Small Actions = Big $avings
This is a series of articles on ways to reduce living expenses and protect our environment as well, a win-win situation for all. The writers are:

• members of the Central Vermont Sustainable Living Network, a project of the Vermont Earth Institute, a statewide non-profit that encourages people to live sustainably.
• members of the Windham Environmental Coalition group in the Brattleboro, VT area.
  

CENTRAL  VERMONT WRITERS  GROUP: 

WINDHAM ENVIRONMENTAL COALITION articles:

Saving money and helping the environment  were my goals when I decided to reduce the amount of electricity  I use.  If you share one or both of those goals, then it helps to know where your electricity  goes. Typically  the big users are electric  clothes  dryers, electric  ranges, and dishwashers.  But lights, home entertainment  gear, and computer equipment  can use a lot too; some are on all the time, even when the switch says "OFF".  Measuring  how much each appliance  uses (even the adapters for computers  and home entertainment) can help you decide where it is easiest for you to save electricity  and to reduce waste.

Efficiency Vermont can help with this.  They have electric meters that you can borrow to monitor the amount of electricity  used by appliances. You plug the meter into a standard 120-volt  wall outlet and then plug the appliance into an outlet on the meter.  To borrow the meter, you can call Efficiency Vermont at 888-921-5990  and ask for customer service. There is no charge for borrowing the meter, but Efficiency Vermont  asks for a credit card number as security to get the meter back.  They will send the meter to you by UPS and you mail it back through the Post Office.  You may borrow the meter for two weeks.  Efficiency Vermont Recommends  connecting  an appliance to the meter for two days to get a good reading.  This particular  meter only works on 120-volt appliances that have a standard  plug, so I could not determine  how much electricity the burner on my boiler uses, for example.

I used one of these meters  on most of the electrical equipment  where I live.  I learned a lot about where my electricity  goes.  Then I made some changes to reduce how much electricity  I use.  You can do the same.

The meter showed that some of my home entertainment  and computer Equipment  are always "ON", even when the switch says "OFF" and the Equipment  looks like it is off.  Those that are always "ON" use 1 to 3kilowatt-hours  of electricity  each  month just to stay "ON".  That might not seem like a lot individually,  but when multiplied  by all of them in the house it adds up.  And it is totally  wasted  energy, as far as I'm concerned.  So I rearranged  the plugs and put those that are always on into outlets using power strips that I can switch off when I am not using that particular component.

I found out how much my big items use, too.  For example, my refrigerator, which is an old model with  manual defrost, uses about twice as much electricity  as a similar new one will.  So I'll have a savings  of about 30 kilowatt-hours  each  month when I replace it.

I did not monitor electric  lamps because I replaced  most of my bulbs over the years with the compact fluorescent  bulbs.  With the instant rebates, compact fluorescent  light bulbs are cheaper than incandescent bulbs.  And they are now small enough to fit in all of my existing light fixtures.  So that is an easy way to save electricity  and money immediately.

I did find out where my electricity   goes.  Your use will be different Than  mine, though.  So if you want to learn more about  where your Electricity  goes and are willing to spend a little time to get this information, Efficiency Vermont's  meters are a great way to start.  When you learn where your electricity  goes, you can then take immediate  steps to eliminate the waste.  And you can use the information  to guide future purchases  of appliances.

Thomas Weiss is a civil engineer living in Montpelier.




I know I don't have to convince you that junk mail is annoying, but consider:
•    100 million trees are leveled each year to provide the paper for mostly unwanted bulk mailings, translating roughly to one tree per American household;
•    340,000 garbage trucks could be filled by the 4.2 million tons of junk mail that doesn't quite make it to the recycling bin each year;
•    by some estimates, the average American spends eight months of life opening junk mail.

Whether motivated primarily by environmental concerns or by sheer frustration at losing an important bill amidst a slew of credit card solicitations, you may well be ready to embrace a 15-minute solution to much of your unsolicited mail. The good news is that such a solution does exist. Several services will remove your address from various bulk mail lists if you authorize them to do so.

If you have access to the internet, you can use a web form to generate letters that you can print out, sign, and mail to marketing preference organizations. You can find this form at www.newdream.org/junkmail/ 

Alternatively, if you don't have easy access to the web, you can still get rid of a big chunk of junk mail just by sending a short note:

Mail Preference Service
c/o Direct Marketing Association
PO Box 643
Carmel, NY 10512

Make sure your letter contains the following:
1)    a request to the effect of "Please take my name off all marketing lists. Here is the information you requested:"
2)    your first, middle and last name and current mailing address
3)    your signature

Also, if you’re sick of daily credit card offers, just call: 1-888-5-OPTOUT (1-888-567-8688)
That toll-free number, which connects you to a recorded message, works 24 hours a day. You will be prompted to give your full name, address, telephone number and social security number. Many people are hesitant to give their social security number, but the credit bureaus already have access to them and claim that they need to ask for the numbers here to confirm your request. When given options, press 3 to have your name removed permanently, or press 1 to have your name removed for just two years. 
You can also call your bank and other service providers to make sure they are not trading your contact information. You can look for catalogs you might have ordered from in the past and, if you think you no longer need their products, call the company to take you of their list. A fifteen year-old I know suggested that calling such catalogs could be a task for kids to do around the house… or for school environmental clubs to rally around.

For folks who think this is all more hassle than it should be, and that you should have the right to keep unsolicited ads from intruding into your home, you can encourage your legislators to commission a companion registry to the telemarketer Do Not Call list that

Why now?

While junk mail is a problem all year long, it really picks up during the Christmas season – and for marketers, that has come to mean September! So again, you ask, why now? The answer is simply that, while marketers will take your name off lists, they tend to take their sweet time.  Most grant themselves a 90-day lead-time. In other words, if you want to see a substantial decrease in junk mail this fall, you should send in your requests today!

Bigger Steps to Stopping Junk Mail

Writing to mail preference services is just the first step toward becoming junk mail free. would allow citizens to opt out of unsolicited commercial mailings. You can send such a letter to Rep. Sanders and Senators Jeffords and Leahy from www.newdream.org/junkmail/

Having Fun with Junk Mail

A few years ago, a California man, obviously a product of our litigious society, made a purchase at Computer City and added a line to the back of his check that read "The deposit of this check for payment represents agreement to not send me any advertisements or mailings." After receiving junk mail from the company, he successfully sued them for $1000!

But thousands of other people have found a way to have good harmless fun at junk mailers’ expense without going to court. Here’s how – instead of dumping unsolicited mail in their own trash and recycle bins, they stuff it back into the enclosed postage paid Business Reply Envelope and return it to the sender. Not only are these armchair activists forcing junk mailers to take responsibility for their own trash, they’re also making them pay 50 cents per envelope – even more if they pack the envelope really full!

--Seán Sheehan lives in Montpelier and is the National Outreach Director for the Center for a New American Dream, When he’s not scrutinizing his appliances, he enjoys hiking, biking, and homebrewing.





   
    Food took on new meaning for me this summer.  I joined a CSA Farm Share Program, which was like getting a delicious surprise package every week.  I never knew just what the bag would hold, except that a jewel of a lettuce head was always part of the lot.  The rest could be a mix of peas, beans, squash, tomatoes, corn on the cob, beets or potatoes— hand-picked from a local organic farm.

Even more important to me than the wonderful taste of food that I had previously known only from my own garden, was the knowledge that because this family farmer practiced sustainable agriculture, we were helping to preserve the rural beauty of Vermont.  

Yet the food of industrial agriculture with its one-crop acres that deplete the land, depend on chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and is not the healthiest for children or adults, is cheaper to buy because it is government-subsidized; our taxes pay for it.  In contrast, the variety of crops on a family farm, more in keeping with nature’s diversity, and subsidized by the sweat of the farmer, costs more. 

This speaks to the craziness of our times, that farmers growing healthy food that sustains the soil have so hard a time making a living while agribusiness draws big bucks, and keeps consolidating into fewer and fewer giant corporations. 
 
Then along comes genetically engineered food!  This may turn out to be another aspect of the myth that if the human mind can think up a new technology it must be good.  We’re told (when we found out our food was being injected with foreign genes without our knowledge) that this new biotech is to better feed the world!  Or is it more truly for extended shelf life and hardiness for transportation to far places?  The threat to sustainable farming, however, is the contamination of natural plants beyond recalling.

Scientists assure us that there is enough food for all our billions, but standing in the way are trade agreements between corporations and governments that prevent the growing of survival food.  For example, small farmers in third
world countries have always had to contend with wealthy landowners for enough land to feed their families, but trade agreements require them to grow export crops.  For example, a farmer is told to stop growing beans and grow chili peppers because it is a cash crop.  But how can he feed his children on chili peppers?

What a complicated and intricate tangle the growing of food has become!  Scientists tell us that food best for your health is that which is unprocessed and grown in your own region.  Processed food, however, is hard to avoid, especially today because many major ingredients are soy and corn. High percentages of these crops are, however, genetically engineered with unknown consequences.  The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does not even require scientific studies on the health of these foods for human consumption!  It is well to ask how come?  Could the revolving door of the personnel of biochemical corporations becoming agents of FDA, and vice versa be the answer?   In any case, our food choices emphatically affect our environment either beneficially or disastrously.

Seeing the farmer and her family bending over their rows of carrots or peas brings home their hard work in growing food I can trust and thrive on.   I economize other ways.  Sustainable farming must be the farming of the future, the bedrock of the new effort toward sustainable living and respect for the land.  

Lea Wood is an Environmental Activist and “Raging Granny.”  She lives in Montpelier






Are you getting the most light for your money?  The average American household uses 1800kWh per year on lighting, or $270 at our electric rates.  Replacing a few incandescent light bulbs with compact florescents (CFLs) can save $60 in annual energy costs.  But there are many other energy-saving options.

For most families, energy usage is greatest for lights outdoors and in kitchens and living rooms.  In contrast, bathroom and closet lighting energy usage is minimal.  Before making changes to your lights, observe which lights you use most, and change them first, starting with lights that are on for more than 3 hours a day.

Old-fashioned incandescent bulbs are cheap to purchase, but very inefficient, with 90% of their energy given off as heat, and over the life of the bulb, you will pay 5-10 times their purchase costs for energy.  They make sense for low-use lighting in closets or bathrooms, but not much else.

Halogen bulbs are also incandescent, but filled with halogen gas that makes them more efficient and last longer.  Replacing outdoor regular incandescents or PARs (parabolic reflectors), with halogen PARs can save 40% of energy costs, and they will last 2-4 times  longer.  But halogen bulbs in torchieres are terrible.  Their extremely high wattages (300-700W) and high heat output make them very expensive to run and dangerous fire hazards.  Replace halogen torchieres with cool CFL torchieres for dramatic energy savings.

Florescent bulbs are much more efficient and longer lasting than incandescents.  Compact florescents can often be used in traditional fixtures.  They are now available in dimmable and 3-way models.  Although these bulbs cost 5-6 times as much as incandescents, they last 7-20 times as long, and use 70-80% less energy, making them cheaper over the long-run.  What’s more, Efficiency Vermont may provide substantial rebates for these bulbs—check with your retailer for instant rebate forms.  Frequent switching of florescents greatly reduces their lives so they’re best in fixtures where they will be used for more than 15 minutes at a time.  Temperature also affects the efficiency of florescents; check the operating temperatures listed on the package when selecting bulbs for outdoor or enclosed fixtures. 

For small points of light or low-level lighting, consider extremely efficient LED (light-emitting diode) bulbs.  They make great nightlights, Christmas lights, flashlights, and exit signs (where conversion to LEDs from incandescents results in 90% energy reduction and payback in only 6 months). Solar LED pathway lights outdoors are available for under $35.  Electroluminescent lights, which are used for nightlights and exits signs, are even more efficient than LEDs.

There are also energy saving options for outdoor lighting of large areas. HID (high intensity discharge) lights, which are all more efficient and longer-lived than incandescents, include metal halide, high pressure sodium, and low pressure sodium lights. They aren’t affected by low temperatures, so they may be better choices than florescents for our cold winters, however, they require special fixtures.  Metal halide lights are white in color, so they also make good options for track lighting. High pressure sodium lights are golden white, and low pressure sodium are yellow, but they are the most efficient of the HIDs.  Other efficient options for lighting large spaces include electrodeless lights, sulfur lamps, and solar megaphones.

Unfortunately, many of these energy-savings options, including florescents, CFLs, metal halide, and high pressure sodium lights contain mercury, so they should never be put in the trash.  Instead, preserve our lakes and streams by taking them to hazardous waste centers or recycle them at Twin State Electric.





When the oil needs to be changed in a motor vehicle there's now a choice: regular, pure synthetic or a synthetic/regular blend.  Synthetics are more expensive per quart but are they really more expensive in the long term and are they really any better for the environment?   

What is synthetic oil?
The main raw material from which synthetic oil is derived is ethanol (ethyl alcohol). The majority of the ethanol in the U.S. is made from corn, but it can also be produced from other feed stocks such as grain sorghum, wheat, barley, or potatoes. Brazil, the world's largest ethanol producer, makes the fuel from sugarcane.

Why is synthetic oil better for the environment?
Synthetic oil is from a renewable resource, which makes its use much better for the environment.  The production of synthetics is also better for the environment because all the waste products from refining crude oil are eliminated.  The fact that a car can go 25-35,000 miles on one oil change rather than 5,000 miles means that the pollution from the used oil when it is disposed of drops by about 80%. Synthetic oil clings better to the moving parts and reduces the “dry start up” typical of conventional oil. If an engine runs on synthetics it is producing less friction which means that it is running smoother, producing fewer emissions and producing less heat (in some cases by twenty to forty degrees) and is therefore not adding nearly as much to the greenhouse effect.  The engine will also last longer so that less metal is used and less metal has to be recycled or landfilled.   Because of better engine performance there is increased fuel efficiency that transfers into less gas consumption. 

Are there other benefits to using synthetic oil?
Longer drain intervals means less time, effort, work and energy resulting in less scheduling conflicts and stress.

Is synthetic oil more expensive?
No!  In the long term it is actually cheaper.  Here are the *comparisons for materials only:

Conventional oil - car manufacturers recommend 5,000 –mile drain intervals
25 quarts needed for 25,000 miles                         @ $2.50/qt. = $62.50
5 good quality oil filters                               @$5/filter = $25.00
                                               $87.50
Some Synthetic oil companies recommend 25,000 –mile drain intervals
6 quarts premium quality synthetic needed for 25,000 miles                      @ $7/qt. = $42.00
2 heavy duty oil filters (one filter change at 12,000 miles)             @$10/filter = $20.00
                                                $62.00
*Comparisons based on 25,000 miles driven per year and a 5-quart oil capacity, with one-quart top-off for filter change with the synthetic oil.

So there is a cost savings just for materials depending on many variables including the size of the car and the frequency you actually change the oil. If you add in the labor charge, assuming you do not change the oil yourself, then the savings are much greater. There is one synthetic oil company (Amsoil) that has an oil that is good for at least 35,000 miles which means that environmental and cost benefits far outweigh using regular oil.

Conclusion
Synthetic oils are clearly better for the environment and also better in the long term on your pocketbook.
For a lot more information about synthetic oils including independent analysis just do a web search for “synthetic oil.”

This article is co-authored by George Plumb and Jim Robicsek. George is a member of the Central Vermont Sustainable Living Network and a board member of Vermonters for a Sustainable U.S. Population and Jim is a health care provider and co-chair of the Vt. Green Party. If you have questions or concerns about this article contact the authors at jrobicsek@yahoo.com or gplumb@pshift.com





Close your eyes for a moment and picture your ideal holiday.  Who’s there? Where are you? What are you doing? What do you see, smell, hear?

For  me personally, an ideal holiday involves the sight of family playing board games in front of the wood stove, the sound of the choir at Christmas mass, the feeling of a crisp breeze on the face and powdery snow underfoot, the smell of a Vermont-grown turkey coming out of the oven, and the taste of freshly baked pies.

Others celebrate Solstice, Hanukah, or Kwanzaa, and while our traditions and customs vary, most Americans share an amazingly similar idea of what constitutes an ideal holiday. National polls by my organization, the Center for a New American Dream, show that more than 3 in 4 Americans (78%) wish the holidays were less materialistic, while fewer than three in ten say that it's  necessary to spend a lot of money in order to have a fulfilling and enjoyable holiday.

But  alas, the American December reality is quite different – a commercial onslaught courtesy of Madison Avenue. Ad agencies spend a quarter trillion dollars per year, much of it this month, telling us to buy more stuff, rack up more debt, fill up more closets, more garages, more trash cans, more landfills.

In this age of energy shortages, sky-high heating costs, and climate disruption, it’s also worth considering how much energy is wasted by  this commercial barrage.  Did you know that it takes more energy to produce the paper for a year’s worth of catalogs and junk mail than it takes to power 660,000 SUVs?  Energy requirements are also high for material ‘stuff,’ particularly things assembled in faraway lands and shipped thousands of miles to big box stores. 

Here are three ideas that might help you and your loved ones get more of what matters while keeping your bank account in the black and alleviating our nation’s oil dependence.

Homemade Gifts – Many homemade gifts require little oil and cost almost no money, yet are some of the most meaningful gifts around. In one of our New Dream holiday polls, 82% of Americans indicated that they would rather receive a photo album of times shared than a store-bought gift.

Capital City Cash – When you pick up these gift certificates from the Montpelier Downtown Community Association, you support locally owned businesses, build a vibrant downtown, and

Gifts of Time or Experience – Again going light on the credit card and fossil fuel requirements, gifts such as a night of babysitting, a day of skiing at Morse Farm, or a home-cooked meal are appreciated much more than ties and trinkets. Or how about a ticket to a Lost Nation Theater production, a trip to the Granite Museum or, to help a warm weather fan look ahead to summer, a set of Mountaineers tickets?

Seán Sheehan lives in Montpelier and works for the non-profit Center for a New.American Dream.  He is a member of this writer’s group as well as the Montpelier Energy Team, and plans to go snowshoeing with friends and family this holiday season.






Previous articles on sustainable living (that is making consumption and lifestyle choices that meet our needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs) have focused on simple things that we can do such as purchasing energy efficient appliances, driving less and driving fuel efficient vehicles, flying less, buying less, buying local, etc.  These are certainly important things to do but the single most important sustainable living choice we make in our life by far is how many children to have.  The reason for this is that every new person on the planet and particularly those living in the U.S, no matter how sustainably they try to live, will end up consuming over their lifetime a huge amount of food, clothing, carbon based fuels, and goods ranging from housing to recreation.

How many children to have is an extremely emotional issue that is made in the context of our culture, our family background, our religion, and our personal goals and values.  For these reasons many of us avoid talking about how many children we should have and leave it up to individual choice, either intentionally or accidentally.  We also often pressure our relatives and friends to have children either directly or subtly.

What is very clear is that our current U.S. population of 298 million (and projected to grow to around 394 million around 2050) is not sustainable.  Our use of arable soils has peaked, our use of oil to produce and transport food has already reached or will reach its peak in the next decade or so, and our fisheries are largely depleted. Many other indexes show that we are on course that if not corrected will likely lead to wide spread suffering for future generations. Scientists who study sustainable issues say that a sustainable population size for the U. S. would be somewhere around 150 million.

If we were to achieve a sustainable population this would mean that the U.S. population should actually decrease instead of growing.  This would mean that we would voluntarily have no more than two children per family. Or in other terms we would each voluntarily replace ourselves once or slightly less.

There is a great deal of pressure on women to have children, particularly by parents and grand parents.  Our culture also promotes families in the media.   However, many women and couples are now choosing to go child less or to have only one or two children.  Often this decision is made for economic reasons but it is also sometimes made for environmental and social reasons as well.  We need to respect these parents for the choices they have made for whatever the reason.

One of the reasons that some families choose to have more than one child is the fear that if they have only one child then that child will be at a disadvantage growing up without siblings.  Noted environmental author Bill McKibben, who has only one child, has done extensive research on this issue. He states in his book, Maybe One, “Only children, in other words, are no worse than any other kids.  On most measures of achievement and personality, they score slightly better than other children, but the emphasis should be on “slightly.”

If you would like to know more about population issues see the web site of Vermonters for a Sustainable U.S. Population at www.VSUSP.org

George Plumb is a member of the Central Vermont Sustainable Living Network and a board member of Vermonters for a Sustainable U.S. Population.

 Grab Your Tote 
 by Mary Jane Ohlson

I’m out the door to do my grocery shopping with a full tote.  It use to be I’d just go and  come home with a couple of paper bags and reuse them.  Now I go with totes and washed plastic bags, plastic containers and used paper bags in a variety of sizes.  What happened?  I think my version of reduce, reuse, recycle just kept changing.  

First, I was more focused on the reuse and recycle and that required a change in my habits. I had to remember to have my totes with me when I shopped.  Sometimes they would get to the hooks by the door.  Then they made it to the car. First, it was just for grocery shopping now it is for any shopping.  When I empty my grocery bags I put them all together inside each other along with the smaller paper bags I have just emptied.  ( I also buy in bulk.) I put containers right in the bags and not back in kitchen drawers.  And on those occasional times that I stop to grocery shop spontaneously I have two paper bags in the car.  I have a small bag folded in my purse (string bags work very well, too).

Now you may say ,”Why bother?”.  For me personally, I hate waste.  And I recognize that we as a specie are using up the Earth’s resources faster than it can replenish.  One out of every $11 spent for food pays for packaging.  Packing accounts for about 40-50% of household waste. When I take my own bags and containers to the store I can avoid 500 packages per year. That feels good.  And I am not contributing to the landfill problem.  

Where to begin?  In your thinking.  When you go to put something in the trash, ask yourself, “Could this be reused or recycled?” Does this purchase have to be in this form? Can I get this in bulk, or  possibly a different company that uses recycled packaging or do I need this at all?  Begin to have pride that you are walking lighter on the earth. Always have a tote with you.  Don’t take a bag if you don’t need one.  It matters. Start today. Remember you are changing a habit and it takes practice. Start today. It matters.  

Mary Jane Ohlson loves Montpelier where she has lived for over thirty years.  She is active on the Vermont Earth Institute Board and offers a one-session discussion group on sustainable living practices (229-0066). Call Mary Jane to schedule one in your home. It’s fun!

A retired friend of mine, now over five years without a car, saved enough—twice!--for a three-week vacation in France.  And she’ll soon be traveling to France a third time on what she saves by being car-free.

“But isn’t it hard to get along without a car in Vermont?” I asked Charis Holbrook of Montpelier.

“No!  I like the freedom of not having to deal with a car.  I’ve got more time and I walk more which I like and is good for me.  No parking problems!  I like using the buses, too.”  The money she saves from not having a car goes straight into her travel fund.

 My friend’s example means one less car emitting pollution on our crowded streets, very much in sync with today’s environmental realities.  But it also meant building new habits, of changing the custom of always having a car at one’s beck.

      Last winter I loaned my car to a friend and lived without personal wheels for five months.  It meant walking all over Montpelier, but I was glad for the energy to do it.  For far journeys I learned to bus.  The major routes between Montpelier and Barre were on a 30-minute service; not bad, I thought.  Car pooling with friends got me to night meetings or places the buses did not go.  I especially liked going to Burlington on The Link, where a friend or relation picked me up to get me to an outlying doctor.  I could also have used the Volunteer Drivers Program which helps those unable to use regular buses for medical or shopping needs.

Buses offer another world for a newcomer to public transportation.  There is a spirit of camaraderie to it, a social side.  The bus drivers are helpful and will even make unscheduled stops to get a passenger closer to a destination.  They are especially sensitive to disabled folks like circling a block to get someone on crutches to the right side of the street to disembark.  Even with these special services they keep their schedules fairly well. 

    Another option for saving gas money is to join a Vermont Rideshare, a region-wide carpooling program.  Green Mountain Transit will help you find others to share your ride.  And if your usual carpooling arrangement falls through, there is even a Guaranteed Ride Home feature.

    A round trip ride on the bus from downtown Montpelier to the hospital costs $2.  The same trip in your car would cost $3.75 based on the Federal Mileage Rate.  Taking the Link to Burlington which costs $6 for a round trip, the savings would be over $30.

    Pick up a bus schedule, which are in handy places all over the area. I think you’ll be surprised at all the towns you can get to.  Or call 223-7287 for Bus Routes and Guide.  For Link information call toll free 866-8644-0211.  For Rideshare call 800-685-7433 or 802-864-2282. Visit the GMTA at www.gmtaride.org.

    The current energy crunch and high gas prices are influencing many people today to seek a more sustainable lifestyle.  To take a bus or ride a bike may seem like deprivation, but to do so saves significant money, and can open up a new outlook on life.