Oil Paintings, 13th Street NE, March 12

One year ago, the D.C. Republican Committee gave Ward 3 Councilmember Mary M. Cheh a hard time about her constituent newsletter. Chairman Bob Kabel and Executive Director Paul Craney jabbed the green-minded legislator for neglecting to note the publication's greenness.

"You recently mailed Ward 3 residents an unsolicited newsletter that failed to indicate if it was printed on recycled paper or used soy ink," Kabel wrote in a letter. "The practice of mailing all your constituents unsolicited mail without taking steps to be environmentally conscientious leaves an environmental impact."

The newsletters, in fact, had been printed on recycled stock and with soy ink, but Cheh made no such mistake this year.

You can find this message plastered on the most recent edition of her Ward 3 newsletter: “We engaged a printer for the production of this piece that is 100% wind powered, carbon neutral, uses a waterless printing process, and is an EPA Green Power Partner and EPA Climate Leader. It was printed on FSC certified paper using vegetable-based inks.”

FSC, for those unawares, refers to the Forest Stewardship Council, which certifies that the paper used is made from “well-managed forests, controlled sources and recycled wood or fiber.” Their logo sits alongside three others advertising the pamphlet’s green bona fides. (And, yes, there’s a union bug, too.)

Cheh says the new wording doesn't reflect any huge change regarding her printing practices. "I just announced them," she says. "I didn't want any of that stuff to be a distraction. I want people to read the newsletter."

Craney says all the disclaimers are "a good start" for Cheh and the council in terms of practicing what they preach.

"There's more that can be done," he says. "Especially when the council imposes green extreme measures on small businesses, the least they can do is do them themselves."

This is a snow melter. Its purpose, you might guess, is to melt snow. Earlier this month, the District saw much snow. This snow melter melted none of it. Rather, it sat, not melting snow, on a city lot.

All this was revealed by WRC-TV's Tom Sherwood, who reports that the city purchased the contraption in 2003 to handle the city's last huge snowfall. "The $120,000 snowbot could take 10 dump truck loads at a time and was pretty efficient, even though it broke down at least once during operation," reads his item. So what gives?

City officials declined a request for an on-camera interview, saying in a statement the snow melter needed parts, was difficult to operate and wasn't worth using again. So it sits on the city's public works lot.

Why isn't it worth it? Using the melter would have had environmental benefits, since the runoff could be piped into sewers and treated at Blue Plains, rather than melting directly into the Anacostia River, which is what the snow trucked out of downtown this month is doing.

And if that still isn't worth it, why not sell it/give it away to some municipality that could fix it and use it? (Probably not in the Dominican Republic, but you get the idea.)

Ward 1 Councilmember Jim Graham plans to explore the snow-melter issue at upcoming oversight hearings.

Photo courtesy of Tom Sherwood

That's the province of the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority. Last Friday, LL spoke to its newbie general manager, George Hawkins, who says the the melt doesn't stand to stress WASA's system too much. But it is a good time to check whether your neighborhood storm drains are clear of ice and debris—lest water form pools, get cold, and "you end up with a hockey rink."

There is also an under-appreciated environmental aspect to this, Hawkins notes—which is that as the snow melts, dirt and oil and bits of tire and other pollutants come with it—not to mention tons and tons of salt. That leads to a small amount of hydrological irony.

The oldest parts of the city, which have what considered to be an antiquated sewer system, are actually comparatively enviro-friendly compared to the newer parts of the city. That's because the old sewers are "combined sewers"—both sanitary sewage (from sinks, toilets, etc.) and storm runoff (from street catchbasins) go to WASA's Blue Plains treatment facility, located at the city's southern tip. There, Hawkins says, "It gets one of the best treatment processes in the world."

But in the newer parts of the city, sanitary and storm sewers are separated, with street runoff piped directly back into the city's waterways—Rock Creek and the Potomac and Anacostia rivers. In the case of heavy rains, the separated system is much better; combined sewers can't handle all the street runoff during rainstorms, leading to the dumping of raw sewage into waterways—as much as 2.5 billion gallons of mixed effluent in an average year. But in the case of a light rainfall or snow, the combined sewers are much more green, since all the runoff gets treated.

Unfortunately, the thousands of tons of snow hauled off by the city are being deposited on a parking lot at D.C. General Hospital, just barely outside of the part of the city that has combined sewers—meaning the melt will end up in the Anacostia.

Asked if there's a way to store snow in a place where it might melt into sewers that head to Blue Plains, Hawkins says that "it's been an issue that's been raised." But finding a suitable location to dump snow in the combined-sewer zone—the most heavily developed part of the city—is a challenge, he says.

Perhaps there is a solution: WASA engineers have informed Hawkins that "way back in the old days" the city set up "chutes" downtown to dump snowfall directly into the combined sewer system. But that method fell out of favor when the city starting using sand to maintain traction on city streets—the sand fouls the sewers. But these says, Hawkins says, DPW uses much less sand, so the chutes might be a viable option in the upcoming snowmageddons.

(Darrow Montgomery)

Awhile ago, we brought you a story about recycling that routinely gets tossed out with the trash. Well, as you can imagine, we thought this was pretty surprising news: that loads of plastics, paper, bottles and cans dutifully dumped into recycling bins around the city were still ending up at the landfill. The culprits? Some private haulers, who apparently f0und it too expensive and too much of a hassle to take the goods to out-of-town recycling centers.

After the story ran last November, we asked Department of Public Works officials if they planned to do anything about the problem. This week DPW got back to us, which is convenient since DPW recycling chief Bill Easley and I are all going to be on the Kojo Nnamdi Show this afternoon talking about the city's recycling travails.

But, for starters, here's DPW's response to our follow up questions:

"In response to your follow-up question, DPW is working to step up its enforcement efforts by expanding the numbers of personnel who will be inspecting for commercial recycling violations. We plan to augment the number of inspectors by training some of the inspectors with our Solid Waste Education and Enforcement Program (SWEEP) on what to look for. I don't have an exact number of how many additional inspectors will be added but we currently have only three recycling inspectors compared to 35-40 SWEEP inspectors.

"We'll start looking at some of the smaller haulers to see what their ratio of trash to recycling vehicles are.

"Finally, DPW is seeking legislation to increase the amount of fines for violators. We feel like this will make businesses more likely to stay in compliance. We expect Council to hold a hearing on this sometime in the Spring."

Later, Nancee Lyons sent another email saying the following:

"I'd like to expand on what I sent earlier with regard to increasing our commercial recycling fines:

"The Department is working on revisions to the recycling regulations that include increased fines for many initial offenses and that establish graduated increased penalties for repeat offenses.  We expect to move forward with the regulations soon."

I'd still like to know if DPW is investigating the five companies we caught trashing recyclables and whether the planned new legislation will go far enough to close loopholes in the law. I've already sent in my follow up to the department's follow up.  Maybe we'll get some answers this afternoon on the radio! (ADVERTISEMENT: tune in at 1:15 p.m.)

1. WTOP reported this morning on the Census Bureau's research on travel patterns in the D.C. metro area. The findings: of the region's 2.2 million workers, about 1.5 million commute alone, and about 600,000 carpool or use public transit. The average commute time was about 32 minutes.

2. The average yearly carbon footprint of each of these commutes is about 1.75 tons of carbon dioxide, according to my rough calculations. (That's using a 14.4 mile commute–roughly the round trip from K Street to Bethesda. 14.4 miles yield .007 tons of carbon at 20 miles per gallon. .007 multiplied by 250 work days a year gets you 1.75 tons.)

3. With 1,415,834 people commuting alone, 1.75 tons per commuter is a total of 2,477,709 tons. Add in the carpool and public transit folks at half the rate of emission, and you've got yourself a grand total of 3,002,709 tons of carbon dioxide.

4. Scroll down this list of CO2 emissions by nation, and you'll find that number 127, Benin, emits 3,109,000 tons a year. The D.C. metro area's collective daily commute causes the same amount of environmental destruction as day-to-day life in all of Benin! Yeah! (And the D.C. numbers represent only the actual commute, not other major sources of emission like electricity, food consumption, road trips, and all that jazz.)

Other nations with smaller carbon footprints: Palestine, New Caledonia, Madagascar, Namibia, and 78 others.

(You can find the official United Nations stats here.)

Yesterday, beer lovers were devastated to hear global warming is hurting beer production. While that news was bad, the Washington Post followed up with a dispatch today suggesting that we can solve global warming if we stop having kids.

Put the two news items together in time-honored “news analysis” tradition and what do you get? A solution! To assure a lasting supply of quality beer, forget about having that The Waltons-style family you were considering. In fact, better not too have any of the little darlings, according to a crack team of researchers at the London School of Economics.

That’s right, if we stopped having kids, we’d pretty much wipe up the climate change problem, according to the U.K. study. And, we’d presumably still be able to drive around in Hummers, live in sprawling suburban McMansions, shop until we drop, and spend every evening at the pub – mugs of a top of the line pilsner in each hand.

I’m not making this stuff up, I swear.

Scientists in the Czech Republic say they think warmer temperatures caused by climate change are hurting the quality of Saaz hops used to make celebrated pilsner beers such as Urquell and Gambrinus. And, they aren’t the only ones claiming that global warming is taking a toll on the brewskies. Last year, Australian scientists predicted that climate change will drive up beer prices by making it more expensive to grow malting barely.

On the baby carbon front, the U.K. researchers aren’t the first to calculate how many pounds of greenhouse gases each child adds to the world. Check out these fun facts compiled by Mother Jones. 

In synthesis: If you want to keep drinking good beer, forget about having those kiddies!

Even though the school's environmental record doesn't suck quite as much this year, it hasn't exactly entered the “ivy league,” so to speak, of eco-friendly campuses. It is now ranked 81 out 135 universities around the country; hardly a passing score even with grade inflation so common at colleges these day.

Still, the Sierra Club’s third annual Cool Schools report didn’t even consider other D.C. colleges such as Georgetown University, American University and the University of the District of Columbia. So, there is no way to establish the true pecking order, environmentally-speaking, of D.C.  higher-learning institutions. The only other area schools included in the ranking also received uninspiring grades: The University of Maryland beat G.W. with a 67, while George Mason University brought up the rear with an 89.

Check out this set of instructions for building your own wind turbine. OK, most of us aren’t going to rush out and erect one of these above our row house or apartment building. But isn’t it nice to know you could?

The NRDC found the nation’s beaches are befouled by raw sewerage and floating debris that is not just seriously gross but a serious health hazard. This is the 19th year that the Washington-based environmental group has published its annual seaside report card, and things aren't getting any sunnier. For the fourth year in a row, it tallied more than 20,000 closing and advisory days at popular beaches around the country.

Public health officials say swimming with sewage can make you sick and sometimes kill you. The list of waterborne illnesses includes stomach flu, skin rashes, pinkeye, ear, nose and throat problems, dysentery, hepatitis, respiratory ailments and neurological disorders, according to the NRDC. The group's advice: To minimize risk, don't go in the water after heavy rains when raw sewerage and polluted storm runoff is often swept out to sea. 

But the report also has a tiny bit of good news: Out of 200 beaches around the country, only about a dozen received top marks based on five water quality and testing measures. We’ve got one of these “five star” beaches within driving distance: Ocean City in Worcester, Maryland.

To read the press release and full report, click here. Here is a USA Today story too.

1. Chile used almost 350 times more antibiotics in its farmed salmon in 2008 than Norway, its chief competitor.
2. Chile is the biggest supplier of salmon supplier to the United States. So, if you’ve purchased the pretty pinkish fillets lately, they’ve likely come from Chile, though the story does note that Safeway and Wal-Mart, have reduced purchases of Chilean salmon due to concern about the fish illnesses that require producers there to use so many antibiotics.
3. Some of the antibiotics used in Chile are not approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

By now, the downsides of the oh-so-last-year corn-based fuels are well known; they use too much water, harmful chemicals and petroleum. This has led some biofuels boosters to place their bets on cellulose from such things as grasses, wood chips and even algae.

Cellulose, however, has never been grown on a commercial scale, as the GAO points out in its new study. That means relatively little is known about how much water, fertilizer and pesticides it will take to grow it in industrial quantities. There’s virtually no information on what impact that’ll have on soil and water quality either, not to mention how much water and energy it will take to turn harvests into biofuel. 

This is just the latest news – much of it bad – for the emergent and yet booming biofuels industry, which begs the question: Isn’t it time to give up this pipe dream? 

But that doesn’t seem likely anytime soon. The buzz around biofuels is propelling any number of hair brained schemes. Besides cases of out-and-out fraud, there are plenty of dubious projects underway. Investor excitement over fuels made from such crops as corn and palm oil have driven up the prices of tortillas in Mexico and led to food riots in other countries. Plans to log this country’s publicly owned forests to feed biofuel plants, meanwhile, seem to make little sense for many reasons. One biggie is that climate scientists say we need to keep the world's remaining forests upright if we are too stave off more global warming.

If we are going to burn it, why bother turning wood into cellulose anyway? Why not just cut down the trees for firewood? O.K., O.K., before some smarty pants chimes in with a reason why burning woody biomass is better than lighting up a plain, old fashioned log, let me just say my point is rhetorical: Why embrace dirty alternative fuel made from finite resources when there are cleaner, more renewable options out there?

The final tally – webcast live on C-SPAN – was 219 to 212, largely along party lines, though more than three-dozen Democrats defected to vote against the legislation. 

Staring Jul. 1, DC will no longer issue construction permits for roadway and driveway builds involving coal tar. It will also be illegal to sell the stuff. Coal tar has been used as a pavement sealer for many years but comes with some nasty environmental side effects. The District Department of the Environment says the ban seeks to prevent toxic chemicals from being carried along with rainwater into the Anacostia and Potomac rivers and Chesapeake Bay.