Though trees are not normally considered a renewable resource, in a sustainably managed forest, they can be. This is especially true of bamboo, which is booming in a range of green markets. 
   
Bamboo is one of the fastest growing woody plants on earth, with some species growing a meter a day. Moso bamboo, the heartiest and most plentiful variety, can grow to heights of sixty feet with a six-inch diameter and matures in just five years. Consequently, bamboo is high yield and can be harvested faster than slow-growing or old-growth hardwoods, resprouting from its own root system after harvest. It is also extremely resilient, and was one of the first plants to regrow after the atomic bomb decimated Hiroshima.
   
It seems that anything that wood can do, bamboo can do better. Bamboo has been especially successful in green building, where it is extremely durable as a hardwood. Bamboo, though a grass, is denser and harder than the flagship hardwood red oak and competes with the tensile strength of steel. Like hardwoods, bamboo is available in a range of colors attained by caramelizing its internal sugars. Bamboo can sustain high impacts without denting and is less susceptible to moisture damage than other hardwoods. Bamboo is primarily used in green building for flooring, but also for crown molding, rebar, paneling, roofing, blinds, furniture, and plywood.

Smith and Fong Co. of San Francisco, which deals in bamboo and palm woods, was recently certified as the first bamboo plywood supplier to meet the standards of the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) with its Plyboo product. FSC ratings guarantee a sustainable lumber supply chain, and were previously not offered to bamboo.

John McIsaac of Smith and Fong explains, “Bamboo is the most naturally perfect sustainable resource with regard to architecture and building products.” McIsaac said that because bamboo stands create their own dense ecosystem, bamboo is naturally resistant to pests, needs little water and grows without heavy nutrients, eliminating the need for fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation. Bamboo plywood and building materials are in high demand to help builders meet LEED certification requirements.
   
Bamboo can serve a range of other varied purposes as well. Its anti-microbial and moisture-wicking properties are being taken advantage of for textiles, appearing as sheets and clothing. Bamboo pulp can be used for paper, its shoots are edible, and bamboo briquettes are used for fuel. The roots and have been used as an Eastern medical treatment for hundreds of years. Bamboo products offer consumers and green builders a silver-bullet solution in their efforts to be sustainable.

Read more at Businesswire

Related articles:
Is Imported Bamboo Really Sustainable?
Asus Unleashes Its Wood: Bamboo Computers at CeBit
Bamboo Fabric - The Naked Truth

In response to research indicating wide-ranging health impacts of endocrine disruptors, Austin-based company PlastiPure has developed technology allowing for the production of plastics free of estrogenic activity.

Known health impacts stemming from endocrine disruptors include increased rates of certain cancers, altered prostate and uterine function, and early female maturation. Growing awareness of the health dangers of chemicals like bisphenol A and phthalates has led to the recall of products ranging from baby bottles to sports water bottles in recent years.

Claiming that this technology is the first of its kind, PlastiPure CEO Dr. George Bittner said, “Once we recognized the prevalence of EA activity in all kinds of plastics used to hold everything from water to toothpaste, we went to work creating a safe alternative.”

PlastiPure intends to roll out its first product line, to include four- to 32-oz polyethylene or polypropylene bottles, in May. Each production lot is tested and certified by CertiChem, the industry leader in testing plastics for hormonal activity.

The food versus fuel debate continues to rage as the increase use of biofuels has coincided with global food price spikes.

However, a study from Texas A&M says that rising energy costs are to blame for the run up in food prices. The report "The Effects of Ethanol on Texas Food and Fuel" says that corn has less impact on food prices than the cost of eggs, bread and milk that are largely independent of the impact of biofuels.

According to the report ((PDF), "The underlying force driving changes in the agricultural industry, along with the economy as a whole, is overall higher energy costs, evidenced by $100 per barrel oil."

Supporting this viewpoint is Germany's environment minister, who dispels the notion that ethanol is to blame. He stated that the EU can meet its biofuels commitment without competing with the food supply.

"Built Green? Nope black!" was the most jarring sentiment articulated by arsonists on a banner left at the Street of Dreams arsons north of Seattle in early March. Three 4,200- to 4,900-square-foot homes selling for between $1.2 million and $1.9 million on a wooded, suburban cul-de-sac near Maltby, Wash., in a development called Quinn’s Crossing were destroyed in the arsons and attempts were made to burn two other homes. "McMansions in RCDs r not green" (a reference to rural cluster development) was also scrawled on the banner.

With an estimated 80,000 visitors, Seattle’s Street of Dreams is regarded as one of the highest- attended single site luxury home and garden tours in the United States. Its president, John Heller, told CNN after the blaze that he understood the fire to be "an act of terror." Although no group or person has claimed responsibility for the act, investigators began exploring links between the Street of Dreams incident and a 2006 Camano Island house arson under investigation as a possible Earth Liberation Front (ELF) attack.

The theme for the Seattle Street of Dreams 2007 summer event was focused on green homebuilding, showcasing how aspects of new home construction, design, landscaping and furnishing can be more environmentally responsible. One of the torched homes reportedly earned the first Five-Star Built Green ratings ever awarded in Snohomish County, and all of the homes in the development are required to meet or exceed Built Green’s Three-Star rating, according to the Yarrow Bay Development Co.

This was not the first time the “green” homes at Quinn’s Crossing were the subject of opposition, however. A statement on the Street of Dreams Web site says the development was the subject of protests by “an environmental activist group,” but notes a settlement had been reached in that dispute. According to local news reports, neighbors of the development located near the headwaters of Bear Creek voiced concerns that the homes’ septic systems could damage wetlands needed to protect an aquifer used by as many as 20,000 people in the area and could harm streams used for breeding by Chinook salmon.

Immediately following the blaze, Built Green Executive Director Aaron Adelstein issued a statement on the organization’s Web site denouncing the arson. “The senseless destruction of property serves only to polarize the environmental debate and push the dialogue back to the fringe,” he wrote. "Built Green along with our members and communities have made great strides over recent years to bring green building from that fringe where it had comfortably but ineffectively resided for decades, into the realm of mainstream public awareness."

Adelstein said he thinks the arsonists were taking issue with regional growth and land- planning issues. Built Green does not take site selection for the homes it certifies into account, though it does offer points toward higher ratings if homes are developed in locations close to amenities such as public transit or urban cores. "Once a building is allowed, we advocate for it to be built in the most sustainable way,” he said. “If we were to ignore those types of housing we would be making no change in those types of markets."

The early March incident brought the issue of so-called "ecoterrorism" back into the public limelight following an aggressive public clampdown on such activity in recent years. In 2007, 10 people, including self-proclaimed members of ELF, were convicted for a string of arson fires that totaled more than $40million in damage, according to the U.S. Justice Department. And in 2005, six individuals were arrested for Pacific Northwest ecoterrorist acts dating back to 1998, including the millennium-eve destruction of a transmission tower owned by the Bonneville Power Administration.

ELF claims to have no visionary leaders, no hierarchy and no organizational structure. Its targets have included mink ranches, timber industry offices, McDonald’s restaurants, primate research facilities, U.S. Forest Service operations, meat packing plants, luxury homes, Republican committee offices, suburban developments and sport utility vehicles. The group claims no living beings have ever been hurt in an ELF action.

However, ELF arsons often result in an increase in the environmental impacts its backers claim to abhor. For instance, Boise Corp.’s regional headquarters in Monmouth, Ore., were burned to the ground on a chilly Christmas morning in 1999, a time of year when wildfires couldn’t serve as an alibi. The torching of Boise’s headquarters was instead attributed to the monkey-wrenching of ELF. As a result of the arson, Boise chose to rebuild using non-renewable materials such as concrete, steel and aluminum, according to written testimony from a Boise logging manager.

A statement from Street of Dreams says a $100,000 reward is being offered by the Building Industry Association of Washington for information leading to arrests in the arson. The Northwest Insurance Council and the Arson Alarm Foundation are also offering a $10,000 reward. Federal investigators have appeared to be winning the war against what they dub the United States’ great domestic terror threat. Just days after the Street of Dreams fire, a federal jury in Tacoma found ELF arsonist Briana Waters, a 32-year-old violin teacher from Oakland, Calif., guilty of two charges in relation to the firebombing of a University of Washington genetics research laboratory in 2001.

After 9/11, when the world watched two pillars of capitalism collapse and crumble with thousands of innocent victims inside, actions by ecoterrorists monkey-wrenching under the guise of ELF seemed to flare in intensity, with high-profile incidents including arson attacks on a federal wild horse facility in California and a biomedical lab in Alamogordo, N.M.

Behind the pillars of Capitol Hill, the Bush administration launched a global effort to “rid the world of evildoers.” The U.S. Senate passed an ambitious piece of legislation aimed at tackling terrorism abroad—as well as at home. Easing through the U.S. Senate Oct. 26, 2001 on a 98-1 vote, the Patriot Act expanded the definition of terrorism and offered authorities greater money and muscle to investigate a new dawning of alleged threats, which included saboteurs fighting for what they claim are environmental causes. In addition, a number of less-visible local laws were passed in the Pacific Northwest to increase the punishments for vandalism and economic sabotage.

Conservative think tanks, such as the Bellevue, Wash.-based Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and Washington, D.C.-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, mainly known for its efforts to combat global warming policies, also lined up to launch anti-ecoterrorism efforts. In some cases, anti-environmentalists seized the opportunity to paint the entire environmental movement with a radicalist hue. For instance, at an October 2001 annual Society of Environmental Journalists convention at Portland State University, in a break-out session entitled "Rising Civil Disobedience in the Environmental Movement," Bill Pickell of the Washington Contract Loggers Association quipped that his environmental counterparts on the panel might as well be armed with box-cutters. He then went on to condemn Rachel Carson’s "Silent Spring" as misguided, mercury contamination as a false scare, and the environmental movement as radical and unjust.

"You know, my daddy told me when I was a boy — I used to trap skunks — he said when you mess with skunks, if it smells like a skunk, it probably is a skunk, and then you get that spray on you,” Pickell said. "I don’t see any difference between the Sierra Club and these other groups. They both want the same goals."

Another ecoterrorism commentary at the time, this one an essay by Robert Locke in FrontPageMagazine.com, compared ELF saboteurs to terrorists who "might even take out a few skyscrapers" and then launched into an all-out anti-environmental manifesto that blamed the entire environmental cause for "the millions who have died in the Third World due to environmentalists, campaigns against DDT, asbestos cement, methyl bromide, and chlorine…" "Even if we don’t see freaks from Seattle crashing airplanes into the Space Needle, the philosophy alone is a potent threat,” he wrote. Pickell’s and Locke’s comments illustrated a growing concern among environmentalists, many pursuing modest goals with widely accepted tactics, that they were being tarred with an ever-expanding extremist brush. Even forms of direct- action nonviolent protest have been billed as manifestations of ELF actions.

But such commentary typically comes from the extreme, just as arson attacks come from the furthest extreme. In the middle are moms and dads who want their kids breathing fresh air, grandparents who want their grandchildren to explore ancient forests, and businesses that want to capitalize on environmental innovation.

According to former Tidepool editor Ed Hunt, who in June 2001 wrote "The trouble with terror," a highly regarded litany against ecoterrorism, ELF activity undermines popular support for environmental causes because it reinforces tired stereotypes about environmentalists as uncompromising absolutists who are not worth reasoning with or listening to. “If you find yourself on the same side of an issue with bombers and arsonists," he wrote, "it can’t help but make your position seem unreasonable."

In this case, Adelstein says the early reaction to the arsons he’s heard from developers includes commitments to keep using green building techniques. “In the big picture, it’s going to have no impact on the green building industry,” he said. Builders have told him they’re “not going to be told to change anything by illegal acts and threats of violence."

(Read more articles from Sustainable Industries)

By Becky Brun, Sustainable Industries

Insulation manufacturers touted their products’ energy-saving attributes long before green building materials carved a niche in the construction industry. But as green building products garner increased attention from both venture capitalists and consumers, insulation companies are facing tougher questions about the overall sustainability of their products.

The insulation industry, by saving building owners money through energy savings and helping increase their comfort, has for a long time fared well in the marketplace. Insulation products have seen a 4 percent compounded annual growth rate in the past decade, and represent a $9.2 billion market, according to the National Insulation Association. The rising cost of oil, increased awareness of climate change and industry-led initiatives such as the 2030 Challenge in recent years led analysts to predict continued industry growth of 5 to 8 percent in the next decade.

But as programs such as the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program establish a stronger foothold in the U.S. construction industry, many insulation manufacturers are being asked to prove they do more than just save energy.

Read the rest of the article here.

According to David Edwards, the founder of remodeling company Earth Bound Homes who also holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry, understanding what constitutes green building isn't rocket science. He says it requires choosing quality, durable materials developed in a sustainable manner, and conserving energy and natural resources whenever possible.

After studying cancer biology, Edwards chose family considerations to work for himself over an academic career. He had been remodeling his own houses for a decade and decided that he should pursue environmentally responsible building – before it was even its own field. It was "fortuitous timing," he says.

His residential green building company, based in Santa Clara, California has a philosophy that green is better and can come without sacrifice. The company's model home just won the 2007 Acterra Business Environmental Award for a sustainable built environment and is about to be certified the greenest home in California by Build it Green's Green Point Rating System. Edwards spoke with Matter Network about his beliefs, experiences and predictions for the green building industry.

MN: It seems like a lot of attention has been focused on developing zero carbon homes for the future. How realistic is that goal?

DE: I think zero energy homes are realistic and fairly simple. It's quite easy to make a zero energy new home. But making a zero energy new home and actually having it be zero energy, meaning zero electricity, are two totally different things. You can make the most energy efficient house in the world but a homeowner could leave all the lights on and it won't be zero energy. There is a component about homeowner understanding and effort. But a zero electricity home is totally doable.

A zero carbon home is almost impossible to achieve in any environment that isn't 70 degrees all year long because we all have to cook, clean our clothes and heat and/or cool our homes. You can get very efficient heating systems like ground source heat pumps, but they're still significantly more expensive than any other type of heating system. Electric clothes dryers consume an enormous quantity of energy compared to gas. Cooking by electric cooktop is the same way. You have to massively oversize a photovoltaic system and have all the items in the house run on electricity in order to be zero carbon and zero energy. And people don't have big enough roofs for this size of photovoltaic system. I don't know of a house that's built zero carbon. It's much easier to achieve a zero carbon commercial building than a zero carbon residential building.

Durability is a huge tenet of green building. The less often you have to replace the material, the less material and effort needs to go into maintaining it, the diminished cost for upkeep, and the less frequently you have to replace it.

MN: Do you think green remodeling is getting enough attention?

DE: Green remodeling isn't getting enough attention because it's much more difficult to do a green remodel than it is to do a green build because there are so many fewer choices for materials and options. As the scale of the project increases, the potential solutions to any specific problem are dramatically increased. A small remodel like a kitchen or bathroom has very few choices as to what we can do to increase the efficiency. Adding the best insulation in the world to a bathroom remodel won't affect the homeowner's utility bills substantially. It's like putting a Band-Aid on a gunshot wound. You have to temper expectations with realism and the scope of the work. The smaller the remodel the much harder it is to make a difference in something the homeowner is going to see. A bathroom could have full thickness quality tile, you can use cement backing for the tile that won't potentially crack the tile or cause water infiltration, and you could use low flow water for the vanity and low flush toilets that perform much better. People will see that, but the durability of these kinds of things doesn't take effect for five to 10 years once you're done with the project. And they could only have a max of a 10 to 15 percent impact on household use of water. One bathroom is not that huge of a thing.

On a full house remodel it's much easier. We could upgrade all the insulation and materials and put durable high quality materials that are energy and water efficient in a project and people will see that. They'll see their electricity and gas bills decrease. Green remodeling is very important but getting people to embrace that is much more difficult because of the limited apparent rewards for a small project, although there are lots of rewards. How do you put a value on health with materials off-gassing, etc.? You have a larger net expenditure on a larger project but the modifications that make a project energy efficient or durable or healthy have a smaller difference in price when compared to standard building products. You get a bigger bang for your buck because you've changed more of the whole structure by remodeling a large project than a small project. You'll spend more money building a house that's fancy and not green than building a house that's fancy and totally green. Our show house will soon officially be the greenest house in California, by Green Point ratings, and we've applied for LEED platinum certification. It cost me about what most of my other projects cost me. We paid a lot of attention to design and material choices and methods of putting it all up and coordinating all the systems. A tremendous part of building things green is the design. Saving money by not building an extra 200 square feet and putting that money into appliances and low VOC (volatile organic compound) paints, etc.

MN: What are some of the simplest, least expensive changes people can make to current homes to be greener?

DE: They can use materials that don't off-gas, durable materials, and conserve water and energy usage. Buying energy efficient appliances is extremely important, using water conservation showerheads and aerators in sink faucets. One aerator in a sink faucet would use a quarter of the water that a standard faucet does. The highest efficiency clothes washer costs about $1,300 but uses on average $11 of energy per year for five loads per week and 10 gallons. The older machines use 40 gallons of water per cycle and cost about $70-90 per year to run. In five years you've easily made back the money.

MN: When someone wants to do a green remodel, what should they look for in paints, flooring, etc.?

DE: In flooring, we always try specify Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified flooring – the only true third-party, non-biased rating agency in the world that certifies forests as sustainable or not, kind of like the United Nations of the timber industry. They really set the standard for everything. If it's FSC certified, you know exactly what portion of forest a piece of lumber was certified from, who milled it, who shipped it – it's called chain of custody. A lot of manufacturers will say something is sustainably certified but don't have any certification. That's called greenwashing, which is a total marketing ploy where they say they're sustainable but they're really not. Unfortunately there's no federal mandate that regulates when a product is labeled green. So that's very difficult. I've tried to follow these statements to their source and I've called mills in Brazil specifically to identify their sustainability claims and they're totally unverifiable. The companies in Brazil don't have any kind of sustainability tenets so it's something the United States made up to sell more lumber to people who think they're being sustainable.

MN: I heard about how some bamboo products are sold but aren't sufficiently hard because they're logged before the bamboo has time to mature. Is this common in many brands of bamboo flooring?

DE:In four to six years, bamboo grows up to 100 feet tall but different species grow at different rates and it needs five to six years to grow to maturity, at which point most of the channels used to bring water to the plant are filled with a solid matrix that gives the floor its strength. If bamboo is harvested before that happens then it has open cell structures and is very soft. During our first project with it, we dented the wood with our standard nails. A Janka hardness rating is a measurement of the hardness of the material. The harder the Janka, the more abuse-proof it is. The standard is 1,000. Many sellers will claim a wood has a rating of 1,400 to 1,500, or as hard as red oak. But many sell it at about 500 to 700.

Durability is a huge tenet of green building. The less often you have to replace the material, the less material and effort needs to go into maintaining it, the diminished cost for upkeep, and the less frequently you have to replace it. Bamboo is a grass, not a tree, so it doesn't really fall under FSC standards. The most important thing to look at is the hardness and then talk to a green builder or a hardwood flooring installer who has installed it before.

MN:: What is the perfect green house?

DE: The philosophy of our company is that there is no perfect green house so trying to build the perfect green house is an unattainable threshold. Houses by their very nature are inefficient uses of space. It is more efficient for us to be in large multi-use buildings with stores nearby. But no one wants to live there. So we're trying to build standard homes with good quality that are reasonably green. We're trying to diminish the impact of the way we live in the environment. We say green without sacrifice, it doesn’t give to cost you more money and you don't even have to know that your house is green.

MN: What are some of the biggest mistakes made in green building?

DE: Greenwashing by far. People saying they're green -- whether it is a material supplier or a builder --but not knowing enough to build a green product. People with good intentions who are willing to pay with money or time or effort to specify their homes as green, they can hire an architect who doesn't know about green. There are lots of architects and contractors who don't really know enough or practice green. They don't know about FSC lumber, or think about the adhesives used for the lumber and use formaldehyde glue that off gasses for 10 years into the environment. I spend a lot of time doing research and testing materials. Until I know how something works, I don't put it into one of my projects. There is no perfect manual to build green because it's evolving so quickly.

MN: From an insider's perspective, what types of products are being sold as "green" that should be avoided?

DE: The biggest greenwashers are hardwood floor manufacturers. It's very difficult to get true FSC or salvaged hardwood floors. We absolutely love salvaged hardwood floors. There are some manufacturers that get products from railroad ties or pole houses in Asia – material that's gorgeous, super durable, completely salvaged and unlike anything you've ever seen before. Energy-efficient appliances is another area. Just because it has an Energy Star label doesn't mean it's really efficient. The clothes washer we spec out is 97 percent more efficient than the Energy Star washers. Anything we see, we always look at third party verification – not EPA or Energy Star. We look at CEC or CEE, the California Energy Commission or the Consortium of Energy Efficiency, or third party testing of water usage, like on a toilet. Toilets can be labeled low flush but still only get 1.6 gallons per flush. That's no longer water efficient. That's standard. Water efficient is less than one gallon per flush.

MN: What technologies do you see influencing the future of green building and remodeling?

DE: Well, electrical lighting – LEDs that are super high-efficiency lighting fixtures, more efficient than fluorescent lighting. But they're really expensive. I think we'll get a lot more requirements for oxygen sensors on lighting circuits, which is a great idea. When someone walks into a room the light turns on, when someone walks out it goes off. I have those in every room of my house. It costs $30 to buy them at Home Depot and it'll save you tons of money over the lifespan of the light switch.

Photovoltaic systems – there's a new technology coming out in the next seven years called CIGS – a thin layer deposition similar to printing technology in laser printers for laying down silicon in photovoltaic panels. It's pliable and uses a tenth of the amount of silicon, which means they can be made much more cost effectively, which could bring down the cost of photovoltaics threefold. There is going to be an enormous transition in environmentally-responsible building. When we can produce electricity in every house for a reasonable amount of money with an expected life span of 25 years and the return on investment goes from 7-10 years to 3 years, people will start adopting it.

Hopefully at some point, California will adopt similar protocols to Arizona and New Mexico about grey water. In California, 40 to 60 percent of water used in non-agricultural use is in landscaping. Grey water is essentially water from showers, tubs and kitchen sinks but it could very easily and effectively be used for landscaping. Also, cost effective production of polyurethane insulation (around freezers and fridges), is twice as effective as standard insulation, and is idiot proof once installed because it swells and is completely airtight. We think it's a cost effective upgrade to our projects, but we would like it to be standard protocol.

We're a big fan of ground source heat pumps, but they're expensive right now. We would love to incorporate those into our projects at a more reasonable cost. They're much better than conventional forced air systems. MN: How can natural sunlight be used to reduce the cost of heating and cooling?

DE: I think it's a fantastic area to go in, largely dictated by architects and designers. It's a free resource which very few architects and designers make effective use of. Many projects are built on tiny little lots, with two stories and 3,000 square feet on a 4,500 square-foot lot with no yard and very little exposure to the sun, so you can't get effective light infiltration when your neighbor's house is seven feet away.

MN: How do we encourage and support more people to build sustainably?

DE: I think everything could be solved by education. I do whatever I can; I give more than 20 talks a year to builders, engineers, community groups, city managers, whoever will listen, about the benefits of green building. I truly believe that the population is not ignorant or mean-spirited. I think they just lack the understanding of all the benefits of going green – saving money and time. It's green without sacrifice. There is nothing detrimental about green. People need to know what will make their lives better. We need to show the population that green is what the base level should be.

MN:How do you expect the cost of green building to change over time?

DE: It will absolutely get more cost effective. We can already build green without charging more than building a standard good quality house. But when you push the envelope and go super-green, with photovoltaic panels and full thickness hardwood flooring, those things cost more. But green is better. Sometimes it costs more. Sometimes it costs less.

Recent news quickly brought to light the dark side of electronics – how they can act as energy vampires, sucking up energy day and night just by being plugged in. Many blame the manufacturers for bleeding consumers' dry with higher energy costs. But beneath the story of "evil" electronics lies the naked truth – consumers are using multiple devices more often and not unplugging them.

The United Kingdom's Energy Savings Trust said that by 2010, the consumer electronics will be the biggest single component of domestic electricity use, overtaking other sectors, such as kitchen appliances and lighting. By 2020, music and video entertainment, computers and other gadgets will account for 45 percent of electricity used in homes.

How could this be when those in the electronics and energy industries say that electronics are generally becoming more energy efficient than ever?

Well, we're using the devices designated as culprits at record rates, buying more gadgets and keeping them on standby mode (off but not unplugged) at alarming rates. The wasted energy that electronics use when not in use sends about 85 billion pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year. So just think of how much pollution we cause when we're actually using our electronics, as energy efficient as they may be.

"By and large, products are more eco-friendly than ever," said Kristina Taylor of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), which has worked with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Energy Star program since 1992 to encourage electronics manufacturers to introduce more energy efficient products to the market.

As computers become smaller and lighter they also become more energy efficient, Taylor said. Old bulky computers usually suck up a lot more juice than smaller, more compact ones. In less than 10 years, the average energy use for computers in standby mode went from 25 watts to an average of 4. Now they consume less than one watt.

TVs Attuned to Power

And with the exception of plasma TVs, which are now declining in popularity, the television industry has picked up the slack as well. Plasma TVs use four times the energy of a cathode ray tube TV, and the bigger the screen, the more energy consumed. But people want the big screens, Taylor said. She said it used to be that if you wanted a big screen television, the only option was plasma. It was the norm because until recently, LED (light emitting diodes) technology was not adequate for large screens.

Now LED televisions are edging plasmas out of the market because they have superior picture quality. Plus, LED and LCD televisions generally use less energy than cathode ray tube TVs of roughly the same size. Prices for these televisions are dropping as well, making it easier for consumers to buy more energy efficient products with better quality at lower prices. Still, the greenest televisions use organic LEDs, an ultra energy-efficient technology that is likely to be the next trend, said Taylor.

"But it could all be a wash because the screen sizes are still larger and people are wanting bigger and bigger screens," said Taylor."No matter what type of TV you're using, the screen size is key (in energy consumption). "I think people that care about energy consumption probably aren't buying a 52-inch anything," Taylor said.

With plasmas on their way out, perhaps televisions aren't as bad as their reputation. In 2006, the European Union asked electronics manufacturers to remove six hazardous chemicals from all electronic equipment. But the manufacturers on average eliminated 39, and they take out more with every product generation.

"I wouldn't eat (a TV) with a fork but it's getting there, especially with the organic LEDs," Taylor said.

Because word of the energy vampires has spread, and televisions must save energy when turned off in order to earn the Energy Star rating, manufacturers keep trying to lessen the energy consumption of their products in standby mode. But that's just not enough anymore.

"People are using their stuff. That is when their products use energy – not when they're off," Taylor said. "That's a good story and there is improvement to be made there, but really people are using their gadgets more than ever."

"For a long time people had one computer or one TV, products were off more than they were on, and satellite and cable weren't as available, which keep them running 24/7. The ways in which consumers use these products have all changed," said Katharine Kaplan, manager of development for Energy Star requirements for the EPA.

For example, listening to a radio station via a digital TV is competing with traditional radios in the home, using 10 to 20 times more power than a traditional radio. Also, instead of watching TV, or playing a video game or going online, consumers now frequently multitask, with each device sucking power from the outlet.

DVRs on Duty 24/7

Set-top boxes, such as cable boxes and personal video recorders like TiVo, stay on around the clock, which is one of the reasons that they lost their Energy Star ratings first established in 2001. The EPA concluded in 2005 that it should suspend its labeling for set-top boxes because they use too much energy. The potential for significant energy savings among the devices simply did not exist without incorporating a sleep mode – which contradicts the purpose of the device.

How could a TiVo record your favorite shows if it's in sleep mode? Technology currently has not been incorporated into these products to accommodate sleep mode and awaken them on demand to record scheduled programs. Unless manufacturers can move beyond this problem, TiVos won't be guilt-free.

"Now, more than ever, these products are becoming a serious slice of the home energy budget," Kaplan said.

Taking Necessary Measures

Energy efficiency agencies are also expanding tools for measuring and decreasing energy consumption while products are running.

The Geneva-based International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) intends to create an international standard to test the energy use of various models of televisions while turned on by creating the world's most boring TV show. The 10-minute show is a mixture of various genres designed to test the energy use of each genre in the broadcasting world. The IEC hopes to encourage television companies to reduce energy use per model by 25 percent by 2009, which it said could save more than 10 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year in the United States alone.

Manufacturers make and distribute the same products around the globe, so when one country or organization requires stricter efficiencies, the changes ripple throughout the world. Unlike some countries like Australia, which wants to establish a ratings system that would ban most plasma TVs and many LCDs down under, the United States focuses mostly on voluntary standards, which the CEA and Energy Star believe work best. Yet, manufacturers may not feel these programs are so voluntary because when purchasing electronics equipment, the U.S. government is required by law to purchase Energy Star products.

"Policy often has a hard time keeping up with technology," said Taylor. "So our perspective is you shouldn't try. We can do the most good and set realistic standards that work with the technology and can be ever-evolving."

Energy Star Raising the Bar

Energy Star regularly tests products on the market to find out what's best in class, and then tries to get everyone else to meet that level by raising the bar. Energy Star made its requirements for computers more stringent last July, but it's already working on new computer standards that will be released in 2009. In April, it raised the bar for imaging equipment, such as scanners and copiers, and the final revised set of regulations for televisions is about to be released.

Although Energy Star is a U.S. agency, it influences the world. It works with the European Union, China, Taiwan and Canada to develop minimum standards for the energy efficiency of electronics. If manufacturers want their products to bear the Energy Star label, they bend under pressure.

"We want to recognize leaders when it comes to what's on the market now," said Energy Star's Kaplan. "Consumer electronics and IT manufacturers are real innovators – there's fierce competition. We find that this is an industry that is fairly quick to make changes."

Energy Star boasts that about 60 percent of consumers now recognize its label. For a while, many associated the label with refrigerators and washers and dryers – not electronics – because mandatory regulatory programs forced these "white goods" to meet the Energy Star standard. But the agency has been working hard for almost a decade to set standards for personal electronics. Although about half of the two billion Energy Star products sold since 1992 are electronics, people are just now beginning to look for the label when shopping for things like DVRs and televisions.

"We feel that we help sell products and that the value of the Energy Star is increasing as consumers become more and more concerned with their energy bill," Kaplan said.

But it's still not so easy for consumers to recognize and compare the environmental-friendliness of electronics. The CEA wants to see Energy Star do more to make it common knowledge that electronics are actually a very big part of the program.

"The guideline on the Energy Star Web site is an Excel spreadsheet," said Taylor. "It's not fun and it's not how people shop for electronics."

The CEA is promoting its My Green Electronics Web site, which offers consumers an energy use calculator and tips for saving energy with electronics. If we insist on adhering to our addiction of continually using multiple gadgets, we may as well choose the greenest ones currently on the market.

When determining the return on investment of building green, Jerry Yudelson says factoring the impact on worker productivity makes the decision a no-brainer.

Yudelson, a green building consultant and author of the new book "Green Building A to Z," says the financial benefits of improved productivity far outweigh the energy savings and tax incentives and can more than make up for any additional green building cost. Employees cost about 10 times more per square foot per year (assuming a $60,000 salary) than rent and 100 times the energy cost, he says.

Therefore, even a one percent improvement in employee productivity through better daylighting with energy efficient windows, and better quality indoor air can offset an up to five percent increase in green building costs, Yudelson says, citing studies from Carnegie Mellon University and others. These studies quantify that people working in green buildings are healthier, happier and more productive.

Builders of green commercial properties may not be able to recover the higher costs in rent, but other factors can make the enhancements justifiable, according to Yudelson. "You can attract higher quality tenants who are willing to sign longer leases and reduce your carrying costs by leasing properties quicker," he says. Green buildings also have higher resale values, Yudelson says.

For residential builders, green buildings allow properties to stand out in today's current tough housing market. Yudelson says 12 percent of all new housing units were Energy Star certified in 2006, a figure that he expects to rise to 20 percent this year. Builders can also find better access to money as "pension funds are looking for green investments."

Lenders have not offered many incentives for buyers to go green, Yudelson says. Some finance companies will reduce the closing costs for green property buyers, but they are resistant to lower interest rates given the current low rates. Property owners who buy green buildings may have a better chance of getting approved for larger loans if they show that the utility bills will be lower, he says.

It's the main event in the battle over how to close a bottle of wine: Cork vs. screw cap. To some, it's a matter of style. To others, it's an issue of quality. And now, it's a question of what is best for the environment.

Cork was the standard closure for ages. But winemakers began moving to alternatives in the past decade because of problems with cork that were ruining wines. Screw caps became a popular option and are now seen topping many fine wines, such as some bottles from Napa's PlumpJack winery that sell for $100 or more.

But some winemakers and environmental groups are urging wineries to return to basics — saying cork is the best choice for the environment.

Read more here.

Actor Ed Begley Jr. is known equally for his roles in TV and film as he is for his environmental activism. Despite his celebrity, Begley does not live in a Hollywood mansion, instead opting for a two-bedroom house that he has remodeled with solar panels and other sustainable technologies. I spoke with Ed about climate change, what people can do to live more sustainably, and how his activism has affected his career. Begley was nominated for six Emmys for his work on St. Elsewhere and recently had roles on popular shows Veronica Mars, Boston Legal and Arrested Development. Ed and his wife Rachelle Carson (who was named after Silent Spring author Rachel Carson) can be seen quibbling about their sustainable lifestyle on the reality program Living With Ed on Home and Garden Television.

MM: Good theater often involves a sense of conflict. What kind of conflict about sustainable living can we expect to see on Living With Ed?

Ed: Hopefully it will be entertaining conflict. She speaks her mind and so do I. She wants stuff that looks good, and I want stuff that is practical. We have been able to meet in the middle with stuff that looks good and is practical.

MM: Some people have the perception that there is too much compromise required to be environmentally responsible. Do you feel you've compromised with your home?

Ed: You don't need to sacrifice anything at all. I can still have a cool beverage and a warm shower; I just do it more efficiently. [Not having to compromise] is what I set out to do some time ago, and I think I have proved it is possible. I'm not a Luddite; I'm not shivering in a tent. I have a very comfortable lifestyle.

MM: You have made lots of changes to your home including adding solar panels that are too costly for many people. What steps can any person take to reduce their environmental footprint?

Ed: I couldn't afford to put in solar myself today; I put in when I had a TV series and I could afford it. But I encourage people to pick the low hanging fruit. Do the things that are possible, such as installing compact fluorescent light bulbs and energy saving thermostats, taking public transportation, or bike riding where your level of fitness and weathers permits. There's also gardening -- if you have a little piece of dirt -- or joining a community garden. There are so many things that you can do that if you do those, then you may find that you are saving enough money that you can go to the next level, such as buying plastic barrels that collect rainwater. Then you may find that you save even more money and someday afford to buy 4 or 10 solar panels.

MM: How do you think that your environmental activism has affected your career? Do you get distressed if you are on set and people don't recycle or the production isn't environmentally responsible?

Ed: I've turned down so much work over the years it's not funny. I also turned down many movies because they were too violent, which is just another form of pollution. For a while I think I gave people the creeps. I've never made trouble on the set, but I think there was a perception about me, so I didn't work much in the decade of the 90's. I only worked on two studio movies for the entire 10 years. There is a price to be paid for activism, and I paid it. On most sets people are doing a good job now.

MM: How did you get involved in distributing your environmentally friendly cleaning product, Begley's Best? (Ed sometimes delivers the products himself and sells in person at the supermarket.)

Ed: I was inspired by what Paul Newman has done. He gives a lot of money to charity, and I was interested in doing the same. I don't take any salary, and I raise money for charity by selling products. I do all of the work and don't get compensated. I like the idea of selling non-toxic products.

MM: Why are so many people in the entertainment field speaking out about environmental responsibility?

Ed: The scientific community wanted to reach opinion makers, and they were successful in reaching people like Leonardo DiCaprio. I gave Leonardo his first ride in an electric car in 1990 when we were working together on a series called Parenthood. He understood what was at stake and decided to start speaking out. Traditionally entertainment people want to help. They feel fortunate and the want to give something back.

MM: Celebrities such as Al Gore and others who have been promoting environmental responsibility have been criticized for traveling on private jets that add to global warming. Do you think that a fair criticism?

Ed: I personally don't fly in private jets. I don't fly in commercial planes unless I have to because I don't like to fly. Unless my schedule requires flying, I will drive my Prius because it generates less pollution. With my acting and being on 20 environmental boards, I have a busy schedule, but I don't have Al Gore's schedule. Is it worth the amount of jet fuel he uses to get out and spread the word? I don't know. You decide.

MM: With the success of the films An Inconvenient Truth and Who Killed the Electric Car?, there seems to be an expanded awareness of the effects of climate change. What else needs to be done for that message to reach an even wider audience?

Ed: We need more news about things like the Bush Administration agreeing to protect polar bears, and the large section of the ice shelf breaking off in Antarctica. People get it, they understand the impact of global temperature change. But even if you believe that this is part of a natural cycle of fluctuations, why would you want to make it worse? Why put a febrile patient in a sauna? With the information that is available now it would be hard to prove that increasing CO2 emissions won't aid the temperature change.

MM: Do you think there is a disconnect for people between their energy consumption and what happens to the environment?

Ed: People want to disconnect, many people do. They want to pretend that it's not them. While nearly every scientist is in agreement, if there is one person who still argues that humans aren't contributing to climate change, then it's a great reason not to change and continue driving your SUV or to leave the lights on.