If you’re like most people, you’re more than happy to buy green — as long as it also saves greenbacks. A recent study by the Shelton Group found that people who buy eco-friendly products at least occasionally are more interested in spending their money wisely than in improving the environment.

Myth: Never leave the lights on when you leave a room.

Reality

Mom had it right when it comes to incandescent bulbs, but she’d be wrong about today’s compact fluorescent lights. The more often you switch CFLs on and off, the shorter their operating life. In most parts of the country, it’s cheaper to leave fluorescents on if you’ll only be out of the room for 15 minutes or less, according to the Energy Department (www.energysavers.gov). In areas with high electric rates or during peak demand periods, the length of time may shorten to 5 minutes. On average, a CFL bulb costs $2.50 more than an incandescent bulb, but it will save $5.41 annually on your electric bill compared with an incandescent, according to the Energy Department.

If you haven’t converted to CFLs because you fear pollution from the mercury they contain, keep in mind that generating electricity is the main source of U.S. mercury emissions. A 60-watt light bulb will use 480 kilowatt hours of electricity and contribute almost 6 milligrams of mercury to the environment over its lifetime, according to Energy Star. A CFL will use less than a fourth of the electricity and result in a third of the mercury emissions. For more information on properly disposing of CFLs, visit http://www.energystar.gov/cfls.

Myth: You can trust product labels that say “green,” “eco-friendly,” “earth smart” and the like.

Reality

The green-washing machine loves to crank out vague marketing terms, and the Federal Trade Commission has begun to crack down on environmental claims that fail the regulatory smell test (visit www.ftc.gov and search “Sorting Out Green Advertising Claims”). Manufacturers have begun to improve the labeling, consumer information and advice on their Web sites, including lists and definitions of ingredients. Also look for the EPA’s Design for the Environment label.

Myth: Switching to solar is a great way to achieve energy savings.

Reality

Solar systems, even with government incentives, are expensive. The owner of a typical single-family home in the United States wastes almost $350 annually on heated or cooled air that escapes to the outdoors. So for most houses in most places, the first line of defense is to reduce demand, says Bruce Harley, author of “Cut Your Energy Bills Now.” That means tightening up the house and its ductwork, improving insulation, switching to CFLs, upgrading appliances and changing your behavior. After that, if you still want to go solar, you may be able to make do with a smaller system that costs less. For example, instead of a 4-kilowatt photovoltaic system (the size recommended for the average home) — which would cost $16,800 installed after an average state-tax incentive of 25 percent and the federal discount of 30 percent — you might get by with a 2-kilowatt system, which would cost $8,400.

Myth: Energy savings (and tax credits) will eventually pay for replacement windows.

Reality

True, windows are a big energy waster, but you probably have bigger fish to fry. The average cost to replace a window with a high-efficiency model is $300 to $700, and another 50 to 100 percent if you must replace a rotten or damaged frame, according to http://www.CostHelper.com. Through 2010, you can get a tax credit for 30 percent of your cost, up to $1,500, for super-efficient windows (many that are currently Energy Star-approved don’t qualify). Many older homes don’t have huge amounts of window area, and newer houses tend to have more energy-efficient windows that meet existing standards for Energy Star labeling. If you still want to upgrade your windows, you may wait until products meeting new and more rigorous Energy Star standards reach the market in April 2010.

Myth: “Biodegradable” products that return to their natural state save landfill space.

Reality

Modern landfills are designed to keep out sunlight, air and moisture to prevent air and water pollution, thus inhibiting degradation. The FTC’s definition of a biodegradable product is one that will completely decompose within a reasonably short time under customary methods of disposal. Because most landfill garbage won’t pass that test, you’re better off reducing your contribution to solid waste (according to the EPA, the average American generates almost five pounds of garbage a day). At the store, look for a claim of “post-consumer recycled” content, then recycle what you can. Also use sites such as Freecycle.org instead of hauling reusable stuff to the dump.

Myth: You’ll recoup the higher price you pay for a hybrid car in savings at the pump.

Reality

You may not earn back the $3,000-plus premium you’ll pay for a hybrid with savings at the gas pump. Hybrids always run cleaner than gasoline-fueled engines, but they only make financial sense when gas prices are high, you drive a lot and you plan to keep the vehicle for, say, five or more years. (Use our hybrid calculator to compare the ownership costs of a hybrid versus gas-powered vehicle.) Paying the hybrid premium might be worth it as an insurance policy against higher gas prices in the future, says Bradley Berman, editor of HybridCars.com.

Myth: It’s worth paying 20 to 40 percent extra to buy organic because the food is healthier.

Reality

A recent and hotly debated British study asserts that organic food is no more nutritious than conventionally grown food. But this isn’t an all-or-nothing issue: If you want to minimize your exposure to pesticides and save money on organics, too, spring for the organic label only on the Environmental Working Group’s “dirty dozen” — fruits and vegetables that carry the most pesticide residue. They are (from most to least residue): peaches, apples, sweet bell peppers, celery, nectarines, strawberries, cherries, kale, lettuce, grapes (imported), carrots and pears. The clean 15 (from least to most residue) include onions, avocados, sweet corn (frozen), pineapples, mangos, asparagus, sweet peas (frozen), kiwi fruit, cabbages, eggplants, papayas, watermelons, broccoli, tomatoes and sweet potatoes.

Myth: You can reduce your carbon footprint by eating locally grown foods.

Reality

While locavores often cite “food miles” — that is, the distance food is shipped to market — as a reason to eat local, Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews, professors at Carnegie Mellon University, say that transportation accounts for only 11 percent of total greenhouse-gas emissions associated with food, while 83 percent is related to production. Produce grown close to home may be fresher and taste better. But food grown where conditions are most auspicious will require less fertilizer, pesticides, labor and investment in tools, says Art Carden, who teaches economics at Rhodes College in Memphis. If you really want to reduce the carbon footprint of your diet, cut back on consumption of red meat, which Weber and Matthews say is responsible for producing 150 percent more greenhouse gases than chicken or fish.

Myth: You can neutralize your personal share of greenhouse-gas emissions by buying carbon offsets.

Reality

Measuring your carbon emissions is a squishy science, and measuring the offsets is even squishier. For example, Carbonfund.org sets the cost to offset an airline trip cross-country (round-trip) at $8.92 for .0.89 tons of fumes. Sustainable Travel International charges $45.34 for 1.8 tons. (The price of a carbon offset can vary from $5 to $25 per ton on average. Clean Air-Cool Planet, a nonprofit devoted to climate-science education, says that it’s impossible to prove that buying offsets will “render purchasers carbon neutral.” There’s no clear standard in use for certifying offsets, although the FTC is investigating the issue. For further guidance, read “A Consumer’s Guide to Retail Carbon Offset Providers” Cleanair-coolplanet.org. Also check the fine print on sellers’ Web sites to see whether the criteria for selecting projects are explained and the benefits quantified.

Myth: New homes are more energy-efficient than older homes.

Reality

Homes built over the past decade or so gobble about as much energy as homes built decades ago. That’s because newer homes are bigger, more architecturally complex and full of energy-hogging electronics, says Harley, the author of Cut Your Energy Bills Now. Even a new-home owner will benefit from paying for an energy audit and following through on its recommendations. According to the Home Performance with Energy Star program http://www.energystar.gov, improving energy efficiency will produce utility-bill savings of 20 percent or more.

ReCellular, a leading electronics sustainability firm, recently announced a new partnership with TerraCycle to establish over 1,000 “phone brigades” by the end of the year, building on a similar concept previously launched by TerraCycle. The brigades will collect and donate cell phones, raise funds for local causes and keep e-waste out of landfills.

“Economic, social and environmental sustainability have been at the core of our business long before the term ‘triple-bottom line’ was coined,” says Chuck Newman, CEO and founder of ReCellular. “Today, we are proud to be a part of the emerging green economy, and to partner with an innovative company such as TerraCycle. We look forward to expanding this relationship over the coming months.”

The Phone Brigade program could be a way to earn money for your favorite charity.
The partnership provides a solution for TerraCycle to expand their upcycling efforts to include consumer electronics. First launching the Brigade concept in 2006, TerraCycle pays schools and non-profits to collect 20-ounce soda bottles. Today, more than 20,000 participating locations are part of the Brigades, and the programs have raised more than $100,000 from millions of reused and recycled soda bottles, yogurt cups and snack wrappers. This money, primarily, has been donated to public-school organizations.

According to TerraCycle, the company “decided to expand their upcycling collections to help address the estimated 65,000 tons of cell phones that are discarded every year.” Cell phones contain both hazardous chemicals and valuable materials for reclamation, making them ideal for recycling.

Anyone can sign up to participate in the TerraCycle Phone Brigade, and volunteers will receive donation boxes for collecting and shipping phones. Brigades will be compensated for each item they collect, which provides schools and other grassroots organizations with new ways to fundraise.

The phones will be delivered to the ReCellular phone processing facility, where they will be either refurbished and reprogrammed for reuse, or are recycled to reclaim materials needed to make new electronics equipment.

In 2008, ReCellular collected over 5.5 million phones and raised over $4 million for charities across the country.

 For more than a decade now, EPA has joined governments, communities and citizens taking part in National Pollution Prevention Week. Pollution prevention measures can protect the environment before pollution even begins, save energy and natural resources, and leave our homes, schools and workplaces cleaner and safer.

In 2007 National Pollution Prevention Week is September 17-23, and this year’s theme urges us to “Take the Next Step” toward sustainability. How? Well, if you are recycling - great, keep it up. You can also take a few steps that will prevent pollution before it occurs like switching to “ENERGY STAR” light bulbs or joining a car pool. Learn more ideas on how you and your family can prevent pollution and “take the next step” with helpful tips on a variety of topics. If every person made just one change, the impact would be tremendous.

Tips to help you get started with pollution prevention right now!
At Home    

Use less water, less energy, reduce your trash 

At Work    

Commute smarter, green your building, reduce, reuse, recycle

In the Garden    

Spend less energy, resources, money on landscaping

 On the Road

Improve your mileage, use less gas

Why is it so important to reduce the sources of pollution?
Reducing pollution before it ever gets to the environment is one of the most important ways to protect the environment. By reducing our energy and creating less waste, for example, we reduce the need for expensive environmental controls, treatment, disposal - and even cleanup. Pollution prevention has grown from a good idea many years ago to one of the principal ways our country protects the environment. As a result, our land, air and water are cleaner and safer. In the past decade, reductions from pollution prevention have been remarkable, for example, cutting billion pounds of hazardous materials, saving trillions of BTUs of energy, and conserving billions of gallons of water.

Use this Web site to learn more about how pollution prevention is helping to reduce pollution, conserve resources and protect our health and environment. For more information, see EPA’s Pollution Prevention Web site.

Pollution Prevention in Action at EPA
At EPA we too are reducing pollution at our office “home” by reducing our environmental impacts and preventing pollution. Our actions range from seeking sources of alternative energy to recycling and purchasing environmentally friendlier products. EPA is the first federal agency to purchase green power equal to 100 percent of its estimated annual electricity use nationwide. Read more about how EPA is going green.

Business Roundtable, an association of 160 chief executive officers of leading U.S. companies, announced a new policy statement on climate change, acknowledging that climate change poses a serious risk and that the time for action is now.

After reviewing the science, the policy statement concludes that “the consequences of global warming for society and ecosystems are potentially serious and far-reaching” and that “steps to address the risks of such warming are prudent now even while the science continues to evolve.” The roundtable’s new policy statement, announced on July 17, proposes a series of benchmarks and principles against which climate change policy proposals should be measured.

“Today marks the first time that a broad cross-section of business leaders from every sector of the U.S. economy have reached consensus on the risks posed by climate change and the need for action,” said John J. Castellani, president, Business Roundtable. “The Business Roundtable’s diverse membership stands ready to work with policymakers on proactive solutions that address climate change while sustaining economic growth.”

The climate change position was developed through a consensus-driven process led by Business Roundtable’s CEO members that included outreach to senior members of Congress and leading climate scientists. Chad Holliday, chairman and CEO, DuPont, and chairman of Business Roundtable’s Environment, Technology and the Economy Task Force, commented: “The thinking of U.S. CEOs on climate change is evolving significantly. A growing number of CEOs view it as a major issue for their companies and many of us have called for timely U.S. action.”

The policy statement calls for “collective action that will lead to the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on a global basis, with the goal of slowing increases in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and ultimately stabilizing them at levels that will address the risks of climate change.” (more…)

Study Evaluates Asbestos Removal Technology

On May 15, EPA announced the release of a draft report that evaluates an alternative demolition process for buildings containing asbestos. Scientists and engineers from EPA’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory and the Dallas regional office compared the current process of demolishing a dilapidated, asbestos-containing structure with a new method called the Alternative Asbestos Control Method (AACM).

The first demonstration project was successfully completed in Fort Chaffee, Ark. Preliminary findings show AACM procedures to be protective for the cleanup of many asbestos-containing buildings.

Two similar buildings containing similar types and quantities of asbestos were demolished in April 2006. One demolition used the alternative method, and one employed the standard National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) method. As the buildings were demolished, environmental emissions were monitored to determine if the alternative protected the environment as well as the NESHAP method.

The current NESHAP process involves removal of some asbestos materials prior to demolition of a structure. This process can be time-consuming and expensive. After demolition, the removed asbestos and the demolished structure are both disposed of in approved landfills.

Similarly, the alternative method removes some friable (capable of becoming airborne) asbestos materials, but some asbestos-containing materials are allowed to remain. The structure is then wetted with amended water to control asbestos fiber release prior to and during demolition. Demolition debris and several inches of affected soil from the AACM process are disposed of as asbestos-containing debris at an approved landfill.

Data from the evaluation demonstrated lower than expected levels of asbestos and reduced potential for worker exposure. The cost and time savings for the first study also were found to be significant.

A select panel of experts has released the draft report for public comment and for peer review. The public is invited to review the draft report at http://www.epa.gov/region06/6xa/asbestos.htm. Comments are due by June 11

An early look at air quality and emissions data for 2006 shows continued improvement in the nation’s air quality over the long term, EPA reported on April 30. Emissions of six key pollutants have dropped by more than half since 1970, and the national average concentration for each criteria pollutant is below the level of its air quality standard.

“The data is in and the trends are good — our nation’s air continues to improve because of the Bush administration’s innovative clean air policies,” said EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson. “By tackling tailpipes and smokestacks, EPA is clearing the air, and all Americans are breathing easier.”

Total emissions of the six key pollutants dropped 54 percent between 1970 and 2006, the agency stated. During the same time period, the U.S. gross domestic product increased 203 percent, vehicle miles traveled increased 177 percent, energy consumption increased 49 percent, and U.S. population grew by 46 percent. In addition, emissions of air toxics in 2002 were 35 percent lower than 1990 levels, the agency stated.

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA sets national air quality standards for six key pollutants: nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO) and lead (Pb). Each year, EPA examines the levels of these pollutants in the air and the emissions from various sources to see how both have changed over time and to summarize the current status of air quality. While national average concentrations of the six key pollutants are below national standards, results vary by site. Annual pollution levels at some monitoring sites do remain above one or more of the national air quality standards, with ozone and particulate matter remaining as the most persistent problems.

The day after EPA’s announcement, the American Lung Association (ALA) issued its annual air quality report card, finding that Americans in the eastern United States are breathing more soot, while stricter local and state controls have dropped air pollution in West.

“The increased (particulate matter) pollution in the East is a particularly troubling trend, because exposure to particle pollution can not only take years off your life, it can threaten your life immediately,” said Terri E. Weaver, PhD, RN, ALA chairperson. “Even in many areas EPA currently considers safe, the science clearly shows that the air is too often dangerous to breathe, particularly for those with lung disease. Protecting Americans from potentially deadly air pollution means we need more protective federal standards, so that every community in the United States can have truly clean air.”

Higher soot levels in the East are linked to an increase in electricity generated by heavy polluting power plants, according to ALA. In the West, by contrast, soot levels continue to drop even in areas that rank historically high in particle pollution. California showed the most improvement with 32 counties dropping their year-round particulate matter pollution levels.

To review EPA’s national air quality and emissions trends, go to http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/econ-emissions.html. To view the “American Lung Association State of the Air: 2007″ report, visit http://lungaction.org/reports/stateoftheair2007.html.