Raising Healthy Kids: Avoid BPA

Classic Glass Baby Bottle - BPA Free

Update: The FDA is planning to decide whether or not to continue allowing food packaging that leaches BPA by March 31, 2012. There is no time to lose - the FDA has to hear from you before it makes its call. The government needs to know that Americans will not stand for food contaminated with toxic chemicals. Use this form to email the FDA today and tell them you want BPA out of your food's packaging!

More on BPA:
A few weeks ago my mother called me to make sure that I was using all BPA-free baby bottles. She had heard on the news that Canada had banned BPA from baby bottles and that there were concerns about how it affects the brain, behavior and the prostrate gland, particularly in babies and children. I assured her that before our baby was born (he's over a year now) I had gotten rid of all our bottles that even possibly had BPA in them and replaced them with BPA-free bottles. In fact, we had recently gone through the water bottles and canteens in her house and taken all the ones that might have BPA and recycled them! Several years ago news of BPA and it's health concerns made a big impact on my mothers-of-twins email list and we have been trying to phase BPA out of our lives since then.

When I got that call I laughed about how behind-the-news my mother was, but the more I thought about it the more bothered I became. My mother is very well-educated and tuned in to current events and she's a nurse in a leading research hospital, so she tends to know about health concerns long before the rest of us do. If she was not previously aware of the dangers of BPA, then there were probably many more people who are not aware either.

What is BPA?
BPA is short for Bisphenol A, a chemical that is used in the production of certain kinds of plastics and resins. It is a chemical that has been used in plastics and in the linings of canned food for over 40 years. Some people use this as an argument that it must be safe. However, studies show that exposure to BPA in the womb and as a baby can cause long-term health problems and possibly affect the development of the brain. Studies have linked it to cancer, obesity, early onset of puberty and immune response. No one argues that Americans are ingesting measurable amounts of BPA - studies have found that BPA is detectable in the urine of 90% of Americans including kids.

I look at all the children and young adults with health problems, asthma, allergies and developmental problems that are much more numerous than 50 years ago and I have to wonder. There are many possible explanations for these problems. Could this be one of them? Well recent studies show that it is a health concern. The US EPA, National Institutes of Health and FDA all agree that there is at least some concern about BPA and they all have web pages with suggestions about how to avoid it. The US Department of Health and Human Services has a particularly easy-to-understand page on BPA. Canada, Denmark and France banned the use of BPA in baby bottles and in late November the European Union passed a ban that goes into effect in 2011.

Why hasn't the US banned BPA?
There are strong lobbies - like the Chemical Association - who want people to think this chemical is harmless and they have convinced the Republicans in Congress. In November the US Senate removed language that would have banned BPA in baby bottles in the US from the food safety bill that they have subsequently passed - without the ban. So what can you do when our government is so responsive to the powerful lobbies?

How can you avoid BPA?

Read more »

Solar Another Way - Solar Leasing

While we purchased our solar installation outright, there are other effective ways to get solar on your home.  Here is a guest post by our friend and fellow solar enthusiast Bob Paine.

Achieving green energy, one homeowner at a time

by Bob Paine

Bob Paine's Leased Solar Array
in Medford, MA

I have long been interested in offsetting my use of electrical grid power with solar panels on my roof, but the high cost of installation and ownership has been a roadblock until recently.  In February 2011, I became aware of solar lease programs being offered by at least one company that would achieve my goal with either no or modest financial outlays on my part.  I learned that with a solar lease (rather than owning the panels on my roof), I as a consumer would have solar electric panels installed, and would pay a monthly fee for the electricity the panels generate to power my home.  I stood to reduce my electricity bills by about 10 percent, with no down payment. This was a win-win situation!

I found out that my roof could support (even though it faces east-southeast—not optimal) a 4.14 KW system, which could supply about half of my annual electrical power needs.  The nice thing about the lease arrangement was that the solar company would take all of the risks in installing, maintaining, and insuring the operation of the system through the 20-year period of its operation.  In fact, I would receive a guaranteed amount of solar energy per year, with makeup payments provided to me if the system did not perform as advertised!  I would not have to deal with energy credits, tax issues, or anything like that.

I was offered a choice of three payment options:  (1) a no-money-down lease, which was the most entry-level friendly, (2) an initial partial payment option which would cost a little money up front, but would reduce the monthly payment, or (3) a total 20-year pre-pay option where I would pay the entire lease off up front.  I decided on the third option because it reduced my cost of electricity from about 15 cents per kilowatt hour from the grid power company—to only about 7.2 cents per kilowatt hour, averaged and fixed over 20 years. 

Display of Solar Power Acquisition via the web

After I signed the agreement, there was a period of a few months for engineering and permitting, and then the solar system was installed.  The installers also strengthened my roof before installing the solar panels, at no cost to me.

For about half of what it would cost from the electric utility , and I can view the system’s performance anytime via the Internet (see Figure 2).   I am also pleased to have achieved my goal of “green power” for much less financial outlay than I would have imagined.

---

Would you consider solar leasing as a way to get solar on your home? Answer below in the comments.

Going for Solar Series

Check out the other steps in GLC's Going for Solar Series including photos throughout the construction and the first year of usage.

Living Green Can Be Easy - Appreciating the Natural World

Our kids named this "Y Log"

Often we think living greener means spending more money, making a sacrifice or making an extra effort.   But living green doesn't have to be hard.  Some things that are good for our health, good for the environment and good for our state of mind are easy too.   Today, I decided that my boys had had enough screen time, I needed some exercise and that we could all benefit from some simple fun.

You don't have to live out in the country to take a walk in nature.  We live in a city,  but right near some woods.   You would be surprised by how small of a patch of trees you need to make a couple of young boys feel like they are in the middle of nowhere.  I said to Jon "I want to take the boys for a walk in the woods.  What can I say to get them to go willingly?"   Jon replied "Tell them you are going exploring, and if that doesn't work, tell them to bring their toy guns."  My toddler was thrilled with the idea, and my older son's biggest resistance was "Can we go a little later?"

The Stick - the original wooden toy

We walked over to the woods.  At first my toddler didn't want to walk and the older one was dragging.  I do not consider myself very creative, so at first I wasn't sure what to say to get them inspired.  I started with "Can you find a tree?  Look at that rock!"  and then shortly "This is called moss."  Within a few minutes they were exploring, noticing and pointing things out.  "Look, this is moss too, but it's different!"

They quickly acquired sticks to play with (what is it with boys and sticks?) and were having a great time.  They were looking at the pond and didn't quite know what to do with it, so I told them they could throw rocks in the water.  (I drew a line and told them to throw from behind the line so that they didn't fall in or get wet by accident.)   I was ready to head back - it's still pretty cold here - but they decided to look for landmarks and see if they could mark a trail and then follow it back.

All in all, we were out in the woods for over an hour and when we decided to leave, they were discussing what we would do next time!

With all the things we work hard to do to be green, we need to remember that teaching our children to love and appreciate the natural world is one of the most important and easy things we can do.  If they don't love nature, then they simply can't understand why we want to protect it.

Happy Greening!
Alicia


What do you do to help your children appreciate the natural world?  Leave a comment telling me!

Solar Thermal Around Boston

Today I spent the day at one of the full day workshops kicking off NESEA's (North East Sustainable Energy Association) Building Energy 12 Conference.   I went to Solar Thermal Best Practices and Performance Data organized by the Mass Clean Energy Center because I am looking into solar thermal options for my community.   It was a great workshop,  and if you're in the Boston area I recommend the Conference this week (March 7 & 8, 2012) or at least the Tradeshow.

I'm still absorbing everything I learned today from the speakers from MassCEC, Paradigm Partners and BEAM Engineering.  However, in the afternoon, they took us to see three solar thermal installations.

The first installation was a fairly complicated one with collectors on the roof running a glycol loop, with a heat exchanger to water in a huge collector tank in a room on the roof, running down to a heat exchanger by the boiler on the first floor, to heat exchangers to the potable hot water supplying domestic hot water for a low-income building in Boston. 

System is attached to the roof to prevent moving in high winds.  The speakers talked about working with the roofing manufacturer to not void the warranty.

The second system was on another Boston low-income housing building and it had both solar thermal and 17.5 kW of solar PV as well on the roof.

Brand new solar PV system

Solar Thermal on the same roof - I was jealous of the space they had available!

The inverters for the PV system were right out there on the roof

The third building we visited really surprise me, because I didn't think they had the hot water demand for solar thermal, but it turns out that Fenway Park has events nightly through the winter and runs kitchens and has domestic hot water needs throughout the year.   They have solar thermal collectors feeding one of their domestic hot water systems and they have looked into other renewable energy options as well.

The Green Monster

Solar thermal panels on Fenway Park, home of the Boston Red Sox

Fenway is squeezed into Boston, and the mechanical systems are squeezed into Fenway

I enjoyed getting out to see all these systems and pick the brains of a variety of installers, consultants and engineers.  I hope you've enjoyed the pictures!

Happy Greening,
Alicia

What's the coolest place you've ever seen renewable energy?  Do you have a link to share?

What's Wrong with Newt Gingrich's $2.50 per Gallon Gas Plan

I'm shocked to hear myself say this, but Newt Gingrich made several good points in his "$2.50 per Gallon Gasoline, Energy Independence and Jobs." address recently.

He wants to "Unleash the American people."  He wants to have "the American people develop so much new energy that we [are], in fact, no longer reliant on Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran."

He goes on to say, "What if that new energy program created well over a million new jobs, high‑paying jobs, jobs that put Americans back to work and kept the money here at home that we had been sending overseas, giving us a dramatic improvement in our balance of payments, strengthening the dollar and giving us a chance to live much freer and more independently?"

So far this is awesome, Newt Gingrich, one of the biggest opponents of science and climate change is talking about American energy, real job creation, national security and so much more, but I knew it couldn't last.  Newt's plan is not about developing renewable energy, but rather to pump so much oil and natural gas from the ground and under the seas that he lowers the price of gasoline at the pump to $2.50 per gallon.  I can name so many things wrong with this plan, but I'm going to focus on just two today.

• Oil is a Global Commodity - The price of oil, and therefore gasoline, is dictated by a global market and the US is the biggest consumer, but only accounts for 10% of global production
• Consuming More Fossil Fuels Has Significant External Costs - Consuming more oil will accelerate climate change and numerous pollution based health conditions like asthma.

Oil is a Global Commodity

Newt Gingrich's plan fails to recognize that we are in a global market.  US Oil consumption only accounts for 22% of the global demand (19.1 million barrels per day) as of 2010.  As of 2009, we produced only 9.1 million barrels per day, about 10% of global production.  We'd have to more than double our oil production and keep our consumption flat in order to meet all of our demands for oil with US sources.  Even if that was possible, which only Newt Gingrich and one "expert" in North Dakota seems to believe it is, oil is a commodity traded on a global market.

U.S. Dependence on Foreign Oil is Declining

As Bill O'Reilly pointed out, if the price of oil on the international market is higher than in the US, then US oil companies would sell their oil on the international market and make more profits and we'd be stuck importing oil again.

Also, many oil producing nations, like those in OPEC, are not maximizing their production and have in the past on numerous occasions reduced production to keep the price of oil higher so their own profits are higher in return. Why wouldn't they do this again if the US increased production?

Now let's talk about the other costs of increasing oil consumption.

External Costs of Increased Fossil Fuel Consumption

Besides the cost of the oil itself, there are considerable other costs that result from increased fossil fuel consumption. In order to get to $2.50/gallon, Gingrich proposes eliminating the CAFE standards (fuel economy standards), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Energy.  All of those combined with a hopefully growing economy, will lead to a major increase in the consumption of gasoline and therefore a subsequent increase in the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other pollutants.  Ignoring the climate change effects of the CO2 emissions, we will still be faced with huge increases of heath problems from the pollution.  Studies have shown, including a 2008 NIH study, that increased levels of air pollution increases the frequency of asthma in children. Healthcare costs have been rising faster than fuel prices over the past decade, and an increase in fossil fuels (gasoline) will result in more air pollution and an increase in respiratory illnesses in the US and around the world, resulting in still higher healthcare costs.  According to Brian Merchant at TreeHugger, The True Cost of a Gallon of Gasoline is Closer to $15.  You can read more about the 5 Things That Actually Determine the Price of Gasoline in another article by Brian Merchant.

Updated 3/6/2012
MIT Professor of Energy Economics, Christopher Knittel's research shows that a $1 tax on gasoline would have an immediate local health benefit. 

According to Knittel and Sandler, 70 percent of the costs of a gas tax of $1 per gallon could be recouped by immediate health benefits from reduced pollution. Other possible benefits from the tax — reductions in climate change, traffic congestion and accidents — could make it a net winner for people in economic terms alone.
MITnews Fuel for Thought 3/5/2012

A Better Approach than Gingrich's $2.50/gallon

In the movie Cars,  Lightning McQueen only gets gas in the pit stop and doesn't change his tires and the announcer says: "That’s usually a short term gain and long term loss."  That is exactly what we would see with really cheap gasoline prices.  In the short term, we could see a dip in oil prices if production is increased, but as the price goes down, our demand would increase, and our production would be insufficient to meet the new demand, leaving us even more dependent on the foreign markets.

What we need is a long term solution that leverages America's strengths in innovation and capitalism.  We need to let the consumers decide what car they are going to buy and drive, but fuel should take into account the broader costs to society like healthcare, climate change, pollution and infrastructure.

We can meet our demands for affordable energy domestically with today's technologies and tomorrow's innovations.  We can do it with clean, renewable and safe energy sources like solar, wind, wave, tidal power and others.  In the process we will create millions of local jobs installing renewable energy, managing a modern infrastructure including a smart grid, and break our dependence on foreign oil. We will do it in a way that reduces our air pollution, keeps our children healthy and does not increase our health care costs.

To achieve this goal, we need to position our innovative forces with the right motivations. We should do this with a consumption tax on energy while we simultaneously move away from an income tax. This tax should be based on the carbon emissions of the energy.

For these reasons, I started my Pennies Per Pound Petition to Congress.  Please read on to understand how paying a few pennies for each pound of CO2 emissions will lead to a brighter and healthier future than "Drill Baby, Drill."

Burning a gallon of gasoline emits 19 pounds of CO2

Pennies Per Pound is an easy to understand tax on energy consumption based on carbon dioxide emissions coupled with an energy stamp program, like food stamps, to assist those in need. This federal tax on energy would begin at 1¢ per pound of CO2 emissions and ramp up to 10 pennies per pound of C02 emissions over 10 years.

Pennies Per Pound would help by:

• Unleashing market forces to find the best solutions to saving energy
• Generating demand for Green Jobs, Green Technology and Green Businesses in the United States.
• Reducing our nation's dependence on foreign energy sources, therefore also reducing our national debt.
• Raising revenues by $126 billion in the first year.
• Creating a healthier planet through reduced emissions leading to lower future healthcare costs.

Do it now, sign the petition and let us begin down a new path to a stronger and more successful United States of America, not one that is killing the world in the name of cheap gas.

Thank you!
Jon