One inch of rain on a 1,000-square-foot roof will yield around 600 gallons of water. According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the state receives 54 inches of rainfall annually. Most of this rainwater is not harnessed, and it is left to fall off roofs and wash dirt and chemicals like pesticides and fertilizers into sewers, local ponds, rivers and waterways.

In South Florida, the University of Florida’s extension campus is offering rain barrel workshops to aid residents in conserving water and making rain barrel systems in their own back yards. The workshops cost $45 to attend, and the price includes not only the class, but also a rain barrel and a hose bibb. If you don’t want the supplies, you can pay $10 just for the class. There is usually a workshop held once a month at the Coral Gables Farmers Market.

If you can’t afford to attend a class on rain barrels or just don’t have the time, there are other ways to learn to conserve water safely. Bloggers Carol Buie-Jackson and Jay Jackson of North Carolina own the blog Smell Like Dirt, which posts many sustainable gardening, composting and water reuse tips for green-thumbed environmentalists. Carol’s rain barrel video shows gardeners how to convert their rain gutters into water-saving tools.

According to Miami-Dade’s website, it is best to water your outdoor plants in the early morning, between 5 and 8 a.m. If you water your plants when it’s hot and sunny out, a lot of the water you use will evaporate before plants can take it in. The county’s website also has good tips on environmentally friendly landscaping, including reducing storm water runoff, protecting natural waterfronts and water efficiency.

You don’t have to live in Florida to enjoy rain barrel classes and the benefits of collecting your own water. Many other cities offer rain barrel classes. Chicago’s Department of Environment website gives detailed instructions on building rain barrels for environmentally conscious gardening. Chicago Botanic Garden held a rain barrel painting competition in September 2009 for children ages 8 to 18. Lincoln, NE, residents can take a rain barrel class at Southeast Community College for $49 and all supplies are provided. In Santa Fe, NM, if you purchase a rain barrel, you can get a rebate from the government. In Dallas, residents can attend a rain barrel class for $40, which includes the rain barrel supplies.

You know the routine. Every morning the majority of us wake up, stretch, get out of bed, grab whatever we consider “breakfast” to eat, and then… the almighty shower. After this warm, secluded sanctuary invigorates us, we step out, get dressed and rush off to work. Day in and day out, this is the routine for most Americans.

But, what if I told you that part of your morning routine is to be altered? What if I told you that part of this waking, cleansing, getting-ready-so-you-can-face-the-day ritual might be, in fact, illegal? Well that could be the case. Sorry, America.

Other than taking away your habitual cup of coffee, which enables you to stay awake on the irrefutably long drive to the office (no matter how long or short it really is), there is nothing you could change that would enrage most Americans more than limiting their showering abilities. What’s more enjoyable than being blasted with warm water in a completely isolated setting to prepare for the day ahead? For exactly this reason, companies like Watermark Designs, a manufacturer of high-powered, “luxury” showerheads, build showerheads that “will blast bathers with 8 gallons per minute through 55 jets” according to a Seattle Times article. “Nowadays, spa-style showers are the rage in upscale bathrooms,” the article continues. In our contemporary times, it seems that creating an in-home spa might be as integral to the American dream as the white picket fence. How many double-showerhead, body-jet-riddled water chambers have you seen or heard about with envy? Unfortunately, such appliances in our homes are putting out more water than is legally allowed. According to Seattle Public Utilities (SPU), many of the luxurious and powerful showerheads are actually illegal, since various state and federal regulations only allow as much as 2.5 gallons of water used per minute.

Upscale bathrooms aren’t the only locations that might be overdue on their water consumption. Even those of us who aren’t blessed with manmade waterfalls in our homes are still reluctant to leave the blissful shower, where hot water and time seem endless, and our job and the day feel too near at hand. Even with a showerhead that allows the highest legal output of water, a 10-minute shower results in 25 gallons used. Not too shabby, since the same timeframe using the Watermark design results in 80 gallons down the drain. But, this only looks good when compared to the water-hogging, top-of-the-line products. A 10-minute shower tends to be the average length for most Americans according to Ezone @rticles, an online publication. This indicates that 25 gallons per shower should be the maximum water used every morning while adhering to standards and legal limits.

However, this might be easier said than done. A recent Wall Street Journal article tells us that even the greenest of environmentally conscious consumers is unwilling to compromise on their morning routine. They assert that, “of all the water wasters in the house, the shower is among the hardest to tame, because people go to extraordinary lengths to protect it.” New technologies are even being considered that mix air pressure with water output in order to make bathers feel the desired pressure of a high-powered shower while utilizing less water.

The morning is the hardest time for most people and the monotony of waking up and commuting to work is made bearable by the simple joys of caffeine and showers. So, if the benefit to the environment isn’t enough to shorten the showering process or convince you to buy a more efficient faucet, remember the energy savings that come along with such conservation. And, maybe have another cup of coffee.

For more information on water conservation, click here.

Poorer parts of the country, and the world, are facing serious shortages that frivolous habits such as excessive showers and needlessly running faucets aren’t helping, according to some shocking statistics. The news is nothing new.

In 2003, BBC News online correspondent Alex Kirby researched what she called a “global water crisis.” BBC was so adamant about getting the message across as an urgent and dire one that the news outlet dared to make a statement with a loaded headline: “If you want to induce mental meltdown, the statistics of the worsening global water crisis are a surefire winner.”

According to the story, the problems surrounding water include shortages, illnesses and overuse by the richest countries.

Two-fifths of the world’s people deal with water shortages, half of all hospital cases are for waterborne diseases and people in rich countries use 10 times more water than countries with weaker economies. Where is most of the water going? Seventy percent is going to agriculture, 22% to industry and 8% to domestic use, such as showering and toilet flushing.

When looking at the numbers, one might zero in on agriculture.

But, cutting back on agricultural watering would be more detrimental than good, according to a comment in response to Kirby’s article. Using an argument that less water would mean less production, Neal Lang of Boca Raton, FL, argued that cutting back agriculture would mean a food shortage.

“Ask yourself, if the U.S. cut back on its agricultural production, how many more millions of Africans would starve to death this year,” Lang wrote. “The only way to consistently provide potable water to rural communities in the developing countries is through private sector initiatives.”

Though the domestic daily use of water accounts for 8% of all water usage, the amount is still substantial enough that cutbacks by people can make a big difference, according to a conservation campaign, Water — Use it Wisely. Providing tips, facts and resources, the site, www.wateruseitwisely.com, includes a long list of suggestions for direct water-saving strategies in an entry titled “100(+) Ways to Conserve.”

From waiting to do laundry and washing dishes until using a full load, up to 1,000 gallons per month are saved per household. Here are a few more eye-poppers directly from the list:

• Number 23: Shorten your shower by a minute or two and you’ll save up to 150 gallons per month.
• Number 75: Drop your tissue in the trash instead of flushing it and save water every time.
• Number 100: Turn off the water while you shave and save up to 300 gallons a month.

Despite differing views, there seems to be one shared desire: abundance of resources. To keep that, conservation must be a key component in society’s habits. Theodore Roosevelt spoke out about the importance of conservation back in 1907.

“The conservation of natural resources is the fundamental problem, Roosevelt said. “Unless we solve that problem, it will avail us little to solve all others.”

The idea of conservation, including that of water, is nothing new. Even though Roosevelt mentioned it 102 years ago, it still rings true that what needs to be done in lieu of conservation efforts is everything; the earth’s sustainability may just depend on it.

What it gave her was amusement, but what it gives me now is a questioning of my memory; I am curious to know what on earth got me so fired up.

So, nearly 18 years later, I simply typed, “Save the Whales” into Google. The pages of answers stunned me almost as much as this technology would have stunned my parents back in 1991.

The site that stood out came up first, straight from the source: www.savethewhales.org, and next to it was “10 Ways You Can Save Marine Life Every Day.” The very first prompt made my memory of my first grade teacher much clearer. I remember that she had told us that we were now a group dedicated to saving the whales, and that meant that we needed to know that we were polluting in our own front yards. Filtered through a 6-year-old’s brain, the message was most likely word for word what the Save the Whales site stated:

“Did you know? Storm water pollution (urban runoff) is the leading cause of water pollution nationwide? Pollutants such as motor oil, antifreeze, detergents, litter, paints, pesticides, pet waste and copper (from brake pads) are flushed off the streets and into storm drains, which lead straight to rivers, creeks and oceans.”

The second item on the list? Call a group or classroom into action. And so, the 6-year-olds took it upon themselves to save the whales because Mrs. Teacher said that it was a good idea. And, she was right. But, was she effective? If my remembering to look it up 18 years later is any indication, her impact falls in very well with our current environmentally conscious efforts; the effectiveness is measured over a long period of time. Like drops in a bucket, one person after another chooses a cause, tells their peers, friends or, in my case, students, and the message spreads. That sounds like a worthy cause to me.

As for actually saving any whales? Well, time will tell, but I definitely saved motor oil from being carelessly washed down the drain that day in 1991. It seems a very fitting moment for a 6-year-old who went on to write for an environmentally focused website. Hey, it was a start.

Could the next war be powered by potatoes? The U.S. military is exploring bio-batteries and fuel cells as part of its overall commitment to transformational energy, particularly portable power. To help kick-start the effort, the Department of Defense is soliciting bids for cutting edge bio-battery and fuel cell development through its Small Business Innovation Research grant program. That could mean just about anything for a fuel source, from sugar to potatoes, vodka or beer. Stay tuned for more: the deadline for submitting SBIR proposals is June 17.

U.S. Military Transforming Its Energy Strategy

From solar installations at army bases to high efficiency LED lighting systems for the Navy, the U.S. military has been hopscotching over the civilian world when it comes to investing in sustainability. It is fully committed to a long term transformational energy strategy. Alternative energy is just one piece of the puzzle. Another piece is the development of high-efficiency, lightweight portable power systems that will replace conventional batteries.

The U.S. Military Needs New Batteries

As the Defense Reduction Threat Agency describes it, the logistical footprint of portable power is in lockstep with the U.S. military’s carbon bootprint. Conventional batteries are unsustainable from both points of view. They’re an operational dead end for the dismounted soldier of the future, who is increasingly reliant on power-hungry communications and surveillance equipment in addition to armor and weaponry. Transporting heavy batteries to and around the field is just the beginning of the problem for DRTA, which states that the “acquisition, storage, distribution, and disposal of over a hundred different battery types poses an enormous logistical challenge.”

Bio-Based Batteries and Fuel Cells

Now, about those potatoes. As any grade school scientist can tell you, an ordinary potato can power a small electronic device. In fact, Sony has been developing a bio-based fuel cell that runs on sugar, and vodka bio-batteries run on similar principles. The big picture emerges from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). The OSD has included Biological-Based Energy Storage and Generation Technologies in its list of topics for proposals under this year’s Small Business Innovation and Research grant program. The agency cites transforming the way we generate, distribute, and store power as the key to a “revolutionary” advantage in tomorrow’s wars. To achieve that, we need batteries and fuel cells that are “more efficient, compact, safe, and cost effective.”

The U.S. military envisions an energy future for itself that is safer and more sustainable. So, how about the rest of us? It will be interesting to see what contributions our fossil fuel industries can make to this national defense priority, especially concerning our safety. I suppose hiring a PR firm is a good first step.

By NATHANIAL GRONEWOLD and GREENWIRE

There’s growing concern that the United States’ conversion last weekend from analog to digital television broadcasting will exacerbate a national e-waste problem and fuel the smuggling of cathode ray tubes to the developing world.

The digital transition, coupled with the popularity of newer flat-screen TVs, could see millions of sets heading to landfills or loosely regulated recycling facilities over the next few years, experts say. The reason, they say, is the growth of high-definition channels that will remain off-limits to old TVs, even those with digital converter boxes.

E-waste watchdogs say electronics recyclers are already reporting a big influx of older televisions, especially in states where governments have instituted comprehensive recycling rules. Old TV sets hold large quantities of cadmium, lead and chemicals used to make plastics and other materials flame resistant.

“Both Washington and Oregon implemented their statewide e-waste programs in January, and they are both seeing more than half their volume in TVs,” said Barbara Kyle, national coordinator at the Electronics TakeBack Coalition. Washington state is reportedly collecting more than 3 million pounds of old televisions a month, she said.

U.S. EPA estimates that there were almost 100 million old televisions in storage across the United States at the end of 2007. Though the nation is not likely to see a massive rush of old TVs inundating landfills or recyclers immediately, the volume of waste is expected to increase substantially over the next few years as consumers turn to newer, HD-ready sets and demand for older models declines.

“It’s people’s nature to hang onto working electronics, thinking they can find someone to give them to,” said Kyle. “Some of those TVs in storage may have been donated by now, but the millions that are still there will become trash soon as people realize that no one is going to want their old analog TV, even if it’s working.”

Though electronics recyclers are noticing a jump in TVs landing in their yards, officials at Goodwill Industries say they have so far seen no similar boost in donations of old televisions, a sign that consumers may increasingly be seeing their old boxy sets as trash. Lauren Lawson, a media relations manager at Goodwill, said its stores have not been reporting larger numbers of television donations.

“We were actually one of the nonprofit partners for the DTV coalition,” playing a role instead in helping get the message of the coming of digital TV to poorer households, Lawson said.

Seattle-based Basel Action Network (BAN), an organization pushing for the United States to ratify the Basel Convention on international hazardous waste shipment, estimates that at least one in four households will get rid of an old TV this year following the digital transition. That could come out to some 28 million cathode ray tubes — each containing roughly 5 pounds of lead on average, depending on the screen size — ending up in the waste stream.

Much of this waste will be recycled domestically. But Sarah Westervelt, a BAN official, said some 80 percent will actually be shipped abroad for processing in China and Africa, in violation of provisions of the Basel treaty that ban the shipment of toxic waste from the rich countries to poor ones.

“Exports are not quantified because the U.S. has not ratified the Basel Convention, and therefore we are not controlling or monitoring our exports,” Westervelt said.

BAN has traced a lot of the electronic waste from the United States — including old desktop computers, laptops, printers, televisions and more — to a rough processing facility in Guiyu, China, and has produced documentaries on the unfortunate community there. Activists say residents there suffer some of the highest dioxin and lead poisoning in the world as they work through the e-waste in an uncontrolled and highly unsafe manner.

City-organized recycling events provide some of the greatest volumes of e-waste exports, BAN says, as municipal governments facing budget constraints cannot pay for processing and seek out vendors willing to collect the material for free.

“The only folks who are able to do this for free, from everything that we have learned over eight years of doing this work, are people who are exporting it,” said Westervelt. “Otherwise, you end up with mercury and leaded glass and materials that you have to pay downstream vendors to manage responsibly.”

Complacent EPA?

Kyle and others complain that EPA has so far remained complacent about the possibility that the digital transition will see a flood of toxic televisions to landfills or unsafe processing zones in the Third World.

Last week, EPA issued a statement urging consumers who toss out their sets in favor of newer models to “recycle their unwanted TVs, which recovers valuable materials from the circuit boards, metal wiring, leaded glass and plastics.” The agency encouraged people to contact local hazardous waste authorities to find out how best to dispose of the old sets. But public information released by EPA ahead of the digital transition makes no mention of concerns over e-waste exports to the developing world.

EPA has stepped up controls on illegal e-waste exports after a 2008 report by the Government Accountability Office chided the agency for lax enforcement. Earlier this month, EPA filed a complaint against EarthEcycle for its alleged unauthorized export of hazardous cathode ray tubes.

EarthEcycle had collected the materials from recycling events held in the Pittsburgh area for the Humane Society and Make-a-Wish Foundation and exported the e-waste to Vietnam. The nonprofits apparently knew that much of the waste would be shipped abroad. EarthEcycle President Jeff Nixon recently told a local television station that his company had done nothing wrong, insisting that all the exported waste was headed for proper recycling facilities and should not end up in dumps.