DEAR EARTHTALK: Is it better to drive an older, well-maintained car that gets about 25 miles per gallon, or to buy a new car that gets about 35 miles per gallon?
- Edward Peabody, via email

IT DEFINITELY MAKES MORE SENSE from a green perspective to keep your old car running and well-maintained as long as you can - especially if it's getting such good mileage. There are significant environmental costs to both manufacturing a new automobile and adding your old car to the ever-growing collective junk heap.

A 2004 analysis by Toyota found that as much as 28 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions generated during the lifecycle of a typical gasoline-powered car can occur during its manufacture and its transportation to the dealer; the remaining emissions occur during driving once its new owner takes possession. An earlier study by Seikei University in Japan put the pre-purchase number at 12 percent.

Regardless of which conclusion is closer to the truth, your current car has already passed its manufacture and transport stage, so going forward the relevant comparison has only to do with its remaining footprint against that of a new car's manufacture/transport and driver's footprint - not to mention the environmental impact of either disposing of your old car or selling it to a new owner who will continue to drive it. There are environmental impacts, too, even if your old car is junked, dismantled and sold for parts.

And don't forget that the new hybrids - despite lower emissions and better gas mileage - actually have a much larger environmental impact in their manufacture, compared to non-hybrids. The batteries that store energy for the drive train are no friend to the environment - and having two engines under one hood increases manufacturing emissions. And all-electric vehicles are only emission-free if the outlet providing the juice is connected to a renewable energy source, not a coal-burning power plant, as is more likely.

If you want to assess your current car's fuel efficiency or emissions, there are many services available online. The government website FuelEconomy.gov provides fuel efficiency stats for hundreds of different vehicles dating back to 1985. Websites TrackYourGasMileage.com and MPGTune.com can help you track your mileage and provide ongoing tips to improve fuel efficiency for your specific make and model vehicle. MyMileMarker.com takes it a step further, making projections about annual mileage, fuel costs and fuel efficiency based on your driving habits. If you have an iPhone, you can keep track of your car's carbon footprint with the new "Greenmeter App" from Hunter Research and Technologies. The program uses numerous variables to make its calculations on-the-go as you drive, including weather conditions, cost of fuel, vehicle weight, and more.

If you simply must change your vehicle, be it for fuel efficiency or any other reason, one option is to simply buy a used car that gets better gas mileage than your existing one. There's much to be said, from many environmental vantage points, about postponing replacement purchases - of anything, not just cars - to keep what's already made out of the waste stream and to delay the additional environmental costs of making something new.

CONTACTS: www.fueleconomy.gov; www.trackyourgasmileage.com; www.mpgtune.com; www.mymilemarker.com; Greenmeter App.

DEAR EARTHTALK: It seems like more products are being packaged in #5 rather than #2 plastic today, and my local recycling agency won't take #5. I've also heard that #5 plastics are more toxic, which concerns me more than the recyclability issue. Which plastic is the better choice?
- Janice Shaffer, Chillicothe, MO

POLYPROPYLENE, WHICH IS MARKED WITH #5 inside the "chasing arrows" symbols on the bottom of plastic containers, is a lighter-weight plastic resin commonly used in dairy and deli packaging. Some companies have chosen this lighter plastic because it has a lower environmental impact to produce and transport.

High density polyethylene (HDPE), which is marked with #2, is a stiffer resin used to package cleaning products and also some dairy products. The most widely used resin type for consumer food products is polyethylene terephthalate, or PETE, which is marked with #1 and used for soda and water bottles.

According to Consumers Union's "Greener Choices" website, all three of these plastics are considered safe for their original use, though any of them can leak toxins when reused repeatedly. And all three can be recycled, though a lagging market leads some recycling locations to limit what they'll accept. There is also concern that widespread plastics recycling encourages more use of plastics, and that efforts would be better spent getting consumers to buy fewer plastic-encased products. Some even criticize the chasing-arrow labeling system for implying a higher level of recyclability than is presently available.

Why is a lighter-weight plastic better? According to dairy company Stonyfield Farm, their #5 one-quart yogurt container uses 30 percent less plastic than a #2 cup. Since it takes less material to make a thinner container, it reduces the amount of resin that needs to be manufactured. Stonyfield estimates that the use of #5 over #2 prevents the manufacture and disposal of more than 100 tons of plastic per year.

But savings comes from more than manufacturing. The heavier #2 plastics require more energy to transport. It's not only getting the yogurt from Stonyfield's plants to your store, but also getting the containers from the plastics manufacturer to their dairies. In fact, the company cites a packaging study by the Boston-based Tellus Institute which found that 95 percent of the environmental costs of packaging lie in production and less than five percent are associated with disposal.

According to the website Earth 911, a national directory of recycling outlets, the best thing consumers can do is to choose items with less packaging and buy in bulk when possible. So the next time you reach into the dairy case, grab the quart or gallon-size yogurt instead of the single-serving cups. Then, make sure you recycle only the allowable plastics so you don't contaminate the lot. While recycling is important, it may be okay to landfill a product's packaging if it was created with an environmentally responsible plan.

Besides seeking alternatives to plastic packaging, consumers can affect overall plastic use by supporting legislation that would require manufacturers to take back their plastic packaging, which would encourage "cradle-to-grave" practices. Further, you can support legislation that mandates more use of recycled plastic content, which would reduce the overall amount of virgin plastic produced in the first place.

CONTACTS: Stonyfield Farm's Earth Actions; Consumer Reports' Greener Choices; Earth 911.

DEAR EARTHTALK: Are any major brands of disposable tissues, paper towels, napkins and toilet paper yet using recycled content and chlorine-free bleaching?
- Sylvia Comstock, Montpelier, VT

NOT MANY. IN FACT, some of the biggest names in disposable paper products are the worst offenders. According to the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), forests at home and abroad are being destroyed to make toilet paper, facial tissues, paper towels and other disposable paper products. Giant paper producers such as Kimberly-Clark (Scott, Cottonelle, Kleenex and Viva) and Procter & Gamble (Puffs, Charmin and Bounty) are, in the words of NRDC, "forcing the destruction of our continent's most vibrant forests, and devastating the habitat for countless wildlife species in the process."

Much of the virgin pulp used by these large manufacturers comes from Canada's boreal forest. Some 500,000 acres of boreal forest in Ontario and Alberta alone - key habitat for caribou, lynx, wolves and scores of birds - are felled each year to provide pulp for disposable paper. Beyond wildlife concerns, Canada's boreal forest, which stretches from coast to coast, comprises perhaps the world's largest terrestrial storehouse of carbon dioxide, so it is critical to keep it intact to help mitigate global warming.

Kimberly-Clark uses some 1.1 million cubic meters of trees from Canada's boreal forests each year to produce 465,000 metric tons of pulp. Only 19 percent of the pulp it uses to make home use disposable paper products comes from recycled sources. Some of its brands, including Kleenex and Scott, contain no recycled content whatsoever. Nor do Procter and Gamble's Bounty, Charmin or Puffs, says NRDC.

Another issue with tissue (and paper overall) is the use of chlorine for whitening. Chlorine used in many bleaching processes contributes to the formation of dioxins and furans, chemicals that end up in our air and water and can cause cancer. Safer processes use oxygen compounds and result in paper that is "totally chlorine free," "process chlorine free" (chlorine free except for recycled fibers that were previously chlorine-bleached) or "elemental chlorine free," which substitutes safer chlorine dioxide for chlorine.

NRDC and other groups are pressuring the tissue products industry to change its ways, and are working to educate consumers about their options when buying tissue paper products. NRDC's online "Shopper's Guide to Home Tissue Products" offers reams of free advice on which brands to look for - and which to avoid. Marcal is the only household name that NRDC rates high on paper sourcing (100 percent recycled and 40 to 60 percent post-consumer content) and chlorine use (process chlorine-free). Brands ranking highest (up to 80 percent post-consumer content and process-chlorine free) include 365 (the Whole Foods brand), Seventh Generation, Earth First, and Planet, among others. No brands are totally chlorine free.

In general, consumers should seek out brands that specifically tout use of 100 percent recycled materials with a high percentage (40 percent or more) of post-consumer waste, and not just keywords like "green" or "eco" on their labels, which may be misleading. Also, before you even purchase that next roll of disposable paper think about how you can reduce the amount you use in the first place. Paper tissues, towels and napkins, for example, have re-usable options in handkerchiefs and cotton towels and napkins.

CONTACTS: NRDC Shopper's Guide to Home Tissue Products; Kimberly-Clark; Procter & Gamble.

© the Editors of E/The Environmental Magazine, 2009

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION?
Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881;
submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/,
or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com.

Read the column archives at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Now in its 19th year, E/The Environmental Magazine is a bimonthly "clearinghouse" of information, news and resources for people concerned about the environment who want to know "What can I do?" to make a difference. A 13-time Independent Press Awards winner and nominee, E is chock full of everything environmental - from recycling to rainforests, and from the global village to our own backyards.

Published bimonthly by a staff of six full-time and two part-time employees (plus a steady stream of college interns), E reaches a national audience in a smartly designed full-color format, printed on recycled paper. Published by the nonprofit (501-c-3) Earth Action Network, Inc., E is independent of any membership organization and has no agenda to promote except that of our very diverse and dynamic movement as a whole.

In direct fulfillment of E's editorial mission, EarthTalk is an effort to reach "beyond the choir" of committed environmentalists and offer highly useful information to sympathetic but uninformed people shown in poll after poll to be ready and even eager for "green" information.