By Ask Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

How can I get “free,” “environmentally” friendly business cards? I am starting to network with my new credentials, LEED GA and BPI certification. So I need an eye-catching business card.

Dee R.
Philadelphia, Pa.

A. Dearest Dee,

First of all, congratulations. For those who don’t speak eco-acronym, Dee here has become something of a green-building expert, proving her chops as both a LEED Green Associate — someone with expertise in environmentally friendly construction and design — and a Building Performance Institute professional, chock-full of knowledge about home energy performance and efficiency. Go Dee!

Given your new credentials, it’s logical that you want to share them with all and sundry. As a people, we have been thrusting business cards into each others’ hands since the 17th century, when English merchants used them to give customers accurate directions to their stores. The trend caught on in America in the late 1800s, and the rest is 2-by-3.5-inch history.

Personally, I am not a big fan of the business card, and rarely hand mine out at cocktail-weenie hour. Environmentally, I don’t believe distributing small pieces of paper to people who will toss them or let them stack up on a desk does much for our cause. One estimate suggests more than 10 billion cards are printed each year. Laid end to end, that’s … a whole lot of business cards.

Eco-impact aside, the dawn of the digital era has led to passionate arguments about whether the business card is dead. Here is just one debate on said topic. The general consensus seems to be, “Nope, and it won’t be any time soon, but some interesting alternatives are cropping up.” Let’s have a look at some of your options.

• If you order paper cards, go green. Should you decide to shell out for traditional cards, search “eco business cards” or a similar phrase and you will find plenty of companies offering recycled paper, soy- and other vegetable-based inks, and friendly eco-couriers who will bicycle your shipment to Philadelphia. Well, I can’t guarantee that last part. I also cannot guarantee the performance of particular companies, but it seems that crowd favorites in this area include GreenerPrinter.com and Moo.com. Here’s a green-printing primer for sifting through the various issues and claims.

• If you order paper cards, go tiny. Some printers now offer “mini-cards,” whose dimensions are closer to 1-by-3 … thus using less than half the paper! Depending on whom you ask, these eensy cards either make a huge impact or are immediately lost. The other drawback here is that no company I found seemed to offer these cards on recycled stock, although the aforementioned Moo.com uses sustainably sourced stock. In this case, I think bigger might be better.

• Make your own. It seems counterintuitive: Do I want my professional card to look like a third-grade art project? But here is where your need for “free” and “environmental” might be best met, and the results can be quite handsome. Here’s the idea: Get a rubber stamp custom-made with your personal information, logo, and what have you. Then find the recycled or reclaimed paper of your choice to stamp it on, and voila. Such a stamp will probably run you a one-time cost of $50-$60; check out Etsy or this handy list. You could also design and print your own cards at home or a local print shop, maintaining control over the type of paper and — this is key — printing only as many as you need.

• Give them something else to remember you by. Could you give potential clients some other token? Grist once made branded eco-toothbrushes. This list suggests seed packets, clothespins, and peanut shells as ersatz calling cards. Perhaps there’s something out there that reflects your interests and is affordable, easy to carry, and light on the planet.

• Go digital. This option is free and saves paper, but assumes you and your potential clients are tech-savvy. Schmoozy possibilities include mobile-to-mobile sharing using an app such as Bump or CardCloud; creation and sharing of virtual cards through a service like TwtBzCard; or even personalized QR codes. By the way, if you’re on the receiving end of too many paper cards, apps such as Google Goggles and CardMunch can help you digitize them.

Remember, Dee, a business card is not akin to confetti, to be showered upon everyone you meet. Doling yours out to people who really want them is another crucial way to use resources wisely.

Good luck in your new line of work — can’t wait to see your card.

Industriously,
Umbra

By Ask Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

Recently I’ve been growing more concerned about the rainforest deforestation associated with the palm oil in trans-fat-free margarines. Are there any trans-fat-free and rainforest-deforestation-free butter substitute options for when I’m accommodating my vegan friends (and that I could suggest they use instead)?

Paul
Bar Harbor, Maine

Photo by Angelica.

A. Dearest Paul,

Your question is quite pertinent this week, when our besotted peers are loading up on 58 million pounds of chocolate for their sweeties, much of it packed with palm oil. (Look, here is one guide [PDF] to candy with and without this controversial substance.)

You are accommodating indeed, to be giving so much thought to the edible-spread needs of your vegan friends. Your query leads us down a greasy hillside of deforestation, pollution, human-rights infringements, hydrogenation, and marketing shtick. As a side bonus, however, we get a shamelessly cute video of baby orangutans, and a few promising recipes for homemade vegan “butter.” Yum.

First, for the uninitiated, why are we concerned about palm oil? As every good Girl Scout knows, the cultivation of this crop is causing major devastation [PDF], especially in Indonesia and Malaysia. It is scorching the earth and unlocking carbon. It is ousting people from their homes. And it is also ousting such endangered creatures as tigers, elephants, and orangutans from their lush habitat. All to satiate the hungers of this “developed” world of ours.

Outrageous, we cry! So we make up our minds: We won’t buy products containing palm oil. But then we learn that almost half of packaged goods contain it, from cookies to pizza, lipstick to laundry detergent. And we further learn that it sometimes goes by secret spy names such as palmitate, stearic acid, and the cleverly deceptive “vegetable oil.” Hard to avoid, this stuff.

But let’s give it our best go. First, do try to find out all you can about the butter substitute you are currently enjoying. Some companies that use palm oil are trying to be transparent about things. Earth Balance, a popular product line among the vegan set, offers a public explanation of its palm-oil position [PDF]. One blogger wrote to several other manufacturers and got these responses. You will commonly find companies touting their membership in the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, which has been dismissed by many activists as a feel-good cover for companies engaged in bad practices.

If you decide the store brands of margarine aren’t doing it for you, whether on palm-oil grounds or because they contain unhealthy hydrogenated oils, I urge you to look into making your own. All hail Mattie from Veganbaking.net, who offers several recipes for vegan butter, from the basics to beyond (white chocolate butter! kimchi butter!), as well as a thorough description of when and why butter is necessary to life. Most of the recipes I’ve seen contain some form of soy (except for this one), and soy has its own problems. In the words of Grist food editor Twilight Greenaway, “Big Palm versus Big Soy is kind of a toss-up.” But she says organic soy is more likely to be a known quantity at this point.

Hm. What else can you do? For spreads, how about skipping the “butter” altogether and upping the yumminess factor with good old olive oil, avocado, hummus, almond butter, or peanut butter (watch out for palm oil in some nut butters, though). For baking, you can use various vegetable oils as substitutes, or coconut oil. I am no shill for Earth Balance, but they have a coconut spread [PDF] that’s purportedly good for eating and baking. I hear tell that another good option is prune puree. (Note to self: possible stage name.)

Finally, Paul, you might ask your vegan friends for other creative ideas. They’re probably painfully aware of the palm-oil dilemma — and they’ve no doubt developed skills for surviving and thriving in a butter-free world.

Heartily,
Umbra

By Ask Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

So cacti can remove selenium from soil. I’ve read in the past about different plants being able to “sop up” various nasty chemicals. My question is this: Then what? Are they to be harvested and dumped somewhere, so contaminating another piece of land, or are they allowed to live out their lives, die, keel over, and re-contaminate the same piece of land?

David B.
Greenfield, N.H.

Photo by Tommy Wong.

A. Dearest David,

Is there anything our plant friends can’t do? They look nice, they often smell nice, and they agreeably exchange their oxygen for our carbon dioxide. They sequester carbon, they feed us, they shade our homes, they shelter critters, they make indoor air cleaner, they improve worker productivity, they can be ground up to make medicines and teas. I could go on and on. Or maybe I couldn’t, because I’m getting all choked up just thinking about the sacrifices plants make for us, the dunderheaded humans who lurch among them.

And now we have the temerity to ask them one more favor: Hey plants, while you’re at it, could you clean up the contamination we have created in the course of our brash modern lives? We seem to have left just a few splotches of pesticides, oil and gas, solvents, heavy metals, and radionuclides here and there. Mind absorbing those from the soil and groundwater?

Yes, say the plants obligingly. Just tell us where to go and what to do.

So we ask them to engage in phytoremediation, a process by which plants absorb contaminants into their roots, stems, and leaves. But we shouldn’t feel too sorry for our leafy friends, says USGS research hydrologist Jim Landmeyer, who has recently written a textbook on the topic: “Plants have been exposed to all sorts of nasties for the last 400 million years. They’ve figured out how to survive all that, and they’ve been endowed with the ability to clean up some of the things we’ve spilled.”

Landmeyer says the modern notion of phytoremediation took hold in the mid-1970s, thanks to the work of USDA researcher Rufus Chaney, and has been actively researched and applied since the early 1990s. As a clean-up method it’s fairly effective, it’s cheaper and less labor-intensive than options such as excavating soil, and it’s a mite prettier than a bulldozer. It also ideally leaves fertile soil behind so other plants can happily grow.

A thorough cleanup can take years, requiring several rounds of crops. In the case of heavy metals, plants known as hyperaccumulators absorb and store the offending substances until harvest day comes. When the contaminant in question is an organic compound such as gasoline, the plants are generally able to break it down into less potent forms, which they store or release.

Photo by Elizabeth Guthrie Nichols.

Which plants are best suited for this job? Super-suckers include willow, poplar, ragweed, sunflowers, mustards, and some grasses. Certain genetic modifications can make them even … suckier. And these leafy overachievers, natural and modified, are in action all across the country, from the selenium-filled deserts of California to lead-addled backyards in Boston. The process has been embraced by the government — which has tested it at various places including more than 200 Superfund sites and continues to research its broader applications — and by some biotech and remediation companies too.

When the plants have done their job, they are harvested, and considered hazardous biomass. They are usually compacted, since they’re so squishable, then either sent to a landfill or burned. Ish, you’re thinking. What good is removing contamination from the soil if we just put it back in the ground or in the air? Good question. In theory, carefully constructed landfills and incinerators limit the release of harmful contents. Plus, the squished plants take up far less room than acres of excavated soil. Meanwhile, we have returned a contaminated area to sustainable growing conditions, or to a potential location for a new gas station.

Two possible economic side benefits to the incineration situation: This harvested biomass can be burned to create energy, and often is in Europe, says Landmeyer. And sometimes, in an operation known as phytomining, the heavy-metal ore is retrieved from the plants’ ashes, then recycled or resold.

There you have it, David. All your phytoremediation questions answered. It’s not a perfect process, but so far it looks better than many alternatives. So next time you see a cactus that looks like it’s just idly standing by, give it a nod for taking on one of the dirtiest jobs around.

Hyperaccumulatingly,
Umbra

By Ask Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

I have two bottled beers in my refrigerator left over from a party at least three years ago. Incredible, I know, to anyone who loves beer, but I’m not a beer drinker. If this were cake, it would be a different story. Anyway, the question: Is it better to pour the beer down the sink and recycle the bottles, but then I’m adding an alcoholic pollutant to the waterways, or to put the full bottles in the trash. It should be noted that in my community, all trash is burned (in as green a way as possible — my local government is very environmentally conscious).

T.K.
Arlington, Va.

Photo by Nathanael Boehm.

A. Dearest T.K.,

I posed your question to several beer and water-quality experts, all of whom offered this measured, scientific response: “Your letter-writer wants to do what?!”

Let’s just say their concern was not for the aquatic organisms.

Once they got past the horror of imagining any beer meeting such a fate, the expert panelists were relatively unperturbed. “While it is indeed a tragedy that the beer is undrinkable, there is no risk in pouring it down the drain,” said Rick Keil, a professor of chemical oceanography at the University of Washington.

Tracy Collier, an environmental toxicologist who recently retired from NOAA, agreed: “There are a lot of things you should not pour down your drain, things that can harm our waters and the living resources that depend on them, but beer is not one of them.”

Your drain likely empties to a sewage treatment plant or septic field, both of which are well equipped to handle a bit of alcohol now and then, Collier explains. If by some chance your drain leads directly to a waterway, your plan would still be fine, he says. “The organic substances in beer can be pretty quickly utilized as energy sources by microbes and algae, so while you might be causing some nutrient pollution, it’s not likely to have a lasting impact, unless we are talking about a tanker truck full of beer.”

Given that expert advice, I suppose you could feel OK about dumping the beer and recycling the bottles. (As we discovered early in the history of this column, you can also recycle a bottle with a lime wedge in it.) I would certainly choose that route over tossing the full bottles in the trash. We want to recycle whenever possible, especially glass in all its infinite recyclability. Throwing it out, even into your city’s apparently cutting-edge trash-to-energy scheme, is a waste.

But back to the contents of those bottles: Before you head for the sink, you could consider alternative uses for the beer, which can actually substitute for many a toxic household chemical. Here are a few ideas, courtesy of our friends at Care2: attract butterflies, repel slugs, polish copper pots, remove carpet stains, wash your hair, trap fruit flies. Keil of UW points out that some gardeners also swear by beer as a compost additive or, in diluted form, a lawn fertilizer.

Lastly, I have a really radical suggestion: You or someone else could drink the beer. I checked with pros including Matt Simpson, The Beer Sommelier, who told me properly stored beer can remain drinkable for years. (If it’s gone bad, you’ll know immediately.) So perhaps it’s time to throw another party — you could have a water-quality awareness theme! Test your guests to see whether they know that our waterways contain all manner of strange things, like lint from fleece and cinnamon from cookies. Then share some tips for how to prevent water pollution. You’ll be sure to make waves.

Geneseely,
Umbra

By Ask Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

A CFL that I’ve had for less than a year just burnt out. It’s happened to me numerous times before. We’re told that one of the money-saving benefits of CFLs is that they last much longer than incandescent bulbs, but that’s not been my experience. Am I buying the wrong brands? Has demand for cheap CFLs caused manufacturers to cut corners? What’s the deal?

Caroline E.
Richmond, Va.

Photo by Seth.

A. Dearest Caroline,

Your question is important, not only because you’re frustrated with your fritzy CFLs, but because 2012 is a turning point in the history of lightbulbs.

Yes, this is the year our old friend the 100-watt incandescent is being phased out in the name of energy efficiency. Over the next two years, his pals the 75-watt, 60-watt, and 45-watt incandescents will also begin to disappear from store shelves, until we find ourselves, at the end of 2014, shivering in the darkness, huddled together for warmth, and cursing the interfering gummint.

At least, that’s the picture being painted by weirdly worked-up Republicans, who are so angry about these standards (which were signed into law in 2007 by one George W. Bush and could save consumers $6 billion in 2015) that they attached a rider to the budget this past December taking away the Department of Energy funding needed to enforce the rules. Joke’s on them, though, because manufacturers have been prepping for this switch since 2007. The wheels are in motion.

This year’s other noteworthy development is the appearance of an FTC-mandated Lighting Facts label on most bulb packaging. Similar to the Nutrition Facts label on food, this graphic will offer consistent, clear details on brightness, energy costs, life expectancy, color appearance, and of course sugar and saturated fats.

So what does all this have to do with your short-lived bulbs? Well, lightbulbs suddenly feel a bit confusing and unfamiliar. We’re supposed to pay attention to lumens, not watts, and the marketplace is saturated with the soft hues of technological promise, in three basic forms: compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), which use 25 percent of the energy that incandescents do and can theoretically last 10 times as long; light-emitting diodes (LEDs), which use about 20 percent of the energy of incandescents and can last 25 times as long; and halogen incandescents (HIs … oh fine, I made that acronym up), which look and work like our old familiar bulbs but are just efficient enough to squeak by under the new rules.

Which model will prevail? I contacted Noah Horowitz, a lighting and efficiency expert who has written a thorough guide to the new frontier. “There will be a three-way race between improved incandescents, CFLs, and LEDs to see what goes into the 3 billion or so sockets that still have an inefficient 125-year-old incandescent bulb inside,” he told me. “If you ask five experts who will win, you’ll likely get at least five answers.”

So. We are guinea pigs. And you, Caroline, are a frustrated guinea pig. To answer your specific questions: It is true that not all CFL brands are created equal. It is also true, or at least claimed, that the government pushed manufacturers in the late 1990s to make CFLs affordable, which led to a surge in cheap components. It is further true that the glowing promise of a 6,000-hour bulb is just an average. Which means some burn out sooner, and some later.

I can’t say for sure why your bulbs are fading so fast, but I do adore this handy chart of CFL Killers from Seattle City Light, which also offers tips for getting the most from your bulbs. One thing to keep in mind is that CFLs are not meant to be turned on and off frequently. They last about 7,000 on-off cycles — so start making those hatch marks on your wall. You should also be sure to buy Energy Star bulbs and keep your receipts, because that rating system requires a two-year manufacturer warranty.

And don’t give up. “CFLs continue to be the best deal for consumers in terms of overall cost,” Horowitz tells us. “But my advice to someone who is hesitant to buy CFLs would be, go ahead and buy the energy-saving incandescent halogen for now, and when it burns out in a year or so, take another look at LEDs.”

Tungstenly,
Umbra

By Ask Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

Generally speaking, sustainability advocates seem to be a serious crowd. Have you got any jokes or one-liners that can bring some levity to our work? Especially ones related to recycling?

Robert D.
Jefferson City, Mo.

"You HAVE to tell the one about the Clean Air Act at the next upcycling party."

A. Dearest Robert,

Have you heard the one about the aluminum recycling plant? It smelt.

Have you heard the one about the recycling bin with a sign that said, “Empty water bottles here”? Pretty soon the bin was full of water.

Know why environmentalists are bad at playing poker? They avoid the flush.

Chortle, chortle, chortle. Robert, you have touched upon a serious gap in our cultural lives, and I’m hoping your fellow readers will weigh in with some good jokes to keep our spirits up. To be honest, we at Grist have struggled with this since our founder got the oh-so-brilliant idea to launch an environmental news site infused with humor in 1999. Because it turns out “environmental humor” is not that funny, at least in the form of the classic jokes and one-liners. Please do not tell our auditors.

Others have found this a tricky topic, too. Bill Maher, for instance, once said the environment is “one of the hardest subjects to do in comedy.” British comedian Marcus Brigstocke has called climate change “far and away the most difficult comedy subject I’ve ever dealt with.” Some will be eager to blame this on the perceived earnestness of the movement and its members — but shouldn’t that make it all the funnier?

Back to our quest for one-liners. A few chestnuts from stand-up comedians might elicit a titter, depending how free you are with your titters: George Carlin remarked of national-park camping reservations that “when you have to wait a year to sleep next to a tree, something is wrong.” Robin Williams compared clean coal to “wearing a porous condom — at least the intention was there.” Stephen Wright eschewed cars with his typically profound observation that “everything is within walking distance if you have the time.” And Sam Levenson offered this take on overpopulation: “Somewhere on this globe, every 10 seconds, there is a woman giving birth to a child. She must be found and stopped.”

If late-night TV is your thing, you will find plenty of lukewarm climate gags in the collected works of Jay Leno, David Letterman, Conan O’Brien, and Jimmy Fallon. Here is a compendium of somewhat dated examples. My favorite (and I use the term loosely): “According to a new U.N. report, the global warming outlook is much worse than originally predicted. Which is pretty bad when they originally predicted it would destroy the planet.”

If you lean more toward literature, you might like this Mark Twain musing: “Learn to ride a bicycle. You will not regret it if you live.” Or how about some Ogden Nash? There’s this classic: “I think that I shall never see/A billboard lovely as a tree./Indeed, unless the billboards fall,/I’ll never see a tree at all.” And the produce-averse “Further Reflections on Parsley”: “Parsley/Is gharsely” (yes, that’s the entire poem). And “The Purist,” which unintentionally offers a wee bit of insight into why scientists have a hard time speaking passionately about climate change:

I give you now Professor Twist,
A conscientious scientist …
Camped on a tropic riverside,
One day he missed his loving bride.
She had, the guide informed him later,
Been eaten by an alligator.
Professor Twist could not but smile.
“You mean,” he said, “a crocodile.”

I would also point you to The Onion, which offers some of the most incisive environmental humor around. (A couple of classics: Consumer product diversity now exceeds biodiversity and Suburban recycling program now accepting broken and discarded dreams .)

And needless to say, our very own Grist List is an insanely wonderful source of good guffaws, each and every day.

I encourage you to keep your quest alive, with the warning that your average “environmental joke” search on the interweb will give you scintillating results such as this: “Your so hot you must’ve started all of globle warming.” Sic.

Finally, because I care, Robert, I have come up with an Umbra Original: A recycling joke just for you. Are you ready?

“What’s the worst way for glass to get around town?  By downcycling.”

You may now toss rotten tomatoes in my general direction. Or leave a better joke below in comments.

Yukkily,
Umbra

By Ask Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

It seems that commingled recycling could not be as efficient as separated recycling. Although I am aware that it increases the percentage of garbage that is recycled, I wonder if there is any reason to separate my waste and find an old-fashioned recycling center that accepts it.

Michael K.
Adelphi, Md.

A. Dearest Michael,

This here is one of those Hot Topics that is causing entire industries to foam at the mouth, while the rest of us merrily go about our business — sort of like the wood vs. plastic pallet punchfest. On behalf of the recycling industry, I hereby present The Great Commingled Collection Kerfuffle.

A bit of backstory: In commingled (or single-stream) collection, people toss all of their recyclables into one bin, then waste haulers toss it into one truck. Sorting occurs at a materials recovery facility (MRF), which then sends bales of our shredded, crushed cast-offs to be reused. This process was pioneered in Arizona and California in the 1990s, and has spread to hundreds of towns and cities across the country. In the world of waste collection, it is the Next Big Thing.

Why? Because it saves money for cities, which can avoid millions of dollars in landfill fees, and for waste haulers, which have been the muscle behind this shift, and now spend less on trucks, labor, and even workers’ comp claims. On the collection end of things, single-stream recycling saves an estimated $15 per ton of waste.

It’s also a hit with the public (all that sorting was such a strain!): In Stamford, Ct., recycling has increased 70 percent since the city switched to single-stream two years ago. In a pilot program run by one company in southern Nevada, customer participation jumped from 3 percent to 30 percent when single-stream bins were offered. Recycling rates have increased in Austin, Boston, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and on and on. The numbers keep rolling in.

But guess who despises single-stream recycling to the depths of their boots and back? The recycling industry. That is, the people who actually make new products with our stuff.

The paper industry is particularly peeved because used paper, formerly collected in separate bins, now comes to mills full of plastic and glass shards that can damage equipment, injure workers, and increase costs — not to mention lead to a lower-quality recycled-paper product. One estimate suggests that 15-20 percent of fiber sent to mills contains materials that make it unusable (aka landfill-bound) or require additional processing. All this “progress” costs an estimated $8 more per ton for the mills. (Add that to the $10 additional per ton it takes to sort and process recycled materials at an MRF, and suddenly the magical cost-savingness of single-stream collection isn’t looking so magical or cost-savingy.)

Guess who else is grimacing: People who believe glass should be recycled into glass, not thrown away or crunched up to use in asphalt or as landfill cover. In the course of our current single-stream collection and sorting process, an estimated 40 percent of glass becomes so crushed and contaminated that it ends up in landfills, compared to 10 percent with older recycling methods.

The single-stream industry appreciates these concerns, and asks that we please bear with it, because consumer education and more efficient facilities will surely lead to improvements. Meanwhile, many others are urging municipalities to proceed with caution, tempting as it is to leap at this opportunity.

As to your particular question: If your goal is efficiency, you should probably participate in your neighborhood program, since the truck will be coming either way, while your scheme would require extra and unnecessary driving about town. (I checked with the good folks at Earth911 and Keep America Beautiful, sponsor of America Recycles Day, and both offered advice along those lines.) If you still want to take a small step, you might keep your glass separate and find a place to recycle it — check out the resources offered by Earth911 — perhaps organizing a neighborhood glass drive for maximum efficiency and impact. If you have bigger change in mind, try to learn a little more about your local MRF — why, here’s a page all about yours, Michael! — and the final destination of the materials handled there. Results will vary.

While we’re talking recycling and paper contamination, a note to Nate in Ames, Iowa, and others who have asked if receipts are recyclable: As always, I recommend checking with your local waste agency, but I can tell you that receipts are usually coated with BPA, and evidence including this recent study suggests that BPA can contaminate other recycled-paper products. So avoid accepting receipts when you have the choice, and when they pile up, I give you permission to throw them out. Sometimes it just feels good.

Murfly,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

There seem to be more and more automatic air fresheners in public and office restrooms. The data say that they cause respiratory, digestive, and eye irritation. Asthmatics seem to feel the worst, so how do we cope with not being able to use the restroom without having to use inhalers afterwards? Do home air fresheners do the same thing? Are there any moves to have warnings?

Sherry H.
Portsmouth, N.H.

Say it: “Don’t spray it.”A. Dearest Sherry,

Let’s get the New Year off to a fresh start by tackling this sickening situation. In public spaces across the country, including offices, stores, restaurants, airports, and schools, air “freshener” is being forced upon us. Daily we are subjected to known carcinogens, endocrine disruptors, and other toxic substances. Sounds like a horror film, but it is our scentsational reality.

We’ve talked before about the hazards inherent in air fresheners. The EPA puts it quite poetically: “Air fresheners are usually highly flammable and also strong irritants to eyes, skin, and throat. Additionally, the solid fresheners usually cause death if eaten by people or pets.”

Yes, these household helpers — which became popular in the 1950s, along with perky smiles and perfect apple pies — contain all manner of harmful ingredients, including formaldehyde, a powerful pesticide called paradichlorobenzene, and phthalates. In short, air “fresheners” actually make our air quality much worse, polluting our space and our bodies. To quote the EPA again, “air fresheners … release pollutants more or less continuously.”

So we certainly do not want to use air fresheners at home, where we can deodorize with baking soda, fresh air, exhaust fans, or even the scent of a perfect apple pie instead. But we do not have as much control over public spaces. What to do?

Here are a few suggestions:

If you suffer from asthma or multiple chemical sensitivities, I would carry an inhaler, which I’m sure you do anyway, and a face mask.

If air fresheners are stinking up your workplace, contact your HR department to explain your health concerns and cite some of the EPA’s cautionary info. You might need a note from your doctor before they will take action. You could also draw upon information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Department of Labor to make your case.

If you encounter the problem in a store, politely tell the customer service desk you (and your money) will not be back until the air fresheners are gone. Then write the company a letter, voice your views through social media, start a protest, or send an e-card. I’ve heard tell of companies including Whole Foods and Target removing air fresheners after customer complaints.

If fragrances are making you sick, you might have grounds for a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In 2010, a city employee in Detroit won $100,000 in just such a case. Sniff around to find out more about your legal rights and examples of similar claims [PDF].

While I would never endorse vandalism, chatter from consumers and business owners suggests that air fresheners in public restrooms seem to disappear or be damaged with some regularity. (It took a special passion to conduct this hack job on an auto-dispenser.)

You ask about warnings. A few years ago, several groups sued the EPA to try to enforce air-freshener testing and labeling. The upshot was astonishing, in its way: For the first time, the industry revealed the ingredients in its products — but not publicly. This year the EPA took another step toward transparency by unmasking 150 chemicals, used in air fresheners and other products, that had been considered “confidential.” But in terms of consumer-facing information, we’re still far away from Crystal Mountain Spring Clarity.

Still, momentum is growing. As one paper puts it [PDF]: “The U.S. consumer is as uneducated about the dangers and health risks associated with constant exposure to the chemicals used in synthetic fragrance products as the average non-smoker was to the risks of secondhand smoke. When ignorance is replaced with knowledge, a large segment of the population will respond with a demand for clean and safe air in the workplace.”

Demandily,
Umbra

By Ask Umbra

Let Umbra take a little weight off your shoulders.Dearest readers,

Some people engage in spring cleaning, but I prefer to do a little winter cleaning. I take down the Gristmahanukwanzakah shrub, put away the nog, and tidy up ye olde inbox to prepare for the almost certain Onslaught of Angst in 2012. During this year’s ritual, I noticed a few unanswered questions bearing a hint of stress, or of sadness, or of too many minutes spent on “either-or” conundra. So without further ado, here are some final answers to your burning questions of 2011. I hope they’ll unburden you just a bit, and I look forward to a quandary-filled new year.

Q. Dear Umbra,

Paper-based materials are often both recyclable and compostable. What is the better choice for these go-betweens?

Elizabeth A.
Seattle

A. Dearest Elizabeth,

A well-timed question, since the holidays leave us awash in a sea of paper. Isn’t it skin-tingling to have two good alternative ends for these products? Composting and recycling are both fine options, and you should probably do a little of each if you can — but recycling boasts a slight edge. When we recycle paper, we help prevent old-growth trees from being cut down willy-nilly, and we support an energy-saving industry. According to our friends at Earth911, making recycled paper “uses 80 percent less water, 65 percent less energy and produces 95 percent less air pollution than virgin paper production.” So recycle! But when you are faced with non-recyclable or soiled paper, toss it in the bin with the broccolini stems — here’s a good overview of how paper can help your compost [PDF]. Whatever you do, don’t put your pages in the circular file.

Reamly,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

OK, so no more plastic bags — but what are some cheap alternatives for storing and freezing large quantities of produce?

EB
Brattleboro, Vt.

A. Dearest EB,

You are one of several readers who have asked this recently, and I admire your effort to de-plasticize your life. I also picture the rutabagas piling up on your kitchen counter as you await my reply. Going the non-plastic route can be tricky. Even our non-plastic freezer alternatives often contain some toxic detailing, like the BPA in canning jar lids. But you could try stainless steel, glass, aluminum foil (recycled, of course), wax paper, butcher paper, or some combination. Check out this helpful and thorough overview from our friends at Rodale — and happy squirreling.

Crystally,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

Do you know if eco-friendly/animal-free “UGG”-type boots exist for kids? If so, can you tell me where to buy them???? Thank you!!!

Heather H.

A. Dearest Heather,

Your exuberant use of punctuation suggests that this is, or was, an urgent issue for your family. While I am no personal shopper, I can tell you that the likelihood of finding UGGs remotely resembling “eco-friendly” is slim — in fact, shoes in general are a bit of an eco-nightmare. The original UGG, created Down Under and now made in China, is a sheepskin boot lined with wool: not animal-free. If you do a Google search for “vegan UGGs,” you will find some. They are expensive, and they do not seem to be in children’s sizes, unless your children have big feet. There are synthetic versions (also versions made from dog, but I digress). I suspect it would not be very hard to find these synthetic models in any of your finer discount shoe stores, American products being what they are. But that is not exactly eco-friendly, given the toxic glues, dyes, and plastics involved. UGG! We should all just wear Mason jars on our feet instead.

Ugg-ly,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

I stack my hay, cut side down, on pallets to allow for some air to move below. I’m uncertain if the pallets are all “made in the USA.” Could the hay absorb any of the elements you mentioned? Thanks so much … for my horses.

Carol S.
Buckhannon, W.V.

A. Dearest Carol, and your horses,

I understand that many people with hay-storage needs rely on pallets, which keep the hay off the floor and prevent it from molding. While this is a good idea structurally speaking (and economically speaking, since pallets can often be had for free or cheap), the pesticide- and pathogen-related dangers I mentioned in my column on pallets could certainly apply here. If you can’t be sure of the origins of your pallets, perhaps you could create your own staging from wood whose origins you do know. I’ve heard tell that gravel also works for this purpose, since it offers good drainage.

Balefully,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

My husband was a great lover of cologne. He passed away five years ago, leaving me with many partially full bottles. The cologne can’t be any good anymore, so I wouldn’t want to give them away. How do I dispose of the bottles, especially if there is still product in them?

Maureen G.
Philadelphia, Penn.

A. Dearest Maureen,

You are ready to part with a powerful reminder of your late husband, a difficult step indeed. But what to do? I can tell you what to don’t: That cologne should not go down the drain. Instead, treat it as hazardous waste (given the chemical cocktail in many scented products, that classification is not such a stretch). Contact your local agency to see when they have collection days, and bring it on over to them. You might use the opportunity to see whether there are other remnants of days past that you need to be rid of: batteries, paint, medications, and so forth. If you wish to keep the bottles once the cologne is disposed of, clean them out (vinegar or alcohol should help counter the lingering odor) and see whether you can find new uses for them as vases, holiday ornaments, window decorations, or something else creative that suits your needs.

Mistily,
Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

I am considering an electric kettle that can heat water for my tea to just the right temperature, but I also know that the gas for my stove suffers less from transmission losses than electricity, and is never ever generated from coal. What’s the source comparison of efficiency for heating water with an electric kettle vs. a traditional kettle on a gas stove?

Abi D.
Washington, D.C.

A. Dearest Abi, 

Believe it or not, I’ve covered this very topic before, and the electric kettle comes out on top. Now go have a cup of tea, everyone, and try to relax.

Until 2012,
Umbra

By Ask Umbra

Q. Dear Umbra,

Can I recycle my silicone hotwater bottle? Also is it really OK cooking in silicone baking dishes? What IS it?

Marcea C.
Totnes, England

Photo: Scorpions and CentaursA. Dearest Marcea,

Something about your final question has caught my fancy — the wistful perplexity, the beseeching helplessness, the fact that I’m imagining you asking it with a lovely English accent. Therefore I’ve decided this simple query should be the new Consumer Mantra, something we ask ourselves every time we are staring at a store shelf or a product label or a tempting thingamabob: “What IS it?” If we don’t know, we don’t buy.

In this case, the non-scientist answer is fairly simple. Silicone is a synthetic product made primarily from naturally occurring resources: oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and silicon, commonly found in sand*. It was pioneered in the late 1800s by a countrymate of yours, one Frederick Kipping, who referred to his creations as “sticky messes.” Ironicalicious, since today we hail silicone bakeware for its nonstick qualities.

So should we embrace this seemingly miraculous product as wholeheartedly as we have? The short answer is, the jury is still out.

Manufacturers of course swear that it is safe, and the Food and Drug Administration has cheerfully approved its use. Consumers like it because it is, based on what we know so far, safer than plastic and Teflon, and also comes in bright, pleasing colors. But a few studies have shown that these pretty products can indeed release small amounts of nasties, especially at higher temperatures, when first used, and when in contact with high-fat foods — beware, meatloaf lovers! I checked with Jeff Gearhart, research director at the Ecology Center, who points out that while the science is still developing, the compounds in question bioaccumulate — they build up in our bodies — and can present clear hazards, including estrogenic effects (note to self: potential band name).

I would also be remiss if I didn’t point out that a passionate contingent of parrot lovers swears that fumes from baking with silicone can kill these little pets. This has actually been proven true of Teflon — DuPont even has tips for keeping birds safe on its site. So if you subscribe to the “parrot in a coal mine” approach to life, that’s food for thought.

What are your alternatives to the vivid, versatile silicone? As is so often true, the best choices are the oldies but goodies: stainless steel, glass, cast iron, and stoneware. Cook like your grandmother cooked! Only maybe lay off the lard and the potted-meat products.

As to whether you can recycle silicone, the technical answer is yes, it is recyclable. That does not, of course, mean that the good fellows at the recycling center there in Totnes are willing to recycle it. As always, I advise you and all readers with such quandaries to check with the appropriate local agency.

Polymerrily,
Umbra

* Thanks to reader Ed D. for correcting my original assertion that silicon and oxygen were the only elements involved in making silicone rubber.