Fun "Do You Know Green?" game

I stumbled on this "test your green" quiz site recently and thought it was really well done and a lot of fun. You get to answer questions about certain environmental choices to see whether you know the best green option. At the end there is also a "lightning round" in which you have to identify as many green (or not) items/actions as possible in 20 seconds.

The only downside: the website was made by "cotton" or "Cotton Incorporated"--basically the cotton industry. I didn't find any answers that I thought were inaccurate, but they just happen to leave out that conventional cotton is not very green, to say the least.

According to an Organic Cotton Briefing Kit from Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), "Conventionally grown cotton uses more insecticides than any other single crop and epitomizes the worst effects of chemically dependent agriculture. Each year cotton producers around the world use nearly $2.6 billion worth of pesticides--more than 10% of the world's pesticides and nearly 25% of the world's insecticides."

With that in mind, go ahead and test your knowledge and maybe even glean a few green tidbits--but when it comes time to buying cotton, try to shop for organic, or buy second-hand. Here are some examples of Organic cotton clothing, Organic cotton towels, Organic cotton bedding, even an Organic cotton yoga mat and more from Gaiam.

"Greenest" Christmas trees???

I have been thinking a lot this year about the environmental impacts of the Holidays (for me Christmas and New Year's). Strings of LED lights were on sale at KMart after Thanksgiving (buy one get one, $9.99 each regular price) so I got two strings of LED lights that say they use about 70% less electricity than conventional lights for just $10.

As for the tree itself, I have been thinking a lot about the what type of tree would be the greenest Christmas tree. I have done a little casual research (mostly reviewing a couple of blog posts about environmental impacts of certain types of Christmas trees, including some comments from readers), but mostly this is based on my opinion, such as it is. Here is my list, from best to worst for environmentally friendly "green" (or NOT) Christmas trees:

• Potted live evergreen tree (your favorite type), planted in your yard, neighborhood park, or other community space some time after the Holiday season ends. This seems to me the greenest Christmas tree option, as each year you would be adding another tree that can grow to maturity and absorb carbon throughout its lifetime. According to this site, mature (45-50 years old) conifers (evergreen trees) can absorb a range of 30.8 pounds of carbon per year to 106.3 pounds per year, depending on the species (and apparently, whom you talk to). Retired Christmas trees also have the ability to absorb carbon year-round, unlike their counterparts that prefer to get naked in the winter. After doing this for 10 years, the trees you have planted could be removing 308 to 1063 pounds of carbon per year from the atmosphere. This article has some good information to help you get your potted tree to survive the transplant into the ground.
  
• Potted live evergreen tree, kept in its pot year-round. Keeping a Christmas tree in a pot will prevent it from growing to full-size and getting too big for your living room. After the Holiday season ends, you can move the tree in its pot to your yard. This option is relatively green compared to those below. However, since young trees (1-5 years old) can only absorb 2.2 to 5.5 pounds of carbon per year, and you are only adding one tree for its lifetime (rather than 1 per year) it is significantly less environmentally friendly than the first option. Since you are forcing the tree to stay small, it would probably continue absorbing this lesser amount of carbon each year.
• Christmas tree from a Christmas tree farm. Cut trees do not have the environmental advantages of live trees. You are, after all, cutting down the Christmas tree and ending its future carbon absorption before it reaches maturity and peak capacity to absorb carbon. On the other hand, these trees are planted specifically for the Christmas tree market, and wouldn't have grown (or absorbed carbon) at all but for the growers who planted them for sale. According to this Christmas tree farm in New Hampshire, a typical tree is planted on their farm as a 4 to 5 year old transplant and grows an additional 10-15 years prior to being ready to cut for a household Christmas tree. Going to a Christmas tree farm that allows you to choose and cut your own tree would be a greener option than buying one already cut, as you can be certain that no trees were needlessly cut down only to end up on a compost pile, or worse--in a landfill.
• Buying a second-hand artificial tree from a thrift store or yard sale. This is not the greenest option, by any means, but it does prevent a plastic (petroleum-based), resource-intensive, and probably not even remotely biodegradable tree from ending up in the landfill and doesn't contribute to the demand for new artificial trees to be made (usually in China) and shipped, hauled by 18-wheelers, etc. to get to your store and into your living room. Their durability and the fact that you can use them every year for many years make this a slightly more environmentally friendly option than a cut wild tree. Eventual disposal, however, is quite problematic, and no real green option exists (can't be recycled, unfortunately, even though they are plastic.
• Cutting a live tree from "nature." I'm not sure if this is even still possible anywhere. I know some families used to have this type of tradition where they would go out "somewhere" (This was never something we did, so I wouldn't even have a clue about where this would even be legal or possible to do!), find the perfect Christmas tree living in its natural environment and chop it down. Since no trees are being re-planted to replace the trees in this type of setting, this option contributes to deforestation and a net reduction in the number of trees absorbing carbon dioxide. No one who cares about the environment should consider this an option. One possible benefit, mentioned here, is that thinning trees from natural growth forests (like national parks) may help thin the forest and reduce the risk of forest fires.
  
• A brand new artificial tree. Some claim that buying an artificial tree is a greener option than a real tree because they can use it from year to year and don't have to kill a tree. However, when you consider the resources (petroleum and others) that go into making it, shipping it overseas and across the country, real trees win my environmental vote. Add on to that the problems of disposal if it ever needs to be replaced (or, as is probably most often the case, the family wants a larger or fuller or different type of tree, even though the first is still perfectly full and lush looking). Hopefully, anyone who does eventually upgrade their tree is bringing them to their local thrift store or consignment shop for some of the rest of us to buy, rather than throwing them away.