10 Ways To Save The Earth (& Money) In Under A Minute


save the earth and moneySo you want to help the environment, but you don’t think that you have enough time? Here are 10 simple things that you can do in under a minute that will help the environment and save you money at the same time:

1. Use Half The Amount (time: none): Try using half the amount of the products you use every day. Most of your everyday household products will work just as well when you use half the amount that you are currently using. Some that you might consider using this method with are laundry detergent, shampoo, cleaning supplies, etc.

2. Cold / Cold Wash (time: under 5 seconds): A knob turn on your washing machine can save about $100 a year in energy costs. Simply move the water temperature knob to a cold/cold wash setting instead of a hot/cold wash. Since the greatest cost of washing clothes is heating the water, a cold/cold wash can save a significant amount.

3. Put A Towel In The Dryer (time: under 15 seconds): Go and get the most absorbent towel you can find and place it near your Dryer. Each time you put in a new load of clothes to dry, also throw in the towel. This absorbent towel will reduce the time it takes for the entire load to dry and will save approximately 10% of the energy use.

4. Turn Down Your Water Heater Temperature (time: under 5 seconds for gas water heaters - electric water heaters are a bit more complicated and while adjusting them can be done in under a minute if you are mechanically inclined, you may want to have someone do it for you if you aren’t): Most water heaters are set at a higher temperature than they need to be. Adjust your water heater down to 130°F and you will save 3% to 5% on the cost of heating your water for every 10°F the temperature is reduced. On the gas water heaters, all it takes is a turn of the temperature knob to accomplish this.

5. Adjust Your Thermostat (time: under 10 seconds): With summer just around the corner, adjust your thermostat up a degree or two and for each degree you do so, you will save 3% to 4% on the cooling costs of your house.

6. Turn The Water Off When Brushing/Washing (time: under 5 seconds): The average bathroom faucet runs at about 2 gallons of water per minute. That means every time you brush your teeth or when you wash your hands with the faucet running, you use about 4 gallons of water. If you brush your teeth twice and wash your hands three times per day, it adds up to 600 gallons of water per month.

7. Turn Off Your Car Engine (time: under 5 seconds): If your car is going to be idling for more than 45 seconds, it’s more fuel-efficient to turn the engine off and restart the car again when you are ready to move.

8. Close Cooling Vents (time: under 5 seconds for each vent): There is no reason to cool the portions of your house that you are not going to be in. Walk around your house and close the cooling vents in all the rooms where you don’t spend a lot of time. This will help your air conditioner work less (and thus save energy and money) than if you had all the vents open. Just be sure that there is not a temperature sensor in the room when you close the vents.

9. Replace Light Bulbs (time: under 30 seconds per light bulb): If you haven’t done so already, replace your regular light bulbs with compact fluorescent light bulbs (CLF). CLFs last ten times as long and only use 25% of the energy that a regular light bulbs uses. Over the life of each light bulb, you should save approximately $40 in energy consumption.

10. Turn Off Your Lights (time: under 5 seconds): One of the easiest ways to save money and help the environment is to simply turn the light switch off when you leave the room. There is no reason to keep lights on when there is no one there.

It really doesn’t take much time or effort to make a difference. In less than 10 minutes, you can make a significant contribution to the environment and save yourself some money at the same time.




Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

Your Comment:

Reader Comments

Regarding #9 and #10: Replace only those bulbs that you are regularly using for extended periods (above 15 minutes). Switching CFLs on only for a short time is both a waste of energy and shortens the bulb’s lifetime.

BTW, for those that do not know, with CFLs you are trading one environmental issue for another. Sure you may save a couple bucks here and there but the most serious issue that NO ONE seems to be discussing about CFLs is that the ONLY way they can be produced is using mercury. Yes mercury is still found in products today. What do you think happens every time you break one? Or worse, throw one away? Mercury in the landfill. Sorry, I do not think CFL is the way to go. Instead we should concentrate on making incandescent lights more efficient. Im really surprised with this huge push for CFL usage that this is never addressed.

No amount of mercury is safe.

[…] 10 Ways to Save The Earth (& Money) In Under a Minute from Personal Finance Advice. Simple tips, all of which take only a few seconds to do. I’m familiar with most of them, but not everyone is. […]

Joey, please explain why you insist that no amount of mercury is safe and please remember to cite research to support your argument.

I hope you understand that your statement vitually guarantees that no where is safe. The beauty of using the “if it’s detectable there’s too much of it” argument is that we are at a technological level that means we can detect the natural prescence of “dangerous” materials. Grab your handy radiation detector and turn it on. All that noise is natural radiation that we can now detect. If no amount of gamma radiation is safe then that leaves us with what options when facing the natural presence of the “dangerous” material.

The amount of mercury in a CFL is 4-milligrams whereas an average coal power plant will release 10-milligrams of mercury to power an incandescent bulb (www.greencambridge.org/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf). If you break the bulb, open a window.

Hey Jason, why not read the same PDF you attached? I understand how adamant you must be about being “green”, go to town and spread the good word. How many people KNOW that mercury is in CFLs? I guarantee you its miniscule. So if that vast majority of the population doesn’t know it then how in the heck can they possibly and appropriately remove the waste. Here, I even found something on a tree hugger site: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/ask_treehugger_14.php

Look, mercury is a neurotoxin. Plain and simple. Is 4-5mg safe, sure why not. Do I want my child breathing that in when a bulb pops, hell no! So no matter what type of “proof” that you have that me and my family are totally 100% safe from these things, I’m not using them. And by the way, when I was a kid, we found some unopened boxes of fluorescent bulbs. So as kids we brought then home and started busting them in our garage. So tell me smart guy, how much mercury poisoning did I get then? Did we open a window? Nope, then our parents would have heard the noise. Did we even know the bulbs had mercury in it? Not a clue. Did I not even know until I few months ago? Yup. Did it help cause the cancer I have now? Who knows? I’ll never know. So if you want to inhale your 4mg then breathe freely. None for me thanks!

BTW, I am not trying to cause a panic. Mercury is a neurotoxin, just like lead. And just like lead, there are appropriate methods in using and disposing. Not telling people what it is or is in it, is NOT the way to get people to start using CFLs.

Your reaction to the idea of mercury in CFLs and the desire to have no exposure to mercury shows what we call in the risk communication field “intuitive toxicology” (coined by Paul Slovic). While this is not in and of itself a bad thing as it evolved originally as a protection mechanism. However, the heuristics used to construct this has been altered by the explosive growth in science. This has led to three basic beliefs that govern risk tolerance by most people. 1) many people believe that risk is an “all or nothing” matter. 2)many people are committed to a belief in the benevolence of nature. 3)many people subscribe to the “zero risk” mentality, at least in some domains. (Risk and Reason, Cass Sunstein, 2002).

The reason I bring this up is because these beliefs color the way we think about risks (mercury in CFLs) and how we communicate this risk to others. A better avenue would be to examine the statistics and science behind the studies to form a fuller understanding of the risk (mercury in the house) and communicate it as such.

Oh and another BTW, I trust the CDC FAAAR more than I would ever trust “A group of Cambridge residents concerned about global warming and taking action locally.”

http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/mercury/mercelementalcasedef.asp
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pel88/7439-97.html
http://www.cdc.gov/search.do?q=elemental+mercury&btnG.x=0&btnG.y=0&ie=utf8

Sorry Mercury (and Mercury vapor) is not safe. It can be used safely and has been for decades. But with lack of education, people get sick.

How is quoting a physchologist equate to “proof” and “statistics”? I never said lets ban all forms of mercury. Mercury is prevalent in our world both naturally and manufactured. There is no hysteria here. What I have shown, through the CDC, is that mercury is dangerous and can, and has, caused many health issues IN the home. All I am trying to do is inform people that there IS a risk. In no research does it ever say, “WILL not cause….”. It will always say, “MAY not cause…”. There is a reason for this. Research. Either research dictates that there MAY be an inherent risk OR research dictates that more long term research is needed in order to definitively show there is no inherent risk.

“Belief in the benevolence of nature”? Really? Nature does as it has done through the ages, good or bad.

First let me set one thing straight, Professor Cass R. Sunstein is a Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence teaching at the University of Chicago Law School and Department of Political Science. What I am trying to do is what I do with all my students, which is to question your beliefs and the foundation upon which you have built those beliefs. The argument could continue ad infinium, but would continue along the lines you have set out, as you are walking the line of logic dictated by your beliefs (which is not inherently a bad thing). Questioning the beliefs that you (I’m using the plural you here, idicative of people in general) have, however, is the process by which advancement is made.

Regardless, I would suggest reading Cass Sunstein’s “Risk and Reason” to get a greater grasp of how risk is communicated in our society. Beyond being relevant to the current topic, is actually has a great relevance to the communication of risk in investing and finances (though that is not the primary focus of the book). If you would like I can also give you some other books and articles on risk communication that you can use to both question your beliefs and build a stronger argument in favor of your beliefs.

“What I am trying to do is what I do with all my students, which is to question your beliefs and the foundation upon which you have built those beliefs”

That should have read: What I am trying to do is what I do with all my students, which is to get you to question your beliefs and the foundation upon which you have built those beliefs.

Sorry.

I was referring to Paul Slovic. You are continually referring to logic and then again to psychological responses that people make. There have nothing to do with the fact that a particular element on the periodic table is harmful or not. Fact: it is. Period. Been proven. Repeatedly. Now I understand where you are coming from being as you have now explained yourself as an educator. And I applaud you for that. At first I was going to make a comment about being a well read student. Now I stand corrected. All of my beliefs are all founded by science and by evidence. I don’t freely adhere to any ideas or dogmas or whatever without there being a slew of scientific fact behind it. It may be why I am a staunch Athiest. I don’t believe in the ridiculous. But when the CDC and all other scientific bodies tell me and the world that an element, that is used day to day, is harmful, I tend to take notice. Its the same as using lead based paint. Should I just go ahead and continue to use it or not worry about the paint chips falling off the wall even though there may be a child in the house? OR do I follow the efforts of countless researchers and try to avoid the lead paint? Its the same argument. But for some reason you feel that I and others are following a hysteria. There is no hysteria. I’m not panicking about it. It doesn’t affect my day other than writing this. So I fail to see why, if I don’t follow the “environmentalist thought of the day”, that I am all of a sudden being questioned about my logic and my steadfast beliefs.

hehe, let’s see how many people harp on my for writing “scientific fact”.

I think we’re just trading poison for poison with these new bulbs, which I have been using.

I think there are places you can go and have these new bulbs recycled, but the truth is, the American people are not interested in doing that, unless you could throw them in your recycling bin at home, which you can’t.

This is what is so frustrating about trying to do the right thing when it comes to saving energy. There are so many conflicting views that it’s hard to know what is the best thing to do many times.

I do use CFLs and have been very happy with them. I don’t think that one has ever broken on me. That being said, I’m not sure if I know the correct way to dispose of them. I imagine it is not good to just place them in the trash. They probably also should not be put in the recycle bin.

So what do you do with them when they do wear out?

They are efficient, more so than incandescent. Although GE has announced a more efficient incandescent bulb so rather than jumping on the first bandwagon, let’s see what else is out there. You will save money using them. Assuming its not broken, it needs to go to an approved disposal location. If you cannot find one locally, energystar.gov recommends that you seal it into a sealable plastic bag and then putting it into your regular garbage.

I love reading your articles each day. However; I urge you to proof read before posting. It will make reading your blog that much more easy.

Let the grammar police jokes begin…

For Joey & Jason: I too do not use CFLs because of mercury. Plus do either of you know how much pollution is generated by manufacturing these bulbs?

i agree with jean on this!!!

Jason, in case you are still on this list for subscription, here is some more “hysteria” for you:

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/health/15411553/detail.html

I will gently bow out and bask in the glow of my incandescent bulbs.

BTW, as a side note. If you get migraines, DO NOT use CFLs.

Hey Jason, the news keeps getting better for you:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23694819/