My message? That behavior change had incredible power to drive down energy usage.  This wasn’t what I anticipated when I first began to work at reducing our home’s energy use: I had expected that efficiency upgrades (insulation, air sealing and better equipment) would have a much bigger impact on our energy use than conservation (things like turning lights off, adjusting thermostat settings, or washing our clothes in cold water).  Of course, I was practicing and preaching the virtues of making sustainable choices all along, but I didn’t really think these would have a big impact.  Boy was I surprised when I began to evaluate our savings in light of the actions we had taken!

By way of illustration, consider our summertime electricity use.  Between June-September of 2006 we consumed just over 1200 KWH each month.  Between June-September of 2011 we used 600 KWH each month: half of what we consumed 5 years prior.

Can you guess how we did it?  Yes, we insulated our attic, which allowed or air handler to run more efficiently (just think how much harder an air handler has to work if it’s located in a 100 degree attic, as opposed to a 78 degree home).  But, no, we didn’t install a more efficient HVAC system.  And, no, we didn’t even seal our ductwork.  Mostly we just turned the AC off and ran fans instead (except on the hottest days; even I’m not crazy enough to suffer through several days of 90+ degree heat without using central AC).  So… we cut our summertime electric bill in half simply by flicking a switch–oh, and “investing” in fans, like this ceiling fan we put in our bedroom.

Pretty simple, right?  Well, yes and no.  Take another look at that chart.  Do you notice that the trend line started to edge back up slightly after bottoming out in 2009? Although we used slightly less electricity in the summer of 2011 than in the summer of 2010, in both years we used more electricity that in the summer of 2009.  At the same time, we’ve also been backsliding a little on gas usage, and our total energy use (in BTUs) was slightly higher in 2011 than  in 2010.

What happened between 2009 and now?  Not much, other than our two new entertainment systems. While these systems use more electricity than our old-school TV did, we don’t use them all that much and power them down completely when we aren’t using them (we keep vampire power to a minimum in our house).  So they don’t account for much of the uptick.

I suspect that this uptick is mostly due to a loss of focus.  We just aren’t paying as close attention to our energy consumption now that we’ve achieved such marked reductions.  And we’re slipping back into some bad habits: we’re leaving lights on more; we’re more likely to bump up the thermostat when we’re chilly; we’re using our clothes dryer more.

So what does this mean? First, that the power of behavior cuts both ways.  Just as behavior change can result in dramatic reductions in energy use, backsliding can easily erode those savings.  It reminds me of lifestyle changes: who among us hasn’t achieved weight loss or exercise goals only to watch them slip away as bad habits return to roost?

Which leads right to my second point: behavior change sounds simple.  After all, most of us know what’s required in order to lose weight, be stronger, or cut our energy bills.  We may even be successful at achieving these goals in the short-term.  Yet as time goes on, many of us fail to sustain our achievements and end up back where we started.  In short, behavior change is much harder in practice than it is in theory.

Which leads to my third point: behavior change alone won’t get us where we need to go. We can’t just tell people to conserve and expect them to do so.  We can’t even teach them how to conserve and expect them to do so. We need to do a lot of other things too like:

• design and engineer our infrastructure to facilitate conservation
• sett goals, create support systems (Weight Watchers for energy use?), provide rewards for success, and perhaps even penalize people for failure.
• reevaluate and aggressively realign our political and economic systems to prioritize the public good over corporate profits, and the welfare of future generations over short-term and myopic fixes to immediate problems.

Lacking a holistic vision, policy and strategy, behavior change is likely to fail in the long-term. We may succeed in the short-term but soon enough we’ll be back to consuming calories and carbon-based fuels we can no longer afford.

And then–just to make sure nothing slipped through the cracks–I signed up with 41pounds, a junk mail reduction service, which charges $41 for 5 years.  Named for the amount of carbon emissions they claim the service will save the average customer, 41pounds guarantees it will reduce your junk mail by 80-95% within 4 months or refund your money.

Then there are the steps I’ve taken to protect my name from being put back on junk mail lists (yup, just because you’ve asked to be taken off doesn’t stop the company from adding you back on next time you shop with them).  When I shop online, I always follow my order with an email to customer service requesting that my contact information not be added to their mailing list. When I order over the phone I always make the same request.  And I’ve become very cautious about in-store rewards cards (signing up for which is a sure-fire way to get on a mailing list).  In those rare instances when I do sign up for a rewards card, I make it very clear that the store is not to sell, rent or otherwise share my information with any third party, including affiliates.

You would think these steps would have solved the problem.  And they did for a while.  Within a couple of months of doing all of this, my junk mail dropped off precipitously and stayed that way for about a year and a half.

But recently junk has started to reappear in my mailbox.  First it was catalogs I’d unsubscribed from.  Then it was financial solicitations related to business (oh the ironies of a green consultant being inundated with junk mail).  And then came the straw that broke the camel’s back: my kids started receiving junk mail.

This has been very distressing for me, although I don’t know what to do about it other than call the companies and ask to have my kids’ names removed from their mailing lists.  If it gets really bad, I guess I can repeat the  steps I outlined above: call the DMA, sign up with 41pounds, etc.  But I shouldn’t have to.

I shouldn’t have to jump through a million hoops to stop mail that I never wanted anyway.  It’s a travesty.  More than 100 million trees are destroyed each year to produce junk mail!   Not to mention that the whole point of all this junk mail is to get us to consume more–an activity which is unustainable, no matter how successful conventional economic wisdom is at brainwashing us with the mantra of growth, growth, growth.

The planet is limited. Plain and simple.  Junk mail is really annoying.  But it’s also just the tip of the iceberg of the consumerism that may yet (but hopefully won’t) sink us.

Image Credits:
becomingminimalist.com (junk mail)
Nicole Duplaix, nationalgeographic.com (deforestation in Brazil’s Pantanal wetland)

I know, you thought Energy Star appliances already were the most efficient on the market.  So what’s this new Most Efficient designation?  And how’s it different and better than plain old Energy Star?

Energy Star, which has been around now since 1992, typically certifies products that perform 20% better than federal standards or than market average.  While there is no question that the Energy Star has helped transform the appliance marketplace, it has faced criticism over the years for not raising the efficiency bar high enough or fast enough.  And most recently it has been hurt by  GAO testing that exposed fraudulent certifications.

I think it’s fair to say, though, that Energy Star has been working hard to rebuild its reputation: it has strengthened its testing and verification procedures and in just the last month has committed to push the efficiency envelope further with the new Most Efficient program, which certifies the most efficient appliances in seven categories: clothes washers, air-source heat pumps, central air conditioners, furnaces, geothermal heat pumps, refrigerator-freezers, and televisions.

The new Most Efficient program holds great promise to drive appliance efficiency further and faster than the existing Energy Star program. Manufacturers whose products are Energy Star rated can apply to have these products certified as Most Efficient.  But not many will qualify as the bar is set pretty high: although the criteria vary by category, the program has been designed so that only the top 5% of products will qualify. In addition, the bar will continue to rise over time, driving innovation rather than rewarding the status quo.

For consumers the Most Efficient program is a welcome resource.  When we’re shopping for appliances we’ll be able to quickly and easily identify the best of the best (at least in term of energy use).  We won’t have to scrutinize energy score cards and make lists to know which of the products will cost the least to operate over the long haul.   We can simply look for retail signage or check online to see which appliances have received the designation (as of today there were 15 dishwashers, 2 refrigerators, 18 TVs, and 43 air conditioners & heat pumps).

So next time you’re out shopping for appliances: don’t just look for Energy Star; look for Energy Star Most Efficient!

An ipad would be soooo convenient when I’m on the go: I could take it to meetings and when I travel. It would be so much easier for email than my iphone (yup, I’ve got an iphone too). And all those apps! There’s so much I could do with an ipad that I can’t do–or at least do as well–with my iphone or my macbook. Perhaps I’d even become an ereader. Since I’m trying to wean myself off buying books, I might as well…  It would be a green choice, right?

Or so I was imagining as I sat there waiting for a “genius” to bring out my new macbook.

According to an increasingly influential school of thought in the sustainability movement I was actually on to something here.  Dematerialization, which at its most basic level simply means using less material to make products, is a hot topic in sustainable design these days.   Dematerialized design can encompass everything from making smaller products to eliminating packaging to replacing products with services (a la Zipcar).

There is a great deal of excitement about the type of dematerialization embodied in the ipad: an innovation that doesn’t just use less material, but actually replaces material altogether.  The music revolution catalyzed by the ipod (and itunes) is a classic and well-known example of this type of dematerialization: by allowing us to scratch our consumption itch without buying any stuff, such gadgets are supposedly also better for the earth.

But what about the resources that facilitate these so-called dematerialized design innovations?  Perhaps on an individual level buying an ipad and no longer buying books would have a net positive impact on my personal environmental footprint.  But what’s the bigger picture?  What is the overall and long-term impact of our proliferating gadgets?

Proponents of dematerialization point to the declining material and energy intensity of our economy as evidence that we can continue to grow and protect the environment at the same time.  Whether it’s foodstuffs or forestry products or power generation, technological innovations are allowing us to make more with less than we were a generation ago.  And if we just let innovators keep innovating, dematerialization will solve our environmental problems for us.

The problem with this line of thought is that a reduction in the intensity of consumption is not the same as an overall reduction in consumption. Dematerialization doesn’t stop, let alone reverse, the trend line of increased consumption.  At its best, it only allows consumption to rise more slowly.  At its worst, it actually facilitates increases in overall consumption.

Take the case of… you guessed it, electronic gadgets.  When I was a kid we had one TV and, when I got to high school, one computer.  My family now has three computers and two TVs.  Not to mention two cable boxes, a blue ray player, wii, apple TV, ipod, itouch and two iphones.

My new macbook uses way less material and energy than the clunky pc my family shared growing up.   But efficiency gains haven’t been able to make up for the increases in overall residential electricity consumption, which in a single generation has nearly doubled.

Then there is the energy needed to run the data centers that support our dematerialized consumption (as well as other economic activity such as online banking). By 2030 electricity consumption for IT centers is projected to rise from near 0 to over 500 billion kwh annually.

And then there is the problem of ewaste. We aren’t just buying more gadgets we are also junking more gadgets.  Increasing media attention has made us more aware of the costs associated with ewaste, particularly in developing countries which have become dumping grounds for our outdated and broken machines, where children harvest scrap metal for resale by melting away the plastic and foam that encases it.

Now that brings new and perverse meaning to dematerialization.

Would the world be better off without ipads?  I would wager that, yes, it would.  Does that mean I won’t buy one?  Well…

Image Credits:
Apple (Chestnut Hill Apple Store)
Maria Tama/Getty Images (Zipcar)
Madhusudan Iyengar and Roger Schmidt/Energy Consumption of Information Technology Centers (chart)

Indoor air pollution is a distressingly common problem: EPA studies have found that levels of volatile organic compounds are frequently 2-5 times higher indoors than out, and sick building syndrome is estimated to affect 30% of buildings worldwide.  While there are many sources of indoor air pollution, the materials we use to build our homes–those same materials that are supposed to give us shelter–are all too often part of the problem.  Known and emerging concerns with building materials include:

• Composite or pressed wood products such wood veneer, plywood, particleboard & MDF (commonly used in cabinetry), which often contain and off-gas formaldehyde, a known carcinogen;
• Volatile organic compounds in paints, finishes and other “wet” applied products such as sealants and adhesives;
• Spray polyurethane foam insulation, which contains a veritable soup of toxic compounds.

For many building materials, the jury is out about the extent to which toxins in the products put occupants at risk.  On the other hand, toxins are–to put it mildly–never a good thing.  Even if they can be installed in such a way as to minimize risks to occupants, they may still pose a risk to installers.  Not to mention that toxins always pose upstream and downstream health concerns.

Consider, for example, PVC: used in a wide range of building products, from plumbing pipes to siding, PVC releases carcinogenic dioxins during manufacturing and disposal by incineration.  And yet for certain applications, PVC is widely considered to be safe to building occupants.  PVC floor tile may off-gas endocrine disrupting phthalates into your home, but PVC siding–well, not so much.

Does this mean it’s OK to use PVC for plumbing and siding?  Well… it depends on who you ask.  The health impacts of manufacturing and disposal are enough to put PVC in any form on my “Do Not Use” list.  But homebuiders and homeowners have to weigh different and often competing priorities when making decisions about materials.  Budgetary constraints often require compromises.  PVC siding is highly durable and has lower maintenance needs than wood siding–not to mention that it’s cheaper.  Do these benefits outweigh the  health costs of PVC?  There is no easy answer to this question.

But knowledge is power. Thanks to growing consumer demand and maturation of the green building industry, there are a number of resources out there to help consumers navigate the maze of building products. Some of my favorites are:

• The US Green Building Council’s Green Home Guide.  Geared towards the consumer market, this website contains a host of articles about and an extensive product directory of healthy building materials.
• The Healthy Home Plans website offers very clear and highly informative articles about indoor air quality and healthy building materials.
• The Perkins + Will Precautionary List. While geared more towards professionals, this also a good resource for consumers looking to create a Do Not Use list.  When chemical exposure is a top concern, it’s good to create such a list and to share it with everyone who is involved in your building project.
• Healthy Child, Healthy World.  This site is targeted towards parents and includes a great Q&A section on toxins in building products.

The best advice I can give is: do your homework. You can’t begin to avoid health hazards in building materials if you don’t know where they may lurk, how dangerous they may be, and what the alternatives are.

Image Credits: How Stuff Works & Green Home Guide

One of the most appealing aspects of the book is the honesty and clarity with which Kingsolver explores the limits of her experiment.  She shares her family’s reluctance to actually begin, the small compromises they make to appease their cravings, and the myriad challenges they encounter:  there is deprivation as well as abundance; backbreaking labor as well as its delicious fruits.

For most people in most parts of this country it’s virtually impossible to eat an all local diet.  And many of us who have jumped on the local bandwagon are fair weather riders.  We eat local when the getting is good and go back to standard (organic) grocery store fare when it’s not.   We enjoy abundance but never feel deprivation; we eat the delicious fruits of others’ backbreaking labor.

So what’s the point or value of an experiment like Kingsolver’s if it’s not a model that others could follow? As I’ve written in the past, I believe that deep green lifestyle choices (and chronicles thereof) have social and cultural value precisely because they are extreme.  By living beyond the limits of what is possible for most people–and writing a good story about it–the deep or extreme green memoirist reveals that more is possible than we, or at least I, previously thought.

But what about the value of deep green living to oneself? Is it just about confronting one’s own hypocrisy?   About living according to one’s principles?

Kingsolver writes beautifully about the pleasures and joys of her experiment, but I didn’t really connect with this aspect of her tale until, quite fortuitously, I found myself whipping cream by hand soon after beginning the book.  Not with a plug-in mixer mind you, but an old-fashioned beater (a plug-in wasn’t at hand).  I can cook with the best of them but whipping that cream by hand was one of the more physical experiences I have had preparing my food.   And it may have been the best whipped cream I’ve had in my life.

As I ate that whipped cream it came to me:  Beyond moral integrity, and beyond the benefits to self and society deep green choices often provide great joy. Not all the time of course but more often than us moderates might think.  Kingsolver didn’t undertake her experiment simply to assuage her conscience or make a point.  She did it because she knew it would make her happy.

Since then I’ve realized that I wouldn’t continue to make many of my decidedly more moderate green choices–like composting, walking my kids to school, and line drying my clothes–if I they didn’t make me happy.  The ungreen path of least resistance is just so much easier; it can’t be overcome on moral and intellectual ground alone.

Living green is not the status quo (if it were it would just be living, not living green) and won’t be for the foreseeable future.  Which means that it will continue to require at least moderate effort and some onerous choices.  But if Kingsolver’s tale and my experience with whipping cream by hand are any indication, on the other side of difficulty is often joy–a joy which simply can’t be found along the path of least resistance.

Although exposure to toxins in the environment does pose risks to our health, small changes can make a big difference.  Yes, it’s true! A few simple adjustments in our daily habits and choices can dramatically reduce exposure to toxins.  This is especially true in our homes, which is where we spend the majority of our time and have the most control.   Here are some tips to help you get started.

Leave Your Shoes at the Door
An astonishing 60% of house dust originates outdoors, and much of it is tracked in on our feet.  Studies have shown that house dust contains many hazardous chemicals including lead, arsenic & even DDT, a pesticide which was banned in 1972.  Because smaller particles of dust tend to stay attached to your shoes, you can take a big bite out of your home’s toxic dust burden simply by leaving your shoes at the door.

Keep It Clean
Even if we could stop all outdoor dust at the door, we’d still have to deal with the dust that originates inside.   This dust also contains hazardous substances, including brominated flame retardants (BFRs), which are found in a wide variety of household goods including furniture and electronics.  Healthy Child, Healthy World recommends regular dusting and vacuuming (preferably with a HEPA filter) to capture BFRs.  Of course, regular cleaning also helps pick up other unwanted and potentially unhealthy dust particles, including pollen and dust mites that are a trigger for allergy and asthma sufferers.

Use Your Kitchen & Bath Fans
Our kitchen and bath fans aren’t there just to get rid of bad smells.  Their primary job is to evacuate hazardous emissions such as carbon monoxide and sulfur oxide, which are released by all combustion appliances, and water vapor, which we produce when we cook, shower, etc.  Water vapor sounds harmless but especially in a small, enclosed space like a bathroom it can be a breeding ground for mold.  We can mitigate these hazards simply by using our fans (just make sure they are vented to the outside–not, say, to the inside of your attic, in which case they’re simply transferring emissions from one part of your house to another).  To learn more check out the Homeowner’s Guide to Ventilation, published by the New York Energy Research and Development Authority.

Pass on Pesticides & Herbicides
One of the first commitments I made when I embarked on my own green living journey was to stop using pesticides and herbicides on my lawn: that was four years ago and I’ve never looked back.   Now I’m working on eliminating all pesticides from my home (I still use pesticides to kill the mice that find their way into my basement through my field stone foundation every winter).  It is true that some pests, such as mice and termites, which are hazardous to your health and/or damaging to your home, may need to be treated with pesticides.  But in many cases there are equally effective, safer alternatives.   Beyond Pesticides is an excellent resource if you are ready to take this step.  My favorite section of their site is their Alternatives Fact Sheets, which offer recommendations for effective, least toxic control for a wide range of pests.

You Are What You Eat
Last but not least, our food choices have a profound impact on our exposure to toxins.   There are great tools and resources our there to help us make safer choices and–here’s the good news–studies show that these choices do make a difference.  Choosing organic produce, for example, has been shown to lower the levels of pesticides in our bodies.  Here is where I’d recommend you start:

• Avoid produce with high residues of pesticides.  This is easier than it sounds thanks to the Environmental Working Group, which every year publishes a list of the “Dirty Dozen” fruits and vegetables with the highest residues of pesticides and the “Clean Fifteen” fruits and vegetables with the lowest residues.
• Avoid food packaged in plastic that has been shown to leach potentially unsafe compounds.  Plastic containers have a number on the bottom inside a triangular recycling symbol.  2, 4 & 5 are widely recognized to be safe.  There are concerns about the safety of 1, 3, 6 & 7.  To learn more Healthy Child, Healthy World has published a plastic safety guide.
• Choose meat and dairy products from animals that have not been treated with growth hormones or antibiotics.  Look for USDA certified organic, or products that you can be reasonably certain are hormone  and antibiotic free (either because they are labeled or because you buy from a trusted source).
• Limit your consumption of canned food, which almost always contains BPA in its liners.  Choose frozen instead, or look for food packaged in glass or aseptic cartons.  There are also a few companies offering BPA-free cans (such as Eden).

Given the ubiquity of potentially harmful substances in our environment, it can sometimes feel impossible to protect yourself.  But please don’t despair!  The small steps that we take over time add up.   And every step we take makes a difference.

The Integrated Design Process. Source: Buildinggreen.com (Image courtesy of 7Group and Bill Reed, graphics by Corey Johnston)

Planning–and planning some more–is the key to a successful green building project.   Many of the successes of the green building movement can be attributed to adoption of a collaborative and holistic approach to the design process called integrated design.   In a nutshell this means that all of the parties who will contribute to the project, from the site planners to the HVAC contractor to the landscape designers, begin working together at the very earliest stage of design and stay involved throughout the project.  Integrated design not only increases the likelihood that the project will be delivered on time, on budget and with minimal mistakes along the way.   It also enables performance criteria & standards to be incorporated into the design, increasing the likelihood that the building will use energy and water efficiently, be easier and less costly to maintain, support occupant health & well-being, and hold its value over the long-term.

Unfortunately well-integrated and strategic planning is less common in residential construction, particularly in residential remodeling.  This leaves homeowners vulnerable not only to project delays, cost overruns, and mistakes but also to a home that is less durable, less resource efficient, and less healthy than it could have been.  If the performance ball has been dropped during the design process, or was never picked up in the first place, the contractor–no matter how skilled–will likely not build a high performing project.   Plain and simple.

Fortunately, there are things you can do as a homeowner  early on to increase the likelihood that your renovation project will meet your functional objectives & aesthetic criteria, add value to your home, and provide long-term financial, health & environmental benefits.

Source: Homeenergyabout.com

Establish Your Baseline
Even before your architect starts working on a floor plan, find out how much energy you are using.   Look at your bills for the last 2-3 years and calculate your consumption.  Get an energy audit done so you know how much insulation you have, where the major air leaks in your home are, and how efficient your current heating and cooling systems are (If you live in Massachusetts, take advantage of a free energy assessment through MassSave).

Energy is the most obvious aspect of home performance to measure upfront.  But there are others to consider as well: you can calculate your water consumption and have your irrigation system audited by an EPA Water Sense certified irrigation professional.  You can also choose a to work with a contractor who will inspect your home before design has begun.  The feedback you get from such an inspection may prove invaluable: you may find out that you have potential backdrafting problems, or that you have rot you’d never noticed.  You can then address these problems upfront and, hopefully, find it easier and less costly to remediate them.

Assemble a Team Who Can Deliver Green
Which brings me to my second piece of advice: Don’t just choose your architect and worry about your contractor later.  Make sure that the design process is a team effort, informed by the experience and expertise of all the relevant building professionals.  Moreover, make sure that the team can deliver not just quality and value but long-term resource efficiency, health and durability.

The doesn’t mean that you need a team with LEED experience or qualifications, which is less relevant to the remodeling world than it is to new construction.  More important is expertise in doing energy retrofits, a track record of building projects to last, and the know-how to ensure good indoor air quality.  Some Boston-area firms that I think offer these assets include Byggmeister, Sage Builders, LDa Architects, and Zero Energy Design.

Fireclay Debris Series feature 60% recycled content. It's a great, green product (I have it in my home) but it does not make your home green.

It’s Not About Products & Finishes
If you’ve read this far you probably know that green building is not–at its most fundamental level–about bamboo floors, recycled tile, or FSC certified cabinetry.  Products and finishes are the icing on the cake: they add color and flavor to the cake but don’t affect its essential “cakeness” (unless you’re a 4-year old).  The point is, don’t be fooled by the amount of time and energy it takes to pick products and finishes into thinking that they are essential to the performance of your home.  While some product and finish decisions are, in fact, essential to performance (such as plumbing fixtures, appliances, and anything that may offgas), many are not.  Things that are invisible and that homeowners often have little role in selecting (like insulation and ductwork) are often more important to performance than those homeowners do select.  If you want to renovate green, you need to pay attention to these and make sure your team is focused on them too.

Look Down the Road
Most of us don’t have the financial resources to fix everything about our homes at one time and so our improvements need to be phased over time.  At the beginning of any particular project it’s important to think about what may come next, both in terms of your lifestyle and your performance goals.  You don’t want to miss any opportunities in the current project, or do something that would get in the way of future improvements.   At their best, homes are works in progress: we and they are always learning together how to better fulfill our needs with less impact on the environment.

The key to avoiding home stagnation or regression is long-term thinking.  Even if you think you may not own your home in 10 or 15 years, thinking that far ahead (or even farther) is not only the right thing to do, it will eventually be in your financial self-interest as well.  For the day will come–hopefully sooner rather than later–when performance, especially energy performance, will be factored into home valuation and mortgage underwriting.  Which means, among other things, that your high performing home will be worth more when you do sell it.

Not to mention that you’ll also save money, have fewer maintenance headaches, and enjoy a healthier living environment in the meantime!

Newton, MA Farmers' Market

One of the things I’ve discovered on my green living journey is that each season presents unique challenges to and opportunities for making sustainable choices.  Summer is time for enjoying local food.  Winter a time for tracking energy bills.

Of course, many of my green practices do not fluctuate: remembering reusable bags is something I try to do all year. But many of my practices do shift with the seasons, such as line drying my clothes (spring-fall) and using fans as much as possible to cool my house (summer).  Over time, I’ve learned that these shifts present opportunities to reassess my green goals and to plot the next steps in my green journey.

Each new season I take a moment to consider those areas of my life that I have not yet “greenified” and ask myself whether the time is right take on new goals, or re-dedicate myself to earlier commitments.   What opportunities does this season offer to live more sustainably? And what can I do to seize the moment?

Here’s how I’m answering these questions this spring:

• I’ve become vigilant about protecting my family from chemicals in food and consumer products– everyone, that is, except my dog (Sorry Butter! If you only knew…).  Every month, from early spring through late fall, I treat Butter with the same chemical flea and tick treatments that I always have.  But lately it’s gotten harder to do this in good conscience (click here to learn more).  Now that I’ve kicked the chemicals from most other areas of our lives, it’s time to protect my pup.  While I’m at it, I’ll investigate alternatives to “conventional” dog food too.

• OK, I have to confess there is one other area of my life where I continue to rely on chemicals.  I kill the mice that find their way into my home every fall and winter.  I hire a pest company (gasp!) to lay pet and kid-proof bait boxes with poison. When the mice eat the poison they get thirsty and exit the house in search of water.  Sometime after that they bleed to death internally.   Not very humane, I know–not to mention that it introduces poison into the food chain (was anyone else horrified to read about owls dying from eating poisoned rats?).   I will never tolerate mice living in my house–they are too much of a health and safety hazard (pdf)–but there’s got to be a better way to “treat” for them.  I’ve taken some preventative measures already (e.g., pest screen) but I’m going to find out if there are others.  And I’m going to test out more ecologically-sound methods of eliminating mice that may continue to get in (total prevention with a field stone foundation may prove impossible).   I’ve got about 6-8 months before they again seek refuge in my home…

• Last but not least, I’m going on a book buying hiatus.  For a while last year I had gotten into a good groove of visiting the library for kids’ books.  But I never stopped buying my own books and so, slowly, I went back to buying books for my kids too.  I would be in the bookstore buying a book for myself and would pick up 1 or 2 or 3 books for my kids.  And soon our bookshelves were overflowing with Rainbow Fairy and Rangers Apprentice books that are simply NOT worth owning.  So from now on there’s a book rule.  Unless it’s a classic or spectacular work, we’ll get it at the library, through a swap, or from a second hand bookshop.

In addition to pursuing these green goals, I’ll also be using Practically Green, looking out for other seasonal opportunities to spring forward in my green journey.   If you aren’t yet a member, I urge you to join: it’s free, it’s fun, and it allows you to keep up with your friends’ green journeys.

In the meantime… I invite your thoughts and comments on my next steps:  Do you have any mice prevention tips for homes that can’t be completely sealed?  Have you found a natural flea & tick care treatment that really works?

I also invite you to share your next steps in your green journey.  How will you spring forward this season?

Image Credit: The Lazy Environmentalist

Have you ever looked at your energy bills and dreamed about an array of solar panels on your roof soaking up free energy from the sun? You certainly aren’t alone in your dreaming, especially given the generous income tax credit the federal government is offering for renewable installations through (30% of the costs with no upper limit). Who wouldn’t want to take advantage of that deal?

Of course, to turn this dream into reality you need a conducive building and site (orientation, roof plane, natural shading, etc.) make your home a good candidate for solar. But let’s assume that an experienced solar professional has determined that your home is a good candidate for solar. You still need to ask yourself whether the investment makes sense. Just because your home can produce a solar power, doesn’t mean it should–at least not at first.

Before I explain what I mean and why I say this, I’d like to return to a post I wrote last year about the energy savings I have been able to achieve at my home. If you read this post, you know that my family has cut our energy use by close to 50% over the last three years. It wasn’t be installing solar. Rather, we employed a combination of efficiency and conservation measures designed to reduce both our seasonal and our base energy loads.

Yes, I can “hear” your questions: Seasonal load? Base load? What are these? And what do these have to do with solar?

Seasonal energy load refers to the amount of energy used to heat and/or cool a home, depending on climate. New England is a heating climate but air conditioning has become increasingly common over the last couple of decades, meaning that many homes experience seasonal increases in their energy use in both winter and summer. At my home, we cut our seasonal load by (among other things)

Buderus Condensing Boiler

• air sealing and insulating our house,
• installing a new super efficient natural gas boiler, and
• leaving our central air conditioner turned off for most of the summer (we have found that fans work well for all but the hottest days of the summer).

Base energy load refers to those energy uses that aren’t dependent on temperature changes and that stay pretty constant throughout the year. While there can be minor seasonal fluctuations in the energy we use to run our appliances, electronics, and lighting, and to provide hot water, these fluctuations are much more modest compared to those in the energy we use to heat and cool our homes. At my home, we cut our base energy load by (among other things)

LED Lights Over My Kitchen Island

• switching over 95%+ of our lights to energy efficient bulbs and fixtures,
• turning lights & appliances off (completely off) when they aren’t in use, and
• running our clothes washer on cold.

In short, we cut our energy bills in two ways. First we changed our behavior, a lot. Second, we invested in our home’s energy systems, knowing that these would provide yearly, long-term savings on our energy bills (and improve our comfort at the same time).

Now… let’s pretend that we hadn’t done all these things and instead installed solar panels (it turns out our home isn’t a good candidate for solar, but let’s just pretend it is). Our electricity usage would have been higher–50% higher!–so we would have needed a lot more solar panels.

Even with the 30% federal income tax credit, wouldn’t you rather install $10,000 than $20,000 worth of solar?  As Martin Holladay, one of my favorite green building gurus, puts it: “Spending thousands of dollars on solar hardware for a house that hasn’t been carefully air-sealed and superinsulated is putting the cart before the horse.”

My advice: put the horse before the cart.  Make your home as efficient as possible.  Cut what you can (you’d be surprised how comfortable you may be without air conditioning).  And then look into solar.