Archive for the ‘Water use’ Category
October 13th, 2008
3 Ways to Green Your Kitchen And Save Money NOW
Need to tighten your belt in these tough economic times? Usually, we think green makeovers cost a lot upfront — only yielding savings later on. But going green doesn’t necessarily mean a slow return on investment! ShopSmart, from the publisher of Consumer Reports, names five steps for greening your kitchen in its Nov. 2008 issue — and here are the 3 of those steps, revamped to show how they can save you money ASAP:
1. Install a faucet aerator. A simple $3 - $11 aerator can save you much more in water bills, as ShopSmart points out. You can, of course, go the whole nine yards and order snazzy-looking faucets with aerators — and if you do so, make sure you get a lifetime warranty that goes with it — but the EPA doesn’t have any criteria for low-flow kitchen faucets yet, and in any case, we’re talking about saving money NOW, not spending it. Find sink aerators here.
2. Switch to CFL bulbs. Regular incandescent bulbs create two eco-problems. First, they’re inefficient and take a lot of energy to light up. Second, they produce a lot of heat — prompting you to turn on the AC to use up even more energy! So swap out those bulbs to CFLs. Since the quality of CFLs vary, ShopSmart recommends making sure you can return your purchases so you’re never stuck with sub-par lighting.
We here at Low Impact Living also recommend you investigate LED lighting– LED lights are more than 1-2 times more efficient than CFLs! And they now come in a wider array of shapes and styles. Check out LED lighting here.
3. Go pre-loved. Not only will hunting through Craigslist, swapmeets, and second-hand stores turn up vintage treasures, your efforts will likely save you a lot of money! Besides, a lot of new furniture offgasses all manner of toxic chemicals, so buying used will keep you healthier as well. You can also find slightly used Energy Star appliances, which will save you money on your power and water bills.
Click here to learn more ideas on how to Green Your Kitchen. And if you’ve got other tips on saving money while greening your kitchen, please share them with the rest of us in the comments!
Related Features:
Go Green and Save Money
Make Your Grocery Shopping More Eco-Friendly
Go Beyond Energy Star to Achieve Maximum Savings
Cut Your Home Water Use by 50%
September 12th, 2008
What’s Your Nitrogen Footprint?
It seems these days that you can’t get away from reading about carbon anywhere. From supermarket shelves to rental car counters, carbon labels and carbon offset offers are showing up everywhere. Part of this is because of the importance of and growing concern about global warming. But there’s another good reason: it’s a great single currency with which to compare the energy use and environmental impacts of very different kinds of activities and products. Pre-carbon, you had to use units like British thermal units (BTUs) or joules to compare the relative impacts of using gasoline to electricity or natural gas to fuel oil. Even then the calculations could be difficult and the results not very tangible to those of us who aren’t chemists. Carbon content makes it much easier. We can all envision carbon dioxide gas coming out of our tailpipes and smokestacks, so it’s tangible. And a carbon estimate allows you to quickly compare the relative environmental impacts of different product choices.
There is a price with this growing success, though: if you can’t measure the impact of something with carbon, then it can lose out in the court of public opinion. The environmental impacts of some items that are low (or unmeasurable) in carbon but high on other dimensions (water use, stormwater runoff production, etc) are often minimized. An increase in biofuels, for instance, might reduce the carbon content of motor fuels. But what if the biofuels are grown with intense nitrogen fertilizers that double the size of the summer dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico? Of what if we build 50 new nuclear power plants only to find that they exhaust regional supplies of fresh water for their cooling towers?
Water use / content is is one good summary metric: it could be a companion to organic labeling that might get more people to think about not just what is in their food but also how it is grown. Local organic rice could be great, but what if it’s grown in an arid area with limited fresh water supplies?
Another possible consumer metric that is gaining attention is nitrogen. Like carbon dioxide, various forms of nitrogen are required or produced by all living things and are pervasive in our environment. Also like carbon dioxide, excess nitrogen can have devastating and widespread effects. Nitrogen can produce acid rain and smog. Excess nitrogen in our rivers, streams and oceans can produce huge dead zones and/or algae blooms. Those gross algae blooms that almost scuttled the Olympic sailing competitions off of China? Fueled by excess nitrogen from fertilizer.
Richard Morgan of the New York Times recently wrote about the problems with nitrogen and the growing efforts to quantify it, including a project to develop a nitrogen footprint calculator. In the same article he also mentioned the concerns of environmental groups and leaders that a new metric like nitrogen could dilute our focus on carbon.
We don’t believe these concerns are justified. How many of us are able to digest the nutrition information on the back of a cereal box, or the list of vitamins in a smoothie or on a supplement label? We’re all starting to figure out what number plastic can be recycled and where, right? We can handle complexity, especially when “complex” means three or four numbers!
We also believe that better environmental impact information and labeling can’t come soon enough. Governments and businesses aren’t moving fast enough. At least right now, it’s up to us as consumers to figure out what products or services we will support by buying them. We just need the information to do it.
September 8th, 2008
The Low Down on Water Filters
Recently we wrote about the high incidence of pharmaceuticals in US cities’ drinking water supplies. That got us to thinking “Which water filters really work?” Brita, Pur, reverse osmosis….it’s a filter jungle out there! Here is the low down on home water filters.
First off, there are several different types of water filters. There are pitcher or carafe models, of which the Brita is the most popular. These models are good for filters small amounts of drinking water and have the benefit of requiring no installation. Next there are the faucet-mounted models, which are relatively easy to install and allow you to filter all water coming from your faucet. However, they do typically slow the flow rate of your faucet. Then there are countertop models, which typically mount on your sink next to your faucet. They allow you to filter a larger amount of water and have better flow rates than the faucet-mount models.
Next are the bigger systems, which require some degree of plumbing modification. The under-sink models filter large quantities of water and don’t clutter your sink or countertop. But they do take up cabinet space under your sink and require plumbing modifications. A hole must be drilled through the sink and/or countertop for the dispenser. Then there are reverse osmosis filters. These remove a wide range of contaminants and are the only filters certified to remove arsenic. On the down-side, they are quite slow and typically creates 3 to 5 gallons of waste water for every gallon filtered. They also take up cabinet space. Finally whole-house filters are relatively inexpensive (compared to reverse-osmosis systems) and remove rust and some chlorine. However they typically do not remove other contaminants. In a nutshell reverse osmosis sytems are the most comprehensive in their removal of contaminants– but they are also the most expensive (usually several hundred dollars). Click here to find reverse osmosis systems.
Consumer Reports tested and rated 27 home water filters. They rated water filters for lead removal, chloroform removal, flow rate, clogging, and bad taste removal. The filters that ranked best in terms of removing lead and chloroform were the Shaklee Best Water system, the e-Spring system, the Aqua Pure by Cuno, the Culligan SY-2650 and the Kenmore 38460. The worst rated filters were the Omni F1, the Whirlpool WHCF, the GE SmartWater, and the Kenmore 38440.
In the carafe/pitcher area, the Brita AquaLux rated good for chloroform removal but fair for lead removal. The Shaklee Perfect Pitcher rated good for lead removal and fair for chloroform removal. Both rated excellent for flow rate and clogging. The Pur Ultimate CR-900 rated very good for lead removal and excellent for chloroform removal. However, it rated poor for flow rate and clogging. It seems you can’t have it all in a pitcher filter!
We highly recommend you subscribe to Consumer Reports so you can read the full feature for yourself– they provide many more ratings and also great commentary on the functionality of the various filters. Click here to sign up.
Have you had a good or bad experience with a water-filtration product? Please share your thoughts in our comments section.
September 3rd, 2008
You Just Ate A Swimming Pool
This year has brought ample evidence that something’s amiss in our global food supply: prices have shot through the roof on everything from hamburgers to orange juice, Costcos and other big box retailers in the US have experienced runs on certain types of rice, and food riots have erupted in developing countries around the
world. There are many factors at play here - weather, crop use for biofuels, high energy costs — but there’s another one that hasn’t garnered all that much attention lately: waste.
Andrew Revkin (in his Dot Earth blog at the New York Times) just highlighted a report released last week that shows just how much food is wasted. The report, titled “Saving Water: From Field to Fork” (published by the Stockholm International Water Institute), is filled with statistics that show the extent of waste in our food supply. One good example: between field and fork, about 50% of the energy contained in food never makes it to our tummies. It is wasted in the fields, in storage, in distribution, and in the feeding of livestock. Another interesting stat: the energy contained in livestock feed is over 3x the amount of energy contained in the end dairy and meat products, meaning that 70% of it is entirely wasted.
That’s not where the real waste comes in, though. As the title of the paper suggests, the waste of water in the food chain is even greater. With many parts of the world (including my home state of California) facing water shortages that are only going to get worse, this is a somewhat hidden but incredibly important problem. According to the study, the food that the average US citizen eats per day takes over 1,500 gallons of water to produce! That is over 10x the average per capita household fresh water use.
That’s a pretty grim number, and there are a number of things that we can do about it. The first is to buy and use the right amounts of food. The study states that US households throw away about $43.3 billion worth of food each year, equating to about 112 pounds per person per month (from a great article by Andrew Martin, New York Times). Farmers and food suppliers also have a major opportunity to reduce the waste: even in the US, with our sophisticated and modern agriculture, anywhere from 10-35% of food output (and associated water) is lost on the farm to pests and spoilage.
Another option, though, has to do with the kinds of food we eat. Our diet is high in animal and processed food products compared to many parts of the world, and these two categories of food use huge amounts of water to produce. Here are some stats to produce a pound of various US foods (based on this study from the University of Twente and UNESCO, both in the Netherlands):
- Tomatoes: 30 gallons of water
- Bananas: 60 gallons of water
- Almonds: 600 gallons of water
- Chicken: 300 gallons of water
- Cheese: 500 gallons of water
- Beef: 2,000 gallons of water
- A typical Thanksgiving dinner for six: 30,000 gallons of water!
Now, changing our diets alone isn’t going to solve this problem. But, it’s at least a lever we can control today until water efficiency improves all the way down the food chain. So the next time you have a hankering for half-pound burger slathered in cheese, remember this: you’ll be eating the equivalent of over 1,000 gallons of water.
August 28th, 2008
Drinking Water Contaminated with Pharmaceuticals
Story courtesy of the Environmental News Network
An investigation by the Associated Press (AP) has revealed that the drinking water of at least 41 million people in the United States is contaminated with pharmaceutical drugs.
It has long been known that drugs are not wholly absorbed or broken down by the human body. Significant amounts of any medication taken eventually pass out of the body, primarily through the urine.
While sewage is treated before being released back into the environment, and water from reservoirs or rivers is also treated before being funneled back into the drinking water supply, these treatments are not able to remove all traces of medications. And so far, the EPA has not regulated the presence of pharmaceuticals in drinking water, meaning that there are no laws in existence today that protect consumers from this increasingly dangerous chemical contaminant of the water supply.
Here are some of the test results obtained by the AP:
+ Anti-epileptic and anti-anxiety medications were detected in a portion of the treated drinking water for 18.5 million people in Southern California.
+ Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey analyzed a Passaic Valley Water Commission drinking water treatment plant, which serves 850,000 people in Northern New Jersey, and found a metabolized angina medicine and the mood-stabilizing carbamazepine in drinking water.
+ A sex hormone was detected in San Francisco’s drinking water.
+ The drinking water for Washington, D.C., and surrounding areas tested positive for six pharmaceuticals.
Read the rest of the article here.
Here is a map showing cities across the US where the drinking water tested positive for pharmaceuticals.
August 25th, 2008
Spend $100 on Green Upgrades, Save $500
Don’t have $25,000 lying around for a new solar system, you say? Longing to go a darker shade of green but don’t have an extra $1000 for a tankless water heater? We know the feeling!
There are so many things you can do to make your home and life more eco-friendly that are FREE (for example recycling all you can, composting, taking shorter showers, walking to the store, using reusable grocery bags, dining by candlelight, saying no to bottled water and the list goes on and on and on…). There are also tons of things you can do that cost very little and SAVE YOU MONEY. Check out this list– spend only $100 and you will save over $500!
1) Get a low-flow showerhead for your home. A low-flow showerhead can save you up to 3,000 gallons of water per person per year! They cost about $30 and will save you ~$45/year in water and energy to heat your water. While you’re at it, get a $3 sink aerator attachment, and save $25 more each year.
2) Get a programmable thermostat. Most homes waste a great deal of energy and money by heating and cooling when people are not at home. With a programmable thermostat you can control your cooling and heating by day and time to maximize efficiency and money savings. These devices cost $50 and take 15 minutes to install. And it will save you close to $100 per year.
3) Turn down and insulate your water heater. First, turn the temperature down to at least 120 degrees. Most people run their water heater too hot. That act alone is free and will save you ~$100/year. Then get an insulation sweater to put around your water heater– it will reduce the amount of energy the heater needs to keep the water hot. (And it costs only $30 and will save you ~$45 per year.)
4) Wash your clothes in cold water. This is free and will save you ~$100 year. Today’s detergents work perfectly fine in cold water– really! Go a step further and air-dry your clothes on a drying rack– you just saved another $50.
5) Hopefully this one is old news by now: replace all of your lights with compact fluorescents and LEDs. Lighting is one of the largest uses of power in your home. If you spend $50 on new lights, you’ll save over $100 in power (and new bulbs) within the first year. And if you use LEDs– which are 10+ times more efficient than compact fluorescents– you’ll save any more. Check out CFLs and LED lighting options here.
For many more ideas for how you can go low-impact and save money, be sure to use our Household Environmental Impact Calculator. It will tell you your LILI (Low Impact Living Index) and also give you a robust list of green projects you can undertake to use less energy, water, reduce your trash load, and much more. Get the Low Down!
