Thinking About "GOING GREEN" At Home? Well, It Could COST You Plenty! Some Green "Myths" Might Give You Pause ...
Suppurating Tool
By Pat Mertz Esswein
Kiplinger's Personal Finance
Sunday, October 4, 2009
If you're like most people, you're more than happy to buy green -- as
long as it also saves greenbacks. A recent study by the Shelton Group
found that people who buy eco-friendly products at least occasionally
are more interested in spending their money wisely than in improving
the environment.
To that end, here are 10 oft-cited green myths and the truth behind
them -- plus how much money you may be burning by buying into them.
Myth
Never leave the lights on when you leave a room.
Reality
Mom had it right when it comes to incandescent bulbs, but she'd be
wrong about today's compact fluorescent lights. The more often you
switch CFLs on and off, the shorter their operating life. In most
parts of the country, it's cheaper to leave fluorescents on if you'll
only be out of the room for 15 minutes or less, according to the
Energy Department (www.energysavers.gov). In areas with high electric
rates or during peak demand periods, the length of time may shorten to
5 minutes. On average, a CFL bulb costs $2.50 more than an
incandescent bulb, but it will save $5.41 annually on your electric
bill compared with an incandescent, according to the Energy
Department.
If you haven't converted to CFLs because you fear pollution from the
mercury they contain, keep in mind that generating electricity is the
main source of U.S. mercury emissions. A 60-watt light bulb will use
480 kilowatt hours of electricity and contribute almost 6 milligrams
of mercury to the environment over its lifetime, according to Energy
Star. A CFL will use less than a fourth of the electricity and result
in a third of the mercury emissions. For more information on properly
disposing of CFLs, visit http://www.energystar.gov/cfls.
Myth
You can trust product labels that say "green," "eco-friendly," "earth
smart" and the like.
Reality
The green-washing machine loves to crank out vague marketing terms,
and the Federal Trade Commission has begun to crack down on
environmental claims that fail the regulatory smell test (visit www.ftc.gov
and search "Sorting Out Green Advertising Claims"). Manufacturers have
begun to improve the labeling, consumer information and advice on
their Web sites, including lists and definitions of ingredients. Also
look for the EPA's Design for the Environment label.
Myth
Switching to solar is a great way to achieve energy savings.
Reality
Solar systems, even with government incentives, are expensive. The
owner of a typical single-family home in the United States wastes
almost $350 annually on heated or cooled air that escapes to the
outdoors. So for most houses in most places, the first line of defense
is to reduce demand, says Bruce Harley, author of "Cut Your Energy
Bills Now." That means tightening up the house and its ductwork,
improving insulation, switching to CFLs, upgrading appliances and
changing your behavior. After that, if you still want to go solar, you
may be able to make do with a smaller system that costs less. For
example, instead of a 4-kilowatt photovoltaic system (the size
recommended for the average home) -- which would cost $16,800
installed after an average state-tax incentive of 25 percent and the
federal discount of 30 percent -- you might get by with a 2-kilowatt
system, which would cost $8,400.
Myth
Energy savings (and tax credits) will eventually pay for replacement
windows.
Reality
True, windows are a big energy waster, but you probably have bigger
fish to fry. The average cost to replace a window with a high-
efficiency model is $300 to $700, and another 50 to 100 percent if you
must replace a rotten or damaged frame, according to http://www.CostHelper.com.
Through 2010, you can get a tax credit for 30 percent of your cost, up
to $1,500, for super-efficient windows (many that are currently Energy
Star-approved don't qualify). Many older homes don't have huge amounts
of window area, and newer houses tend to have more energy-efficient
windows that meet existing standards for Energy Star labeling. If you
still want to upgrade your windows, you may wait until products
meeting new and more rigorous Energy Star standards reach the market
in April 2010.
Myth
"Biodegradable" products that return to their natural state save
landfill space.
Reality
Modern landfills are designed to keep out sunlight, air and moisture
to prevent air and water pollution, thus inhibiting degradation. The
FTC's definition of a biodegradable product is one that will
completely decompose within a reasonably short time under customary
methods of disposal. Because most landfill garbage won't pass that
test, you're better off reducing your contribution to solid waste
(according to the EPA, the average American generates almost five
pounds of garbage a day). At the store, look for a claim of "post-
consumer recycled" content, then recycle what you can. Also use sites
such as Freecycle.org instead of hauling reusable stuff to the dump.
Myth
You'll recoup the higher price you pay for a hybrid car in savings at
the pump.
Reality
You may not earn back the $3,000-plus premium you'll pay for a hybrid
with savings at the gas pump. Hybrids always run cleaner than gasoline-
fueled engines, but they only make financial sense when gas prices are
high, you drive a lot and you plan to keep the vehicle for, say, five
or more years. (Use our hybrid calculator to compare the ownership
costs of a hybrid versus gas-powered vehicle.) Paying the hybrid
premium might be worth it as an insurance policy against higher gas
prices in the future, says Bradley Berman, editor of HybridCars.com.
Myth
It's worth paying 20 to 40 percent extra to buy organic because the
food is healthier.
Reality
A recent and hotly debated British study asserts that organic food is
no more nutritious than conventionally grown food. But this isn't an
all-or-nothing issue: If you want to minimize your exposure to
pesticides and save money on organics, too, spring for the organic
label only on the Environmental Working Group's "dirty dozen" --
fruits and vegetables that carry the most pesticide residue. They are
(from most to least residue): peaches, apples, sweet bell peppers,
celery, nectarines, strawberries, cherries, kale, lettuce, grapes
(imported), carrots and pears. The clean 15 (from least to most
residue) include onions, avocados, sweet corn (frozen), pineapples,
mangos, asparagus, sweet peas (frozen), kiwi fruit, cabbages,
eggplants, papayas, watermelons, broccoli, tomatoes and sweet
potatoes.
Myth
You can reduce your carbon footprint by eating locally grown foods.
Reality
While locavores often cite "food miles" -- that is, the distance food
is shipped to market -- as a reason to eat local, Christopher L. Weber
and H. Scott Matthews, professors at Carnegie Mellon University, say
that transportation accounts for only 11 percent of total greenhouse-
gas emissions associated with food, while 83 percent is related to
production. Produce grown close to home may be fresher and taste
better. But food grown where conditions are most auspicious will
require less fertilizer, pesticides, labor and investment in tools,
says Art Carden, who teaches economics at Rhodes College in Memphis.
If you really want to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet, cut
back on consumption of red meat, which Weber and Matthews say is
responsible for producing 150 percent more greenhouse gases than
chicken or fish.
Myth
You can neutralize your personal share of greenhouse-gas emissions by
buying carbon offsets.
Reality
Measuring your carbon emissions is a squishy science, and measuring
the offsets is even squishier. For example, Carbonfund.org sets the
cost to offset an airline trip cross-country (round-trip) at $8.92
for .0.89 tons of fumes. Sustainable Travel International charges
$45.34 for 1.8 tons. (The price of a carbon offset can vary from $5 to
$25 per ton on average. Clean Air-Cool Planet, a nonprofit devoted to
climate-science education, says that it's impossible to prove that
buying offsets will "render purchasers carbon neutral." There's no
clear standard in use for certifying offsets, although the FTC is
investigating the issue. For further guidance, read "A Consumer's
Guide to Retail Carbon Offset Providers" Cleanair-coolplanet.org. Also
check the fine print on sellers' Web sites to see whether the criteria
for selecting projects are explained and the benefits quantified.
Myth
New homes are more energy-efficient than older homes.
Reality
Homes built over the past decade or so gobble about as much energy as
homes built decades ago. That's because newer homes are bigger, more
architecturally complex and full of energy-hogging electronics, says
Harley, the author of Cut Your Energy Bills Now. Even a new-home owner
will benefit from paying for an energy audit and following through on
its recommendations. According to the Home Performance with Energy
Star program http://www.energystar.gov, improving energy efficiency
will produce utility-bill savings of 20 percent or more.
=====
"Taking It Easy on the Earth Need Not Be Hard on the Wallet"
By Nancy Trejos
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Going green has become a national priority, but for many Americans,
especially those who have lost jobs or have credit card debt, cost can
be a major deterrent.
In fact, 69 percent of consumers who had not gone green thought green
products were too expensive, according to a survey by Grail Research.
Environmental experts acknowledge that some green products can be
costly. Depending on the size of your house, installing a solar
heating system can cost up to $100,000. A hybrid car can cost more
than $20,000, and it can take a while to make up the savings from
buying a cheaper, less-fuel-efficient vehicle. Sure, there are tax
advantages -- most energy-efficient improvements to already-built
homes qualify for a tax credit of 30 percent of the project cost, for
instance -- but the upfront costs can be steep.
"Going green at home can cost a lot if you want it to, but it doesn't
have to," said Glenn Croston, author of "75 Green Businesses" and
"Starting Green." "There are plenty of eco-luxuries available that are
quite costly, but there are plenty of green choices you can make that
cost little or save you money."
When it comes to living an environmentally friendly lifestyle without
breaking your budget, experts have three words of advice: reduce,
reuse and recycle.
Peter Krull, president of Krull & Co., a socially and environmentally
conscious financial services firm in Darien, Ga., said two of the most
basic actions people can take are installing an inexpensive,
programmable thermostat and turning off the lights when leaving a room
for a long time.
"In this economy, someone who is struggling, someone who is not sure
they will have a job next month, probably will not pay money on
insulating their entire home," he said, "but they can turn off the
lights and get programmable thermostats."
Consumers can take other small steps to help the environment.
Take Zaccai Free, a Northwest Washington resident and vegetarian for
15 years. The 37-year-old author of children's books finds multiple
uses for items. When he buys lemons, he makes lemonade, then uses the
rinds as deodorizers. Rubbing alcohol doubles as glass cleaner. He
also walks or takes public transportation everywhere, and he buys
clothing at thrift stores.
"Going green is not about buying the latest high-end cleaning supplies
and exotic foods," he said.
Shel Horowitz, author of "Painless Green: 110 Tips to Help the
Environment, Lower Your Carbon Footprint, Cut Your Budget, and Improve
Your Quality of Life -- With No Negative Impact on Your Lifestyle,"
lists a few simple tips to help the environment.
Wet your toothbrush, then turn the water off while you're brushing.
Use fans instead of air conditioners. If you have drapes, close them
to help keep heat in on cold winter nights.
Tips from other experts: Turn down your thermostat a few degrees and
don a sweater. Hang-dry your clothing. Walk, bike or take public
transportation to run your errands. If you have to drive, bundle your
errands together so you can do them all in one trip. Repair old
cellphones instead of tossing them away.
Indeed, there are ways to be environmentally savvy and save money,
experts say.
Valerie Reddemann, founder and president of Greenfeet.com, doesn't
mind buying a cup of coffee at a shop, but she'll take her own coffee
mug because many places offer discounts if you do. Reddemann is also
strategic about food containers. For instance, she washes and reuses
plastic storage bags at least a dozen times before tossing them. "It
just takes a little bit of practice," she said.
Diane MacEachern, a Takoma Park resident who wrote "Big Green Purse:
Use Your Spending Power to Create a Cleaner, Greener World," cleans
her home with inexpensive baking soda, puts her lunch in reusable
containers, recycles her clothing and makes her own compost for
gardening. "I practice what I preach," she said.
Some good green practices might cost money up front but will pay for
themselves in a few years, some experts said.
Matthew Grocoff, founder of http://www.Greenovation.TV, offered three
tips for starters, each under $100. High-efficiency shower heads can
cost $25 to $85 each but use a gallon per minute less than traditional
shower heads, he said. Your old shower head could cost you an extra
300 kilowatt hours annually, enough electricity to power your
television for about a year, he said.
Even when your television is turned off, it draws some electricity.
But "smart" power strips, which cost $30 to $100, cut off that
electricity, thus shaving dollars off your electric bill, Grocoff
said. Vacancy sensor light switches cost $20 to $40 each, but you can
recoup that money in 16 months of savings on your electric bill, he
said.
One other way to support the environment: Be strategic with your
investments. If you're going to have a 401(k) anyway, buy into
companies or mutual funds that are environmentally conscious, said
Krull, a financial adviser. There are many, including some in the
Washington area, such as Calvert Group of Bethesda.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/02/AR2009100205718.html
Wanting
another consumer trap driven by business boondoggles.
aemeijers
> "Best, Green Intentions . . . "
>
> By Pat Mertz Esswein
> Kiplinger's Personal Finance
> Sunday, October 4, 2009
>
>
> Myth
>
> Switching to solar is a great way to achieve energy savings.
>
> Reality
>
> Solar systems, even with government incentives, are expensive. The
> owner of a typical single-family home in the United States wastes
> almost $350 annually on heated or cooled air that escapes to the
> outdoors. So for most houses in most places, the first line of defense
> is to reduce demand, says Bruce Harley, author of "Cut Your Energy
> Bills Now." That means tightening up the house and its ductwork,
> improving insulation, switching to CFLs, upgrading appliances and
> changing your behavior. After that, if you still want to go solar, you
> may be able to make do with a smaller system that costs less. For
> example, instead of a 4-kilowatt photovoltaic system (the size
> recommended for the average home) -- which would cost $16,800
> installed after an average state-tax incentive of 25 percent and the
> federal discount of 30 percent -- you might get by with a 2-kilowatt
> system, which would cost $8,400.
>
Solar != Photovoltaic. Electricity from the sun is only a minor, rather
expensive way to take advantage of the sun. Passive solar design of the
the house, or adding a sunroom with a heat mass to radiate back into the
house at night, adding a solar pre-heater for household water, etc, are
all ways to get free power from sunlight without involving electricity.
They usually do require more attention from the people living there
(messing with windowshades and valves and such), and some slight
lifestyle changes, but no high-tech needed. And yes, superinsulation and
a tight house are also helpful.
--
aem sends...
W Spilman
"Wanting" <lilh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6e9bac41-93c0-408c...@q14g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> "Going green" is the biggest federal fraud since "recycling." Just
> another consumer trap driven by business boondoggles.
>
So you're saying that trying to live more efficiently
is a fraud? Do you try to maximize your electric bill?
Are you really a fucking fool? You talk like a fucking fool.
WS
Morton Davis
"W Spilman" <w...@knows.com> wrote in message
news:oKHym.18708$AO3....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
"Going Green" isn't efficient. It costs more, pollutes more and will be
fought tooth and nail by many of the people who are pushing for it. Case in
point - the battle of placement of wind turbines in rich LIEberals' back
yards.
gordo
wrote:
There is no doubt that humankind is having a profound terrible effect
upon most of the life upon the planet.Wars,famine,desertification,the
destruction of the worlds fisheries and the destruction of the worlds
rainforests etc. have left future generations with a non -sustainable
world.Of course for the populations that can go green this a part of
the solution but only a part.Clearly anyone wasting time refuting the
peril facing the planets creatures and saying going green is a federal
fraud is him or herself a fraud unless realizing our peril they offer
better solutions.So what are the solutions?
Gordo
W Spilman
"Morton Davis" <anti...@go.com> wrote in message
news:UiRym.81223$la3.25301@attbi_s22...
Fuck you, fool, cutting your costs can not in any
way "cost more." Think before you write some
really stupid response. You can be more green
without buying one thing, just use what you get
now more carefully.
WS