About The Writer

Name: Crissy Trask
Location: Spokane, WA

I am the author of It's Easy Being Green: A Handbook for Earth-Friendly Living, a freelance writer and a green living advisor.

I write about just about any topic that provides an opportunity to share a greener way of doing something or an earth-friendlier choice. My writing focuses on helping people understand the problems, the solutions and that their actions can make a difference.

I'm willing to discuss any writing project within the categories above, including business, promotional and copy writing.

Green Matters Q&A Column  "Green Matters" is a sustainable living Q&A column written by green living advisor and author, Crissy Trask. "Green Matters" answers questions related to everyday topics, helping people discover solutions and make better choices that can protect our communities and our world. Trask has been quoted in many publications including Country Home Magazine, New York Daily News, Money Magazine, Renovation Style and Vegetarian Times and been a guest on NPR, Sirius Satellite Radio's Organic World, ABC Radio Australia and others.

PURCHASE THIS COLUMN FOR YOUR NEWSPAPER OR MAGAZINE. $25 per column for one-time rights exclusive to the licensee's circulation area. Papers with over 60,000 circulation is .50/1000 c. To license rights to use the green Q&A column "Green Matters," send inquiries to columns [at] greenmatters [dot] com Read some past Q&As.

Past Q&As:

My friend says that he's doing no harm by buying paper with zero recycled content, because paper today comes from young trees grown on farms and thus no forests and mature trees are sacrificed. Is this true?

The suggestion that the cultivation of tree farms is saving our heritage forests is false. Tree farms are often created on deforested land! Land that has been cleared and replaced by a mono-crop has none of the properties or benefits of a diverse, fully functioning forest. Even if a tree farm's existence did not come at the expense of a healthy, thriving forest, the land, water and energy used, and pollution created, to produce paper from farmed-raised trees is not, I repeat not, on par with utilizing post consumer recycled content for paper production in economic or ecological terms. Consider the following facts:

• Producing paper from recycled material uses less water and energy and produces less pollution than producing paper from trees.
• Post consumer recyclable material is extremely abundant and available--it doesn't have to be planted, watered, fertilized or harvested. It only has to be collected and transported. And on the subject of transportation, recyclable material is lighter to transport. You need only one ton of recycled material to make one ton of recycled content paper, whereas you will need 3.5 tons of trees to make one ton of tree paper.
• Neglecting to support recycled products jeopardizes recycling itself. In order for the paper that North Americans consume and throw away to be sufficiently diverted from landfills and into recycling programs, consumers must close the loop on recycling--meaning they must buy back the material in its second generation.

Paper cannot be recycled forever. Eventually the fibers wear out, so virgin sources (trees) will always be a part of overall paper production, but when recycled paper is available, it is the environmentally preferable choice.

I've heard a lot about offsetting carbon emissions from daily activities like travel and home energy use through the purchase of carbon offsets. What exactly does it mean to offset carbon and how can I be sure that the carbon offset provider I choose is really investing my money as they say they are?

Reducing the CO2 (carbon dioxide) you create is the first step in reducing what is commonly referred to as your "carbon footprint." Using energy wisely and driving less, or better yet driving a zero-emissions vechicle, will help bring down your total CO2 emissions, but for the remaining CO2 your home and activities will create, you can offset them through the purchase of carbon offsets.

Companies that sell carbon offsets typically use carbon calculators to estimate the carbon emissions from your home (e.g. based on your homes monthly use of therms and/or kilowatt hours) and your activities (e.g. based on what and how often you drive) and determine a fee that will offset your emissions through the funding of efficiency and renewable energy projects such as wind farms. Your emissions are considered "offset" when the carbon reductions achieved through your investment in such projects are equal to your carbon emissions, making you "carbon neutral" if the calculations where complete and correct.

Currently there is no oversight of retail providers of offsets, but Green-e, an independent certification and verification program for renewable energy providers, is in the process of developing standards for valid carbon offset retail providers. Green-e's standards and subsequent certification probably won't be ready for implementation until mid summer, so Dan Lieberman, a Green-e staff member, has some advice for consumers in the interim.

"When shopping around for carbon offsets, look for third party involvement," recommends Lieberman. "Select companies whose source projects include those certified by Green-e, Chicago Climate Exchange, Gold Standard or Voluntary Climate Exchange. And ask that your money be used only to buy from these source projects if possible."

Why is pet waste left on the ground bad, but wild animal droppings are okay?

Wild animals generally defecate in tall grasses where the ground is uncompacted, and their numbers are spread out across a large area. Pets, on the other hand, generally defecate on lawns and in parks where heavy foot traffic and mowing make soil and vegetation unsuitable to "hold" the material. Consequently, when it rains, pet waste left on the ground washes into storm drains and the fecal matter and bacteria end up in waterways. Pet populations in urban areas are also very dense. For these reasons, pet waste is a significant source of pollution in many urban communities.

No one particularly likes cleaning up after their pet, but it is the law in most communities--and the courteous thing to do when it lands anywhere but on your own property.

Most pet owners know better than to leave waste on the ground, but it's evident that many do--especially when they think no one is looking. Taking pet waste seriously, however, is every pet owner's responsibility no matter how objectionable they find that to be. This means removing it from public and private property to cut down on contaminated runoff.

Whether you're a thoughtful pooper scooper or still working to conquer your inhibitions, when you scoop your pooches poop, there's still the matter of its disposal. Pet owners have three imperfect choices:

1. Throw it in the trash. Check with your Solid Waste Department to determine if this is legal where you live. Even if permitted by law, when pet waste is incinerated or put in a landfill, it can cause pollution problems.

2. Flush it. Flushing pet waste means it will be treated if you are on the public sewer.

3. Install an in-ground waste digester. An in-ground digester acts like a mini septic system. With the addition of a digester liquid or powder, waste quickly breaks down into organic matter and is absorbed into the soil. If you use biodegradable cornstarch bags to pick up after your pet, you can toss the bag right into the system. For more information on cornstarch bags and pet digesters, go to www.composters.com/main.html and scroll down the page to Pet Waste Management.

I've heard recycling doesn't work. What is behind this statement, and what is the truth?

The national recycling rate is around 42%. Although there is clearly room for improvement, to say recycling isn't working implies that it has failed to deliver cost/benefit efficiencies or environmental dividends--both false.

The EPA calls recycling "one of the best environmental success stories of the late 20th century." Turning what would otherwise be waste into valuable resources diverts massive amounts of used materials from the waste steam, conserves virgin resources, obviates the environmental harm from harvesting or extracting virgin resources and reduces energy and pollution from manufacturing processes.

Considering the full life-cycle economic benefits of recycling requires factoring in not only collection and processing fees, but also the financial savings realized by substituting recycled materials for virgin materials in product creation. Harvesting, extracting, and processing the raw materials used to manufacture new products is an energy-intensive activity. Reducing or nearly eliminating the need for these processes, therefore, achieves huge savings in energy. Recycling aluminum cans, for example, saves 95 percent of the energy required to make the same amount of aluminum from its virgin source, bauxite.

The amount of energy saved differs by material, but almost all recycling processes achieve significant energy savings compared to production using virgin materials. According to the EPA, in 2000, recycling resulted in an annual energy savings of at least 660 trillion BTUs, which equals the amount of energy used in 6 million households annually.

Overall, recycling is a success story. The level of success differs by material and program, but recycling has proven itself a viable economic and environmental force that if abandoned would deliver a devastating blow to the environment.

Do disposable cleaning wipes harm the environment that much? I throw away less of these than napkins, or about seven per week. Is that so bad?

Every time I see a commercial for a new cleaning product today, it's for a single-use, disposable "innovation" created, presumably, to make our lives more convenient and sanitary. I find it a bit ironic that manufacturers like Clorox, Pledge and Swiffer are trying to make cleaning our homes an exercise in polluting the planet. Products designed for just minutes, or seconds, of use not only create more garbage, but they also needlessly consume resources and aggravate pollution because single-use items must be produced in huge volume to keep up with the demand for perpetual replenishment.

I can understand the temptation to use these products, but with the need to reduce our ecological footprint increasingly apparent, this is an easy area in which to curb waste. Rejecting disposable products can also leave money in the bank for other things, even when "splurging" on more expensive eco-friendly cleaning products. Consider the savings over one year, outlined in the Table below.

As the Table shows, you'll spend a third as much on natural, non-toxic products from a bottle as you would on single-use products. As that celebrity homemaker would say, "That's a good thing."