Yahoo! Green: HOME-GARDEN

Energy vampires: Is it worth it to unplug your electronics?

Lori Bongiorno — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:53:16 PST

(Photo: Getty Images)

It's common knowledge that appliances continue to draw a small amount of power when they're switched off but still plugged in.

One solution is to unplug electronics and chargers when you aren't using them. Or you can plug cords into a power strip and switch it off whenever you want to cut off all power to appliances.

But many consumers wonder if it's worth the hassle to unplug electronics they aren't using. The answer, of course, depends on your objectives.

While it's true that an "informed and aggressive approach can reduce standby use by about 30 percent," according to scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, "There are more productive ways to save energy with an investment of an hour."

The upshot? If it's easy for you to unplug chargers and other electronics when you aren't using them, then go for it. And no-one says you have to unplug everything. You might want to choose the biggest energy hogs or items that are easily unplugged.

But don't fret if you find the job too tedious or hard to remember. The following actions are all easy and, in some cases, save you more money with much less effort than stamping out energy vampires.

Pick and choose what works best for you from this list, or try everything for an estimated annual savings of $275.

Activating the power-save function on your computer is a super-easy way to shave up to $90 a year off your utility bills. Exactly how much you save depends on whether you use a laptop or a CPU and a monitor and how long you currently leave your computer on for.

Low power mode also helps equipment run cooler so it lasts longer. Get into the habit of turning off your monitor when you walk away for 20 minutes and your computer when you leave your desk for more than two hours, and you'll rack up even more savings.

Reduce the brightness setting of your television. Select the "home" mode because the "retail" or "vivid" mode (the default setting for most TVs) uses up to 25 percent more power, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council.

While you're at it, activate the energy- and power-saving modes on your TV and other appliances and save around $43.04 a year.

Video game consoles, such as the Sony PlayStation 3 and Microsoft Xbox 360, use nearly the same amount of power when they are turned on and left idle as they do when you are actively playing a game or watching a movie.

Save more than $100 a year by remembering to turn off your gaming system whenever you're not using it.

Switching off unneeded lights will save you $21.04 a year. Does it make sense to turn off the light when you leave a room for a few minutes? Yes for incandescent bulbs. Fifteen minutes is a good rule of thumb for compact fluorescent light bulbs.

Speaking of CFLs, Consumer Reports' tests found that each CFL will save you around $5 a year in electricity costs over a regular bulb.

Wash your clothes in cold water. You'll reduce your bill by around $18.58 a year and it's better for your clothes.

Even just switching your temperature setting from hot to warm water can cut a load's energy use by half, according to the Department of Energy.

Environmental journalist Lori Bongiorno shares green-living tips and product reviews with Yahoo! Green's users. Send Lori a question or suggestion for potential use in a future column. Her book, Green Greener Greenest: A Practical Guide to Making Eco-smart Choices a Part of Your Life is available on Yahoo! Shopping and Amazon.com.

Check out Yahoo! Green on Twitter and Facebook.

When does “Cash for Refrigerators” start in your state?

Lori Bongiorno — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 11:36:36 PST

(Photo: Getty Images)

The State Energy Efficient Appliance Rebate Program, also known as "Cash for Refrigerators," has officially started, but whether you can get a rebate yet depends on where you live.

The program is being funded with $300 million in federal stimulus money, but each state is operating its own program and has different start dates, budgets, and rules.

In general, buyers can earn rebates of $50 to $250 for replacing older, inefficient appliances with Energy Star qualified products.

If it's as popular as "Cash for Clunkers," money could run out fast. So if you want to participate, start now by finding out what the deal is in your state.

Programs in Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Wisconsin are already in progress.

All the rest begin over the next couple of months, according to a Department of Energy (DOE)-sponsored website. Look for these start dates:

February: Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, New York, Rhode Island, Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands

March: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, American Samoa, Northern Marianas Islands

April: Alabama, California, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Guam

Check the links above for your state's info before you head to the store. Each state has different rules, such as which appliances are eligible, whether you have to recycle your old appliance or prove that it was hauled away, and how long the program lasts.

Some states require that you buy from a participating retailer. Most programs have mail-in rebates, but some require you to apply in person for a rebate voucher or allow you to reserve your rebate online before the program starts.

For more info, check out EcoRebates, which links to local retailers and tracks the latest rebate news.

An Energy Star stamp of approval doesn't guarantee that you are buying the most energy-efficient product in a category -- some appliances go beyond Energy Star criteria. Since Cash for Refrigerators offers an opportunity to cut down on monthly electric bills, it's worth it to do some research to find the most energy-efficient appliances that work for you. In fact, some states base rebate amounts on how efficient your particular product is, so you'll save more up front and over the life of the appliance.

Ultimately, how much you save on operating costs by switching to a more efficient appliance depends on which new appliance you buy and the appliance you are replacing. Some examples from the DOE: Save up to $135 a year by replacing a clothes washer that was made before 2000 with a new Energy Star model. Replacing a refrigerator made before 1993 with a new Energy Star model can save you up to $65 a year.

Consumer Reports offers tips for finding appliances that perform well and save money on energy.

Check out Yahoo! Green on Twitter and Facebook.

12 surprising ways to reuse aluminum foil

Jeff Yeager — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 11:15:00 PST

(Photo: Lauri Rantala,
Wikipedia)

[In his ongoing but sporadic series Don't Throw That Away!, the Green Cheapskate shows you how to repurpose just about anything, saving money and the environment in the process. Send him your repurposing ideas and challenges, but whatever you do, don't throw that away!]

Ever since the mandatory conversion to digital TV -- the proverbial death knell to rabbit ear television antennas -- I've wondered if aluminum foil sales have plummeted.

If you grew up with rabbit ears, you know what I'm talking about. Who didn't fashion aluminum foil into a homemade antennae appendage in hope of enhancing the reception of their rabbit ears? I was never convinced that it worked, but at least it gave us something to do, since we couldn't see what was happening on the screen.

Even with the demise of rabbit ears, aluminum foil sales are still big business. Over 1.3 billion pounds of aluminum foil is produced every year in the U.S. -- that's a heck of a lot of leftovers. While aluminum foil is just as recyclable as aluminum cans, many curbside recycling programs won't accept it for sanitary reasons (check with your local recycling program for their foil policy). That's a shame, because recycling aluminum uses only about 5% of the energy that it takes to produce aluminum from raw materials.

Alas, until aluminum foil recycling becomes more commonplace, here are some ways to get the most mileage -- and most value for your money -- from your aluminum foil by using it more than once:

Wash it and use it again (and again):
I swear my mother is still reusing foil from the time of Christ for wrapping and rewrapping leftovers in the fridge. Just wash it in soap and water, flatten it out with a rolling pin on the kitchen counter, and it's good as new. (Caution: Foil that has come in contact with raw meat should not be reused for other food purposes.)

Sharpen scissors and garden shears:
Fold used foil so that it's six to eight layers thick, then cut thru it a few times with dull scissors to instantly sharpen them. To sharpen hefty garden and pruning shears, fold the foil so that it's even thicker.

Reduce static cling:
I don't understand how it works, but if you throw a crumpled piece of aluminum foil into the clothes dryer, it seems to magically reduce static electricity. A true miracle of cheapskate science.

Make shoe/boot forms:
Wad up balls of old foil and stuff them into leather boots and shoes to help them keep their form when you're not wearing them.

Texture paint and plaster:
Use crumpled up foil to add interesting texture to painting and plastering projects. Also when you're painting, old foil is handy for masking doorknobs and other fixtures you don't want painted and for wrapping your paintbrushes and rollers in during a lunch break.

Deter pets and other animals:
For no apparent reason, our cat started using our fireplace instead of her liter box. We put a couple of sheets of used aluminum foil on the floor of the fireplace -- which cats, dogs, and other animals can't stand -- to break her of that bad habit. Hang strips of used foil on strings around the garden to deter birds, deer, and other unwanted pests, too.

Protect young plants:
Make a collar out of used foil to fit loosely around the stems of young tomato plants and other plant starts in order to keep cutworms and other insects at bay.

Make metals shine:
Scrub rust off of steel and chrome with a wad of aluminum foil instead of using steel wool -- it works even better. You can also use aluminum foil and simple household products like baking soda and salt to clean silver and gold, with the proper know-how.

Shim a table leg:
Ball up some old foil for under the short leg of an uneven table to make it a level field once again.

Scrub grills and baked-on messes:
A wad of used foil makes a great scouring pad for cleaning the gunk off BBQ grills and stuck-on food from pots, pans, and inside ovens.

Repair stripped threads:
People often say that I have a screw loose. When I do have a nut, bolt, or screw with stripped threads, I wrap a little aluminum foil around the bolt or screw and try gently tightening it again. A quick temporary fix.

And remember your 10th wedding anniversary:
Lucky break for your wallet! Believe it or not, 10th wedding anniversaries are traditionally celebrated by exchanging gifts made of aluminum. What could be more romantic than a piece of homemade aluminum foil art?

When I was working on this piece I read that some folks recommend putting sheets of used foil on snowy sidewalks to help melt the ice faster and make shoveling easier. Well, I tried that this weekend at home and had no such luck. So I'm not sure about that one.

Now, if I could just find some creative ways to repurpose my old rabbit ears...

Jeff Yeager is the author of the book The Ultimate Cheapskate's Road Map to True Riches. His website is www.UltimateCheapskate.com.

Friend us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. Follow Jeff Yeager on Twitter.

More from The Daily Green

Reprinted with permission of Hearst Communications, Inc

Ask Umbra’s pearls of wisdom on apartment dwelling

Umbra Fisk, Grist.org — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 00:00:49 PST

Dearest readers,

Sometimes when I’m down in the stacks researching answers to your latest dilemmas, I enjoy taking a stroll down Ask Umbra archives lane. Here are some shiny tidbits I culled from my past advice on making the most of renting a small urban abode.

Have any of your own sustainable apartment living tips or stories? Let me know in the comments section below or shoot me an email.

Go with the low-flow
Even if your landlord isn’t up for investing in low-flow toilets, you can still adapt your toilet to reduce the amount of water used when flushing by putting a device in the tank to displace some of the water (something as simple as a milk jug filled with pebbles) or investing a few bucks in a toilet fill cycle diverter or an adaptor like the Frugal Flush Flapper. Get the full Ask Umbra answer.

Veg out at home
No need for a yard—shrink your food’s carbon footprint by growing some of your own in a small window garden (you can make one yourself with items from a local hardware store). Peppers, parsley, cherry tomatoes, and basil, for example, can all flourish in the confines of an indoor garden. Get the full Ask Umbra answer.

Compost with the most
Put some red wigglers to work on your food scraps with a worm bin, a good option for composting in a snug, yard-free living situation. You can buy ready-made bins, or if you’re feeling in the mood for some DIY, check out Seattle Tilth’s Worm Bin Plans. Get the full Ask Umbra answer.

Run low on energy
As a renter, you don’t get to make the long-term, expensive investments toward better energy efficiency, but some simple modifications can reduce your bill. Run your dishwasher only when full, and skip the “heated dry” option. And opt for an ample comforter on your bed, so the thermostat can be turned down as low as possible at night. Get the full Ask Umbra answer.

Get pests to bug off naturally
Take a pesticide-free approach to unwelcome cockroaches with catnip, a natural repellent, or a simple trap with beer or bread as bait in a wide-mouth glass jar. If you’re not opposed to offing the roaches, boric acid and silica gel are two nontoxic solutions. Get the full Ask Umbra answer.

Rentally,
Umbra

Related Links:

Energy-efficient homes: Cheaper to own, more expenive to buy. Why?

Douglas Fischer — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:13:00 PST

EAST LANSING, Mich. -- Krista and Micah Fuerst were looking near here to buy their first place together, and had narrowed it down to two houses: One built 25 years ago, the other brand new and built to strict energy efficiency standards. The couple's choice was easy: They picked the Energy Star home, which the U.S. had certified because it will use about one-fifth to one-third less energy than a comparable home.

But they're in the minority. Most homebuyers don't think about the ongoing costs of home ownership beyond the mortgage and taxes; using energy costs, too. And fewer still think about the pollution that energy use creates, but home energy use accounts for 16 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The proportion of newly built Energy Star homes is growing, but still only represents 20 percent of new homes built in 2009, according to Sam Rashkin, national director of the Home Energy Star program.

Despite the slow increase in newly built efficient homes, some 99 percent of existing houses are "sick" -- damp, drafty, dusty, noisy and expensive to heat and cool. They "could be made at least 30 percent more energy-efficient with highly cost-effective, tried-and-true energy-efficiency improvements," according to Rashkin. A 30% reduction in energy use is a 30% reduction in home energy costs; newly built Energy Star homes have, since 1995, saved homeowners an estimated $1.2 billion.

The Energy Star program won't fix those old houses. Energy Star designations go to the cream of the housing stock; if just one in five new homes meets these standards, far fewer renovations do. So if energy efficient homes cost homeowners less and pollute less, why aren't they more commonplace? Experts say economics and regulations are the root of the problem: Mortgages are structured in ways that fail to recognize the benefits of energy efficiency, while a patchwork of inconsistent and ill-enforced energy codes provides conflicting signals to industry.

Meanwhile consumers remain largely unaware of efficiency's advantages, advocates say, thereby bypassing an easy target for considerable cuts in national carbon emissions -- and home energy bills.

In this sense the Fuersts are typical of many homebuyers. Both in their late twenties, the Fuersts were aware of Energy Star-rated appliances, but didn't know the label also applied to homes, said Krista Fuerst, a childcare director. Their home, which wouldn't stand out in any new subdivision, and they mostly just wanted a place big enough to raise a family. They traded slightly longer commutes for smaller energy bills and freedom from costly renovations.

"We're certainly conscious of the environment," she explained, "but we're not hyper-conscious. We're not extreme green."

Of course, the ultra-efficient heating and cooling systems, high-performance windows and other features that make the homes exceptionally comfortable also make them a bit pricier. The added cost for a new Energy Star home may only be about the price of a night at the movies on each month's mortgage payment, but it's enough to scare off many potential buyers.

"It's an incredibly smart choice," Rashkin said, since smaller utility bills more than offset the higher price. "But consumers are overwhelmed by first cost."

Energy-efficient mortgages

To get buyers over that hump, a handful of specialized mortgage options have for decades given buyers more cash up front, since they'll save on energy costs. But nobody's buying. Before the mortgage crisis, when loans were easier to come by and energy was relatively cheap, energy-efficient mortgages weren't very enticing, experts say, and lenders didn't bother with them. Now the specialized options are more valuable, but lenders have grown accustomed to ignoring them.

"It's really unfortunate," said Jennifer Amann, buildings program director for the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. "Energy-efficient mortgages have been available now for 20 years or so, but they're a really underutilized tool."

While energy-efficient mortgages are a good idea, there's a more obvious solution, according to Cliff Majersik, executive director of the Institute for Market Transformation, which advocates for energy efficiency: Make all mortgages – not just specialized ones – account for energy use.

"The fact is that energy-efficient homes have much lower foreclosure and delinquency rates. So that's a market failure, that we're not giving homeowners credit for buying good, efficient homes," Majersik said. "The challenge is that there are processes that have been in place for a long time, and there's pretty clear evidence that they've let us down."

The House climate bill includes a handful of provisions that would reward buyers of efficient homes. For example, the Federal Housing Administration would be required to insure at least 50,000 energy-efficient mortgages over three years, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would make the kind of wholesale changes to underwriting guidelines sought by Rashkin, Majersik and others. Another provision would enforce a national building code that would improve efficiency on new buildings by 30% immediately, and 70% by 2029. Currently, states can adopt any building codes they want, so requirements vary widely.

Homebuilders say they'll build more efficient homes when buyers ask for them, but demand won't grow until more people understand the benefits of efficiency. Many who have lived in energy efficient homes are convinced.

"The house is heated very evenly," Krista Fuerst explained. "There are no cold spots and no drafts." They set the thermostat at 67 degrees -- much lower than would have been comfortable in their rental -- and turn it down to 57 when they leave in the morning, but the temperature never drops that low, even after 12-hour days. So far their heating bills have been just over half what they paid last winter. "Now that we have lived in an energy-efficient house," she said, "it would be very difficult to go back."

Douglas Fischer is editor of Daily Climate, one of The Daily Green's trusted sources of information. This post is republished with permission.

More from The Daily Green

Reprinted with permission of Hearst Communications, Inc

Fondue solutions: How to save money at home with five products gathering dust in your closet

Jeff Yeager — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 11:25:06 PST

(Photo: Jesus Ayala / Studio D)

I sometimes think the greenest technology has already been invented. We just forgot about it, or it fell out of vogue.

In fact, you probably already own some of the greenest gadgets ever invented. But, if you're like most people, you have them tucked away in a closet at home and haven't used them for years.

It's time to go back to the future and break out some of these oldies but goodies. Pull them out and start saving money at home, now. They're easier on the environment, and they'll save you a bunch of greenbacks, too.

Slow-cooker and fondue pot
If you don't already have a '70s-era slow-cooker (aka "crock pot") collecting dust in your kitchen cupboard, you can buy a new energy-sipping model for about $30.

I call mine my "mean, green, recession-fighting machine," because it costs only a few cents to operate and turns inexpensive ingredients into the comfort food we crave to get us through these tough economic times.

And, talk about a money-saving throwback to the 1970s: I challenge you to go into any thrift store in America and not find at least one or two virtually unused fondue pots (usually in mustard yellow or avocado green) priced at just a couple of dollars. I sometimes wonder if any of us who bought new fondue sets during the Nixon administration actually used them.

The great thing is, fondue is truly fun, delicious, and cheap. In fact, fondue was originally invented as a way of using up leftover bits of cheese, wine, meat, and stale bread. Pick up a used fondue pot at a thrift store and give it a try. Who knows, if fondue pots make a comeback, maybe key parties will, too.

Laundry rack or clothes line
Drying your clothes outside on an old-fashioned clothes line or indoors on one of those accordion-like laundry racks will not only save you about $200 per year on the cost to own and operate an electric dryer, but it can make some garments last up to twice as long. Read more low-tech, money-saving tips for making your clothes last longer.

(Photo: Graca Victoria / Fotolia)

Electric blanket and heating pad
My grandparents kept their thermostats set at meat-locker temperatures during the winter, but stayed cozy with an electric blanket on their bed and an electric heating pad on each of their favorite easy chairs.

At the time I thought my "plugged-in" grandparents were funny -- heating just their bodies, instead of their whole house -- but now I realize that Granny and Gramps were once again ahead of their times.

Electric blankets and pads cost little more than many non-electric comforters, and only use about a nickel's worth of electricity per night to operate. Yet according to the U.S. Department of Energy, for every degree you turn down the heat during the winter, you'll probably save about one to three percent on your total home heating bill.

Food dehydrator
Removing the water from food products in order to make them last longer and concentrate flavors and nutrients is one of the oldest food preservation methods known to man, and it's making a comeback.

If you don't already own an electric food dehydrator, you can buy one for about 50 bucks. It works with most fruits, vegetables, meats, herbs, nuts, grains, and even some dairy products.

Dehydrated foods last for months -- sometimes even years -- when stored in airtight containers. You can save big money on your grocery bill by buying bulk quantities of in season and on sale items and dehydrating them for future use.

(Photo: Karl Juengel / Studio D)

Ice chest and Thermos bottle
Talk about simple genius: Keeping foods cold or hot through mechanical means (i.e., thermal insulation) rather than with electricity saves energy and money -- duh!

But the last time most of us carried a Thermos bottle was back in fourth grade in our George Jetson lunchboxes.

Carry your coffee to work in an old-fashioned Thermos rather than buying a cup or two of designer java every day, and pack the ice chest full of picnic supplies and snacks next time you take a family road trip -- you'll likely save hundreds of dollars a year if you do.

Friend us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. Follow Jeff Yeager on Twitter.

More from The Daily Green

Reprinted with permission of Hearst Communications, Inc

How to get ready for Cash for Caulkers

Lori Bongiorno — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 13:52:13 PST

(Photo: Getty Images)

Details for the U.S. government's Cash for Caulkers program aren't available yet, but it's not too early to start thinking about how to cash in on the proposed stimulus program.

"Homeowners that educate themselves will be the first ones to take advantage of the program," says Lane Burt, at the Natural Resources Defense Council. He recommends that you get educated about your home now so you'll know what kinds of changes you'd like to make when the money becomes available. This is good point when you remember that Cash for Clunkers ran out of cash in the end. "Understand what you want to do so that you're not the one left in line when the program runs out of money," says Burt.

While the details are still being hammered out, there are potentially two ways to have the government help with the costs of making your home more energy efficient:

One idea is that an accredited buildings professional would come in to conduct an energy audit to determine where energy efficiency improvements can be made, help you decide on a plan of action, and then execute that plan. The expectation is that homeowners could get back 50 percent of what they spend up to a maximum rebate of $12,000.

The other way to get government money is to buy an energy-efficient furnace, windows, or other component. There are federal rebates already available and several states also offer rebates for purchasing energy-efficient appliances and more.

If you decide to make changes yourself and get a rebate on an individual purchase, then know that which order to make home improvements in is important. You'll want to seal leaks and tighten your building's shell so the air you pay to warm or cool doesn't leak out before you buy a new furnace, for example.

While we're all waiting for the proposal to get passed, Burt suggests thinking what your home needs. Figure out where you are wasting energy. Take a look at your energy bill and compare it to others in the area. Start looking for leaks. Look at ducts and make sure they are all connected.

Do the things that you can do yourself and that don't cost much money. Some suggestions:

Install a programmable thermostat.
Weatherstrip windows and doors.
Caulk the obvious leaks.
Insulate your water heater.
Replace incandescent bulbs with CFLs or efficient halogens.

These are all baseline changes that should be made before you embark on more extensive changes so that you can maximize energy and money savings.

Also, think about whether you want to hire a contractor and go for the whole-house approach or if you'd like to pick one project to focus on.

Experts say that you'll most likely need to hire a professional contractor to get the most financial support from the government. If you hire a contractor, that person will tell you exactly where you can save money and in which order you should make changes so that you can maximize savings.

Check out Yahoo! Green on Twitter and Facebook.

The shrinking American home

Kirsten Dirksen — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:53:03 PST

The Wingardhs Mill House

Homes are shrinking in America. After doubling in size during the last 50 years to over twice that of European homes, the national average house size dropped for the first time in nearly 15 years (by 9%, the size of one average room).

The smaller house movement afoot in the United States can take many forms, from houses the size of a walk-in closet to several thousand square-foot family houses.

On the far end of the spectrum are the so-called tiny houses. Also called wee homes, mini dwellings, or micro-homes, the definition is not exact, but they run as small as 65 square feet. And yes, people really live in them. Why? Reasons range from economic to environmental to psychological.

Even families are taking a page from the micro-homes. While a family of four may not choose to live in a walk-in closet, there are all sorts of beautiful homes with footprints well under the 2,000 square-foot average. And with the size of the U.S. household shrinking, smaller houses make even more sense (the U.S. fertility rate shrank from an average of 3.5 children in 1960 to 2.1 children in 2006)¹.

Below, you’ll find some great houses which maximize common space but still carve out cozy bedroom nooks for a family.

A cottage for one or two

While living in only a couple hundred square feet may seem near impossible, you’ll find these examples don’t skimp on many modern luxuries.

Tumbleweed Tiny House Company's Epu house
measures 8′ x 15′ and forces anyone to be a minimalist.

The Rotorhaus allows the inhabitants of this 388-square-foot dwelling
to rotate among three living “pods”: the kitchen, bathroom, and sleeping room.

The 341-square-foot weeHouse is customizable to your likes.
Larger, several bedroom versions available for families.

The Box House in Sao Paulo, Brazil, is a 10′x16′ cube made of
reused wood and waste material. The house overlooks the ocean.

The Wingardhs Mill House is a pricey Swedish mini-home based
around traditional sauna and bathing rituals.

For the family looking to downsize

The tiny Beach Chalet measures 388 square feet and was designed
by London’s Nina Tolstrup. It offers a small family two separate
sleeping quarters and a light and airy common area.

For a traditional-looking home with more private sleeping quarters,
Tumbleweed Tiny House Company offers two to three bedroom houses
ranging from 743 to 837 square feet.

David Sarti’s 800-square-foot home was designed to accommodate
two large bedrooms upstairs and huge windows for
plenty of light and ventilation.

Rocio Romero offers high-end ‘mansion’ living in less than the
average American home footprint. The LVL model is 1,453 square feet and
packs in a spacious living room, dining room, kitchen, three bedrooms,
two bathrooms, and closets. LVL homes start at $42,000.

A personal look inside

Jay Shafer builds and designs small houses ranging in size from 65 to 837 square feet for his Tumbleweed Tiny House Company. He’s also spent the past decade living in his tiny creations.

In this video, he gives us a tour of his 96-square-foot home on wheels parked in Sebastopol, California. Surprisingly, there’s plenty to see: living room, kitchen, bathroom, sleeping loft, and some decent storage.

Kirsten Dirksen is a cofounder of faircompanies.com, a news/blog/video site focused on environmental sustainability, and she is an experienced TV producer/shooter/editor for MTV, Oxgyen, Sundance Channel, and Travel Channel.

Not ready to move into a micro-home? Get more from ecomii:

Sources

Fertility Rate: http://datafinder.worldbank.org/fertility-rate-total

Check out Yahoo! Green on Twitter and Facebook.

Club soda and salt cocktail? Kitchen stain recipes for lipstick, grass, and more

Colton Dirksen — Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:11:27 PST

You don’t have to cover your furniture in plastic or ban berries from your home. Life gets messy and clothes, furniture, and carpets get stained.

But if you have a few of the key ingredients, such as baking soda, salt, and vinegar in your cupboard, you can prevent a lot of those stains from sticking.

Commercial stain removers can be helpful, but there is no single product on the market that fights all of your stains. And many of those products contain harsh chemical solvents with toxic ingredients that you wouldn’t want on your clothes and skin.

So why not give your grandma’s tried-and-true solutions a try? The best first line of defense is water (cold water is usually the safest). For those tougher stains, the table below offers solutions for 14 of the most common stains.

Solutions for specific stains:

More from ecomii

Check out Yahoo! Green on Twitter and Facebook.

No, my dog is not destroying the environment

Marion Nestle — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 10:23:00 PST

(Photo: Dan Shapley)

It’s been quite a while since Eating Liberally's Kat had a question for me, but this one certainly got my attention. My book about pet food with Malden Nesheim, Feed Your Pet Right, has just progressed past its second set of page-proof corrections and is slowly making its way to publication on May 11. Here’s her question:

Is Fido the new Hummer?

Kat: Dog lovers are howling over a new book called Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living. The book claims that "the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle," according to a report from the Agence France Presse.

The book’s authors, Robert and Brenda Vale, sustainable living experts at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand, estimate that a medium-sized dog’s annual diet — about 360 pounds of meat and 200 pounds of grains — requires roughly double the resources it would take to drive an SUV 6,200 miles a year.

You’ve become an expert on the pet food industry in recent years with Pet Food Politics: The Chihuahua in the Coal Mine, and your upcoming book, Feed Your Pet Right. So, what’s your take on the Vales’ claims? Is Fido really the new Hummer?

Dr. Nestle: Since Mal Nesheim is my co-conspirator on Feed Your Pet Right, this response is from both of us. Hence, "we."

We ordered this book through Amazon in the U.K. but it is taking its own sweet time getting here. So all we really know about what these authors say is what we read in the October 24 issue of New Scientist, which not only reviewed the book (in an article titled, "How green is your pet") but also ran an editorial that begins, "If you really want to make a sacrifice to sustainability, consider ditching your pet — its ecological footprint will shock you."

Oh, please. We don’t think so for two reasons, one quantitative, one qualitative. First, the quantitative:

The New Scientist review says:

To measure the ecological paw, claw, and fin-prints of the family pet, the Vales analysed the ingredients of common brands of pet food. They calculated, for example, that a medium-sized dog would consume 90 grams of meat and 156 grams of cereals daily in its recommended 300-gram portion of dried dog food. At its pre-dried weight, that equates to 450 grams of fresh meat and 260 grams of cereal. That means that over the course of a year, Fido wolfs down about 164 kilograms of meat and 95 kilograms of cereals.

We don’t really have all the facts at hand. We have not seen the book, we don’t know what assumptions the authors made, and we can’t be certain that the review quotes the book accurately. Still, we are puzzled by these figures.

By our estimates, an average dog does indeed need about 300 grams of dry dog food a day; this much provides close to 1,000 calories. Fresh meat supplies about 2 calories per gram, so 450 grams would yield about 900 calories. Cereals have less water so they are more caloric; they provide nearly 4 calories per gram. The 260 grams of cereals would provide nearly 1,000 calories.

If New Scientist got it right, the authors of the book are overestimating the amount of food needed by dogs by a factor of two.

On the qualitative side: Most dogs don’t eat the same meat humans do. They eat meat by-products — the parts of food animals that we wouldn’t dream of eating. These are organs, intestines, scraps, cuttings, and other disgusting-to-humans animal parts.

We think pet food performs a huge public service. If pets didn’t eat all that stuff, we would have to find a means of getting rid of it: landfills, burning, fertilizer, or converting it to fuel, all of which have serious environmental consequences. If dogs and cats ate the same food we do, we estimate that just on the basis of calories, the 172 million dogs and cats in American would consume as much food as 42 million people.

But they don’t. They eat the by-products of human food production. If we want to do something to help reverse climate change, we should be worrying much more about the amount of meat that we ourselves are eating — and the amount of cereals we are growing to feed food animals — than blaming house pets for a problem that we created.

More from The Daily Green

Reprinted with permission of Hearst Communications, Inc

Check out Yahoo! Green on Twitter and Facebook.