Dear EarthTalk: What’s the controversy over bison hunting in the U.S. and Canada?
                                                        -- Prakash Thomas, Akron, Ohio
 
Whether or not to allow the hunting of bison (also known as buffalo) is a hot debate indeed. For starters, Native Americans sustainably hunted bison for thousands of years, but the onslaught of gun-toting European commercial hunters reduced the species to just 30 remaining animals by the 1880s. Bison populations have rebounded in recent years, but to numbers in just the low thousands, far from the 30 to 60 million that roamed the plains before the white man arrived in the New World. Animal advocates and environmentalists think hunters should not be allowed another shot at bison right now.
 
Meanwhile, agricultural agencies in both the U.S. and Canada beg to differ, as they have been dutifully working for decades to stamp out a disease, Brucellosis, which once ran rampant through domestic cattle herds. The disease, which can spread easily between cattle as well as bison, causes infertility, miscarriages and lowered milk production in the animals. It is also transmissible to humans, where it is known as “undulant fever” because of the severe intermittent fevers it causes.
 
Livestock ranchers have cooperated with government efforts to rid their cattle populations of Brucellosis, but the disease spread into rebounding bison herds in Yellowstone National Park and in Canada’s Wood Buffalo National Park in Alberta in the middle of the 20th century when cattle were allowed to graze in the same areas. Domestic livestock grazing is no longer allowed inside either park, but wild bison tend to wander outside park boundaries where they can intermingle with domestic cattle herds and possibly reintroduce Brucellosis. As such, ranchers think that hunting any such bison that stray too far from protected areas is justified in order to protect against a new outbreak among domestic cattle.
 
For this reason, the state of Montana began to allow bison hunting during the 1980s. Animal advocates decried hunting the innocently grazing animals as hardly sporting, and nationally televised protests and tourist boycotts forced the Montana legislature to shut the hunt down in 1991. But in 2005, Montana lifted the ban, but with some strings attached: The hunt was limited to a 450,000-acre area; and only 50 permit holders actually got to take down a bison. (More than six thousand applicants vied for the coveted permits, which were awarded via lottery.) And hunters must get certified in their knowledge of the rules of the hunt.
 
Nevertheless, animal advocates were not placated. Video cameras in hand, members of the Buffalo Field Campaign, a bison advocacy group, were on hand last fall to film the killing of the first bison, which reportedly took five bullets and about 45 minutes to die after a 17-year-old marksman shot it.
 
Meanwhile, the Canadian government is considering letting hunters into Alberta’s Wood Buffalo National Park to cull the burgeoning herd there, where Brucellosis has become a big problem. Last fall, 32 scientists met to figure out whether it was possible to eliminate the disease from the park by culling the herd and then reintroducing the species. The jury is still out. Meanwhile, the fate of the bison hangs in the balance.
 
CONTACT: Buffalo Field Campaign, www.buffalofieldcampaign.org.
 
 

Dear EarthTalk: Where I live in Connecticut, our highways are “parking lots” many times a day. Isn't this an ideal situation for public transit? Why isn't it happening?        -- John Moulton, Stamford, CT
 
An increasing number of public transit options are coming online throughout North America, but those of you idling alone bumper-to-bumper in your cars might not know it. Indeed, lack of knowledge about public transportation options may be the largest impediment to widespread acceptance of more efficient ways of getting around. Driving your own car back and forth to work every day is not as convenient as it once was, and public transit options are now faster and undoubtedly generate less stress and pollution.
 
In Connecticut, the state-owned CTTRANSIT moves 27 million people a year on well-appointed local and express buses serving all metro areas. And two full-service commuter rail lines, Metro-North and Shore Line East, routinely take riders longer distances. Similar services are available in many urban and suburban areas across the U.S. Municipal websites are the best place to find transit options, routes and schedules.
 
The best thing to happen to encourage public transit usage has been high gas prices. Over the last year the average price of regular unleaded rose in the U.S. by 76 cents, with prices now $3.00 or more almost everywhere. And transit agencies report a correlation between high gas prices and increased ridership. The Utah Transit Authority says ridership is up 50 percent from last year on a 19-mile light-rail system in Salt Lake City. And Washington, DC’s Metrorail has seen some of its busiest days ever during the last few months. In Canada, ridership has risen as much as 10 percent in cities like Vancouver and Winnipeg in step with rising gas prices, though cars remain the travel option of choice in the country’s eastern cities.
 
According to the American Public Transportation Association, 14 million Americans use one or another form of public transportation every weekday, while about 17 million people drive their cars instead. The organization estimates that public transit ridership has grown by as much as 22 percent--faster than highway or air travel--since 1995. And a recently conducted Harris Poll concluded that the American public would like to see rail-based public transit “have an increasing share of passenger transportation.”
 
Meanwhile, Canadians have embraced public transit even more than their neighbors to the south. An estimated 12 million Canadians--more than a fifth of all commuters--use some form of public transit. Transportation analyst Paul Schimek found that public transit use is almost twice as high per capita in Canada as in the U.S. Also, car use in Canada is almost 20 percent lower per capita. Schimek attributes the differences to traditionally higher gas prices as well as more compact urban development than in the U.S.
 
Analysts point to the strength of the American “highway lobby” as the reason why Americans have been slow to embrace public transit. It has worked directly with lawmakers over the years to encourage road building and private automobile use to achieve, in the words of a General Motors ad of days gone by, the “American dream of freedom on wheels.” Back in Connecticut, some urban planners have been pushing the idea of turning crowded Interstate 95 into a double-decker highway in places to ease congestion.
 
CONTACTS: American Public Transportation Association, www.apta.com; Canadian Urban Transit Association, www.cutaactu.ca.

Dear EarthTalk: I hear a lot about “eco-travel” and “green tourism” in far-away exotic places, but don't we have some environmentally-friendly vacation spots right here in the U.S. and Canada?   -- Paul Howe, San Francisco, CA
 
While it is true that tour operators in other countries play up their green-friendly itineraries, there is no shortage of eco-travel options right here at home. Eco-travel is alive and well in North America, too.
 
Not to be confused with “adventure travel,” which may take one to wild places but which may also do harm to them, genuine “eco-tourism” ­- according to the United Nations ­- must satisfy several criteria that speak to both the enjoyment of the traveler and the well being of the host community. For the traveler, eco-tourism’s main motivation should be the observation and appreciation of both the local ecology and the local culture, and it should contain “educational and interpretation features.” And to truly benefit the host community it should be organized for small groups by local businesses, it should minimize impact on both the natural and cultural environment, and it should generate income for the host community and increase awareness of the need for conserving its natural and cultural assets.
 
According to Natural Home and Garden magazine, top U.S. eco-travel choices that live up to these guidelines include: the El Monte Sagrado Living Resort and Spa in Taos, New Mexico; Inn Serendipity Bed & Breakfast in Browntown, Wisconsin; Papoose Creek Lodge in Cameron, Montana; the Sadie Cove Wilderness Lodge in Homer, Alaska; and any of the options available within Yosemite National Park in California’s Sierra Nevada Mountains. In Canada, the magazine named the Cree Village Eco-Lodge on Moose Factory Island, Ontario; Forest House Eco-Lodge in Air Ronge, Saskatchewan; and Wilderness Outpost at Bedwell River in Clayoquot Sound, British Columbia as its top picks.
 
For those looking to go a little farther afield, Maho Bay Camps and the affiliated Concordia Ecotents on St. John in the U.S. Virgin Islands is a well-known green hotspot. These primitive lodges provide guests with treehouse-like platform tents tucked into a rainforest canopy overlooking the Caribbean. The minimal impact accommodations and other lodge facilities are linked together via a series of intricate and environmentally-friendly boardwalks, some of which deposit hikers onto trails in Virgin Islands National Park while others make a bee-line down to the beach where surf and sand abound.
 
Meanwhile, a sultrier option might be any of the tours and lodges available through the Hawaii Ecotourism Association, which provides a free online clearinghouse of pre-vetted eco-travel trips and accommodations.
 
For more information on how to judge the eco-friendliness of any lodge or tour one needs only to look online. The website of the International Ecotourism Society lists its criteria for judging a given operation’s sustainability, and Sustainable Travel International (STI) goes so far as to certify lodges and tour operators who run environmentally responsible trips. STI also provides ideas for travelers to keep in mind in order to keep their impact as minimal as possible. Conservation International does the same, providing tips on traveling conscientiously on a special website devoted to eco-tourism.
 
CONTACTS: International Ecotourism Society, www.Ecotourism.org; Sustainable Travel International, www.SustainableTravel.com; Conservation International Ecotourism, www.EcoTour.org.
 

Dear EarthTalk: It seems like the Amazon rainforest is not in the news nearly as much as it used to be. Have the environmental problems there been resolved?  --Justin Tucker, Oakland, CA
 
Just because the Amazon is not in the headlines today as much as when the media first covered its widespread destruction in the 1980s does not mean that environmental problems there have been solved. In fact, the non-profit Rainforest Action Network (RAN) estimates that more than 20 percent of the original rainforest is already gone and that, without stricter environmental laws and more sustainable development practices, as much as half of what remains could disappear within a few decades.
 
Researchers like Britaldo Soares-Filho of Brazil’s Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG) concur with such findings. Soares-Filho and his team of international researchers recently reported in the journal Nature that, without further protections more than 770,000 additional square miles of Amazon rainforest would be lost, and at least 100 native species would be profoundly threatened by the resulting loss in habitat.
 
One of the driving forces behind the destruction is the poverty in the region. Looking for ways to make ends meet, poor inhabitants clear tracts of rainforest for its timber value, often with government permission, and then further despoil the cleared land through destructive farming and ranching practices. And in some cases corporate conglomerates such as Mitsubishi, Georgia Pacific and Unocal are underwriting the conversion of Amazon rainforest into corporate-sponsored farms and ranches.
 
In an effort to provide solutions, Soares-Filho and his associates plotted different scenarios to show how policy changes could have dramatic effects across the vast Amazon River basin. “For the first time,” he told reporters, “we can examine how individual policies ranging from the paving of highways to the requirement for forest reserves on private properties” could determine the future of the Amazon.
 
With new checks in place, UFMG researchers believe that nearly 75 percent of the original forest could be saved by 2050. They also point out that, since trees absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide, industrialized countries like the U.S. should have a keen interest in forest protection so as to combat global warming.
 
Stemming the tide of destruction in the Amazon is a complicated task, but some concerned government officials, international policy makers and environmentalists are making strides. Groups like RAN and the like-minded Rainforest Alliance have mobilized thousands of activists around the world to put pressure on corporations and governments in the region (Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil and Venezuela all have Amazonian regions) to clean up their acts. Only if they do will we preserve the rainforest for its own sake as well as for its important contribution to medicine and other applications.
 
Meanwhile, Brazil recently announced plans to expand protections of its portion of the Amazon, telling reporters in March that it would declare 84,000 square miles of the rainforest a protected area within the next three years. But whether leaders there have the clout to enforce such protections remains to be seen.
 
CONTACTS: Rainforest Action Network, www.ran.org; Rainforest Alliance, www.rainforest-alliance.org.
 

Dear EarthTalk: President Bush recently replaced Interior Secretary Gale Norton, who resigned, with Idaho governor Dirk Kempthorne. What was Norton’s environmental legacy and what can we expect from her successor?  -- Kiernan Romano, Ronkonkoma, NY
 
The U.S. Department of Interior is one of 20 individuals and departments, including the vice-president and the Departments of Defense, Justice, Education, Labor, the recently created Department of Homeland Security and others, that make up the president’s Cabinet. The Interior Department is charged with protecting and conserving--in the interest of the American public--our land, water, energy and mineral resources, as well as the nation’s fish and wildlife.
 
According to the White House, Gale Norton, the first woman to ever lead the Interior Department, was a rousing success in the influential position she held for six years. Upon accepting her resignation in March, President Bush praised her for an initiative to protect communities from catastrophic wildfires. He also told reporters that she helped lead efforts to restore offshore energy production after Hurricane Katrina, lauding her as “a strong advocate for the wise use and protection of our nation’s natural resources.”
 
But Norton’s legacy does not look so rosy to most eco-advocates. For one, she spearheaded (as-yet unsuccessful) efforts to open up Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, an action green leaders say would yield little oil in relation to the large profits that already bloated oil companies would gain. She also opened more federal land across the American West to oil drilling and mining than any other Interior Secretary before her. Critics also say that her wildfire protection efforts, through the thinning of forested areas, were a veiled effort to hand over otherwise untouchable forestlands to the logging industry.
 
The New York Times called Norton “a key player in the Bush administration’s efforts to exploit natural resources on federal lands.” The League of Conservation Voters (LCV), in issuing a statement about her resignation, said, “Gale Norton’s decision to leave the Interior Department provides the opportunity for President Bush to appoint an individual who believes that…America truly does have an addiction to oil and who will create policies to help wean America off that addiction. The new Secretary needs to understand our national treasures are to be protected, not exploited for profit…that America’s public lands are not intended to be sold to the highest bidder.”
 
But to those happy to see Norton go, Dirk Kempthorne is cold comfort. “As Idaho governor, Kempthorne led the charge to strip protection from 60 million acres of America’s last wild forests and he’s consistently fought against protection for wildlife like grizzly bears and salmon in his home state,” said Todd True of the non-profit group Earthjustice. And Chuck Clusen, senior policy analyst at the Natural Resources Defense Council, called Kempthorne, “Gale Norton in pants,” saying: “President Bush could not have made a more anti-environmental choice for his new secretary of the Interior. Dirk Kempthorne surely will continue this administration’s ‘drill first, ask questions later’ approach to public land stewardship.”
 
Kempthorne racked up a dismal environmental record during his six years in the Senate in the 1990s, scoring a “0” on LCV’s legislative scorecards in every year except one in which he scored “6” out of 100.
 
CONTACTS: Earthjustice, www.earthjustice.org; U.S. Department of Interior, www.doi.gov;
 
 
 

Dear EarthTalk: Are there any environmentally friendly alternatives to using chemical weed killers like Roundup? -- Wyatt Walley, Needham, MA
 
The active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, glyphosate, is a known toxin. This is, of course, why it is so successful in eradicating pesky weeds. In fact, glyphosate is the most commonly used pesticide in the United States, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that over five million pounds of it are used in American yards and gardens annually.
 
According to Caroline Cox, staff scientist at the Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP), gardeners wouldn't use Roundup if they knew about all of the problems attributed to its use. For instance, ingesting about three-fourths of a cup can be lethal. And symptoms of just casual contact can include eye and skin irritation, lung congestion and erosion of the intestinal tract. Monsanto’s Roundup has also been linked to cancer, miscarriages and genetic damage in humans, so it’s no wonder that NCAP and other organizations are pushing for safer alternatives. Environmentally, the product is thought to be implicated in immune system damage in fish and reproductive disruption in amphibians.
 
Over a recent eight-year study period in California, glyphosate was the third most frequently reported cause of illness related to agricultural pesticide use. And scientists from the National Cancer Institute and three prominent medical centers have shown the use of glyphosate herbicides by midwestern farmers to be associated with many cases of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Roundup also contains other non-active ingredients, contact with which can cause nausea, diarrhea, chemical pneumonia, laryngitis and severe headaches.
 
Luckily, reports Cox, “There are effective pesticide-free solutions to the weed problems in our yards and gardens.” For instance, mulches made from wood chips, straw, grass clippings or shredded bark can be used to keep weed seeds from germinating. Quite simply, by keeping light from reaching weeds, a thick mulch layer naturally inhibits the growth of the chlorophyll that is the lifeblood of fast-growing weeds.
 
Cox also says that maintaining healthy, well-aerated soil is essential to a program of chemical-free weed control, and suggests using organic fertilizer where needed. Longer grass, between two and three inches tall, also helps keep weeds in check without chemicals. When weeds do appear anyway, Cox recommends non-chemical weeding tools such as hoes, string trimmers, weed pullers, flame weeders or radiant heat weeders. Local organic nurseries can help you determine which techniques will work best in your area.
 
One added benefit of giving up the Roundup habit might be the blossoming of beneficial plants, fungi and creepy crawlies in your yard. Since Roundup is toxic to a wide range of important ecological builders like ladybugs, beetles, earthworms and fungi, going without can help bring these species back to work aerating your soil and keeping virulent pests in check naturally.
 
CONTACT: Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides (NCAP) Healthier Homes and Gardens Program, www.pesticide.org/HHG.html.

Dear EarthTalk: Is it feasible to put up my own wind turbine to provide electricity to my home?

                                        -- Erin McGowan, Seattle, WA

 
Putting up your own wind turbine to provide electricity is technically feasible, but the costs for permitting, purchasing, installing and maintaining the technology remain prohibitive for all but the wealthiest, especially given the low costs of traditional power from the electricity grid across the United States.
 
Sadly, a Gloucester, Massachusetts resident recently spent $30,000 to erect a 10,000-watt, 125-foot-tall wind turbine in her tiny backyard in order to generate her own pollution-free electricity. The turbine worked well initially, generating most of the power for her house, but then it broke and the $10,000 part required to make it run again was too expensive, so the equipment has remained dormant ever since.
 
But the hard economic facts of backyard wind power are not enough to deter some idealists from working to build both supply and demand for what many view as the world’s cleanest form of renewable energy. For one, the non-profit Northwest Sustainable Energy for Economic Development (NWSEED) has launched a program called “Our Wind Cooperative” to promote customer-owned wind power among farmers and other rural landowners in the Pacific Northwest.
 
NWSEED put together a package of federal and private funding options for those willing to put small turbines for personal and public use on their land. The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Systems Laboratory (NREL) gave the project a $300,000 grant, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture kicked in $50,000. Also, the non-profit Bonneville Environmental Foundation extended a low-interest loan, and pledged to buy and help generate further demand for some of the power generated.
 
By the end of 2003, NWSEED had enough money to install small turbines on 10 rural sites in Montana and Washington. So far, five are running and a sixth is due to go online soon. Though each turbine costs $40,000, grants have kept participant costs to under $10,000. Without the subsidy, the program would not be cost-effective in the short run but, like all new technologies, costs will come down as demand grows. And as a pilot program to showcase wind’s potential, the project is considered to be a rousing success.
 
Elsewhere, in Silicon Valley, a slew of alternative energy firms, including many focusing on small-scale wind power, are being born. Among them are AeroVironment and Aerotecture, both specializing in backyard windmills that power lights, appliances, and heating and cooling systems without polluting.
 
More new wind power facilities were installed in the U.S. last year than anywhere else in the world. According to the Global Wind Energy Council, the U.S. installed 2,400 megawatts--equivalent to the energy produced by five large coal-fired power plants in a year--in 2005 alone. These were mainly large wind farms, but the industry’s growth is nevertheless encouraging to those of us who dream about putting that howling wind outside our windows to good use.
 
CONTACTS: NWSEED, www.nwseed.org; National Wind Technology Center, www.nrel.gov/wind.
 

Dear EarthTalk: What are some green-friendly hardwood floor waxes I can use in my home that aren't as toxic as conventional brands?  -- Pat Montgomery, Phoenix, AZ
 
Most of us spend about 90 percent of our time indoors, so minimizing the use of harmful chemicals in our homes, offices and schools is important to keep the air we breathe healthy and the constructed surfaces we live on free of irritants and toxins.
 
But there are trade-offs, as proper maintenance of most types of flooring requires that occasional waxing to protect the finish beneath our feet. Among the worst offenders commonly found in mainstream floor waxes is cresol, which can cause liver and kidney damage if inhaled over extended periods of time. Formaldehyde, which has been linked to everything from asthma to reproductive problems to cancer, is also a key floor wax ingredient that should be avoided whenever possible. Some other hazardous ingredients in traditional floor waxes are nitrobenzene, perchloroethylene, phenol, toluene and xylene.
 
Luckily for the eco-conscious homemaker, a number of forward-thinking companies have risen to the green challenge by manufacturing floor waxes that help maintain a more healthy and pure indoor environment. Seattle’s Environmental Home Center, one of the country’s foremost green building product retailers, recommends and sells BioShield's all-natural Furniture and Floor Hardwax for wood floors. The beeswax, carnauba wax and natural resin paste that make up the basis of BioShield's formula produce a dirt- and dust-resistant final coat to protect floors without compromising your health or indoor air quality.
 
Eco-House Inc., based in New Brunswick, Canada, manufactures a similar formulation for wood floors called #300 Carnauba Floor Wax. It contains beeswax, carnauba wax, refined linseed oil, rosemary oil, a mild citrus-based thinner, and natural resins. It can be ordered directly from the company or through various green-building retailers across North America.
 
Meanwhile, Sensitive Design, a green architectural firm based in British Columbia, Canada, recommends that its clients maintain their wood, cork or open-pored stone floors with BILO floor wax. Made by the German company, Livos, which manufactures home care products that contain only biologically and environmentally responsible ingredients grown without pesticides, BILO is available online from the Green Home Environmental Store.
 
For the do-it-yourself crowd, the free online Guide to Less Toxic Products (from the Environmental Health Association of Nova Scotia) recommends concocting your own all-natural wood floor wax by warming up a combination of olive oil, vodka, beeswax and carnauba wax in a tin can or glass jar in simmering water. Once the concoction has been mixed and allowed to harden, it can be rubbed directly into wood floors with rags. For more detailed instructions, visit the association’s website (listed below).
 
CONTACTS: Environmental Home Center, www.environmentalhomecenter.com; BioShield, www.bioshieldpaint.com; Sensitive Design, www.sensitivedesign.com; Green Home Environmental Store, www.greenhome.com; Guide to Less Toxic Products, www.lesstoxicguide.ca.

Dear EarthTalk: As I understand it, “hybrid” cars make use of an electric motor that never needs to be plugged in. But what’s up with the proposed “plug-in” hybrids I've been hearing about?    -- Jen Seminara, Omaha, NE
 
The mass-market gasoline-electric hybrids made by Toyota, Honda and others make use of an electric engine right under the hood next to the gas engine. That electric motor creates fuel economy by kicking into use during idling, backing up, slow traffic, and to maintain speed after the gas engine has been employed for acceleration. The car doesn't need to be plugged in because the on-board electric battery is constantly being charged by the gas engine and by the motion of the wheels and the brakes.
 
The so-called “plug-in hybrids,” now in prototype stages of development, take this technology a step further. By adding the ability to charge up from a standard household outlet, typically overnight, such cars relegate the gas engine to back-up status and instead let the electric motor do most of the work.
 
Proponents claim that such “gas-optional” cars--if you don't take long trips you can rely entirely on the electric motor--can be twice as fuel efficient as hybrids, which already get double the gas mileage of traditional vehicles. Additionally, they say, powering up plug-in hybrids with wall sockets results in far less pollution (from the power plants providing the electricity) than an equivalent gasoline-powered car spews out its tailpipe. Meanwhile, plug-in hybrids recharged from rooftop solar power systems might approach being the world’s first mass-market “zero emission” vehicles, requiring no power from the grid at all.
 
Convincing a skeptical American public that plug-in hybrids are the way of the future is the challenge of a loose network of advocacy groups led by the California Cars Initiative (CalCars). Indeed, the experimental electric vehicles of a decade ago and older required re-charging every 25-50 miles, rendering them useless for anything but short trips. The new breed of plug-in hybrids solves this problem by employing much more sophisticated battery technology while still keeping the insurance of gasoline (and a gas engine) on-board.
 
“It’s like having a second small fuel tank that you always use first--only you fill this tank at home with electricity at an equivalent cost of under $1/gallon,” reports the CalCars website. The organization goes on to explain that with gas prices at $3/gallon, traditional cars cost eight to 20 cents per mile, while plug-in hybrids used for all-electric local travel and commuting would cost only two to four cents per mile.
 
CalCars is lobbying the world’s major automakers to introduce plug-in options on future hybrid models, and has built showcase examples themselves that achieve 100 miles per gallon using Toyota’s Prius. Meanwhile, a growing list of state and local governments say they would seriously consider converting their fleets to plug-in hybrids if such vehicles became available.
 
The website HybridCars.com reports that DaimlerChrysler has built a handful of prototypes based on its 15-passenger Mercedes-Benz Sprinter van. And analysts believe Toyota already has the technology in place but may be waiting to gauge consumer demand before making any production commitments. Only time--with a little guidance from the price of gasoline--will tell.
 
CONTACT: California Cars Initiative (CalCars), www.calcars.org.


Dear EarthTalk: Is it economical and environmentally friendly for me to recycle my empty inkjet printer cartridges instead of buying new ones?  --Matt Hoffman, Seattle, WA
 
Analysts estimate that more than 300 million inkjet printer cartridges find their way into American landfills every year. Each of those new cartridges requires about three quarts of oil and other raw materials to produce, and also contributes its fair share of greenhouse gases during manufacturing. And as anyone who has ever bought one knows, they come packaged in such excessive amounts of cardboard and plastic that it often takes several minutes and a pair of strong scissors to break through to even get to the ink cartridge!
 
Thus any effort to reuse or recycle these items is a big win for the environment. And given the exorbitant prices of new inkjet cartridges--the real profit center for printer manufacturers--it makes economic sense, too, for consumers who just want to save money.
 
The good news is that Americans are already recycling more than 40,000 tons of inkjet cartridges each year. Hundreds of companies out there are eager to pay for your used cartridges so they can re-ink them and resell them at prices much lower than for new ones.
 
We Buy Empties, InkjetCartridge.com and the eCycle Group, among others, take back major brand inkjet printer cartridges and pay for the privilege, even reimbursing shipping costs. These companies usually only accept large quantities (like 100 or more) of spent cartridges, paying between 10 cents and $5 each, depending on the cartridge type. Meanwhile, Staples, Office Depot and Office Max each give customers about $3 in store credit, or in some cases a ream of office paper, for each empty cartridge that is returned.
 
Meanwhile, most of the major inkjet printer manufacturers, including Hewlett-Packard, Epson, Canon and Lexmark, will gladly take back empty cartridges shipped directly to them in their original boxes. Hewlett-Packard even puts pre-paid return shipping labels inside their boxes to facilitate customer recycling of their used inkjet cartridges.
 
Several such companies offer special buy-back rates for schools, churches and other non-profits, which can solicit and collect used cartridges from members and businesses to raise money. Interested organizations can contact companies like iRethink and Funding Factory, which both have special programs to facilitate collection and reimbursement for spent inkjet cartridges.
 
Those who don't mind getting their hands a little messy can re-ink their empty cartridges themselves. Squeeze bottle ink refills are the most cost effective and environmentally friendly way to keep on printing. Inkjetman, which sells its own refilled inkjet cartridges, also sells inkjet refill kits, which will last through thousands of pages, for about the price of a single new cartridge. FillJet sells similar kits, and estimates the cost of a refilled cartridge to be about $2 in ink, which represents a savings of at least 80 percent over buying refilled recycled cartridges from them.
 
CONTACTS: iRethink, www.irethink.com, Funding Factory, www.fundingfactory.com, We Buy Empties, www.webuyempties.com, InkjetCartridge.com, www.inkjetcartridge.com, The eCycle Group, www.ecyclegroup.com, Inkjetman, www.inkjetman.com, FillJet, www.inkjetrefilloutlet.com.
 

Dear EarthTalk: As warm weather approaches I know we’re going to have a problem again with ticks near our home. Are there any eco-safe applications we could use to get rid of them?                                                    -- Thomas Cohn, Bedford Corners, NY
 
“Tick season” will be upon us sooner than we know it, as early as April if post-winter weather warms up fast. And ticks can pass on more diseases to humans than any other creepy crawly except the mosquito.
 
Small bugs with big bites, ticks are of course associated most with Lyme Disease, symptoms of which include fever, headache, fatigue, and a distinctive circular skin rash. Left untreated, infection can spread to joints and the nervous system and, according to the Centers for Disease Control, to the heart as well.
 
Modern science has devised many ways to keep ticks at bay, most involving harsh chemicals with dubious safety records. Indeed, according to a report by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the majority of tick products on the market today contain toxins, known collectively as organophosphate insecticides (OPs), which not only kill insects but can also damage the nervous systems of pets and people.
 
Studies have shown that children exposed to OPs may face increased risk of health problems later in life, including cancer and Parkinson’s disease. One recent study showed that people with any history of in-home exposure to insecticides containing OPs faced twice the risk of Parkinson’s as the rest of the population. In addition, four OPs used in pet products increase cancers in lab animals, and as such may cause cancer in humans. One study showed children of pregnant women exposed to products containing OPs to be 250 percent more likely than those in a control group to develop brain cancer before the age of five. According to NRDC, pesticides that contain the OPs chlorpyrifos, dichlorvos, phosmet, tetrachlorvinphos, naled, diazinon and Malathion should be avoided, and regulated much more stringently by government.
 
While there is no environmentally safe and effective way to spray buildings or backyards to fight ticks, the Bio-Integral Resource Center urges an approach that manages the habitat in and around your home to make it less hospitable to ticks. Ticks are attracted to humidity, so deep and infrequent watering of your lawn will let it dry out between applications. Vegetation should be cut below ankle height, the brush along paths and roadways removed, and trees pruned to let the light through. This will also make your property less appealing to animal hosts such as rabbits, rodents, possum, raccoons and deer. Further steps include placing soap, hair, garlic, lilac, jasmine or holly--all having deer-repelling qualities--around your property.
 
Because pets are frequent carriers, their sleeping quarters should be vacuumed frequently. NRDC also recommends that pet owners ask their veterinarian about dog and cat collars containing fipronil, a chemical which blocks nerve transmission in insects but has little if any effect on people or pets.
 
The best advice when exploring the outdoors during tick season is to always cover yourself from head to toe, and to wear light-colored clothing so you can spot ticks more easily if they do get on you. Search yourself thoroughly, particularly at the base of your skull, and wash clothes immediately afterwards.
 
CONTACTS: Centers for Disease Control, www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/lyme/index.htm; NRDC, www.nrdc.org/health/effects/pets/execsum.asp; Bio-Integral Resource Center, www.birc.org.
 
 
Dear EarthTalk: Did the car companies really conspire to kill the trolleys and streetcars of bygone days to force us to become dependent on automobiles instead?  
                                                        -- Taylor Howe, San Francisco, CA
 
Indeed, in the 1920s automaker General Motors (GM) began a covert campaign to undermine the popular rail-based public transit systems that were ubiquitous in and around the country’s bustling urban areas. At the time, only one in 10 Americans owned cars and most people traveled by trolley and streetcar.
 
Within three decades, GM, with help from Standard Oil, Firestone Tire, Mack Truck and Phillips Petroleum, succeeded in decimating the nation’s trolley systems, while seeing to the creation of the federal highway system and the ensuing dominance of the automobile as America’s preferred mode of transport.
 
GM began by funding a company called National City Lines (NCL), which by 1946 controlled streetcar operations in 80 American cities. “Despite public opinion polls that showed 88 percent of the public favoring expansion of the rail lines after World War II, NCL systematically closed its streetcars down until, by 1955, only a few remained,” writes author Jim Motavalli in his 2001 book, Forward Drive.
 
GM first replaced trolleys with free-roaming buses, eliminating the need for tracks embedded in the street and clearing the way for cars. As dramatized in a 1996 PBS docudrama, Taken for a Ride, Alfred P. Sloan, GM’s president at the time, said, “We've got 90 percent of the market out there that we can…turn into automobile users. If we can eliminate the rail alternatives, we will create a new market for our cars.” And they did just that, with the help of GM subsidiaries Yellow Coach and Greyhound Bus. Sloan predicted that the jolting rides of buses would soon lead people to not want them and to buy GM’s cars instead.
 
GM was later instrumental in the creation of the National Highway Users Conference, which became the most powerful lobby in Washington. Highway lobbyists worked directly with lawmakers to craft highway-friendly legislation, and GM’s promotional films were showcasing America’s burgeoning interstate highway system as the realization of the so-called “American dream of freedom on wheels.” When GM President Charles Wilson became Secretary of Defense in 1953, he worked with Congress to craft the $25 billion Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Referred to at the time as the “greatest public works project in the history of the world,” the federally funded race to build roads from coast-to-coast was on.
 
Meanwhile, many eco-advocates and urban planners alike yearn for a rebirth of public transit. In the face of nightmarish traffic tie-ups nationwide, widespread urban sprawl, loss of open space, and the global warming we owe largely to automobiles, will we ever see a return to mass transit as the dominant mode for moving people? According to the Public Transportation Partnership for Tomorrow (PT2), mass transit ridership has grown 21 percent since 1995--faster than both vehicle and airline passenger miles logged over the same period. “Public transportation is a…means of helping our environment and conserving energy,” says the PT2 website. “If one in ten Americans used public transportation regularly, U.S. reliance on foreign oil could be cut by more than 40 percent--the amount we import from Saudi Arabia each year.”
 
CONTACTS: American Streetcar Scandal, www.njtpa.org/public_affairs/intrans/scandal.html; Transportation Partnership for Tomorrow, www.publictransportation.org/pt2/.