Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dearest Umbra,

With summer nearing and the weather heating up, I’m wondering about sunscreens. Is there any such thing as a strong, full-spectrum sunscreen that isn’t hella toxic? Please don’t tell me to sit under an umbrella and wear long-sleeved shirts all summer.

Emma
North Charleston, S.C.

A. Dearest Emma,

It just so happens that Grist is exploring the theme “Heat” this month, so your question fits right in. How are we to protect ourselves from the searing rays of the summer sun? Do the products meant to protect us actually do us harm, as you suggest? This is one hot topic.

Before we dive in, let me remind you: I’m not a doctor, and you should talk to yours if you have health questions. However, I do hold an Adv. D. — Doctor of Advice-ology — which allows me to freely dispense opinions about the dubious nature of the “personal care products” we use.

You probably know that sunscreen helps prevent exposure to two important types of sunlight: UVB rays, which burn our skin and can cause cancer, and UVA rays, which penetrate our skin, accelerate the aging process, and can also cause cancer. Quite the dynamic duo.

But sunscreen is not the be-all and end-all of sun protection.

In fact, sunscreen is more like the fad diet of sun protection. You know how your neighbor swears that eating only steak for six months will give him the figure he’s always dreamed of? That’s how some people are about sunscreen: If I buy SPF 110 and slather it on, the thinking goes, I can lie in the sun for 10 hours and everything will be hunky-dory.

In fact, just as we need a balanced diet to maintain our health, we need a balanced approach to the sun. Though you pre-scolded me about umbrellas and long sleeves, they are an important part of your balanced sun diet. The best defense against the sun is still (drumroll, please) avoiding the sun. Especially during the middle of the day, when the rays are most intense. Last time we covered this topic, my favorite comment came from one Walter Jeffries: “Cover up and stay out of the sun during the midday. I farm and I can do it. So can you.”

When we must expose our skin, we want a “broad-spectrum” product that defends against UVA and UVB without being, as you say, hella toxic. Might I suggest you consult the Environmental Working Group’s hot-off-the-presses 2013 Guide to Safer Sunscreens? There you can look up your current brand to see how it ranks, peruse a list of the least-toxic brands, and learn many other fascinating things.

I talked with Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst at EWG, who offered some important pointers:

• Don’t count on SPF. Higher SPF doesn’t automatically mean better protection, since SPF measures only protection against UVB rays. In fact, says Lunder, this number can lead to a false sense of security, leading people to spend more time baking without getting the warning signal of a burn. A rating between 15 and 50 should be sufficient if you follow the directions—and be sure your brand offers UVA protection.

• Read labels carefully: A few common ingredients in sunscreen raise some eyebrows, says Lunder, including oxybenzone, which lab studies suggest is a hormone disruptor and potential carcinogen, and retinyl palmitate, a form of Vitamin A that has also been linked to cancer in lab animals. To that I would add our old friend “fragrance,” a pleasant word for an unpleasant and undisclosed chemical cocktail.

The products that are best at blocking UVA rays (and worst at causing cancer in mice) tend to be mineral sunblocks, usually made with zinc oxide or titanium dioxide. These create a protective layer on your skin rather than melting into it. Of course, some perform better than others: Who could forget the time we subjected a Grist reporter’s belly to a side-by-side sunscreen test? Ouch.

Lest you think I’m suggesting that you huddle in the eaves from dawn to dusk, may I remind you that sunlight is also good for us in many ways. It helps our bodies make Vitamin D, which strengthens our immune system; it is also a mood-booster and has been linked by at least one study to lower blood pressure.

Go forth and enjoy your summer, Emma. Just remember to stick to a balanced diet: a little of the right kind of sunscreen, a little covering up and/or staying out of the sun, a little common sense. In other words, read your labels carefully, wear a hat, and go inside for a popsicle at noon.

Brimly,
Umbra

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

Let’s say I win the lottery, and want to use my $50 million winnings to save the planet. For example, I could fund enviro groups. I could fund political campaigns to defeat Big Oil’s congressmen. Or I could provide subsidies to buyers of electric cars. But where would I find the biggest bang for my big bucks?

Hypothetically yours,
Mark M.
Athens, Ohio

A. Dearest Mark,

I would suggest you donate it to Grist. As it happens, we’re in the middle of a fundraising campaign, and $50 million would go a long way. (So would $5, come to think of it.) Imagine all the cruelty-free peppermint tea I could buy with that kind of cashola!

Your question is an intriguing one, and I will gladly use it as a break from discussions of dish soap and lightbulbs, not that I don’t love those too. Let’s indulge in a bit of good old-fashioned fantasizing.

What I would do with your hypothetical money, Mark, is a combination of things. First I’d take a tiny piece of it and upgrade my dwelling to make it as energy-efficient as possible. Then I’d invest another tiny piece of it in some sort of socially responsible way, creating an eco-nest egg for myself while supporting businesses that are doing the right thing. Then I’d pour myself a big glass of organic chocolate milk and look through an eco-crowdfunding site like ioby or Mosaic to find interesting and innovative ideas that need a boost. I would shy away from the ugly money games of politics and support solutions instead.

Figuring other people might like the chance to play with your Monopoly money, I reached out to a few sustainability leaders for their ideas. They all had a lot to say, and I cannot possibly do them justice in this space, so we’ve collected their full answers here.

But to paraphrase: Starting close to home, Grist’s own David Roberts offered a similar idea to mine, with a bit more focus and a bit less chocolate milk: “I would break it up into 50 $1 million chunks and seed-fund 50 different people/organizations doing work around community-based distributed energy … A little money in that area, spent strategically, could go a long way.”

José Quinoñez, executive director of Mission Asset Fund, says he would “invest every penny in funding advocacy groups that focus all of their energy on changing public policy … the only way to bend the curve on deadly emissions is to change our laws.”

Weighing in from SustainAbility, Executive Director Mark Lee offered another approach: “Like an investor trying to stay afloat while succeeding in the marketplace, I’d diversify,” he said, and laid out a plan for investing five $10 million chunks in five areas: a promising grassroots campaign; daring entrepreneurs; climate adaptation and mitigation efforts near home; conservation of biodiversity in an emerging economy; and key political battles. He would also, he added, “play The Barenaked Ladies’ ‘If I Had a Million Dollars’ 50 times.” (Remind me to stay away from Mark’s neck of the woods.)

Erika Allen, Chicago and national projects director of Growing Power, discussed the idea with her 5-year-old son: “He would buy buildings in the town and make sure everyone has a nice place to live and lots of strawberries to eat.” Erika would invest in “community food systems that are closed loop … that recirculate wealth and monetize everyone’s contributions and inputs.”

Green-investment pioneer Jack Robinson says programs focusing on human behavior are what really need a $50 million injection: “Unless and until employees, consumers, and voters integrate sustainability into all aspects of their daily lives, the planet will remain at risk.”

And Auden Schendler, VP of Sustainability at Aspen Skiing Company and author of Getting Green Done, would put the money toward building a civil rights-style movement to solve climate change: “That would have much greater impact than, say, trying to fight Big Oil’s influence in politics, which laughs at your silly $50 million.”

As I said earlier, you can read everything these smart people had to say here. I’ll bet your fellow readers have even more ideas, which they will now share with us. In short, Mark, opinions on this topic are as diverse as the ideas and projects that could use our help. Too bad your windfall was a mythical one. Or was it? Call me.

Fisk-ally,
Umbra

Erika Allen, Chicago and national projects director, Growing Power:

My son, who just turned 5 in March, and I discussed this. He would buy buildings in the town and make sure everyone has a nice place to live and lots of strawberries to eat. (There is a longer story here about how he connects homelessness and food.) Along the same vein, [I would put it into] working to create community food systems that are closed loop … food, energy, housing, education, holistic health in a manner that constantly recirculates wealth and monetizes everyone’s contributions and inputs.

David Roberts, senior staff writer, Grist:

There’s no definitive way to answer that. I can only say what my idiosyncratic preference would be. I don’t actually think $50 million gets you much in politics, or in big philanthropy. I would break it up into 50 $1 million chunks and seed-fund 50 different people/organizations doing work around community-based distributed energy. The democratization of energy is a wedge that could destabilize utilities and spark all kinds of new innovations and new markets. A little money in that area, spent strategically, could go a long way.

Mark Lee, executive director, SustainAbility:

Like an investor trying to stay afloat while succeeding in the marketplace, I’d diversify.

• I’d make a big investment ($10 million) in a single activist campaign I really believe has potential to be effective, e.g. Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal.

• I’d look to invest $10 million in exciting, daring entrepreneurs with potential to develop and release disruptive innovations into the marketplace; as opposed to the single donation to the campaign, this would take a lot of time, to find the entrepreneurs and sort the right scale of investment in each.

• I’d do something local to address climate adaptation issues while continuing the mitigation battle, e.g. funding urban forests/tree canopy in the region where I live, focusing on economically disadvantaged communities; it would be hard to spend $10 million on trees in one city (!) so I’d sort the scale of investment right for where I live, then offer matching money to other cities willing to do the same. (If for some reason not urban forests, I’d make another green/livable cities investment, or perhaps shift to fresh water.)

• I’d make a conservation investment in a key biodiversity region in an emerging economy, e.g. Brazil, Indonesia — I’d pick the one where my investment would trigger the most matching or push something partially funded over the top or convince government to offer protected status to the region; I’d want it to have an ecosystem services element, so others could look at it and learn about the value that nature and thus such investments provide society.

• Then I’d take the last $10 million and invest in a few key political battles I felt I could influence. Given the scale of money in politics, the choices would be limited and critical. I’d perhaps look to help elect an incredibly progressive mayor fighting a tight battle in a city with global stature/leadership potential, as I think cities are such a hotbed of sustainable development thinking/practice right now (our best laboratory, if you will); I’d look to help tip a key House or Senate seat; and I’d battle local/regional initiatives, e.g. the next Prop 23/AB 32-like fight.

I’d also play The Barenaked Ladies’ “If I Had a Million Dollars” 50 times.

José Quinoñez, executive director, Mission Asset Fund:

If I won the lottery and had $50 million to save the planet, I would invest in advocacy groups that focus all of their energy on changing public policy. I would devise a five-year funding plan to give the advocacy groups time to staff up and get their campaigns in high gear to change policy. You see, the only way to bend the curve on deadly emissions is to change our laws — change our means of production and consumption. Yes, we could subsidize buyers to get electric cars, but that would be a feel-good effort that would do very little in the fight to save the planet. $50 million is a lot of money, don’t get me wrong. But it’s not enough to alter a $16 trillion economy by subsidizing a few purchases. We need fundamental policy changes at all levels to save the planet.

Jack Robinson, green-investment pioneer:

Great question. In my opinion, the biggest challenge facing the planet is global warming/climate change, the solution for which lies in pricing or taxing carbon in such a way that captures the costs, including all externalities. For starters, think of Sandy and the billions of dollars needed just to cover the direct costs.

Unfortunately, $50 million or even $50 billion probably would not be enough to change the vested political and corporate interests. As for the enviro groups, their work is to be admired and encouraged and they deserve an A+ for effort, but as we know, the job is incomplete. Regarding clean technologies, enough exists today to get the job done, with improvements being made daily with lower costs and better results. So what is missing?

Very simply, it is human behavior. Unless and until employees, consumers, and voters integrate sustainability into all aspects of their daily lives, the planet will remain at risk. While a few corporations, government agencies, and institutional entities are beginning to integrate behavior change into their cultures, it needs to be a much bigger initiative. $50 million adroitly applied to changing human behavior could generate a powerful return on the investment in terms of mitigating global warming and climate change.

Auden Schendler, VP of sustainability at Aspen Ski Company:

First off, saving civilization means solving climate change. And the one thing we know about the climate movement is that it has failed: CO2 keeps rising, recently crossing the 400 ppm threshold. The nonprofit community has tried a bunch of things — Al Gore’s group tried to demonstrate the impacts of severe weather through the Climate Reality Project; 350.org has been pushing on Keystone XL as an iconic battle. These are good ideas from our best thinkers, but they may or may not solve the problem. Yet looking at history, we actually know how to solve climate change, because we  have done similar things before, on labor, on civil rights, and most recently, quickly and spectacularly, on gay marriage. Short story: We need to create a social movement to force politicians to act.

The catalysts for these movements can be relatively inexpensive and grassroots. Miles Horton’s Highlander School, for example, trained up both MLK and Rosa parks in short order. $50 million toward similar work on climate would make a huge difference, and would have much greater impact than, say, trying to fight big oil’s influence in politics, which laughs at your silly $50 million.

So who is creating that social movement on climate? The most exciting group is Citizens Climate Lobby, which is, simply, creating the necessary political will for climate action, starting in people’s living rooms, where most revolutions start. A few other groups are working on similar efforts: 350.org has been enormously successful in its short existence. And Protect Our Winters (disclosure: I serve on their board) is trying to use the sexy and influential snow-sports industry, with its famous athletes and avid, influential participants, to drive policy change in Washington. These groups are all shoestring operations that are growing rapidly. Their work is based in a simple and proven concept: Politicians don’t create public will, they respond to it, to quote Mark Reynolds of Citizens Climate Lobby. As humans, we know how to do revolutions. But a little cash kick-starter never hurt.

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

As you know, university students across the country are petitioning their administrations to divest of fossil fuels. They are eager for support from the older generation of alums, but so far the alums have not done much. As an alum of two schools, I recently realized that one of the best ways that we can help in this effort is publicly to pledge to withhold further donations until our alma mater divests. But we need to spread this “meme” far more widely. How can we do this so that colleges and universities realize that their graduates who now have children and grandchildren are joining with the students and taking decisive, meaningful action for a future that affects us all?

Larry D.
Clinton, Wash.

A. Dearest Larry,

Don’t look now, but I think that meme is spreading as we speak. More on that in a moment.

How do you let colleges and universities know that you want them to stop investing in our destructive fossil-fuel companies? You tell them.

You could tell them by not donating, as you suggest. But that might or might not make much of an impact, depending on the relative sizes of your school, your donations, and their donor base. So you need to make your reason very clear. Write a letter to the fundraising office. Write a letter to the college president or trustees. Write a letter to the campus newspaper or local media.

When all that writing makes your hand cramp and your brain grow weary, get even more creative. Do you live near your alma maters? If so, perhaps you could string up a banner on the gates saying something like “Alums for Fossil Fuel Divestment” or “Old Alums Don’t Die, They Just Divest.” If that’s not a practical or desirable step, send a note to your alumni magazine that says “Larry D. is loving life in Clinton, Wash., where he’s actively involved in a national movement for alums who want their schools to divest from fossil fuels. Starting with this one.” Take a picture of your child or grandchild holding a sign that says “Guess what? I’m a legacy, but I won’t be considering your school because you invest in fossil fuels” and mail it in. Oh I’m full of good ideas.

So is Bill McKibben, whose organization 350.org has spearheaded this campus movement. (Full disclosure: He is also a Grist board member.) I asked Bill if he had advice for you, and he said this: “Anyone who has graduated from a college or university may have noticed that their alma mater retains a keen interest in them, and often sends return envelopes. Here’s the moment to put your love for your school, and your love for the planet, to joint use.”

Which rather makes it sound like he’s suggesting you mail in toads or acorns, but I’m pretty sure he’s just emphasizing your exact instinct: Your activities as a donor are very important to your school. In fact, Bill’s group offers resources for alums who want to get involved in the divest movement, including a map of active campaigns and a template of a letter you can send to the administration.

Just for fun I checked with a few other contacts who work in higher education, one of whom recommends a somewhat tougher, but possibly even more effective, route: “Arm yourself fully with facts about the schools’ fundraising and holdings and the potential impact of divestment, [then] put together a core group of influential and sensible supporters among alumni, other donors, administrators, faculty, students, trustees … and use the support, influence, and ideas to actually try to work something out through the existing mechanisms of the institutions.”

Whichever path you choose (I’m still loving my banner pun, personally), you’ll be joining a growing network of alums who are active in divestment efforts across the country, from the University of Michigan to Harvard, from Colorado College to the Claremont Consortium. They are signing petitions! They are making Facebook pages! And they are making impressive progress.

So far, the institutions that have committed to divest are small places with modest endowments: College of the Atlantic, Unity College, Sterling College, and Hampshire College. But the notion has spread to 300 campuses across the country, and even been embraced by several cities, including San Francisco and Seattle. So speak up, Larry! You could be part of an effort that’s shaping up to be one of the most important movements of the early 21st century.

Mortarboardly,
Umbra

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

My darling husband does our family’s dishes so I try to just stay out of his way. But he is convinced that the environmentally safe dishwasher detergents are not effective. Then again, opening the door after a completed cycle with his super-duper soap is so noxious that I am convinced these detergents leave behind residue subsequently to be consumed by me and his lovely daughter. What’s the rub?

Michele C.
Keene, N.H.

A. Dearest Michele,

It is awfully hard to argue with people who take on odious chores, isn’t it? Ordinarily I would agree with your urge to give your husband a wide berth, but dish detergent happens to be a subject about which I am passionate. Hey, we all have our passions.

First, let us celebrate the fact that your husband is using the dishwasher. As we have discussed before, a fully loaded dishwasher is more efficient than hand-washing dishes. Our friends at the Energy Star program swear it saves us time and money, too, to the tune of 10 days a year and $431 over the life of the machine. (Those of us not blessed with dishwashers can save water by filling a basin or two in the sink instead of leaving the water running while we wash up. But you knew that.)

So are your husband’s habits putting your family at risk? For many years, mainstream detergents contained phosphates, which were magic on dishes but fatal for fishes. In 2010, a controversial ban on phosphates took effect, relieving us of that worry, but conventional detergents still contain an alphabet soup of unsettling ingredients, which can include chlorine, sulfuric acid, and the nefarious “fragrance.” Check out the Environmental Working Group’s Guide to Healthy Cleaning for an eye-opening look at the truly toxic nature of many of our household products. Of 100 dishwasher detergents analyzed by the group, half got a rating of D or F. I’ll bet your noxious brand is in there! Go look it up. Then take a look at the items that get an A rating. They are better for your family’s health, and better for our waterways and the critters therein.

If eco-detergents haven’t met your mate’s expectations thus far, it may not be their fault. As former Grist food writer extraordinaire Tom Philpott explained in a review of eco-detergents awhile back, the performance of detergent actually has a lot to do with whether your water is hard or soft. I don’t know how the water is there in Keene, but hubs might have to do a quick pre-rinse so the eco-detergents can perform at their peak. Yes, this uses a bit more water, but choosing a greener detergent can keep potential carcinogens off your dessert plates. Kind of a good trade-off, if you ask me. The fine folks at Consumer Reports have a few more thoughts about how to deal with hard water and how to get the best out of your dishwasher.

Of course, you could always try making your own dish detergent with a few basic ingredients — this recipe offers tips on what to use and where to find the materials. Surely if you whip up a batch and present it to your darling dishwasher with a smile, he’ll be willing to give it a try. It’s the least a renaissance man can do.

Domestically,
Umbra

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dearest Umbra,

I know you’ve written about lightbulbs before, but it seems like there are lots of new options on store shelves. Are incandescents even being sold anymore? And what about LED lights? I tried some a few years ago and, in addition to being hella expensive, the light they gave off was cold and blue and institutional — I couldn’t stand it. Are there other low-energy varieties? Which kinds of bulbs work with dimmers? Can you — ahem — shed some light on this confusing subject?

Liza E.
Battle Creek, Mich.

A. Dearest Liza,

Thanks for reminding me that it’s time for our semi-demi-hexi-annual revisitation of the lightbulb topic. And what better day than Earth Day to undertake this quest? For years, “change a lightbulb” has been cited as a simple step people can take to help the planet. Now even that command is starting to feel complicated, a state of affairs that does not help our cause.

But I promise it’s not really as complicated as all that. For those with short attention spans, the answer is: Go buy LEDs.

Here’s the rest of the story: Back in 2007, George W. Bush (you remember him) signed an Energy Bill that, among other things, intended to make America more energy efficient. It included regulations that would end the manufacture of wildly inefficient lightbulbs. Some political shenanigans ensued, but the short version is that in 2012, the phaseout of conventional incandescent bulbs began, starting with the 100-watt varieties. This year, 75-watt bulbs are to get the heave-ho, followed by 60-watt and 40-watt models. Should you wish to know more, the EPA has a handy explainer on the topic. This shift could save U.S. households $6 billion in 2015 alone, says the agency — check out this calculator to see figures specific to your house.

In general, new lightbulbs = good news. But new lightbulbs can also feel confusing and expensive when we’ve spent our lives grabbing a familiar 75-watt bulb and paying $1 for it. So here’s a little refresher on our options:

Halogen incandescents are as close as you can get to the familiar incandescent bulbs now being phased out. These high-tech versions of the old standby last two to three times longer and use about 25 percent less energy. They look the same as the old versions, so they may be comforting to people who think newfangled bulbs are weird. They can also be used in your dimmers! This is an area of product development that might be worth keeping an eye on: One consultant told The New York Times that the bulb regulations, when they were brand new, had spurred “more incandescent innovations in the last three years than in the last two decades.” But you’ll still save more money and energy with a CFL or LED.

Compact fluorescents (CFLs) last 10 times as long as traditional incandescents and use 75 percent less energy. They are a very good energy-saving option, and some can be used in dimmers (check individual packaging), but they have drawbacks. They contain a tiny amount of mercury, which means you can’t just toss them in the trash — though disposal has gotten easier thanks to recycling programs at major retailers including Home Depot and IKEA. CFLs also require some relearning: We should not turn them off as religiously as we’ve been trained to do with incandescents, because they actually have a finite number of on-off cycles. Frequent switching can be one reason they burn out early. Here are a few other things that can do in a CFL.

Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) last 25 times as long as the old incandescents and use 75 percent less energy as well. Honestly, Liza, they are the way of the future. Scratch that: They are the way of the now. Forget your cold blue experience of yesteryear and look into the array of options available today, many of which are covered in this helpful New York Times review. LEDs get bright immediately (as opposed to having an annoying “warm-up” period like CFLs), aren’t weakened by on-off cycling, and can be used in your dimmer. Yes, they are expensive up front, but their price has dropped dramatically in the last couple of years, and should continue to do so. If you can manage $5 to $10 for a bulb, I promise it will pay off handsomely over time in lower energy bills, less bulb-changing, less pollution from the power plants that electrify our homes, less shopping, and less angst.

By the way, if you really want to geek out on the topic of lighting, here’s a fun quiz from the folks at National Geographic. You might even learn enough to concoct a strange new sign-off.

Ediswanly,
Umbra

Send your question to Umbra!

Dearest Readers,

Spring cleaning time! Here are a few quick and dirty questions that have been lingering in my inbox. Hope this helps — keep ’em coming!

Q. Dear Umbra,

Do you have any suggestions for the best way to get my eyeglass lenses clean?

Monique M.
Plymouth, N.H.

A. Dearest Monique,

I have the perfect eco-solution for you. It is called: Your Breath and a Swipe of Your Shirt. Yes, you will look a bit like your high-school algebra teacher, but it gets the job done. If that doesn’t appeal, might I suggest our old friend white vinegar. Seriously, people, there is nothing white vinegar cannot do. Dab a little on your lenses, wipe with a soft cloth, and enjoy the streak-free shine.

Bifocally,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

Do Barbie dolls and accessories contain BPA?

Janie
Wayzata, Minn.

A. Dearest Janie,

When I was growing up, a Fisk hound chewed the legs off my favorite Barbie. Did he ingest Bisphenol A along with those deliciously petite feet? I asked the good folks at Mattel, who would say only that the materials they use are “considered safe by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.” It does appear that Barbies are made from PVC (polyvinyl chloride), which is worrisome. Longtime readers will recall my firm rule — “No on vinyl, and that’s final” — and this overview gives a sense of the global uprising against PVC. A better choice would be to buy or make toys that don’t contain any plastic at all. Healthier for the children in your life, healthier for the planet — and healthier for the occasional overzealous canine.

Skipperly,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

Is it OK to put broken glass (drinking, window pane, etc) in my recycling container?

Aisha E.
Philadelphia, Penn.

A. Dearest Aisha,

While it goes against my deep urge to recycle absolutely everything, the conventional wisdom is to wrap up broken glass and put it in your trash. This is for two primary reasons: First, glass objects like drinking vessels and window panes are not typically recycled by many municipalities, whether broken or not. (Check with yours to be sure.) Second, even if these objects are recycled in your area, you don’t want to risk slashing the hands of your friendly local hauler.

I will, however, go out on a limb and say if you break a beer bottle and your recycling is picked up by a mechanized truck, you can probably sneak the shards into your bin. Of course, you could always look into reuse too. Need any mosaics?

Craftily,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

Congratulations on your witty, informative column! I would like to know how to recycle used spiral-bound notebooks. I have about 10 of them waiting for disposal. Please don’t tell me I have to tear out all the paper!

Catherine H.
Mamaroneck, N.Y.

A. Dearest Catherine,

Thank you! And are these notebooks your journals from fourth grade onward? If so, I urge you to keep them. I destroyed mine a decade or so ago, and I sometimes wish I could revisit the woes of young Umbra. The teacher who refused to debate the finer points of roadless rules, the junior-high locker that wasn’t big enough for my unicycle — that sort of thing. But if you’re ready to part with yours, check with your local waste authority to see whether you need to disassemble them. Some recycling plants can handle an intact notebook, others can’t. If separation is required, think of this little project not as “tearing out all the paper” but as simply removing the binding. Once you get started you might find it rather satisfying – and you can even look into creative ways to reuse the metal when you’re done.

Confidentially,
Umbra

Q. Dearest Umbra,

For those of us who get headaches from fragrances, staying in motels and hotels is a real stinky problem. But I recently stayed at a resort where they do not use heavily scented cleaners. My question for you: Is there a website that lists the non-smelly hotels and motels?

Rob C.
Ridgway, Colo.

A. Dearest Rob,

How hotels love their scents. Roses, vanilla, tobacco, old books — these things apparently create “transitional portals” and emotional attachments.  Or, in the case of many guests including you, headaches. Happily, I have resources to suggest: Green Vacation Hub offers a clickable map of green hotels that includes a special filter for fragrance and air quality. And the Safer Travel Directory is an old-school list of hundreds of establishments that are sensitive to the needs of the chemically sensitive ($17 PDF, $19-$25 hard copy). At larger hotel chains you can also inquire about allergy-free rooms — some use air purifiers and fragrance-free products that can minimize, if not entirely do away with, your discomfort. Of course, you’ll still have to make it through that old-book-scented lobby.

Vagabondly,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

How do I get rid of a big-ass tube TV?

Hanna W.
Seattle, Wash.

A. Dearest Hanna,

Do you know how many old TVs are sitting in storage in American homes? A whopping 99 million, according to an EPA estimate [PDF]. That was a few years back, and I bet it’s grown since then. This means — and here I am extrapolating just a tad — that you are not alone in your dilemma. What the heck do we do with old TVs, indeed? We are rightfully hesitant to toss them, because they are full of lead and mercury and other nasties that can contaminate our soil and water (eventually contaminating us). In fact, many places, including your very own King County, will not allow TVs in the trash. Luckily, TV recycling is getting easier and more common, thanks to local recycling centers, programs set up by major retailers such as Best Buy, and electronics manufacturers. Start with EPA’s Electronics Donation and Recycling page and King County’s handy directory, and promise me you won’t stop until you’ve found the beast a proper resting place.

Downtonly,
Umbra

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

My wife and I are in the market for a new car. We’ve been looking at several options and are finally leaning toward a small vehicle that gets decent miles per gallon. Which makes me ask a few questions: Is it more important to get a hybrid for the mileage or should people be really concerned about emissions? Are hybrids and PZEVs [partial-zero emissions vehicles] equally good choices? And is it better to buy a car from a company that offers a majority of its models with a PZEV rating, or from a company that makes hybrids, but also manufactures some of the largest-consuming vehicles on the market?

Ryan H.
Constantia, N.Y.

A. Dearest Ryan,

How I love these simple questions. Obviously the answer is clear: Don’t buy a car!

OK, OK, every time I make such a utopian suggestion, readers across the country hasten to point out that where they live, cars are a necessity. If that’s the case for you — perhaps the Constantia subway system is not what it might be — I still hope you will try to drive your new car as little as possible. Walk, ride a bike, carpool, bundle your errands. Driving is responsible for 10 percent of climate emissions [PDF], or maybe 15 percent, and American drivers are responsible for nearly half of that. Besides the climate impact, driving pollutes our air, increases our isolation, and hurts our health. We should endeavor to drive less, no matter where we live.

End of rant, Ryan, and beginning of answers. Let’s start with a little refresher on automotive terms:

• A hybrid car runs on a combination of gas and electric power. Most hybrids typically get 45 to 55 miles per gallon, compared to an average of 29 mpg for conventional cars. (That average for conventional cars is set to rise to 35 mpg by 2016 and 54 mpg by 2025.) Typically hybrids cost roughly $5,000-$7,000 more than their gas counterparts, but much of that is recouped in fuel savings.

• A PZEV is a partial-zero emissions vehicle. These cars use regular gas, but their tailpipe emissions are 90 percent cleaner than a typical car thanks to whizbang technology related to their catalytic converters. They also have zero evaporative emissions, which are the vapors that can escape from a fuel system. Most of the major car companies make PZEV versions of regular models (e.g., the Ford Focus PZEV), which typically get about the same mileage and sell for just a bit more ($200 or so) than the regular version.

Originally available only in California and the Northeast, PZEVs are beginning to pop up all over the place. In fact, we have California to thank for a soup of “EV” options, including ULEV (ultra-low-emission), SULEV (super-ultra-low-emission), ZEV (zero-emission), and SWTULEV (super-wicked-totally-ultra-low-emission). I might or might not have made that last one up.

Still with me? Try this on for size: Many hybrids are PZEVs, but not all PZEVs are hybrids. Now that our heads are properly spinning, let us tackle your questions.

Is it more important to think about mileage or emissions? The answer is yes. All car shoppers should think about mileage and emissions, which are directly related — particularly when it comes to carbon dioxide, the main culprit in climate change. This handy chart from the Department of Energy says more than I ever could. See how the 45-mpg car emits far less CO2 than the others? While PZEV technology does a wonderful and important job reducing air pollution, it does not reduce carbon dioxide. As the gummint puts it [PDF], “CO2 emissions cannot be reduced by pollution control technologies.” This is why you should look for the best MPG you can find and can afford.

Are hybrids and PZEVs equally good choices? Since most hybrids burn so clean they qualify as PZEVs, let’s rephrase this question: Are hybrid PZEVs and non-hybrid PZEVs equally good choices? I think that new phrasing helps us see the answer. If you can afford the hybrid PZEV, it’s the better choice, because it goes the extra mile of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels and emitting less CO2. But a non-hybrid PZEV that gets decent mileage is still a good and responsible choice — particularly if you live in a big city, where air quality and public health are pressing concerns.

Is it better to buy from a company that makes a lot of PZEVs or a company that makes hybrids and giant gas-suckers? The companies that make non-hybrid PZEVs started doing so because state gummints in California and elsewhere forced them to. So although the technologies are super-ultra-cool, your PZEV purchase likely won’t change much. You can be sure that if state regulators woke up tomorrow and said, “Oh, just kidding about that whole PZEV thing,” most automakers would jump for joy and get back to business as usual. I believe you can have more of an impact, on the market and on our climate problem, by adding to the increasing demand for hybrids, even if — especially if — the company in question makes gas-suckers too. Send a message!

If a hybrid is simply out of your price range, finding a car with good mileage is key. If that good-mileage car is available in a low-emission version where you live, even better. And did I mention we should all drive less? Ride that bike on over to town hall and start lobbying the Constantia town fathers for a solar-powered subway system.

Utopianly,
Umbra

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

This might sound a little out there, but whenever I think about climate change, I picture us all ending up on a planet like Tatooine. Hot as hell, two suns, broken dreams and unhappy people all around. Am I just getting carried away here, or does Star Wars have some lessons to offer us?

Jim R.
Rutland, Vt.

A. Dearest Jim,

Sometimes I think I’ve seen it all, and then someone like you comes along to ask if we can learn anything from a galaxy far, far away. I suspect my knowledge of the planetary system of Star Wars does not hold a candle to yours, but I don’t mind taking a break from the problems of this galaxy to explore another one. Luckily I also have a couple of experts in the family Fisk to whom I can turn for guidance.

Isn’t it remarkable how science fiction offers such fascinating ideas for surviving brutal, apocalyptic situations? For decades, imaginative writers have put forth super-creative notions that really might be worth a closer look, especially as we creep closer to our own climate apocalypse. In fact, some of the boldest geoengineering concepts out there seem like they are straight out of a sci-fi novel. It’s a fine line, I suppose, which may be why many people cast aspersions on that field. (Then again, I know others who are fully convinced that cloud-seeding will save us.)

But back to Star Wars. The more I poke around, the more I think the planetary lessons on offer are a bit grim. On Bespin, home of Cloud City, life revolves around gas mining and artificial urban constructs. The swamps of Dagobah, where Yoda trains Luke, apparently cause frustration and hallucinations. Coruscant, political hub of the galaxy, has to propel its garbage into space and scrub its atmosphere of toxic gases. And then there’s poor old Alderaan, where Leia grew up, which boasted a lovely variety of habitats, built an advanced civilization, was deeply committed to peace — and got blown to smithereens for not kowtowing to Evil Corporate Forces. What sort of take-home message is that?

I actually think Tatooine might offer some of the most useful lessons for withstanding a scorched future. Two suns and a desert don’t sound all that pleasant, but build yourself a sunken hut and wear light colors, and you’ll keep cool. If memory serves, I believe Luke’s family also practiced “moisture farming,” the practice of drawing usable water from the air. This is a skill that real-world engineers are working on all around us, and they are coming up with some fascinating solutions: In Lima, Peru, a billboard produces drinking water for local residents; a French company has created a wind turbine that does the same; and researchers have even dreamed up a self-filling water bottle (unless this is one of MIT’s notorious pranks — those are some seriously silly brainiacs). With water scarcity one of our greatest global concerns, such investigations and ideas are going to be vital.

Tatooine also offers another lesson, of course, which is that the right theme music makes all the difference. Sometimes I just hum that Cantina ditty to myself when I’m in the library stacks researching my dearest readers’ questions. It makes a dusty hour go by quickly, I’ll tell you that.

Mos Eisley,
Umbra

P.S. Happy first of April.

Send your question to Umbra!

Q. Dear Umbra,

I defer to your sage advice in many matters and often wonder at the minutiae laid at your feet. How silly to agonize over bra stuffing when climate change is poised to make my home here in Florida the next Atlantis. However, here I am, agonizing over the small: I love insects. They are resilient, organized, fascinating, beautiful — and I want to wear them. I’ve been looking at stunning butterfly wing jewelry and I just have to have it. But I don’t wear fur or feathers on the grounds that the creatures may have been treated badly. Is it hypocritical to not extend this ethic to insects? Or by showcasing the beauty of bugs can I help others see their value and importance?

Anastasia
Clearwater, Fla.

A. Dearest Anastasia,

In one sense, you’re absolutely right that it’s silly to fret over the little things. But it’s also a bit comforting, isn’t it? One can lose plenty of sleep over climate change, but the problem remains unsolved the next day. Put enough energy into your butterfly-wing dilemma, though, or any of a thousand other tiny problems, and sooner or later you will decide upon a course of action you can feel good about. Sometimes it’s nice to feel that we have some control in our lives, that we can solve problems and change habits and make the tiniest ripple in the world. It’s just the over-fretting we need to be careful about. We mustn’t tie ourselves in knots.

As for the insect-ethics question, I am very interested to know what your fellow readers think. You probably know that many vegans avoid insect-originating products such as silk and honey. But how far should this careful consideration extend? I have used high-falutin’ technology to create a poll:

Of course, there is a difference between being kind to butterflies, which I think we can all agree is a fairly reasonable goal, and being kind to termites, mosquitoes, and other bugs that truly “bug.” Or is there? Oh my, another poll has appeared!

My, my, you readers are certainly opinionated today. I do want to remind those of you who pursue exterminative routes that the chemicals that are good at killing bugs can also harm humans. Please look into non-toxic pest control.

Anastasia, I am slowly getting around to your actual question, about your lust for Lepidoptera. The fact is, there does exist jewelry made from “cruelty-free butterfly wings.” I cannot vouch for this sector, but you could try to learn more about it, and see whether the notion of wings plucked from already-dead butterflies sits easier than the image of a butterfly writhing in a tiny torture device.

However, if you really want to help others see the value and importance of butterflies — and with an estimated 15,000 species flitting about the world, there’s plenty to learn — I’m not sure wearing dead ones as decoration is going to get the job done. Why not volunteer at the Florida Botanical Gardens butterfly garden, or plan some events for Butterfly Education and Awareness Day this June, or organize a butterfly-kite festival, or form a book club and make the first selection Barbara Kingsolver’s Flight Behavior.

Whatever you do, hang on to your appreciation for small wonders. Sometimes that’s all that gets us through the day.

Exoskeletally,
Umbra