The Prius hybrid was once again the leader, with its fuel economy of 51 miles per gallon in city driving and 48 mpg on the highway, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s testing methodology. Other vehicles in the top 10 include the Ford Fusion hybrid and its Mercury Milan twin, the Civic and Insight hybrids from Honda, and the Nissan Altima.

The only non-hybrid at the top of the list was the tiny Smart For Two from Daimler, which clocked in at 33 mpg city/41 highway.

Electric cars, such as the Tesla Roadster, are not included in the survey. The EPA is still trying to figure out how to measure fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions in electric cars and plug-in hybrids in a way that would provide meaningful comparisons with traditional gasoline- and diesel-powered cars.

Overall, the top 10 fuel-efficient cars among the 2010 models are as follows:

1. Toyota Prius Hybrid (51 mpg city, 48 mpg highway)

The most popular hybrid car on the road today, this sedan is roomy and comfortable, and average on performance.

2. Ford Fusion Hybrid/Mercury Milan Hybrid (41/36)

The new Fusion Hybrid is a practical, mid-size sedan with an upscale interior of high-quality materials and unique technology features. It’s favorable driving characteristics have been noted in reviews.

3. Honda Civic Hybrid (40/45)

The Civic has Honda’s sporty performance and handling, but is a bit lacking on acceleration. A very efficient car, but a bit small for families.

4. Honda Insight Hybrid (40/43)

A small, sporty sedan which offers fewer features than the Civic, and priced to be an economy hybrid. The Insight is smaller than the Civic but larger than the Fit.

5. Lexus HS250h Hybrid (35/34)

A small, economical, reliable luxury sedan with all the creature comforts, and a full suite of optional electronic gadgetry. Sometimes described as a ‘luxury Prius with a trunk’.

6. Nissan Altima Hybrid (35/33)

One of the largest hybrids because it’s a mid-size sedan, but rear seat room isn’t a strong point for tall passengers. However, with 198 horsepower, it is one of the quickest hybrids on the road.

7. Ford Escape FWD and Mazda Tribute 2WD / Mercury Mariner FWD hybrids (34/31)

Roomy but not oversized compact SUV hybrids. Acceleration is leisurely, with only 133 horsepower.

8. Smart for Two Cabriolet / Coupe (automatic) (33/41)

Small two-seater, efficient for around town driving but a bit sketchy for the highway, despite advanced safety features.

9.Toyota Camry Hybrid (33/34)

Refined, roomy, and practical. Conservative styling and performance.

10. Lexus RX450h Hybrid 2WD (32/28)

One of the fuel-thrifty trio (with the Honda Fit and Nissan Versa) of small Japanese economy cars that arrived about two years ago. Toyota’s smallest car, but room for four 6-footers. Has a small, hardworking four-cylinder engine.

Understanding the new EPA Fuel Economy Label

Beginning with 2008 models, all new cars and light trucks sold in the U.S. carry window stickers which display the vehicle fuel economy estimates as determined by new test methods.

For more information about the new methods, see EPA’s Final Rule.

The new, improved features of the label are listed below:

1. New Methods: The label shows the estimated city MPG at the top left, and highway MPG at the top right. The estimates on 2008 and later models are determined using new, more realistic methods. During the transition year, comparison shoppers should compare models that are built in the same model year, so compare 2007 models to 2007 models, etc.

2. Estimated Annual Fuel Costs: The center of the label provides estimated annual fuel costs based on a given number of miles and fuel price, also listed on the label. Use this information to estimate fuel costs for this vehicle, and to compare fuel costs across different models.

3. Expected City Range: Estimated city MPG range appears at the top left, under the main city MPG estimated number. Most drivers can expect to achieve city fuel economy within this range.

4. Expected Highway Range: Estimated highway MPG range appears at the top right, under the main highway MPG estimated number. Most drivers can expect to achieve highway fuel economy within this range.

5. Compare to Other Vehicles: The lower center of the label gives a combined city/highway estimate for that vehicle, and shows where that value falls on a bar scale that gives the highest and lowest fuel economy of all other vehicles in its class (e.g. SUVs, minivans, compact cars, etc). Use this information to compare the fuel economy of this vehicle to all others within its class.

6. Your actual mileage will vary: The label includes a reminder that there are many reasons why your actual fuel economy may vary from the estimates. See www.fueleconomy.gov for fuel-saving tips.

7. For more information: The label provides a Web address where you can find out more information. See the Fuel Economy Guide at dealers or online at www.fueleconomy.gov.

The Energy Star ratings for certain products, like televisions and computers, may be “not accurate or verifiable” due to weak oversight, according to the EPA inspector general, Gregory H. Friedman.

The Energy Star program, initiated in 1996, is intended to provide consumers with an easily recognizable label which assures that appliance manufacturers have met required specifications for energy efficiency. The program has been widely adopted by manufacturers who realize the growing demand among consumers for energy-efficient products. But manufacturers of certain appliance products, such as refrigerators, washing machines, dishwashers, water heaters and air conditioners can certify these appliances themselves. This left the burden of oversight on the DOE and the EPA, and the recent audit has found these oversight efforts lacking.

The audit noted that while the government said in 2007 that it would conduct “retail assessments” to ensure that all the products carrying the Energy Star logo deserved them, it is still not doing so for some products which fall within the scope of the program. And the department is not following through to ensure that when inappropriately labeled products are identified, the labels are actually taken off, the audit said.

In October 2008, Consumer Reports magazine reported results from tests it had conducted on refrigerators that one manufacturer, LG of South Korea, applied Energy Star labels without meeting the required criteria. LG was required, in the ensuing settlement, to compensate customers for the extra power consumed, and to modify the appliance circuit boards of existing appliances to reduce power consumption. This case led to increased scrutiny of the oversight of the Energy Star program.

Under the new federal stimulus bill, $300 million will go to rebates for consumers who buy Energy Star products.

Increased focus on the Energy Star program has also been driven by the Obama administration in its efforts to reduce energy use and the resulting greenhouse gas emissions. Under the new federal stimulus bill, $300 million will go to rebates for consumers who buy Energy Star products. The timing of the audit, now on the desk of Energy Secretary Stephen Chu, should encourage the government to take steps to ensure consumer’s faith in the integrity of the Energy Star label.

Concerns about the Energy Star certification do not apply to all appliance and energy saving products which carry the Energy Star label. Manufacturers of windows, fluorescent lighting and LED lighting are required by the DOE to have independent laboratories evaluate their products.

The memorandum also called for a “super star” program within Energy Star to identify the top-performing 5 percent of products.

On Sept. 30, 2009, the DOE and the EPA signed a memorandum of agreement committing both agencies to having all of their products evaluated by certified independent laboratories, and to expand the Energy Star program to cover products that were not in common use when it began in 1996. The memorandum also called for a “super star” program within Energy Star to identify the top-performing 5 percent of products.

So what’s a consumer to do? It’s always a good idea to cross-check appliance Energy Star ratings with independent results from consumer advocate resources such as Consumer Reports. Look to see if the appliance comes with a second source of information on its energy consumption, such as an energy rating system. Ask the retailer for additional energy consumption information. You can also monitor your energy use at home to find out how much energy your appliances use and whether that amount fluctuates throughout the day.

Consumers should still use the Energy Star label as a guideline. The Energy Department audit has done the service of bringing the program shortfalls to light, and new efforts by monitoring agencies will improve the rating system to build confidence in the Energy Star program.

And the benefits of juicing are not limited to those with fruit trees in their yard or orchard. Just visit a farmer’s market at the close of day on any autumn weekend, or check in with your local produce mart; there’s often a surplus of fruit which may be overripe, bruised or flawed. Or you can visit any farm or orchard and ask to gather windfalls. The eager gleaner can usually come home with a free load of imperfect apples.

Converting our surplus apples into juice seemed to make good sense

Although we’ve had our own small orchard for many years, we’ve never really had an over-abundance of apples. Our growing family kept ahead of the harvest, we were able to store many as winter keepers, and the raccoons and woodpeckers took care of the windfalls. The damaged fruit we collected was usually made into apple sauce or apple crisps. But this year an unusually large fruit set, coupled with the kids now grown and out of the home, had us thinking beyond apple sauce. Converting our surplus apples into juice seemed to make good sense.

Juicing fruit:

• Is economical, as organic juices are expensive.
• Is practical. The juice is easy to store, and the leftover pulp can be dried into fruit leather or added to the compost.
• Encourages the family to consume more fruit.
• Involves children in a rewarding project. They can see the end reward of caring for your fruit trees all year.
• Is a good use for early summer apples which may not store well, like Transparents and Gravensteins
• Creates a very tasty beverage.

Being convinced of the merits of this idea, I decided to give juicing a try. My neighbour and garden mentor makes juice and wines from his produce so he gave me advice on getting started. He loaned me his German AEG macerating juicer (250 amps) which has a small motor and feeding chute. The small feeding chute, about 2” diameter, required cutting the apples into smaller chunks, about 2”cubed. The juicing process seemed to go quickly with about 7 minutes of feeding for one quart of juice, approximately 6-7 apples.

I would suggest borrowing a juicer as we did for your first try at juicing. It will give you a feel for the process and help you make a more informed decision about whether to get your own juicer and how large it should be.

The biggest time consumer was preparing the fruit before juicing.

The biggest time consumer was preparing the fruit before juicing. I had to trim rotten spots and cut the rest into a big bowl. From there my right hand would grab a handful of chunks and toss them into the chute, while my left hand would propel the plastic plunger and fruit toward the whirling disk. The juice would spurt to the left into a container and the seeds and fibre flowed into a container attached to the right side. This I would empty every half hour or so. The pulp residue could be a good contribution to the compost or the chicken yard, or it can also be spread onto a cookie sheet and dried into fruit leather. To keep things simple, I composted the pulp.

I was surprised that there was so much foam on top of the juice, which I skimmed with a slotted spoon. Also, at the bottom of a quart of juice would be about 1/2” of sediment, which is perfectly drinkable, but might not be appealing to some folks. Pouring the juice through a cheesecloth-lined sieve would remove much of the foam and sediment.

My small initial experiment yielded 7 quart jars of beautiful rose-hued apple juice. To ensure safe storage I decided to can them. (Beware, once you start juicing, you can’t stop.) My canning books advised heating the juice in a big pot until 200F./93C., but not to boil, then pour into hot, sterilized jars leaving ½” headroom, cap with hot lids, and process in a boiling water bath for 30 minutes. The water should be 190F. And cover tops of jars one or two inches. This is pasteurization.

Other options are:

• Store in fridge up to 7 days
• Freeze up to a year
• Pasteurize to 160F., which will give the juice a fridge life of up to 3 weeks

My conclusions about the process were mixed. It was most satisfying to get this beautiful pale pink juice from my windfall apples. My husband says the taste is incomparable to store-bought juice, and I modestly have to agree. The juice is truly autumn’s elixir. And it’s no problem encouraging people to eat more apples (a constant meme at our home this time of year) – everyone who visits wants a glass. And another.

But the process needs streamlining before I jump into juicing on a larger scale. It was quite a production with foam and pulp abounding, and took time to clean up. The bottleneck was the small 2” feed chute on the little juicer. This not only slowed the process of juicing, it added greatly to the preparation time since the apples had to cut into small pieces. It became readily apparent that a larger juicer would better suit my needs.

So, I went to the internet to find a model which would improve the process. A tip: the term “juice extractor” produced more results than” fruit juicer”. Generally I learned about these types: macerating, centrifugal, and large types, often home-made, which grind or crush the fruit and then press the juice out. The first two types are usually smaller counter-top models, and suitable for the non-commercial home juicer. Of these, my research points to the three centrifugal “Juice Fountains”, manufactured by Breville, as the best choice for home juicing. These powerful models range from 850 W. to 1000W. From independent reviews on Amazon.com and others and from the manufacturer’s claims they sound fast (8 oz. of apple juice in 5 seconds); handle whole or large chunks of produce; are easy to assemble and clean; and are made using durable and rust-free components. The cost for the mid-range model is about $300.

So if you’re interested in enjoying fresh wholesome juice from your gathered fruit, I suggest you start small with a borrowed juicer if possible, and then you’ll have a good idea of what the ideal juicer is for your needs.

So if you’re interested in enjoying fresh wholesome juice from your gathered fruit, I suggest you start small with a borrowed juicer if possible, and then you’ll have a good idea of what the ideal juicer is for your needs. When you decide on the right model, you can go in on the purchase with a few friends, since juicing is a seasonal activity and the machine can be passed around as needed. It might also be a fun group activity to get together and divide the tasks working with friends. In either case, you’ll find that making your own juice can be thrifty, healthy and fun.

Steel, chrome, soft-touch interior plastics, maybe even supple leather upholstery?

Well, how about some old carpets, ground-up milk cartons, and shredded, faded, raggedy blue jeans?

Recycled materials: feedstock

Those materials, and more, are among the increasing amount of recycled materials that find their way into new cars these days. And the Detroit News has written a fascinating description on how the industry has–very quietly–become a lot greener in its materials choices.

As always, the motivation is money as well as eco-awareness. Suppliers are increasingly looking to new sources of raw materials, and especially during the oil price spike two years ago, recycled goods were cheaper than virgin plastics.

Plastic jugs and old tires

Almost 10 percent of the high-density polyethylene from milk jugs, detergent bottles, and other plastic containers now goes into automotive parts, according to the Association of Post-Consumer Plastics Recyclers.

Ford, for example, reuses those plastics in body shields and fender liners, along with recycled tires and the casings from old 12-Volt batteries (which are recycled at a rate of roughly 98 percent).

Soda bottles + yarn waste = seat fabric

Even seat fabrics come into the mix, with the 2010 Ford Taurus SHO (among other cars) using upholstery made from materials that include old soda bottles and yarn waste.

Ford says its use of recycled plastics diverted 25 to 30 million pounds of waste from landfills. Its recycling efforts also saved the company up to $5 million, critical when sales have plummeted and every penny counts to keep Detroit’s only non-bankrupt automaker afloat.

Stuffing old jeans into gaps

The 2010 Buick LaCrosse, pride of General Motors’ renovated line of Buick luxury sedans, includes acoustic ceiling panels made from discarded packaging cardboard.

GM also uses shredded denim–that’s your old blue jeans–stuffed into hollows in body stampings to deaden sound, and makes door-handle brackets out of recycled carpet.

Recycling the rest of the car

Such efforts are likely to increase, especially if the price of oil continues to rise in the coming years. And recycling is now even the subject of research by government labs, including Argonne National Labs.

Researchers there are ways of recovering and reusing the 25 percent of a vehicle that isn’t currently recycled after it’s shredded. Of 12 million vehicles scrapped yearly, 5 million tons of material is just “shredder residue” that’s now sent to landfills.

[Detroit News]

Originally posted at Greencarreports.com

Emerging science increasingly links exposure to toxic chemicals with serious health problems. From bisphenol-A in baby bottles to phthalates in children’s toys and flame retardants in nursery furnishings, the modern world is filled with synthetic compounds that research now shows likely cause neurological and behavioral disorders, reproductive and developmental disruption, cancer and other troubles.

There are hundreds of untested chemicals in the products families use every day. The law that directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct safety reviews of chemicals, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), was passed by Congress in 1976. Since then, the EPA has investigated just 200 of the more than 80,000 chemical compounds available to manufacturers today. Critics of the law say it doesn’t give the EPA enough authority to demand that companies supply the information needed to evaluate a chemical’s risk.

Now, Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, a coalition of nearly 30 leading non-governmental organizations, is working to help Congress overhaul the nation’s chemical regulations. Other supporters of the coalition include the Environmental Defense Fund, Healthy Child Healthy World and Seventh Generation, the maker of all-natural cleaning products and diapers. The group supports new legislation proposed by several Congresspeople, including Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ). The legislation would require that new chemicals be safety-tested before they are put into products that children and others use. Manufacturers would also have to prove that chemicals already in production are free of danger. This information would be publicly availably so that consumers could see exactly what they’re bringing home.

For more information on how you can help the proposed legislation become law, visit www.millionbabycrawl.com.

Most urban farmers confine their agricultural efforts to vegetables, fruit, and the occasional egg-laying chicken. But on her small plot in Oakland, California, Novella Carpenter has raised bees, goats, rabbits, geese, and turkey, among other fauna.

A graduate of the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, where she studied with Michael Pollan, Carpenter now writes about urban farming and sustainable-food production for various publications, including her blog, Ghost Town Farm. Her memoir, Farm City, came out this summer from Penguin Press.

Twilight Greenaway: Why did you want to start a farm in the city, rather than moving to a rural area?

Novella Carpenter: I think people have a lot of nostalgia and yearning for these pastoral places, but my parents did that — they were back-to-the-land hippies in the 1970s — and it quickly became clear to me that city people moving to the country is kind of a horrible idea. They don’t usually have any skills, for one.

I grew up in Idaho till age six, then moved to Shelton, Washington, which had a population of only 7,000. It was isolated. So when people tell me they’re planning to move to the country, I say, “You’re going to have great food, but you’re not going to have anyone to share it with.”

TG: What percentage of the food that you eat comes from your farm?

NC: I’d say around 50 percent. This Thanksgiving, we raised our own turkey, so that was our contribution to the meal we ate with friends.

TG: What would have to happen for urban farming to really take off in the U.S.?

NC: They would have to drop a lot of the regulations and laws that exist to stop people from doing it. From what I understand, the dualism between the city and the farm has been created by laws, and often they’re anti-immigrant laws.

During the Second World War and after, there were lots of immigrants who moved to cities to work in factories, and often they wanted to bring their animals with them. Italians would want to have rabbits, and people from the South would want to have chickens. So some laws would have to change to make it more possible for more people to keep animals.

It would be great to section off whole parts of cities for people who wanted to have small farms — a kind of farm zone. Attitudes would have to change, too. People would have to stop seeing the “city” and the “country” in such a dualistic way. In Missoula, Montana, there’s a battle going on right now between the people who want to have chickens in the city and those who are violently opposed to it.

People usually do more urban farming in times of economic depression, so who knows? Maybe things will get so bad that everyone will start farming in cities again.

TG: What are the biggest challenges you face in maintaining an urban farm?

NC: Learning to take care of animals is a challenge, but it’s also where you learn the most. I’ve tried raising basically everything short of a cow; they need too much space.

You really have to be in a different zone to take care of animals; sometimes city life just isn’t conducive. If your goat is giving birth, it’s not like you can go to work. So there’s a tradeoff, but I think it’s an all an adjustment, and many people do figure it out.

When people ask how to begin, I always tell them to start slow: try bees, and then chickens. My recent acquisition was to get some goats, but I was thinking, “Wow, if I had gotten the goat, the rabbit, and the geese all at the same time, it would have been a total disaster.”

TG: What was your goal in writing the memoir?

NC: The goal is just to tell the story of one urban farm and the characters that I encounter while farming. It’s a portrait of a time. I also do a lot of describing processes; I think there’s a real hunger for that kind of book. It’s a little like 1,001 Things Your Grandpa Used To Do. Now I’m working on a proposal for a how-to book, because I think people want to know more details.

TG: Where is the line between stepping backwards, or returning to ways we did things in the past, versus moving forward and doing new things with food production?

NC: Some people see what I’m doing as a revival. And it’s true, in a way; it is kind of like going backwards. The difference is, things are so much easier because of the Internet, in terms of knowledge. When I was trying to figure out how to kill my rabbits, I eventually found out some really great instructions on a website. I can order day-old chicks on the Internet and get them the next day in the mail. So it’s not like I’m trying to live in the Stone Age.

There’s also this huge waste stream that wasn’t there when grandpa was alive. Now you can go to the dumpster at the organic grocery store, and it’s just brimming with food to feed your chickens or rabbits.

It’s not like I’m trying to become totally self-sufficient as a hobby; I think that’s kind of a ridiculous goal. But I do believe in using what I have. For instance, I’m going to make soap with the tallow from my goat. And I have rabbits we kill for meat, so I have all these pelts, and I’m learning how to tan them, because throwing them in the compost would just be wrong. Living like this opens you up to the full cycle of life of the animal.

Twilight Greenaway works for the Center for Urban Education about Sustainable Agriculture (CUESA), where she writes about efforts to create a more sustainable food system throughout the Bay Area.

While the mantra ‘eat locally’ resonates with many people interested in food sustainability, finding local food sources can be difficult for those with limited mobility. Many people who live in urban settings without cars are unable to cruise the farmer’s markets on weekends, and the small local farmers and producers would better thrive if they could reach this potential market. In their report, “Location and Other Market Attributes Affecting Farmers’ Market Patronage: The Case of Tennessee,” Eastwood, Brooker and Gray note that studies show that consumers who don’t shop at farmers market cite ‘access issues’ as obstacles such as distance from the consumer’s home and inconvenience of the location.

The Fair Food Farmstand addresses the problem of accessibility head on. The Farmstand is located in the Reading Terminal Market, the nation’s premier public market, with more than five million visits each year. For the Market, which has been open continuously since 1892, the growth of Farmstand signifies a return to the Market’s roots; its presence emphasizes the historical character and function of the Market as an urban farmers’ market.

In keeping with the theme of sustainability, the majority of the building materials used to construct the Farmstand come from recycled materials. Locally sourced and processed wood makes up the majority of the counters and stands, and the cedar wainscoting was made from reclaimed telephone poles. Salvaged chalkboards from Philadelphia public schools are now checkout counters. Daylight is the primary source of light for the Farmstand and artificial lighting is only used when necessary. The Farmstand also uses only non-toxic, all natural, “green cleaning” materials and methods.

Dozens of farmers and local food producers attended the grand opening to demonstrate their commitment to the initiative. They were joined by Market officials, local leaders and two guest speakers: keynote speaker Marion Nestle, a renowned nutrition and policy expert from New York University; and James Barham, from the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service in Washington, D.C.

Fair Food is a program developed by the White Dog Cafe Foundation, a non-profit organization founded in Philadelphia in 2002. For over 20 years, the White Dog Café has been a model enterprise, known nationally for its community involvement, environmental stewardship and responsible business practices.

The developers of the Fair Food Farmstand hope their success will provide a template for other cities looking for ways to promote local humane and sustainable agricultural practices and products. To learn more about Fair Food Farmstand, or join the Farmstand Weekly email list, contact emily@fairfoodphilly.org.

Our senior scientific society, the Royal Society, met at the start of the month to launch the report “Geoengineering the Climate” and to hear from its representative scientists. The meeting was hosted by the president, Lord Rees, and the chairman was Professor John Shepherd, who chaired the study group. The goal, as Prof Shepherd explained in the Guardian in April, was to investigate theories of “intervening directly to engineer the climate system, so as to moderate the rise of temperature” and to “separate the real science from the science fiction”.

Geoengineering is about deliberately changing the air, oceans or land surface of the world to offset global heating with the hope of restoring the cooler world we enjoyed in the last century. We are now fairly sure that the Earth has grown hotter by about one degree Celsius as a consequence of our own action in taking away as farmland the forests and other ecosystems that previously acted to keep the Earth cool. We also have increased by 6% the flow of CO2 into the air by burning coal, oil and natural gas. If we started global heating, can we reverse it by engineering?

The first scientist to consider geoengineering seriously was the Russian geophysicist Mikhail Budyko. In the 1970s he proposed that we could offset global heating by spreading in the stratosphere a fine dispersion of particles that reflected sunlight back to space; he based the idea on the observation that volcanic eruptions that did this were followed by global-scale cooling. He suggested that we could mimic the effects of a volcanic eruption by putting an aerosol into the stratosphere. His idea was confirmed by the detailed observations and analysis of the effect of Mount Pinatubo’s eruption in 1991. It injected 20m tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere and this soon oxidised to form the white reflecting particles that offset global heating for three years. It is within our capacity to put this much sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere.

There are other ways of reflecting sunlight: large mirrors or diffusers of sunlight put in orbit around the sun. One of the more promising and controllable reflection methods was put forward by John Latham and Stephen Salter, who proposed spraying very fine droplets of sea water from the ocean surface to make the natural surface clouds, called marine stratus, whiter.

As well as cooling by reflecting sunlight away we could cool by removing the carbon dioxide or methane from the air. Klaus Lackner has proposed making artificial trees to do this; others, following the lead of Johannes Lehmann, would sooner see vegetation capture CO2 and then, after harvest, turn the plant waste into charcoal and bury it.

Geoengineering is like trying to cure pneumonia by immersing the patient in a bath of icy water; the fever would be cured but not the disease.

Geoengineering implies that we have an ailing planet that needs a cure. But our ignorance of the Earth system is great; we know little more than an early 19th-century physician knew about the body. Geoengineering is like trying to cure pneumonia by immersing the patient in a bath of icy water; the fever would be cured but not the disease.

Many of us feel a sense of unease about using geoengineering to escape global heating. Most of the planetary therapies have side effects, potentially as severe as the disease itself. We know that the cooling by Pinatubo was accompanied by droughts; cooling alone does nothing to prevent the ocean growing ever more acid as the carbon dioxide dissolves in the water.

Before long, global heating could reach a level that makes geoengineering an enticing option. Indeed, cautiously applied it may help by buying us time either to adapt to climate change or to develop a practical scientific cure. We have, as yet, no comprehensive Earth system science; in such ignorance I cannot help feeling that attempts by us to regulate the Earth’s climate and chemistry would condemn humanity to a Kafkaesque fate from which there may be no escape. Better, perhaps, to learn from the wiser physicians of the early 19th century; they knew no cure for common diseases but also knew that by letting nature take its course, the patient often recovered. Perhaps we, too, had better use our energies to adapt and leave recovery to Gaia; after all, she has survived more than three billion years and has kept life going all that time.

James Lovelock is an independent scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist and futurist. He proposed the Gaia hypothesis, in which the Earth functions as a superorganism. His most recent book is The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning.

With these words of assurance, I led my visiting friend on a shortcut to a favorite fishing spot. And so we headed into the densely wooded, hilly terrain with our fishing poles, tackle box and large fishing net. The afternoon was getting on, and the September days getting shorter, but it was just a quick hike. The woods were darker and wetter than expected, but we were young and in good shape, and I knew this area like the back of my hand.

After spending 45 minutes on a hike that should have taken 20 – 30 minutes, it was becoming apparent that taking the shortcut was not such a good idea. The fishing net kept getting caught on branches and the long casting rods slowed us down as we had to weave them through thick stands of saplings and brush. But this inconvenience would soon end because we’re almost there, I reasoned. And we’ll take the long way home after fishing.

By the third time in an hour that my friend said “Haven’t we seen this tree before?”, I decided to mark the tree with a small blaze to remove any doubt should we come across it again. And I made a few slight changes in direction to ensure we weren’t going in circles. But ten minutes later we came upon the tree again, and the blaze removed all doubt. We had indeed been travelling in circles.

Our experience was a common one among hikers, and just what German scientist Jan Souman might have predicted. In a recent study, Souman reported that this often-described sense of lost-hiker déjà vu, of having inadvertently backtracked while wandering in the woods, is real.

Souman’s study tested the ability of humans to walk on a straight course through unfamiliar terrain in two different environments: a large forest area and the Sahara desert. Walking trajectories of several hours were captured via global positioning system, showing that participants repeatedly walked in circles when they could not see the sun. Conversely, when the sun was visible, participants sometimes veered from a straight course but did not walk in circles.

On cloudy days, in failing light or when there is no moon, Dr. Souman says, the brain appears to be lacking a fundamental visual cue to help make sense of the jumble of other data it is receiving. The study suggests that veering from a straight course is the result of accumulating noise in the sensorimotor system, which, without an external directional reference to recalibrate the subjective straight ahead, may cause people to walk in circles.

Once my friend and I realized we were going in circles, we made deliberate efforts to sight a distant landmark and keep as straight a course to it as the terrain would allow. Going from point to point, we eventually found the shore just as the last light was giving way to the fall evening darkness. With no time to cast a line into the water, we headed directly home via the long way and made it to my cabin with the last shadowy glimmer of light.

The study suggests that even experienced hikers can experience disorientation in the absence of clear visual cues, but back-country guides and hiking experts prepare themselves, as we did not, for this eventuality. The following strategies can help prevent hikers from the tendency to walk in circles:

• Consult a topographic map before setting out – advance knowledge of the lay of the land will help you stay on track, or help you know when you’re off track.
• Bring a compass or a GPS device – the simplest way of staying on course while hiking.
• Mark your trail – a simple system of setting stones in a pyramid or making an “X” with crossed branches will let you know if you’re walking in a circle. Avoid chopping into trees, it’s unnecessary. And don’t place your mark directly on the trail or other hikers may remove them. As for leaving bread crumbs, you may remember it didn’t work for Hansel and Gretl.
• Try point to point navigation – set your sights on a nearby landmark and walk to it, then repeat the process. This can help you maintain a relatively straight line while hiking.

If you’re really lost, the advice from rescue experts is to stay in place until help arrives. Of course, this is matter of judgement depending on whether others were informed of your plans, and your preparedness for extended exposure. In all cases, the best advice is ‘be prepared’ even when taking hikes in familiar territory. Bring a flashlight, compass, layered clothing, matches and some gorp or snack bars to sustain you should you fall victim to the ‘circle route’ while hiking.

One of the difficulties of living the simple life in a rural area is income. Although we try to be self-sufficient by growing our own food, bartering and trading for things we cannot make ourselves or otherwise provide, large discretionary expenses have always been out of the question. We feel our lives have been rich beyond compare, but money has never been part of the equation. In the past few years, however, this has begun to change. Our sons have now both finished with school, the tuitions are paid, and our family business, Eartheasy.com, has grown to the point where we could now afford a few ‘luxuries’ – and topping the list was a refrigerator! In past years we had gotten by with a small 2 cu ft RV refrigerator, run by propane. But propane now costs $1 a pound, the bottles are heavy to pack in, and I was always concerned with the risk of fire, the pilot light being just a few inches from my cedar house. Because of these limitations, we only ran the RV fridge during the hottest few weeks of summer.

Researching the right brand and model

Of course, not just any refrigerator would do. It had to be solar-powered, since we are still off-grid, and it had to be very efficient, since we have only one solar panel and two batteries. Researching the right brand and model was easy, because all the homes in our community are off-grid and quite a few homes have been using solar refrigerators. The consensus seemed to favor the SunDanzer line of DC-powered solar refrigerators as the brand delivering the most refrigeration using the least amount of power. We had a chance to buy a used model but were advised against this, as problems were reported with older SunDanzer models which were made outside the US. And so we settled on our model or choice – a brand new SDR165, a 5.8 cubic foot chest-style unit that draws only 60 – 75 watts of power.

Sticker shock

Solar refrigerators are not cheap. The cost was about $1400 plus $300 shipping to our remote location. (The actual cost of the SDR165 is about $1200. I paid more because of an ordering error.) Of course, we rationalized that many years of expected use and the savings we would gain from better storage of food would bring real value for our investment. So we shook off the sticker shock and placed our order.

Buyer’s remorse?

I was perhaps too casual when phoning in my order to the nearest SunDanzer retailer, or he may have got things muddled in passing on the order to the manufacturer in Texas, but in any case I managed to order and pay for the wrong model. This I did not realize for several weeks when a well-packaged, but larger than expected refrigerator arrived at my home. At 8.1 cu ft, it was the size of a large chest freezer. After a few anxious measurements and another visit to the SunDanzer website, my mistake was as obvious as the shiny new white elephant now sitting on my porch.

The prospect of returning the unit for a replacement was dim. The logistics of getting the refrigerator here involved trucking, a ferry, another truck, a trip on a small boat, transfer to a smaller boat, and packing it up the hill to our home. I was beginning to feel cornered into living with a larger model that would take too much power and would not fit in our pantry.

Then a second problem surfaced. The refrigerator had a little sticker on the side that said “freezer”. The company had sent me a freezer by mistake. My mood was darkening. It took about a week of phone calls and figuring out the alternatives, but eventually a local technical wizard simply changed the thermostat and the unit was converted to a refrigerator.

Warming up to the new cold

Hooking up the refrigerator to our 12 volt system was easy, and the big moment finally arrived to turn it on. It purred quietly for a few minutes and then went nearly silent. Within an hour the inside temperature had dropped to 8 degrees C, and in another hour it went down to 4 degrees (approx. 40 degrees F, the ideal temperature for a refrigerator). The batteries held firm at 12.7 volts, and seemed more than adequate to run the appliance. And then the love affair began. The butter got hard. The celebratory beer got cold. It seemed miraculous! And to top it off, we learned that the larger 8.1 cu ft model (SDR225) required only a fraction more power than the smaller model we had planned on.

Enduring love

Buying the larger 8 cu ft model turned out to be a fortunate mistake. Since it requires hardly any additional power than the smaller model, what’s wrong with having a bigger refrigerator we reasoned. Our pantry is slated to be rebuilt next summer, so the extra space will be provided. Gradually, all our perceived problems and anxieties melted away, leaving me with just a slight feeling of embarrassment about all the fuss. For several months now, the refrigerator has operated smoothly and silently at a constant 4 degrees (C ) at the ‘medium’ setting. There has been no frost or moisture buildup. Our batteries seem to hardly notice the draw. My wife is given to occasionally draping herself over the refrigerator in a giant hug, murmuring the sweet nothings I wish she would say to me in our tender moments. And so all’s well that ends well, and we are thrilled with the new cool that’s become the centerpiece of our summer food storage system.

Greg Seaman is the editor of Eartheasy.