Brothers circumnavigate Britain on ‘tall bikes’

Two unusual visitors pedalled to the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) on Tuesday 16 May, to share their story of a record-breaking mission. The visitors, two brothers from London, are cycling around the coast of Britain perched seven feet above the ground, on an expedition called Tall Bike Tour Britain.

Will and Ed Stevens are currently pedalling 4,500 miles around the British coastline on a pair of specially-built ‘tall bikes’, in order to raise money for three British cycle-related charities - Re-Cycle, Sustrans, and Cyclemagic Community Projects. They want to raise awareness too – about the environmental benefits of recycling, cycling and holidaying in Britain.

The brothers - both over six-foot tall themselves - left from Buckingham Palace on the 1st of April. They are charting their 5-month journey on their website with photographs and sound recordings, as well as keeping an online diary which they update regularly. So far they have covered over 1500 miles and when last seen they were at the Alternative Technology Centre in Machynlleth.

23-year-old younger brother Ed says, ‘Tall Bikes have never been ridden such a long distance before. It is not the most efficient form of cycling . However, the bikes attract enormous attention wherever we go. We are confident that the ride will be successful in raising bicycle awareness around the country, as well as raising money for the charities. The riding is hard going but the rewards are many. It is great fun pedalling so high above the hedgerows!’

More information about the brothers’ progress - and up-to-date photos of the trip - can be found on the brothers’ website, http://www.tallbiketourbritain.com

Dear EarthTalk: How could there ever be a “water scarcity?” Isn’t water the most plentiful thing on Earth? –Chris Carroll, Austin, TX

Ocean water may cover more than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface, but thirsty humans rely on finite supplies of freshwater to stay alive. And with exploding human population growth, especially in poor countries, these finite supplies get quickly spoken for. Further, in places without proper sanitation, water can become tainted with any number of diseases and parasites.

According to the World Bank, as many as two billion people lack adequate sanitation facilities to protect them from water-borne disease, while a billion lack access to clean water altogether. According to the United Nations, which has declared 2005-2015 the “Water for Life” decade, 95 percent of the world’s cities still dump raw sewage into their water supplies. Thus it should come as no surprise to know that 80 percent of all the health maladies in developing countries can be traced back to unsanitary water.

Sandra Postel, author of the 1998 book, Last Oasis: Facing Water Scarcity, predicts big water availability problems as populations of so-called “water-stressed” countries jump perhaps six fold over the next 30 years. “It raises tons of issues about water and agriculture, growing enough food, providing for all the material needs that people demand as incomes increase, and providing drinking water,” says Postel.

Developed countries aren’t immune to freshwater problems either. Researchers found a six-fold increase in water use for only a two-fold increase in population size in the United States since 1900. Such a trend reflects the connection between higher living standards and increased water usage, and underscores the need for more sustainable management and use of water supplies even in more developed societies.

With world population expected to pass nine billion by mid-century, solutions to water scarcity problems are not going to come easy. Some have suggested that technology–such as large-scale saltwater desalination plants–could generate more freshwater for the world to use. But environmentalists argue that depleting ocean water is no answer and will only create other big problems. In any case, research and development into improving desalination technologies is ongoing, especially in Saudi Arabia, Israel and Japan. And already an estimated 11,000 desalination plants exist in some 120 countries around the world.

Others believe that applying market principles to water would facilitate a more efficient distribution of supply everywhere. Analysts at the Harvard Middle East Water Project, for example, advocate assigning a monetary value to freshwater, rather than considering it a free natural commodity. They say such an approach could help mitigate the political and security tensions caused by water scarcity.

As individuals, we can all reign in our own water use to help conserve what is becoming an ever more precious resource. We can hold off on watering our lawns in times of drought. And when it does rain, we can gather gutter water in barrels to feed garden hoses and sprinklers. We can turn off the faucet while we brush our teeth or shave, and take shorter showers. As Sandra Postel concludes, “Doing more with less is the first and easiest step along the path toward water security.”

CONTACT: United Nations Water For Life Decade, www.un.org/waterforlifedecade.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Dear EarthTalk: Can you explain the “Zero Waste” movement in Europe, Australia and elsewhere that goes beyond recycling to reduce waste? How can we make it happen here in the U.S.?
— Neil Weiss, Methuen, MA

In essence, “Zero Waste” is a design principle writ large, whereby products are conceived, produced, packaged, distributed and retired with their long-term environmental impacts in mind. According to the non-profit GrassRoots Recycling Network (GRRN), “Zero waste maximizes recycling, minimizes waste, reduces consumption and ensures that products are made to be reused, repaired or recycled back into nature or the marketplace.” GRRN is calling on companies to take responsibility for the entire life cycle of their products and packaging, and on governments to not subsidize non-recyclable waste processing.

“Waste is the result of bad design,” says Eric Lombardi of EcoCycle, a recycler in Boulder, Colorado. “The concept of zero waste leads upstream to the designer’s desk, where waste needs to be designed out.” Lombardi, a leading light in the fledgling U.S. zero waste movement, lays out four basic principles for achieving zero waste: (1) Make producers responsible for the waste their products create; (2) invest in infrastructure rather than in more landfills and incinerators; (3) end taxpayer subsidies for wasteful and polluting industries; (4) and create jobs and new businesses around the re-use of discards.

While the concept has been slow to catch on here, it has been standard practice in parts of Europe and elsewhere for over a decade. In fact, some 25 countries require companies to take back their packaging, and some have gone so far as to mandate “Extended Producer Responsibility” laws, whereby companies must pay for the waste generated in the production, packaging and distribution of their products.

In Germany, a 1991 ordinance seeking to address packaging waste was a huge success. By 2000, the agencies charged with collecting and recycling such materials were recovering over 90 percent of the plastics and glass used in German packaging. (In the U.S. we reclaim 5.3 and 26 percent respectively.) Another success story comes from Australia, where its capital city, Canberra, embarked on a “No Waste by 2010” campaign in 1996. By 2001 the city had reduced waste sent to landfills by 40 percent and more than doubled the garbage it captured for reuse. The city also began fueling two of its power stations with re-captured methane gas from its landfills, which is plentiful enough to power 3,000 homes for 30 years.

In the U.S., industry has continually put up roadblocks to any serious consideration of adopting such initiatives at the federal level. But, according to the Zero Waste International Alliance, at least 18 local communities have taken it upon themselves to adopt their own strategies for achieving zero waste. These include a dozen California cities and towns; Boulder and Summit counties in Colorado; Carrboro, North Carolina; the Central Vermont Waste Management District; and the cities of Seattle and New York.

“Zero waste is about challenging the ruling paradigm that says we can manage waste safely in landfills and incinerators,” says GRRN’s national coordinator, Bill Sheehan. GRRN helps coordinate efforts to implement zero waste campaigns in the U.S., and offers a wealth of free resources on its website.

CONTACTS: GrassRoots Recycling Network, www.grrn.org; EcoCycle, www.ecocycle.org; Zero Waste International Alliance, www.zwia.org.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Britain’s cemeteries are full, and cremation wastes energy and releases greenhouse gases. Why not buy a plot in a field and ask your relatives to plant a tree over your grave? If others do the same and you all attach an entail to the land, you’ve created a protected wood. Who wouldn’t prefer feeding English oaks to pushing up daisies?

With more than 160 sites in the UK, woodland burial is taking off. Clovery Woods in Aberdeenshire opened last month with room for 12,000 bodies in 37 acres. Some smaller sites are less than an acre in size. Churches own some sites, local authorities and private landowners the rest. Typically farmers turn over a field or two to woodland burials, and contract out the running to a local funeral director and forester. It is an ideal source of income as the EU cuts farm subsidies.

Some people want to be buried in an established wood, but most prefer an ordinary field in the hope that in this way they can help create woodland. Many sites insist on cardboard coffins but most allow a wide range of types of funeral. The costs of a plot range from a few hundred to over a thousand pounds. The Natural Death Centre in London estimates that hundreds of people are now being buried this way every month.
It looks like unmitigated good news. A couple of thousand acres of permanent broad leafed woodland will be created over the next 30 years or so by the voluntary contributions of private individuals looking for a tasteful burial site. Lets hope the idea takes off.

JimThornton, 9 September 2003, http://www.igreens.org.uk/woodland_burial_sites_uk.htm

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.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php

Reports about those noxious fumes emitted from gasoline lawn mowers are indeed true. A Swedish study conducted in 2001 concluded, “Air pollution from cutting grass for an hour with a gasoline powered lawn mower is about the same as that from a 100 mile automobile ride.” Meanwhile, the 54 million Americans mowing their lawns each weekend with gas-powered mowers may be contributing as much as five percent of the nation’s air pollution, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The problem is that small engines emit disproportionately large amounts of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides that contribute to smog. The human health effects of smog-laden air are well known, and include inflammation and damage to lungs, increased risk of asthma attacks, and lowered levels of oxygen in the bloodstream, which can aggravate heart conditions.

Fortunately, the EPA is now phasing in new emissions standards for gas mower engines that will result in a 32 percent smog reduction for all models made starting in 2007. And with even more stringent standards slated to go into effect soon in California, environmental leaders are hoping that the old adage for automobile trends (“as goes California, so goes the nation”) will soon apply to lawn mowers too.

But even with such progress, gas power is not the only option. Eco-conscious consumers looking for a new mower should consider, among other options, any of the electric models now available. The easy part is the price, as many models cost less than $200. The trade-off is that they only work for small lawns and must be tethered to a power outlet during use. Also, going electric is not necessarily a way to reduce pollution overall. According to Consumer Reports, “Achieving a net environmental savings from switching to electric mowers depends on the efficiency of the power plant” from where the electricity originates.

If money is not an issue, the $2,500 solar-powered “auto mower” from Husqvarna can’t be beat for both eco-friendliness and convenience. It wanders unattended around any level lawn, its collision sensors carefully avoiding contact with anything but the grass itself. While it is currently not available directly in the U.S., some Husqvarna dealers are willing to special order it from Sweden where it is manufactured.

Another green option, and a much more affordable one, is the Solar Powered Mulching Mower from Gaiam, which is in essence a cordless electric Black & Decker mower modified with a small solar array to turn sunlight into power. The battery on the $795 mower can also be charged by simply plugging it in.

Of course, the greenest choice of all is the mower than runs on three square meals a day and a good exercise regimen: the venerable human-powered reel mower. The most popular choices are from American Lawn Mower, which makes nine models including a child-size. They can be found at retailers like Ace Hardware and Target (and at local hardware stores) and in catalogs like Real Goods and Smith & Hawken.

CONTACTS: Husqvarna, www.husqvarna.com; Gaiam, www.gaiam.com; American Lawn Mower, www.reelin.com.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Water saving ideas from Centre for Alternative Technology

Although Britain is not famous for its dry climate, much of the country will be affected by hosepipe bans this summer. Many reservoirs across the UK are at their lowest level for years.

If we continue to use water wastefully, our domestic supplies may run out completely. And it’s worth remembering that if your supply is metered, by saving water you will also save money.

“There are several things we can do to save water,” according to Lucy Stone, Information Officer at the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT). “What’s more, these can be cheap or even free. At home, we use an average of 150 litres of water every day. Fifty litres is used just to flush the toilet.”

You can easily reduce this figure, Lucy says, by installing a ‘hippo,’ or low-flush mechanism in the toilet cistern. These are available for free from water companies, or you can use a 1 litre plastic bottle, filled with water and the lid screwed on.

Taking showers instead of baths uses less water. Only using the washing machine with full loads wastes less water and electricity. Some water companies may even send someone to fix leaks in your home free of charge, Lucy says.

Your house is not the only place you can save water - big savings can be made in the garden too. A water butt will conserve precious rainwater. Use this water on the plants at night – less water will be lost to evaporation.

There are many other ways we can save water. More information is available from CAT’s free information service – info@cat.org.uk and 01654 705989. Or download CAT’s tipsheet of water saving ideas, at www.cat.org.uk. There are also many water saving products available from the CAT shop and mail order service.

While more efficient swimming pool heaters exist, solar heaters offer the most cost effective option, given that the fuel source, sunshine, is free. According to the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Consumer’s Guide to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, solar pool heating systems cost more than other common options such as gas heaters or heat pumps, but will usually provide payback within two to seven years of purchase (depending upon local fuel costs) due to fuel savings.

Owners are guaranteed to make back their initial outlay, too, as solar heaters are not dependent upon motorized moving parts, and thus last twice as long as other types of heaters and don’t rack-up significant maintenance costs. Of course, solar pool heaters are also the most environmentally benign option, as no fossil fuels need to be burned to maintain the right amount of warmth.

Most solar pool heating systems come with four key interacting components: a flow control valve takes pool water and sends it through a collector; a filter removes debris before the water reaches the collector; the collector itself heats the water that passes through it; and a pump sends that water back into the pool. In warmer climates, the system can be used to cool the pool in summer months by operating only at night.

But such solar technology need not be restricted to warm climates. As long as the sun is shining, it can provide solar energy­not to be confused with the sun’s heat­even when it is cold outside. Indeed, the DOE reports that solar pool heaters are sold in every climatic region of the continental U.S., meaning that solar is a smart choice even for pools in more northern latitudes like Maine or Minnesota.

While solar pool heaters excel at maintaining steady water temperatures over long time periods, they are not nearly as fast as gas heaters for quick last-minute heat-ups. As such, many pool owners install hybrid systems combining the best elements of gas and solar systems. Also, using a pool cover will reduce heat, water and chlorine loss while maintaining efficiency and preventing debris from sullying the water, regardless of which type of heater system is in place. Even better, “solar blankets” are high-tech covers that use thousands of sealed air pouches to facilitate heat transfer from the sun’s ray to the pool water below.

If you are thinking of installing a solar pool heating system, the online version of the DOE’s Consumer’s Guide provides tips on determining if your pool’s location is adequate enough (i.e. does it get enough sunlight?) and on how to choose the system that best suits your needs. The handy website will also show you how to compare competing systems and investigate relevant local pertinent regulations.

Some of the leading manufacturers of solar pool heating system include EZ Heat, Hi-Deluxe, Sungrabber and Suntrek. As always, unless you’re familiar with the intricacies of your pool’s inner workings, it’s best to get a certified installer to work with you to make sure installation goes swimmingly.

CONTACT: Consumer’s Guide to Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, www.eere.energy.gov/consumer/; EZ Heat, www.harterindustries.com/ezheat.htm; Hi-Deluxe, www.cetsolar.com/hideluxe.htm; Sungrabber, www.sungrabber.net; Suntrek, www.suntreksolar.com .

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php

Advocates of modern agriculture reliant on pesticides and widespread single crop plantings (known as “monoculture”) have bragged for decades about the increased productivity their high-tech methods can yield. Indeed, several studies in the U.S., Britain and Australia have shown that such methods produce as much as 40 percent more than the more benign methods that served mankind well for thousands of years.

As a result, seed growers and pesticide makers are now working in poor countries to promote the same “green revolution” there, capable, they say, of growing enough food to feed the desperately hungry.

But a spate of new research has shown that organic farming actually yields better results than modern techniques when evaluated more holistically. A series of peer-reviewed papers published by the international journal, Nature, showed that organic methods for growing rice, corn and wheat all produced significantly higher yields–and at less the cost–than monoculture farms. And research at England’s Essex University has shown that farmers in India, Kenya, Brazil, Guatemala and Honduras have doubled or tripled their yields by switching to organic agriculture. Cuban farmers, who cannot access fertilizers and pesticides due to the U.S. embargo, have also realized greater yields by taking up organic farming.

According to Dr. Christos Vasilikiotis of the University of California, Berkeley, a vocal advocate of organic farming, chemically intensive farming is highly undesirable due to the toll it takes on the land and the pollution it generates. “Organic…farming methods continually increase soil fertility and prevent loss of topsoil to erosion, while conventional methods have the opposite effect,” he says. He further maintains that “only a conversion to organic farming will allow us to maintain and even increase current crop yields.”

Dr. Liz Stockdale of Britain’s Institute of Arable Crops Research agrees, and points out that even when organic yields are less than conventional ones, organic farmers make up the financial difference by not having to buy costly pesticides and fertilizers. She adds that improved growing techniques and new natural pest controls could eventually level the playing field, giving organic farmers the economic advantage.

According to the trade group, Organic Consumers Association, only slightly more than two percent of all farms in the U.S. are currently organic. But with sales of domestic organic food growing about 20 percent annually, the organization expects that figure to rise exponentially in years to come.

Still, though, feeding the world is a tall order, and everyone from organic farmers to environmental leaders to human rights workers agrees that ending hunger is dependent more upon political will than agricultural prowess. “Until governments tackle the social and political factors involved in poverty and food distribution, millions of people will continue to go hungry,” concludes Stockdale.

CONTACTS: Organic Consumers Association, www.organicconsumers.org; U.S. Department of Agriculture National Organic Program, www.ams.usda.gov/nop.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php

States were invited to devote the Day, as appropriate in the national context, to concrete activities such as the promotion of public awareness through the publication and diffusion of documentaries and the organization of conferences, round tables, seminars and expositions related to the conservation and development of water resources and the implementation of the recommendations of Agenda 21.