Brave New Leaf

A greener way to brush your teeth

When it was time to throw away my toothbrush, I stopped to consider what to do with my failing brush. I am a vicious, unrelenting brusher. Always have been. So a toothbrush life span is short in my household. I probably go through one Colgate Toothbrush a month.

In doing so, I contribute to the 50 million pounds of toothbrushes that are landfilled every year, requiring plastic to manufacture, and releasing greenhouse gases as they decay.

Enter you, my readers, who unanimously recommended a greener way to brush. 

The Preserve Toothbrush is made by a company called Recycline that makes all kinds of great green stuff.

Specifically, their toothbrushes (pictured above) are made out of 100% recycled material. Stonyfield Farm yogurt cups, to be precise.

When you're done with them, they can be recycled, since they are #5 plastic. Just put them in your blue bin.

Or better, send them back to Recycline (all postage paid!) and they will convert them into plastic lumber to make picnic tables. Or whatever else is it that uses plastic lumber.

Apparently the packaging they arrive in is recyclable and reusable, though I'll have to report back on that later once they get here.

The best part? At $3.19 a pop, Preserve toothbrushes are only $.20 more than my standard toothbrush.

Preserve toothbrushes are available at drugstore.com, which has free shipping with a $25 order. Looks like it might be time to stock up...

Thanks to Lu, Green Bean, and Arduous for the tip!

1.28.08 Carnival of the Green

Brave New Leaf is featured in this week's Carnival of the Green at The Evangelical Ecologist, along with a number of great other links on what's happening in this week's green blogosphere. Happy Reading!

Learning how to drive green

Meet Wayne Gerdes:

Wayne is the most fuel-efficient driver in the world. Seriously. There's a competition and a trophy and everything.

Wayne drives a 2004 Honda Accord which, according to the US Department of Energy, gets 23 MPG city.

Wayne gets 59 MPG.

When he's driving an actual fuel-efficient car, like a 48 MPG Prius, he can top out at just over 120 MPG.

What's his secret? Wayne is a leader in a new craze called hypermiling: the art of pushing your vehicle's fuel efficiency to the limit. He has personally pioneered many of the techniques becoming widely adopted by the sport.

Some of the accepted practices of hypermiling are a little over-the-top for the average driver. For example, to preserve their inertia, they would take a 25mph corner at 50. On a 70mph freeway, Wayne likes to hug the right shoulder and stick to a conservative 50mph. They fill their tires to the point of bursting. And hypermilers frequently turn their engines off whenever they find an opportunity to glide, potentially sacrificing his car's safety features.

Still, as somebody who often has a heavy foot on the accelerator, I think there is a tremendous amount to be learned from the hypermilers. They are living proof that some of the responsibility for MPG lies in the driver, and not the car.

Want to increase your MPG? Here are the core techniques you'll need:

1. Keep your car well maintained. Tires and oil are the big ones. You'll lose 1.4% of your fuel efficiency for each PSI your tires are under recommended values.  Not having enough, or the right kind of motor oil in your car could lose you 1-2%. Contrary to common wisdom, a higher octane gas will not significantly help your fuel economy.

And make sure you get your regular maintenance check-ups. A clogged air filter could cost you 10% efficiency, and a faulty oxygen sensor 40%.

2. Put your car on a diet. In our car, the trunk is always full with random things. The more weight you haul around, the less your fuel efficiency. Remove whatever excess weight you can from the vehicle: snow chains, boxes, etc. Every 100 pounds you can take out will improve your fuel economy another 1-2%.

3. Make your car aero-dynamic. The easier air flows over your car, the better mpg you'll get. Removing your luggage roof rack will buy you 5% fuel economy. Keeping your car sleek with regular washings and waxings will improve its efficiency another 7%.

4. Stop driving like a maniac. This is the one I need to work on, and the biggest way to increase your fuel economy. Everytime your foot hits that gas pedal, you are burning fuel. Be light and delicate with it and you could see up to 30% gains in fuel efficiency. Also, your car doesn't like going super fast. For every 5 mph over 60, you'll see a 7% decrease in fuel efficiency. Try not to max out above 60.

The brakes also require more ginger treatment. You lose energy every time you hit the brakes. Experiment, and see when you can avoid doing so. Your car should flow in a very zen-like way, rather than lurch forward and grind to screeching halts.

5. Pre-juice before a hill.  If you see a hill coming, give your car some gas while you're on the flat part, and coast up as much of the hill as you can. It's more efficient for your vehicle to use that inertia to get up the hill than to burn fuel to do so.

6. Use your cruise control. Unless you're in a hilly area, cruise control will help save you an average of 7% in fuel economy. Flat highway? Turn it on to 55-60mph and see the benefits.

7. Use the highest gear possible. If you have an automatic car, this tip is useless, but manual vehicles can see major gains from shifting into the highest gear possible. Just like when you're in a bike, the higher the gear to support your speed means less overall work.

8. Idling. Idling uses a shocking amount of gas. If you are going to be sitting anywhere for over 60 seconds, turn the engine off. Unlike the hypermilers, however, please don't do this in the middle of stop-and-go traffic.

9. Drafting. Be careful putting this one into practice. It's tempting to nose up behind the car in front of you like a NASCAR driver and maximize your fuel efficiency returns, but tailgating is just a good way to get yourself killed. Follow the two second rule, and find a semi-truck to drive behind to see gains of up to 25% in fuel economy.

10. Turn it into a game. The built-in trip computer in your car is pretty accurate at calculating your fuel efficiency. Turn it on, drive around, and see how high you can get your number. Compete with your SO, try to break records, etc. The more fun you have, the more you'll be motivated to do it.

Add up all of the above changes, and you could be seeing up to 47% gains in fuel efficiency, just for changing your driving patterns. In my 18mpg SUV, that would see me up to 26mpg. Maybe I won't be a hypermiler, but that's still pretty super mileage.

More resources:

• The official Hypermiling web site
• More on Wayne Gerdes
• The Edmonds.com fuel efficiency tests
• Hardcore fuel efficiency analysis of a Jeep Wrangler

Is it recyclable: Toothbrushes?

The bristles started falling out of my toothbrush this week, so it's time to switch. It is definitely made of plastic, but it's completely unclear whether I can recycle my toothbrush. My recycling website doesn't mention toothbrushes anywhere. Apparently 50 million pounds of toothbrushes go into the landfill each year.  Is it inevitable that mine will join them?

And probably more importantly, are there eco-friendly alternatives to the toothbrushes I purchase today encased in plastic at the drugstore?

Peak Oil Skeptic? Read what the CEO of Shell has to say.

Jeroen van der Veer, the CEO of Shell, sent this letter to all of his employees and posted it on the company website this week.

In it he states that oil production will peak in 2015, and after that, demand will increasingly dwarf supply. He also asserts that in 2100 we will have a transformed grid of renewable energy sources. The question, he states, is what will happen in the next century.

He outlines two dramatically different scenarios: one in which we continue on our current track, increasing global energy consumption, finding more carbon-based fuel sources, initiate wars over what is left, and deal with the fallout of climate change.

In the other scenario, we band together as communities and nations. We try to figure out how to become more effficient with what we've got left, set the right policies to reduce greenhouse gases and transform our energy supplies, and weather the storm in better condition.

It's a significant statement in an industry that has denied peak oil for a long time, and worth a read..

=========================================================================

From: Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive
To: All Shell employees
Date: 22 January 2008

Subject: Shell Energy Scenarios

Dear Colleagues

In this letter, I'd like to share reflections about how we see the energy future, and our preferred route to meeting the world's energy needs. Industry, governments and energy users - that is, all of us - will face the twin challenge of more energy and less CO2.

This letter is based on a text I've written for publication in several newspapers in the coming weeks. You can use it in your communications externally. There will be more information about energy scenarios inthe months ahead.

By the year 2100, the world's energy system will be radically different from today's. Renewable energy like solar, wind, hydroelectricity and biofuels will make up a large share of the energy mix, and nuclear energy too will have a place.

Mankind will have found ways of dealing with air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. New technologies will have reduced the amount of energy needed to power buildings and vehicles.

Indeed, the distant future looks bright, but getting there will be an adventure. At Shell, we think the world will take one of two possible routes. The first, a scenario we call Scramble, resembles a race through a mountainous desert. Like an off-road rally, it promises excitement and fierce competition. However, the unintended consequence of "more haste" will often be "less speed" and many will crash along the way.

The alternative scenario, called Blueprints, has some false starts and develops like a cautious ride on a road that is still under construction. Whether we arrive safely at our destination depends on the discipline of the drivers and the ingenuity of all those involved in the construction effort. Technical innovation provides for excitement.

Regardless of which route we choose, the world's current predicament limits our maneuvering room. We are experiencing a step-change in the growth rate of energy demand due to population growth and economic development, and Shell estimates that after 2015 supplies of easy-to-access oil and gas will no longer keep up with demand.
As a result, society has no choice but to add other sources of energy - renewables , yes, but also more nuclear power and unconventional fossil fuels such as oil sands. Using more energy inevitably means emitting more CO2 at a time when climate change has become a critical global issue.

In the Scramble scenario, nations rush to secure energy resources for themselves, fearing that energy security is a zero-sum game, with clear winners and losers. The use of local coal and homegrown biofuels increases fast.

Taking the path of least resistance, policymakers pay little attention to curbing energy consumption - until supplies run short. Likewise, despite much rhetoric, greenhouse gas emissions are not seriously addressed until major shocks trigger political reactions. Since these responses are overdue, they are severe and lead to energy price spikes and volatility.

The other route to the future is less painful, even if the start is more disorderly. This Blueprints scenario sees numerous coalitions emerging to take on the challenges of economic development, energy security and environmental pollution through cross-border cooperation.

Much innovation occurs at the local level, as major cities develop links with industry to reduce local emissions. National governments introduce efficiency standards, taxes and other policy instruments to improve the environmental performance of buildings, vehicles and transport fuels.

As calls for harmonization increase, policies converge across the globe. Cap-and-trade mechanisms that put a cost on industrial CO 2 emissions gain international acceptance. Rising CO2 prices accelerate innovation, spawning breakthroughs. A growing number of cars are powered by electricity and hydrogen, while industrial facilities are fitted with technology to capture CO 2 and store it underground.

Against the backdrop of these two equally plausible scenarios, we will only know in a few years whether December's Bali declaration on climate change was just rhetoric or the beginning of a global effort to counter it. Much will depend on how attitudes evolve in Beijing, Brussels, New Delhi and Washington.

Shell traditionally uses its scenarios to prepare for the future without expressing a preference for one over another. But, faced with the need to manage climate risk for our investors and our grandchildren, we believe the Blueprints outcomes provide the best balance between economy, energy and environment.

For a second opinion, we appealed to climate change calculations made at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. These calculations indicate that a Blueprints world with CO2 capture and storage results in the least amount of climate change, provided emissions of other major manmade greenhouse gases are similarly reduced.

The sobering reality is that the Blueprints scenario will only come to pass if policymakers agree a global approach to emissions trading and actively promote energy efficiency and new technology in four sectors: heat and power generation, industry, mobility and buildings. It will be hard work and there is little time.

For instance, Blueprints assumes CO2 is captured at 90% of all coal- and gas-fired power plants in developed countries in 2050, plus at least 50% of those in non-OECD countries. Today, there are none. Since CO2 capture and storage adds cost and brings no revenues , government support is needed to make it happen quickly on a scale large enough to affect global emissions. At the very least, companies should earn carbon credits for the CO2 they capture and store.

Blueprints will not be easy. But it offers the world the best chance of reaching a sustainable energy future unscathed, so we should explore this route with the same ingenuity and persistence that put humans on the moon and created the digital age.

The world faces a long voyage before it reaches a low-carbon energy system. Companies can suggest possible routes to get there, but governments are in the driving seat. And governments will determine whether we should prepare for a bitter competition or a true team effort.

That is the article, and how I see our challenges and opportunities. I look forward to hearing how you see the situation (please be concise).

Regards
Jeroen van der Veer, Chief Executive

Green? Or Clean? With dishwasher detergents, that is the question.

In attempting to green my dishwasher, I stumbled on the complex question of dishwasher liquid. These are the green decisions that I hate: they are complex, there aren't always obvious alternatives that work, and the facts about the matter are controversial. But I'm jumping ahead of myself.

Greening your dish detergent breaks down into two primary categories: 1) packaging, and 2) ingredients.

Dishwasher Detergent Packaging
Dishwasher detergent comes in three primary flavors of packaging: plastic bags, plastic tubs and cardboard boxes. In any ordinary situation, I'd advocate for the cardboard boxes. Plastic bags aren't recyclable in my area AND are made out of oil, so obviously the worst solution. Plastic tubs are made out of oil, and you can't recycle them completely because the caps aren't allowed.

Cardboard boxes usually contain powder detergents, however, and my dishwasher doesn't seem to like these. It never dissolves completely, and my glasses are covered in spots. My prerequisite for an environmentally-friendly solution is that it has to work, so powder is out.

If using the plastic tubs, packaging can be minimized by buying as large of a bottle as I can find, which will have a larger product:packaging ratio, and thus smaller footprint. Then, experimenting with the amount of product actually required in the dishwater will improve that ratio even further. At the end of its life, recycling the plastic container is extremely important.

Here's what I am trying to do:
1. Buy the biggest size plastic container I can find. This will have a larger product:packaging ratio, and thus smaller footprint. Dishwashing liquid isn’t really going to expire, after all, so this is both more monetarily and 'packagingly' advantageous.

2. Experiment with how much detergent I use. Of course, the dishwashing liquid company recommends you will both dishwasher cups completely full. They’ll sell more product that way. There’s often no need to fill the soap area completely full. About half full works fine for us. If you figure out how full it really needs to be, you can save soap, money, and packaging.

3. Recycle the plastic bottle. Whatever packaging you end up getting, at the end of its life, recycling the container is extremely important.

Dishwasher Detergent Ingredients
This is where things start to get really complicated. I sort of assumed going-in that dishwashing liquid is fine for the environment. It's got to be non-toxic, because we eat from things washed in it, so how could it be harmful at all?

Looking at my Cascade, they don't do a great job disclosing their ingredients. Apparently they are not required to by law. They say the ingredients are "Sodium Carbonate, Sodium Silicate, and Enzymes". But then elsewhere on the bottle they say "Cascade Gel averages no more than 4.5% phosphorus in the form of phosphates." So phosphates would be another ingredient, right? Is that an enzyme?

Apparently in cleaning products of all sorts there are lots of possibly toxic/polluting substances to watch out for. In dishwasher liquid, the two environmentally-impacting culprits are 1. phosphates, and 2. petroleum distillates.

Phosphates
Phosphates help make hard water softer, allowing the cleaning ingredients to work better and faster. When put into waterways, phosphates also create huge algae blooms, starving the ocean of oxygen, killing sea life, and creating "dead zones".

My home state (go Washington!) was the first to pass a law requiring the reduction of phosphate in detergents to 0.5% by 2010. Several other states have followed, and now it seems the detergent industry (which consists pretty much only of P&G) is committed to subbing out phosphates with a synthetic ingredient by 2010. Good news!

Petroleum Distillates
I'm not sure if Cascade does, but many soaps and detergents use petroleum distillates or other petroleum-based ingredients. Not only can these be toxic in large amounts, but you're using oil! That's nearly as annoying as when I realized that my tub of Vaseline was petroleum jelly.

Apparently it's hard to get away from these petroleum products. They must serve some vital purpose, as even the Seventh Generation dishwasher liquid product (apologetically) contains them.

Do Natural Dishwashing Detergents actually work?
When I found out about phosphates and petroleum distillates, I set out determined to find a substitute product that would work for our household. But my online research discovered that many people who use greener detergents say that they don’t really work.

Some people see grit left on the dishes, others end up with mold deposits growing in their dishwasher (nasty!) Many people are amending their green detergent decision with pre-washing their dishes, a bad trade-off that sacrifices energy and water.

A lot of people seem to be happy with two detergents: Ecover, and Trader Joe's, but neither are sold in my area.

Who out there has a great, widely-available dishwasher liquid they can recommend? Anyone? Else, it's back to Cascade for the time being...

Dishwashers are a greenie's dream

Dishwashers are a greenie’s dream: an appliance that works AND is more efficient than doing it the manual way. Several studies show that today’s dishwashers save energy and water overall doing your dishes by hand (not to mention time!).

But that doesn’t mean we can’t optimize its efficiency even further. Armed with some tips I pulled off the internet, I set out to make mine better. Some of it was a little trickier than I thought it would be.

Lower your hot water temperature
When I did my hot water heater audit last year, I noted that I didn’t want to lower the temperature below 120F because I wanted my dishes to be sanitized. Little did I know that most modern dishes have built-in heaters that heat the water to 140F degrees to make sure all the bacteria and mold gets burned off. So lowering my hot water temp has little to no impact on my dishwasher’s sanitary effectiveness. Cool.

Running a full load
In the “duh” category of green tips, the best way to increase dishwasher efficiency is to always run a full load. Figure out who in your family has a talent for stuffing the dishwasher the fullest. My husband is a whiz at fitting more in the dishwasher. Even when I think I’ve totally maxed it out, he’ll fiddle for a bit and magically slide four more bowls in. I think it’s all of those years playing Tetris.

I used to worry about letting dishes hang out in the sink or dishwasher with gross food stuff on them for a few days while I waited for the dishwasher to get full. Sometimes little fuzzy colonies of mold would start to emerge. However, studies show that dishwashers are remarkably efficient at sterilizing these bad boys too.

Don’t Pre-wash
I grew up washing the dishes before I put them in the dishwasher. It was only after I got married that my husband observed me cleaning up one day and offered “Um, you don’t actually have to do that”. I didn’t believe him, but I tried it his way, and lo and behold – the bowls absolutely caked with marinara sauce came out perfectly clean!

Today’s dishwashers are much better at cleaning the gross grit off of your dishes. Save yourself dishwater hands and hot water by just slapping your dishes in the dishwasher. Like I was, you may be surprised at the results.

Air Dry
This suggestion makes perfect sense. Why bother using energy to dry my dishes, when I can just open the door a crack and have them dry overnight anyway? But I was completely stymied by the confusing display of options on my dishwasher. Which one was going to turn off the dry cycle? Look at these buttons – it’s not exactly clear.

I fished out my dishwasher manual which ended up being for a completely different model of dishwasher (huh?). The GE website didn't have the manual for my model. The only thing left to do is experiment.

Turns out turning off “speed dry” is the right thing to do. With this off, the dishwasher will not enter a dry cycle, saving lots of energy. Sometimes bowls or tupperwares in the top rack have a tough time getting dry, but we just let those rack dry a little longer and they’re fine. It’s a minor inconvenience.

My particular dishwasher doesn’t have an “energy saver” mode, but I’ve heard this is the most efficient way to run your dishwasher. Give it a try and let me know how it works for you.

The last set of things I looked into was my dishwashing detergent, but this ended up being such a complex issue, I’m going to save writing about it for tomorrow.

What steps have you taken to optimizing your dishwashing for maximum green-ficiency?

Environmental Position of Presidential Candidates

Part of committing to a green lifestyle is not just making changes in my own life, but supporting change in my community and country. Since Seattle rejected a recent transportation bill because of its unknown environmental impact, I've been trying to educate myself on the green side of local and national issues.

With the presidential race narrowing to fewer and fewer candidates, it's interesting to better understand each candidate's position on environmental and energy issues. Grist.org, one of my favorite environmental news sites, has put together a fantastic guide summarizing each candidate's position.

Here's a quick and dirty summary:

Clinton - her recently released plan is comprehensive and ambitious. Focuses on efficiency (fuel conservation), and investment (for new technologies and energy sources). Similar to Obama and Edwards, proposes a cap-and-trade system to cut greenhouse emissions 50% by 2050.

Edwards - The environment Has long been at the forefront of his campaign. Beats Hillary by proposing 80% CO2 emissions cuts by 2050. Similar plan with other dem candidates proposing investment boosts to renewable energy sources, green job programs, etc.

Obama - Obama was late to the environmental party, but now lists it amongst his top 3 domestic issues along with health care, and the economy. I worry about how confused his position was initially, but it seems to be straighted out now. 80% emissions cuts by 2050. Proposes $150 billion investment plan. It's a lot, but I don't know if it's enough. Moving the country to full-on solar was going to cost upwards of $450 billion, and that's still less than we pay to import oil every few years.

Romney - A vote for Romney is a vote for "more of the same" from the Bush days, with perhaps less stupidity re: the economy. Romney doesn't really buy into global warming, and certainly doesn't want to harm businesses one iota to apply carbon emissions caps. Romney supports alternative energy sources in the form of carbon-based domestics: liquid coal, oil shale, etc. but isn't pushing many renewable sources. Unlikely he will back Kyoto.

Giuliani -  He believes in global warming, but hasn't said what he thinks should be done about it.  9/11.

Huckabee - Huckabee isn't fully committed to the idea of global warming, but he is 100% committed to the idea of energy independence. He wants us off foreign oil in 10 years, and will invest in solar, nuclear, wind, etc. to get there. Good for him.

McCain- John McCain isn't just a believer in global warming and independent energy, he's the only one of the candidates that has actually DONE something about it. He wrote and sponsored the Climate Stewardship Act which creates the cap-and-trade system that Obama, Edwards, and Clinton want to implement to reduce emissions 65% by 2050. This has hurt his Republican base a bit, but I imagine this will help him find a new base of greenie voters if he ends up being the Republican presidential candidate.

Ron Paul - If I omit him, I'll have an army of geeks screaming "conspiracy!" and bringing down my website, so I have to say something. Problem is, Ron Paul has made few statements regarding the environment. His position is unclear.

 

7 Ways to Reuse Wire Hangers

Yesterday, I asked you what to do with my ginormous stack of wire hangers, accumulated from years of dry cleaning runs.

Turns out wire hangers aren't exactly the hideous scourge I thought they were. They are, after all, made of steel, North America's most recycled material. In fact, 26% of the steel in the wire hangers is made from recycled metal.

Many recycling facilities actually will accept metal hangers. Mine just doesn't happen to be one of them.

So what is to be done if you cannot recycle them?

1.  Take them to the cleaners
By far, the most popular suggestion has been to take them back to the dry cleaner. Many dry cleaners welcome hangers so they can reuse them and reduce their costs. Excellent idea!

Anna from green-talk.com mentioned that her dry cleaner doesn't accept them, but her Wash and Fold place is. A little experimentation may be necessary to find an accepting business.

2.  Give them to a thrift store
Beth from fakeplasticfish.com suggested that thrift stores might accept wire hangers. According to their websites, Goodwill and Salvation Army will only accept plastic ones, but some local chains, like Value Village, are happy to accept them.

3.  Offer them to a local shelter or hospital
Apparently hospitals and shelters are always in need of hangers for their clients, and might be willing to accept a donation. I'd only go this route if you have a really large quantity to part with.

4.  Do a hanger drive and go to the scrap metal place
Scrap metal facilities would love to get their hands on wire hangers, but only in large quantities. Gather wire hangers from your neighborhood or church and take them in bulk for recycling.

5.  Freecycle
Freecycle is always a good option when you have something useful that you don't need. Believe it or not, somebody might want your hangers!

6.  Wirehangerexchange.com
Somebody mentioned wirehangerexchange.com to me as a useful way to get rid of hangers. But then I went there and thought, "This has to be a joke". I mean, nobody is actually exchanging hangers. It's just a bunch of empty categories. But maybe it's just that good that the instant you post, your hangers are spoken for. I'm too scared to try it. Any volunteers?

7.  Make crafts
I'm not really a crafty person. Maybe I'll keep one or two wire hangers around to unlock my car or unclog a drain if I get in a fix. But I'm not going to be making bird cages or lampshades. Still, if you are into that sort of thing, here are some ideas.

As for me, in an odd twist of fate, there are three dry cleaning businesses within 50 feet of my home. So whoever reuses wire hangers is going to get my business.

The Myth of Green Travel

Last year, 55% of my carbon emissions came from travelling on airplanes.

In the US and UK, air travel accounts for 5% of our nations’ overall carbon footprints. 2% worldwide. The US airline industry uses 20 billion gallons of gasoline a year, accounting for 15% of our nation’s gas needs. World air travel continues to grow at impressive rates.

I love to travel. Experiencing new places while sampling bits of their culture and history inspires me. I feel a broader connection to the world, and a better understanding of my place in it.

But is energy-efficient travel an impossibility? Is ‘eco-tourism’ a misnomer because it simply costs too much in energy and carbon to arrive at your destination?

How bad are the emissions from air travel, really?

Bad. A full 747 gets about 70 passenger miles per gallon, burning 3378 gallons of fuel per hour. If you think about it, that’s not much better than driving your Prius thousands of miles to your far-off destination (Though to be fair, you get there a lot faster). All of the gas used makes air travel increasingly expensive. Fare prices are staying the same, but as oil prices rise, nearly all airlines are slipping in large fuel surcharges.

On top of that, because you are in the sky, the carbon emissions from burning the fuel are spit directly into the high atmosphere, minimizing the chance they’ll be absorbed by a plant or a rock on their way up. "IPCC scientists have estimated that greenhouse gas pollution from high-flying jets is up to four times more damaging to the environment than identical levels of pollution emitted at ground level."

How is government and industry working to improve?

The situation isn’t going to improve quickly. Unlike road vehicles, currently there are no greenhouse gas emissions controls on aircraft. Even the Kyoto Protocol doesn’t cover airline emissions. And given the insane competitiveness and perennial instability of the US air industry, volunteers for costly improvements are difficult to come across.

Despite stiff resistance from the Bush administration, California has recently teamed up with the EU to lobby the US EPA for emissions standards, but they face an uphill battle. Airlines have talked about making zero-emissions a goal, but few have pursued concrete steps in this direction.

Certainly high gas prices are a great motivator for airlines to improve their fuel efficiency, and as a result, Boeing and Airbus have committed to improve the efficiency of the aircraft they manufacture in the next decade, Boeing by 20% and Airbus by 50%.

Is there new technology on the horizon that can help?

The major airplane manufacturers are always working on new designs for their craft to make them lighter and more aero-dynamic, resulting in more fuel-efficient planes.

Can progress be made beyond that? EasyJet thinks so. They have laid out a series of tough expectations for an “EcoJet”, that if produced, will comprise their entire fleet of aircraft in 2015. Elsewhere, experiments in solar-powered aircraft have been reasonably successful for small craft, though much more research is needed. Several prizes are available in the market to people who can solve various aeronautical energy challenges.

Presently, the most promising developments lie in new fuel technologies. Richard Branson’s Virgin Atlantic has been at the forefront of green developments in travel. In fact, they will be the first ever to test fly a 747 powered solely on bio fuels next month. They hope to implement green fuel standards into their passenger flights later this year.

Green fuel is certainly an improvement, because some of the carbon of the fuel gets eaten as the plants are grown, but it still produces harmful high-altitude emissions. Still, this new fuel source in combinations with fuel-efficient improvements could go a long way towards making air travel a more efficient way to travel long distances.

The Sudden Rise of Offset Programs

An increasingly common strategy for airlines is to put the responsibility of carbon emissions into the hands of its consumers. Several airlines, including Delta and British Airways, have online and airport Carbon Offset programs available for purchase.

Al Gore, and popular conferences like this year’s CES in Las Vegas, are able to claim that they are “carbon-neutral” because they purchase offsets to ‘balance’ out their carbon footprint.

For those of you not familiar with the concept, when you purchase an offset, your money theoretically goes to a clean energy project somewhere around the world that will prevent/remove that same amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Many people purchase offsets to vacation with clear consciences.

The price of offsets varies wildly. Offsetting a round trip from San Francisco to New York will cost anywhere from $15 to $80.

Unfortunately, the validity and effectiveness of offset programs remains dubious. There are no certifications for offset sellers to prove that they are improving carbon footprints in any real way. Carbon credit markets are still nascent enough that the net impact of said programs is difficult to measure.

Bottom line: offsets are a lazy way of being green. Think about it: you pay money to some other company that will develop a program to help convince you to reduce your carbon footprint. Why not just reduce it in the first place?

Steps to take to reduce your travel footprint:

1. Fly Less. This is really the bottom line. If you fly for business, try convincing your boss to install new video conferencing software instead as a cost-reduction measure. If you fly for pleasure, consider whether you can cut back on the number of annual trips you make a year. You don’t need the hassle of airport security after all. Or, consider buses and trains. Trains can be really fun, and have a much higher passenger MPG than aircraft.

2. Fly closer. Limiting your personal mileage when you fly can make as much of an impact as limiting your overall trips. If you live in San Francisco and have the choice to vacation in Disneyland or Disneyworld, choose Disneyland.

3. Fly direct. More fuel is used on take-off and landing than during cruising, so opt to pay a little more for a direct flight. Not only are direct flights more convenient, but purchasing more of them should bring the overall direct fare to that destination down in the long run, as airlines balance for the increased demand.

4. Combine Work and Play. If you’re already there for work, why not stay a while longer and see the sights?

5. Travel on airlines with clear environmental goals. In the US, Continental has made the most strides to embrace a higher standard. Overseas, Virgin is the clear winner, but EasyJet, KLM, and Lufthansa have made impressive advances as well.

6. Research your carbon offset provider. If you want to do all you can, you’re probably going to offset your travel. It’s better than nothing. Still, try to make sure your offset provider engages in legitimate offsetting activities. Clean Air Cool Planet has a good survey from a year ago that evaluates some offsetting companies. Do your research. If you can’t find any credible information online on what that offset provider is doing, it’s probably not a good sign.

Happy Traveling!