Written by Guest Blogger: Bridget Oland

We all know that swapping out old incandescent light bulbs for compact fluorescent light bulbs(CFLs) is one painless way to reduce your annual power bill. (Lights account for about 5% of overall household power use). CFLs use 75 percent less energy than their incandescent counterparts and last up to 10 times longer. When you do the light bulb math each CFL bulb can prevent more than 450 pounds of greenhouse gas emissions. And depending on electrical rates you could save about $80 in energy costs over the life of the bulb.

If you’re going to make this worthwhile investment (and it is an investment, considering the cost) you’ll want to ensure each bulb lasts a good long time.

A friend was complaining recently that CFL bulbs in his home weren’t lasting nearly as long as they were supposed to. We were noticing the same thing so I did some research and discovered a few tips to help extend the life of your pricey bulbs:

• In fixtures on a dimmer switch use dimmable CFLs (should be stated on the packaging). Dimmers shorten the life of regular CFLs.
• CFLs are best in areas where they’re likely to be on for 15 minutes at a time or longer. Using them in places where they’ll be turned on and off frequently (like closets and bathrooms) will shorten their life.
• For totally enclosed fixtures buy bulbs that state clearly on that packaging that they’re designed for this use.
• If the bulb has been used according to the manufacturer’s instructions and still burns out early you may be eligible for a refund or a replacement. Energy Star certified bulbs carry at least a two-year warranty (covering manufacturer defects). The catch is that you need to save your receipts and contact the manufacturer directly.

Read the rest of this entry »

Three of the five members in my immediate family smoke. My Dad, after a breast cancer scare, quit. He’s been a non-smoker for almost three years now! Yay! At eleven years old, I took my first puff on a cigarette. And fainted. Clearly, the thrill was lost on me.

Which brings me to my rant of the month. It is estimated that 4.3 trillion cigarette butts are littered each year. It takes 12 years for the filters to decompose.

It is estimated that one in five New Yorkers smoke. My guess, from random observations, is that it is probably one in four. By comparison, the San Francisco Bay area has far fewer smokers. My guess is one in ten. I have pondered the reasons for this difference, and conclude that New Yorkers think it is part of the style image, and Californians weigh in on the healthy living side of things.

I was in Napa Valley recently. Friends from New York were visiting, and one of them had tossed a cigarette butt on the ground. I didn’t see her do this, and if I had, I’m not sure I would have said anything. Why is that? A man walked up to her with the discarded butt and did his best to politely ask her not to discard cigarette butts on the street because they wind up in the creek and get washed out to San Francisco Bay. She was more than a little surprised, and a lot embarrassed. Her comment? “That would never happen in New York!” So true.

I recall the day when my parents, chain-smoking in the car with the three of us suffocating in the back seat, would open the car door and dump the overflowing ashtray on the ground. I also recall being scolded to close the window because the air conditioning was on. I couldn’t see my parents in the front seat through the blue haze of smoke.

If, at the same moment a smoker tossed a butt on the street, I tossed a candy bar wrapper on the street, I suspect they would holler at me to pick it up and toss it in the bin.

Why do smokers think it is okay to discard their butts on the ground? How about get one of these portable ashtrays?

Actually no… most of them aren’t.  Cut flowers that you purchase in the majority of flower shops may be beautiful, but they come at a high price, both environmentally and socially.

Most of the flowers in these shops come from far away – so start with a
good dose of greenhouse gases from the transportation to get them here.
While growing, they are sprayed with a cocktail of pesticides –
sometimes as many as 100 times what they would spray on foods at the
same farm.  These pesticides have very negative impacts to the local
environment, not to mention the local people employed on the farm to
pick them and ship them here – people who don’t have options to demand
better.

So what should you look for?

Read the rest of this entry »

Now that the media spotlight is gone, and a couple of months have passed, what does the Copenhagen Accord really mean for the past, present and future of climate change?

January 31, 2010 was the deadline for participating countries to submit their proposals to the UNFCCC to reduce greenhouse gas emissions reductions. How did they fare?

Currently, with no changes, the forecast for average global temperature increase by 2100 is 4.7 degrees Celsius.  Scientific consensus is that this would be catastrophic, with sea levels rising by one metre.

The Copenhagen Accord was a promise (non-binding, remember) that the participating countries would reduce emissions so that we have a minimum average global temperature increase of only 2.5 degrees by 2100.

When you look at these projections, it is worth noting that many African countries, who are particularly sensitive to the drought and desertification brought about by higher temperatures, walked out on the Copenhagen summit at one point because their position is that average temperature rise by 2100 of more than 1.5 degrees will be catastrophic for them.

So how are the proposals that were just submitted on January 31? According to Climate Interactive, a collaborative project to use open-source tools to accurately predict the future of climate change, the proposals that have just been submitted don’t even take us to where we’re supposed to be ~ that is, reducing emissions such that the temperature only increases by 2.5% by 2100. Read the rest of this entry »

David Greene writes…

When I was growing up on the Canadian prairies (where, at this time of the year, your eye lashes freeze together), hot water was divine. To soak in a hot bath after being outside all day, shoveling snow, cross-country skiing, and building snow forts, warmed the soul. It turned my pink cheeks rosy red and made me feel so comfortable. When my partner and I moved onto our sailboat and began our circumnavigation of this beautiful world, hot water became a luxury. The hot water tank on our boat held only 5 gallons. It was very hot water, so 5 gallons mixed with cold water went a very long way. Our water was heated in two ways – by running the engine, or by running the generator. Either way, hot water required the consumption of fuel. And because we were often visiting in places where we couldn’t get water, we made our own by desalinating seawater. The generator was needed and fuel was consumed so that we could have water, hot or cold.

By the same token, fuel is consumed to heat the hot water you use in your home, and with some hope, some of that fuel is solar or wind. Becoming personally aware of the impact of the choices we make is the first step in finding a healthy balance between sustainability and creature comforts.

One bad example is our condominium in New York City. Hot water was constantly heated by mixing steam with cold water. To add insult to injury, hot water was constantly pumped through the entire building, so that when we opened the hot water tap, the water was instantly hot. Even at 3am! It struck me as a complete waste of energy to keep the water hot and to keep it circulating! But, we likely used way less water in total because the water was instantly hot, and therefore we weren’t running the water until the hot stuff came up through the building. On balance, I’m guessing that our carbon footprint for hot- and cold-water consumption was bigger than it needed to be.

Read the rest of this entry »

‘Tis the season when we look back on the year and make some commitments on going forward.  This year, why not include a little greening into your resolutions.  If you’re looking for suggestions, here are a few to get you started:

1) Ditch the plastic waterbottles.  If you are going to do just one thing to improve your ecological footprint, your best bang for your buck is to kick the bottled water habit.  Not only are you paying a ridiculous mark up on water, but you’re contributing billions of bottles to the planet, and all the associated greenhouse gases that come with them. Stainless steel waterbottles are reasonably priced and easy to find, and tap water is cheaper.  Save some money and the planet!

2) Go litterless at lunch.  Whether for you or the kids, its really no extra work to pack a few reusable containers instead of using plastic wrap or baggies.  One day, not a big day – 320 work days in a year – well that’s a lot of baggies in the landfill.  Consider a lunch kit – it makes packing kids lunches much easier.

3) Go green when you clean.  Our health tends to be the focus of most of our new year’s resolutions, so this is a good time to remember how closely the environment is tied to our health.  When we choosegreen cleaners for example, its not only better for the planet to choose a green cleaner, it’s also much healthier for you and your family.  Same goes for personal care products – the very same things that make a shampoo green make it easier on the body.

4) Drive lightly on the planet - We’ll explore how to save money on gas later - but you can get started simply by going lighter on the gas pedal.  Every 10 kilometres over the speed limit that you drive, costs you 10% more fuel to drive the same distance.  The two minutes that you save by speeding cost the planet and your pocketbook more than you think.

** Add your resolutions below – and check out the resolutions from my fellow Green Cricketers.

Read the rest of this entry »

In the aftermath of the UN’s conference on Climate change in Copenhagen last month and what seems, atfirst glance, to be the lack real progress from countries for plans and commitments to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions, we are tempted to say “Why bother?”

The magazine The Economist comments: “Faced with the undoubted grandeur of climate change, a grand response seems in order. But, to the immediate disappointment to most of those participating and watching, the much anticipated UN climate conference held in Copenhagen in December led to no such thing…” [The Economist (Leader) Dec 30, 2009]

The article goes on to comment that two positive outcomes may have been on some agreement for a process for international monitoring and also the recognition of new political structures to enable progress across developing and developed countries.

While this international debate is raging should we, the public, the consumer, the homeowner…really care?

I feel we must – individuals can make a difference - we must all strive to learn more about our environment, our lifestyle, the products we use and impact on climate change, pollution, depletion of natural resources as well as the health impacts of products we use every day.

The Green Cricket Blog can provide a forum for sharing thoughts, ideas and actions. What do you think? Do you think you can make a difference to what often seems to be a hugh issue and out of your hands? And why should we care?

In the coming weeks we shall talk more about the Copenhagen Accord, but also discuss the 5 criteria for selecting Green Cricket products that we feel support the move towards achieving a Green Lifestyle and a more sustainable world. We also want to hear from you - to understand what you think, what governs your buying and lifestyle decision choices. Post your comments!

(Trevor Smith, Editor)

Well, it’s that time of year where everyone’s focus turns to finding
that perfect gift. Whether it be for a loved one, co-worker or child in
your life, the desire to go green has picked up enormous momentum, and
this has spilled over into everything we do, including shopping! With so
many options and so many claims of green labels, it can be a bit
overwhelming as you head to the stores. However, here are a few
suggestions to help you in your search: Read the rest of this entry »

You’ve been asking for ways to get the kids involved in your quest for green, and we’re happy to provide some suggestions. A great way to start - if they haven’t seen the Earth Rangers, check them out at www.earthrangers.org and invite your school to book their free show.

Earth Rangers is an environmental education organization based in the Greater Toronto Area. They go into schools and offer a live show with a strong environmental message in a fun way, along with some amazing wildlife that the students can see in action. There are separate shows for primary, junior and intermediate students that inspire them to take action to protect the planet.

Their kids’ website, www.earthrangers.com provides a follow up to the school show. I has a bunch of great eco-tips for kids, along with fun games to play (my daughter likes Funky Skunky best – and I have to say that I see where she’s coming from). The games also have a great message woven into them, like recycling, composting, or energy efficiency.

Read the rest of this entry »

Perhaps one of the most difficult issues that we’ve tackled as Green Cricket is the search for Green Cosmetics. Ideally, we’d love to recommend a line of cosmetics that reduces both the environmental impacts and the health risks of traditional cosmetics, yet function just as well.

Sadly, that is not as easy as we had hoped. The challenge is that there is not a great deal of consensus around what is acceptable or isn’t in these products. While we always want to err on the side of caution, some of the truly green ones that we’ve found really aren’t a great substitute for more conventional cosmetics.

Some highlights of the debate:

1) Parabens – A widely used preservative to inhibit microbial growth in personal care products, in particular cosmetics. It’s good, because it does a good job of keeping cosmetics safe, extends their shelf life, and it replaced formaldehyde. The challenge is that while both Health Canada, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States currently say that it’s safe, there is mounting concern over its long-term safety too. Most major cosmetic companies are looking for alternatives to phase it out. But there is no easy switch, so companies like Jamieson, Avon and Almay, are experimenting with new options.

2) Nanoparticles – Microscopic particles being added to all kinds of personal care products – usually because of their UV blocking capabilities. The problem is that they haven’t been tested for safety either on people or the environment, and early reviews aren’t optimistic. Again, we’re hoping to avoid it.

3) Propylene Glycol – Used to moisturize both the skin, and to prevent cosmetics from drying out themselves. Again, Health Canada and the FDA have given it the green light, but the debate outside these forums rages on about short-term skin irritation, and long-term safety. A deciding factor for me – if it’s a major component of automotive antifreeze, I probably want to minimize in the products that I put on my face.

So where can we get good information? Well that’s another part of the challenge. Read the rest of this entry »