot easier to try to convince someone to use a different light bulb than to, say, freeze their ass off at a transit station waiting for a train.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
Green Habit wrote:
vacatetheword wrote:
Green Habit wrote:
vacatetheword wrote:
news.com wrote:
Approximately 22 percent of the electricity consumed in the United States goes toward lighting, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.
If 25 percent of the lightbulbs in the U.S. were converted to LEDs putting out 150 lumens per watt (higher than the commercial standard now), the U.S. as a whole could save $115 billion in utility costs, cumulatively, by 2025, said DenBaars, and it would alleviate the need to build 133 new coal-burning power stations. In turn, carbon emissions in the atmosphere would go down by 258 million metric tons.
these are some serious stats
It also goes to show you how much promise technology can have to prevent some massive lifestyle sacrifices.
sure. i'm all for having my cake and eating it too, but some of these things, though wonderful- are even seemingly simple, will require significant paradigm shifts for society. i don't want to be too pessimistic, but there will be massive consequences before people will be prompted to act on a large enough scale to make a real difference.
I think we've mentioned this before, but one fault I've always seen with many environmental movements is that they try to bite off more than they can chew. It's a lot easier to try to convince someone to use a different light bulb than to, say, freeze their ass off at a transit station waiting for a train.
they're just trying to get more bang for their buck, so to speak. to make the biggest difference.
i like the idea of putting a tax on conventional light bulbs to make them more expensive. perhaps the revenue could even be funnelled into subsidising fluorescents/lcds. since getting rid of conventional light bulbs would save so many billions, you'd think this might make economic sense as well as environmental. of course, the government would have to piss off the lighting & energy industries to do it, which we all know republicans aren't big on. but to be seen to be making a small concession of this type could be palatable for those fucks.
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
There's nothing sexy about the light a fluorescent light bulb gives off.
I suppose this can be overcome somehow though, no? I mean, I really hate the light they give off. Everything else about them, however makes them a no brainer decision.
LED lights emit some crazy looking light too.
_________________ I am a Child, I'll last a while. You can't conceive of the pleasure in my smile.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
sherpahigh wrote:
There's nothing sexy about the light a fluorescent light bulb gives off.
ah, but it brought you to the thread, did it not? so my job is done
sherpahigh wrote:
I suppose this can be overcome somehow though, no? I mean, I really hate the light they give off. Everything else about them, however makes them a no brainer decision.
LED lights emit some crazy looking light too.
i've been wondering this too, although i don't really have an issue with the light myself. just to make them more palatable for the general public...
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:54 am Posts: 7189 Location: CA
sherpahigh wrote:
There's nothing sexy about the light a fluorescent light bulb gives off.
I suppose this can be overcome somehow though, no? I mean, I really hate the light they give off. Everything else about them, however makes them a no brainer decision.
LED lights emit some crazy looking light too.
At least Flourescent lights give off white light, I don't think they've figured out how to do that with LEDs yet, at least not in a lasting or economical way. LEDs at the moment are awesome if you want some harsh blue light.
We have a mix of flourescent lights and incandescent bulbs at my home, and the utilities around these parts has had a pretty big ad campaign about energy saving appliances and lightbulbs for several years. Do most utilities do this, or is this more of a California thing because of our particular energy difficulties?
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
Forgot to address this earlier (I'll also get back to the nuke discussion soon, I hope):
vacatetheword wrote:
they're just trying to get more bang for their buck, so to speak. to make the biggest difference.
Sometimes getting the most bang for your buck doesn't always mean trying to get everything you want immediately.
Example: the local ski resort here wanted to sell more season passes. They dramatically cut the price of the pass, and ended up selling many more of them, and made much more money than they did by selling for the price that they wanted before.
I think if the environmental movement wanted to gain more clout (especially here in the US), they need to first convince people to do the Earth-friendly things that won't impact their daily lives as much, if at all. Then perhaps people can start to understand where they're coming from and then possibly aim for the golden goose. Change doesn't happen overnight.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
This was in my Newsweek that came today.
Quote:
Environment: Easy to Be Green
By Joan Raymond Newsweek Jan. 8, 2007 issue - You don't have to ditch leather or sell your car to help the environment. We've gathered 10 simple tips for living greener in 2007. Hey, it's a lot easier than losing those 15 pounds.
1. Feed the Bees Pesticides, pollution and habitat destruction are taking a toll on the birds and insects that pollinate about 80 percent of the world's food supply (or about one out of every three bites of food we eat), says Rose Getch of the National Gardening Association. To lend a helping hand, plant a pollinator garden. Yellow, blue and purple flowers will attract bees, while red and orange will attract hummingbirds. For more information, go to kidsgardening.com.
2. Clean Up, Naturally Household chemicals contribute to both in-door and outdoor pollution. This year, use more natural cleaners like the Greening the Cleaning line at imusranchfoods.com. Or make your own using vinegar, baking soda and lemon juice. For some great tips on green cleaning, go to eartheasy.com.
3. Ditch Your Junk Not only is junk mail annoying, it kills trees. Do yourself—and the forests—a favor by getting off the mailing lists of companies you don't support. You can contact the firms yourself, or check out subscription services like greendimes.com or 41pounds.org that promise to lighten your junk-mail load. For more information: thegreenguide.com.
4. Air Your Laundry Make like Grandma and line-dry your clothes once in a while. It not only saves money, but also decreases your yearly carbon- dioxide emissions. Likewise, run your washer on cold whenever possible—and use it only when it's full.
5. Recycle Your Gadgets Don't clog landfills with old electronics. If you're dumping a computer, manufacturers like Dell (dell.com), HP (hp.com) and Apple (apple.com) offer recycling options. Or consider donating. The National Cristina Foundation (cristina.org) will hook up your old PC or Mac with a nonprofit organization. Drop off your old cell phone at your local Staples store as part of a Sierra Club recycling effort (sierraclub.org/cellphones/). To find a drop-off center for rechargeable batteries and cell phones, check out the nonprofit Call2Recycle program at rbrc.org. Take advantage of community resources like hazardous-waste pickup or e-waste recycling events.
6. Cut the Lights Trade your old incandescent light bulbs for compact fluorescent ones, says Jenny Powers of the Natural Resources Defense Council. They use about 70 percent less energy than regular bulbs and last 10 times longer. For help in picking the best bulb for your needs, go to energystar.gov. Also, plug all your major electronics into a power strip, suggests eco-lifestyle expert Danny Seo, author of "Simply Green Giving" ($19.95; HarperCollins). Appliances and e-gadgets use electricity even when turned off, but flicking the switch on the power strip when you leave the house effectively unplugs them. Finally, check with your local utility company to see if it offers a "green power" option for its customers. Though that might cost slightly more, it's one way of supporting renewable energy sources, such as solar or wind power. The U.S. Department of Energy provides comprehensive "green power" info at eere.energy.gov/green power.
7. Eat Your Veggies Have a meatless Monday. According to the Cambridge, Mass., environmental-advocacy group the Union of Concerned Scientists, meat production is energy-inefficient, sucking up a lot of natural resources. In fact, it takes about 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. "You don't have to be a vegetarian—just take a break once or twice a week," says group president Kevin Knobloch. "If everyone tried to do something that simple, it could have a huge environmental effect." And when you're shopping for that food, think local. It's more fuel-efficient (your food didn't have to travel thousands of miles to get to your table), and you're boosting the local economy. Use the search engine at localharvest.org to find farms, markets and other food sources in your area. And, of course, bring a reusable cloth bag to the market so you don't have to take the plastic ones.
8. Save a Tree According to the folks at stop globalwarming.org, the paper industry is the third largest contributor to global warming. If every U.S. household replaced one toilet-paper roll with a roll made from recycled paper, 424,000 trees would be saved. If every household in the United States bought recycled napkins instead of virgin-fiber napkins, we could save a million trees. If the thought of recycled paper doesn't do it for you, plant a tree. According to the National Arbor Day Foundation, the net cooling effect of one healthy tree is equivalent to 10 room-size air conditioners operating 20 hours a day. You can go to arborday.org to find out which trees will do well in your ZIP code. If you don't have any room to plant, hundreds of eco-organizations have tree-planting projects. All you have to do is donate money.
9. Turn On the Tap Instead of spending big bucks on bottled water, drink the stuff that comes from your faucet. The reason? "It takes a lot of oil to make and ship those bottles, and once they're empty, most wind up in landfills or as litter," says Jen Boulden, cofounder of the online environmental community idealbite.com. If you're squeamish (Americans really do have some of the best tap water in the world), buy a water filter. For comparisons, go to waterfiltercomparisons.net.
10. Find an Eco-Date There was the metrosexual. Then the retrosexual. Now there's the ecosexual. So if one of your goals is to find that special, ecofriendly someone in 2007, check out social-networking communities like Vegan Passions (veganpassions.com), Earth Wise Singles (ewsingles.com), Green Singles (greensingles.com) or Green Passions (green-passions.com). Because two recyclers are better than one.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
Quote:
4. Air Your Laundry [/b]Make like Grandma and line-dry your clothes once in a while. It not only saves money, but also decreases your yearly carbon- dioxide emissions. Likewise, run your washer on cold whenever possible—and use it only when it's full.
make like grandma? i've been drying my clothes this way my entire life, even though my folks have a clothes dryer. likewise with the cold water & full load. it's sad when things like using the clothes dryer instead of the line become "the norm".
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
vacatetheword wrote:
Quote:
4. Air Your Laundry [/b]Make like Grandma and line-dry your clothes once in a while. It not only saves money, but also decreases your yearly carbon- dioxide emissions. Likewise, run your washer on cold whenever possible—and use it only when it's full.
make like grandma? i've been drying my clothes this way my entire life, even though my folks have a clothes dryer. likewise with the cold water & full load. it's sad when things like using the clothes dryer instead of the line become "the norm".
Yeah, that's one odd thing I noticed in Australia was how rare dryers were. I really have no room in my place to hang-dry my clothes.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
Green Habit wrote:
vacatetheword wrote:
Quote:
4. Air Your Laundry [/b]Make like Grandma and line-dry your clothes once in a while. It not only saves money, but also decreases your yearly carbon- dioxide emissions. Likewise, run your washer on cold whenever possible—and use it only when it's full.
make like grandma? i've been drying my clothes this way my entire life, even though my folks have a clothes dryer. likewise with the cold water & full load. it's sad when things like using the clothes dryer instead of the line become "the norm".
Yeah, that's one odd thing I noticed in Australia was how rare dryers were. I really have no room in my place to hang-dry my clothes.
Well, they're not really rare persay, but we tend to use them only when necessary and only for the odd item, not a whole load. I have two clothes horses for my stuff and I just stick them out on my balcony, or even inside if need be. Works like a charm.
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
4. Air Your Laundry [/b]Make like Grandma and line-dry your clothes once in a while. It not only saves money, but also decreases your yearly carbon- dioxide emissions. Likewise, run your washer on cold whenever possible—and use it only when it's full.
make like grandma? i've been drying my clothes this way my entire life, even though my folks have a clothes dryer. likewise with the cold water & full load. it's sad when things like using the clothes dryer instead of the line become "the norm".
I dried my clothes on the line when in Australia all the time. Here in Canada it's not as practical for most of the year however since it would freeze.
_________________ I am a Child, I'll last a while. You can't conceive of the pleasure in my smile.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
sherpahigh wrote:
vacatetheword wrote:
Quote:
4. Air Your Laundry [/b]Make like Grandma and line-dry your clothes once in a while. It not only saves money, but also decreases your yearly carbon- dioxide emissions. Likewise, run your washer on cold whenever possible—and use it only when it's full.
make like grandma? i've been drying my clothes this way my entire life, even though my folks have a clothes dryer. likewise with the cold water & full load. it's sad when things like using the clothes dryer instead of the line become "the norm".
I dried my clothes on the line when in Australia all the time. Here in Canada it's not as practical for most of the year however since it would freeze.
Yeah, it's understandable when it's a really cold climate, but can't you just hang them on clothes horses inside when the heat is on anyway?
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
