How Obama and McCain voted on environmental issues in 2007

How did Barack Obama and John McCain vote on environmental and clean energy issues in 2007?

By Glenn Maltais

According to the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), Obama did OK, McCain, not so much.

Even though both presidential candidates are rigorously touting their environmental credentials, when it comes to walking the talk, the difference between Barack Obama and John McCain appears to be significant.

The national environmental scorecard, a ranking system that evaluates individual U.S. legislators based on their votes on environmental issues, highlighted 15 key votes last year–all of which senator McCain missed, resulting in a 0% score.

It is not uncommon for Presidential candidates to suffer from absenteeism during hectic election campaigns, or to miss roll call votes while being away from Washington for prolonged periods. Nevertheless, Obama managed to only miss four environmental votes, resulting in a 67% score – not great – but a whole lot better than 0%.

As scored by the LCV, McCain’s lifetime average is 24%, well below Obama’s 86%. Granted, this is not the greatest of comparisons, considering McCain has been in the Senate for a few decades, and Obama, a few years…but still, 24%? Not cool.

Out of the 15 votes where McCain chose to be elsewhere, the one that upset environmental groups the most occurred when an important piece of legislation fell one “yes” vote short of passage. The legislation involved tax incentives for renewable energy (set to expire December 31st, 2008) and repealed unnecessary tax breaks for the oil and gas industries.

Unfortunately, when it comes to what is arguably two the most important issues of our time, energy and the environment, McCain’s “straight talk express” may sound like it’s headed for greener pastures, but it appears to be circling the current administration’s big oil wagons. And, that leaves many environmentalists and those striving to usher in a new [clean, domestic] energy era, seeing red.

Advertisements

Oil slick kills penguins in Brazil

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (AP) — Environmental officials are looking for the cause of an oil slick that has killed scores of penguins in southern Brazil.

Marcelo Duarte of the Santa Catarina state environmental police said nearly 200 dead penguins covered in oil have washed up on the state’s shores since Sunday.

Duarte told The Associated Press on Thursday that the oil probably leaked from a large ship.

This year, thousands of penguins, both dead and alive, have washed up on Brazil’s shores as far north as Rio Grande do Norte state, near the equator.

Scientists are unsure why so many penguins are washing up in Brazil this year, but suspect overfishing near the Antarctic and colder-than-usual ocean temperatures may be to blame.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

Photo from Reuters Pictures


As Biomass Power Rises, a Wood-Fired Plant Is Planned in Texas

The city of Austin, Tex., approved plans on Thursday for a huge plant that will burn waste wood to make electricity, the latest sign of rising interest in a long-dormant form of renewable energy.

When completed in 2012, the East Texas plant will be able to generate 100 megawatts of electricity, enough to power 75,000 homes. That is small by the standards of coal-fired power plants, but plants fueled by wood chips, straw and the like — organic materials collectively known as biomass — have rarely achieved such scale.

Austin Energy, a city-owned utility, has struck a $2.3 billion, 20-year deal to be the sole purchaser of electricity from Nacogdoches Power, the company that will build the plant for an undisclosed sum. On Thursday, Austin’s City Council unanimously approved the deal, which would bring the Austin utility closer to its goal of getting 30 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020.

“We saw this plant as very important because it gives us a diversity of fuels,” said Roger Duncan, general manager of Austin Energy. “Unlike solar and wind, we can run this plant night or day, summer or winter.”

More than 100 biomass power plants are connected to the electrical grid in the United States, according to Bill Carlson, former chairman of USA Biomass, an industry group. Most are in California or the Northeast, but some of the new ones are under development in the South, a region with a large wood pulp industry.

The last big wave of investment in the biomass industry came during the 1980s and early 1990s. Interest is rising again as states push to include more renewable power in their mix of electricity generation.

Last week, Georgia Power asked state regulators to approve the conversion of a coal plant into a 96-megawatt biomass plant. An additional 50-megawatt plant in East Texas is expected to be under construction by September.

Mike Whiting, chief executive of Decker Energy International, a developer and owner of four biomass plants around the country, estimates 15 to 20 new biomass plants are proposed in the Southeast, though not all will be built. The region is, he said, “the best part of the U.S. for growing trees.”

In California, which has the most biomass plants in the country, momentum is reviving after years of decline. The number of biomass plants has dropped to fewer than 30, from 48 in the early 1990s, because of the closing of many sawmills and the energy crisis early this decade, said Phil Reese of the California Biomass Energy Alliance. Six to eight of the mothballed plants are gearing up to restart, Mr. Reese said, helping California meet its renewable energy goals.

At least three biomass plants have been proposed in Connecticut, and another three in Massachusetts — though last week one of these, a $200 million, 50-megawatt biomass plant proposed for the western part of the state, experienced a regulatory setback because of concerns about truck traffic.

Some environmental groups have opposed the Nacogdoches plant. Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Sierra Club’s Lone Star chapter, said the plant was not “as clean as it could be” in terms of emissions. He also criticized the lack of a competitive bidding process to build the plant.

Pulp and paper companies operating in wooded East Texas have also opposed the plant, which will require a giant amount of wood residue — one million tons each year. They are concerned that there is not enough wood for their industry and the plant. But Tony Callendrello, vice president of Nacogdoches Power, said the company would use only discarded forest residues, mill waste and the like.

“We have no need — and no intention — to go after anything that the forest-products companies would be using in their production,” he said.

A Green Travel Plan for Everyone and Every Trip

A Green Travel Plan for Everyone and Every Trip

Author: Melissa Evans

Simply put, green travel is travel in which a positive environmental impact is kept to a maximum and a negative environmental impact is kept to a minimum. Keeping your carbon footprint as tiny as possible while traveling will help preserve the entire planet, including that favorite vacation spot you always visit. That being said, traveling green sounds like something any traveler would be interested in, right? Right, but although many travelers may be interested in Green Travel it can seem a little intimidating or complicated and not everyone knows where to start. SO, I put together this Green Travel Plan that makes traveling green easy for anyone, no matter what their shade of green. What’s even better is you don’t have to camp out in the jungle or hike from place to place to make an impact (unless of course, that’s what you’re into). Remember, every little bit counts and following any or all of these steps will add up to a world of change.

A Green Travel Plan for Everyone and Every Trip

Before You Go:
Help be a part of the solution by booking with a green organization like the Green Travel Hub by RezHub.com; they actually donate 20% of the proceeds from every trip to an environmental group so that every trip can make a difference. They donate whether the travel you choose is labeled green or not.

Consider booking with Green Travel Options like green hotels, hybrid rental cars, and carbon offsetting programs. RezHub also offers all these programs.

When renting a car, choose Enterprise. They not only have the largest selection of hybrid and fuel efficient cars available for rent, they also take huge steps for the environment. They’ve pledged to plant 50 million trees over the next 50 years, they donate millions to alternative fuel research, and the list goes on.

Look for hotels with a green certifications or a “Green Score.” In the Green Score program, hotels can earn points and Green Branches for each environmental program they have in place. While some hotels may only have one leaf, keep in mind that even one leaf is a step in the right direction. It’s important to support the green efforts that each hotel takes because it shows management that they are doing the right thing, and it encourages further expansion of green programs. Remember, where one leaf sprouts, another is sure to follow!

Offset your Carbon Footprint. Choosing to go carbon neutral is one of the gateways to responsible travel. It’s easy to do, and it’s inexpensive! We suggest offsetting your carbon footprint with Sustainable Travel International and MyClimate. Their program is the best we’ve seen in that it’s comprehensive and supports both kinds of offsetts. They’ll let you calculate your exact offset, or you can choose a standard donation from $1 all the way up to $500.

While You’re There:
Plan to green-up your stay, and feel good about where you’re going. These are some really simple steps you can take to help green up your stay, even if you didn’t book with a Green Scored Hotel
• Encourage the hotel you chose to go green or thank them for the green programs that they participate in! Speak with the management and let them know that green options are important to you.
• If your hotel has a sheets and towels reuse program, use it. If they don’t, start your own! Let housekeeping know that you don’t need them to replace your sheets and towels every day; this will reduce energy and water usage.
• Turn off the lights, air conditioner or heater, and the electronics in your room while you’re out. • Turn off the water when you brush your teeth, and take shorter showers.
• Bring your own toiletries, or if you use what the hotel provides make sure to take what’s leftover home with you.

Take nothing but photographs, leave nothing but footprints…
• When you’re visiting a park or any natural setting, don’t disturb the plants or wildlife. • Never buy anything made from an endangered animal or plant.
• Make sure you save any trash until you find a garbage can, and wherever possible save your recyclables for a recycling drop-off. Check out http://www.earth911.org to find a recycling drop off center in the US.

Go local…
• Whenever you can, shop and buy from the local vendors. This helps support the local economy, and submerges you in the areas culture.
• Try to avoid the large chains that carry goods shipped in from overseas. All that shipping creates tons of CO2 and the large chains can push the locals out of business (if you wanted to shop at Wal-Mart you could’ve stayed home, right?) .

Give back…
• Consider volunteering some time on your trip. Spending even just one day volunteering makes a difference. Contact not-profit organizations in the area and set something up before you go.
• Check out the Volunteer Travel Hub where you can find the perfect place to lend a hand. These bite-sized volunteer vacations (short term) are free and can be included on any trip!

When You Get Home:
Write a letter or send an email to the hotel you stayed in, the airline you flew and the rental car company you chose. Thank them for going green or encourage them to do so.

Send an email to greentravel@rezhub.com or post to RezHub.com’s Green Travel Forums, if you tell them about how you turned your trip green, you might even win a FREE trip!

Keep these tips in mind while you’re at home too, conserving resources almost always saves you green in the long run. And remember, it really is true that every little bit counts. If each of us took just one of these steps, imagine the difference it would make. I’ll end with a quote from Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.”

Article Source:

About the Author:

Melissa Evans is an avid environmentalist and the Marketing Director for RezHub.com. Having experience in both the environmental and travel industries, she is a green travel expert.

Cracking the secrets of ice

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 24, 2008

Sandia researchers successfully image ice using scanningice imaging tunneling microscope

Sandia’s Konrad Thürmer (shown here) and Norm Bartelt pushed the boundaries of scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) to image ice – a material believed to be unsuitable for STM because of its insulating nature. (Photo by Randy Wong)

LIVERMORE, C.A. — Taking images of ice a few nanometers thick as it forms bulk ice was supposed to be impossible. A scanning tunneling microscope (STM) shouldn’t work with ice because STMs create images by relying on conducting current, which runs contrary to one of ice’s basic properties—insulation.

But that – successfully using an STM to image ice – is precisely what Sandia National Laboratories physicists Norm Bartelt and Konrad Thürmer did.

“How water interacts with solids is extremely important,” says Bartelt. He points to the design of fuel cells and water purification systems as two areas that could benefit from new STM information. “Getting direct information is difficult, so imaging how small ice crystals grow on solid surfaces is an important advance. This is solid information that allows basic theories to be verified. This was our goal—to provide unambiguous information.”

Ice Cubes or Snowflakes?
Bartelt’s and Thürmer’s research was motivated by Sandia colleague Peter Feibelman’s theoretical research in water–solid interactions. In 2002, Feibelman had a major breakthrough in interpreting water–solid interactions. His research explained why an initial layer of water molecules lies flat on the precious metal ruthenium.

The ice-growth images answer a fundamental mystery about ice: snowflakes form in the classic six-sided symmetrical shape, but at low temperatures, ice grows in a cubic form. This phenomenon is something that has puzzled scientists for 60 years.

What Bartelt and Thürmer discovered was that when an ice film is extremely thin, measuring an average of about one nanometer thick, the water molecules form small, tabular islands of crystalline ice. Once the thickness reaches four or five nanometers, the ice islands join together and start to form a continuous film. In a recent Physical Review B paper, the researchers showed that cubic ice forms when the ice crystals merge. Because of a mismatch in the atomic step heights of the platinum substrate relative to ice, the coalescence often creates screw dislocations in the ice. Further growth occurs by water molecules attaching to the steps that spiral around screw dislocations, creating cubic ice in the process.

Pushing the Boundaries of STM
The STM is a notoriously finicky piece of scientific equipment, and working with ice only increased the difficulty. An STM functions by positioning a sharp, needle-like tip near the sample and then allowing a tiny electrical current to flow across the gap. As the tip of the STM is scanned across the sample surface, the voltage required to position the scanner is used to form an image of the sample.

“Typically, an STM only works if the substrate is conductive,” says Bartelt. Through persistence and patience, Thürmer learned that to image ice, one needs a current smaller than had previously been tried — in fact, three orders of magnitude smaller than what is normally used.

It was Thürmer’s intuitive decision to change the STM’s parameters, namely those for voltage and current, that made imaging ice crystals feasible. Basically, Thürmer found the sweet spot where none was believed to have existed.

The STM was developed in 1981 and earned its inventors, Gerd Binnig and Heinrich Rohr, a Nobel Prize for physics in 1986. “The discovery caused a rebirth of surface science and completely changed the field, but until now, people had not been able to apply it to ice,” says Bartelt. “The fact that we can apply these same methods to ice is very exciting.”

STM experiments don’t always work. “Because you are trying to get atomic resolution, a few atoms on the apex of the tip can completely throw off the experiment,” says Bartelt. “If you are not getting an image, you don’t know if your tip is bad or you are choosing the wrong parameters.”

In fact, the two physicists never expected that they could image thick ice films; they were hoping for a few molecules. Thürmer explains that even after he began imaging thicker ice films, he didn’t trust the results. Instead, he thought they were just misleading electronic artifacts.

Because Thürmer only expected to see films a few molecules thick, he had the STM tip set too close; it was shaving off the top of the films. “For about a month, we thought the films were not really as high as they seemed. We thought the insulating quality of ice made them appear to be higher,” he explains. “I increased the voltage, and the ice appeared to really pop out. Still, I thought it was just the same electronic artifact.”

However, the researchers could not come up with another explanation for why the films appeared so high. Thürmer then purposely grew very thick films and reversed the polarity on the STM, which resulted in an ice carving that proved the thickness was, in fact, real.

The two Sandians are not resting on their initial success; in fact, the two physicists say they are working to build on their breakthrough. Future experiments include putting salts on an ice crystal to see how salts change the crystal’s growth and depositing molecules that react with water, such as atomic oxygen, to determine the exact point on the surface where water dissociates.

“Our ability to image these ice films opens the door to a multitude of exciting new experiments,” says Thürmer.


Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia Corporation, a Lockheed Martin company, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. With main facilities in Albuquerque, N.M., and Livermore, Calif., Sandia has major R&D responsibilities in national security, energy and environmental technologies, and economic competitiveness.

Farmer turns to fruit tree to power tractors

By Rich PhillipsThe jatropha tree contains golf-ball-sized fruit that can be made into biodiesel.
CNN

LABELLE, Florida (CNN) — Bryan Beer, a citrus grower in southwestern Florida, sees himself as a bit of a pioneer. He’s not digging for gold. It’s more like he’s planting for oil.

The jatropha tree contains golf-ball-sized fruit that can be made into biodiesel.

He is planting a jatropha tree, a plant that can produce diesel fuel and could one day power a 747. His plans are a little less ambitious; he just wants to plant enough to run his tractors.

“Any kind of relief or help we can get from a cheaper source of oil could impact the agricultural industry tremendously throughout the country, throughout the world,” said Beer, whose family has been growing citrus for decades.

Jatropha means “doctor food.” It originated in South America, where it was once used for medicinal purposes. There are three seeds within the golf-ball-sized fruit. When pressed, its oil can be used as fuel in any standard diesel engine with zero processing, experts say.

Sound like a pipe dream? It’s not.

It’s being taken very seriously by companies all over the world, including the Chrysler motor company and Air New Zealand. The airline is planning a test flight in November in Auckland in which jatropha biodiesel will be mixed with diesel fuel.

This is what has farmers, scientists and engineers excited.

“It is a superior oil,” said Roy Beckford, an agricultural scientist with the University of Florida.

Air New Zealand says the quality and quantity of the product may be so good that the airline could run the test flight without having to mix the jatropha biofuel with any normal aviation fuel.

Beckford said countries like China, India and Brazil have planted millions of acres of jatropha, but the United States has yet to make that sort of investment.

“We are way, way behind these people,” he said. “But certainly we have the ability, and we have shown that over and over again that we can beat people on technology and applying that technology.”

Beckford has been experimenting to see how the tree grows best. He says jatropha can be grown in soil that is not suitable for most food crops.

“Even under harsh drought conditions with minimal amount of water or moisture, it will survive,” he said.

Jatropha is being tested in nurseries and farms, primarily in Florida and Hawaii, to see if it can be used as a viable alternative biofuel nationwide. Caribbean nations have used jatropha for years as biofuel and a home-made medicine to treat constipation and inflammation, Beckford said.

He says jatropha would probably never be the main biodiesel crop but should be added into the mix of biodiesel crops. “It think it’s going to be part of the equation.”

Beckford’s research is done on a small patch of land in Fort Myers, Florida, where 176 seedlings were planted last year. Some are fertilized; some are not. Some are exposed to insects, and some plants are scattered around the foundation of an old home.

Beckford showed how the jatropha plant thrived right in the middle of the foundation, within the dirt and rocks.

He and his researchers believe that U.S. technology will aid in the growth of the trees. Currently, each tree yields only about two gallons of oil a year.

“In the next four or five years, I think we’ll increase not only the fruits per jatropha tree, but we’ll also increase the amount of oil in each of those seeds,” Beckford said.

Right now, biodiesel is a growing industry but hasn’t made an appreciable dent on the global dependence on heavy crude oil, from which diesel fuel is processed.

The National Biodiesel Board says that less than 1 percent of the 60 billion gallons of diesel fuel used each year comes from biodiesel, most of it produced from soybeans, animal fats and recycled oil. But, the board says, the 20 million gallons of diesel fuel saved from these alternative fuels was the equivalent of eliminating the emissions from 700,000 cars.

Some consumer groups say it’s unrealistic to think that biofuel will replace oil totally. Experts also say the potential savings here may be offset by higher prices somewhere else as farmers use their more crop land to experiment with alternative fuel crops.

“There are implications to dedicating more and more crop land to fuel production rather than food production,” said Tyson Clocum of the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen. “That comes in the form of tighter supplies for food production, and that leads to higher prices.”

Beer says he’s not looking to abandon his family’s citrus business. LaBelle Grove Management has been around for more than 40 years. He’s currently farming 30 acres of jatropha, compared to 2,500 acres of citrus.

Beer is trying to figure out how he’s going to afford to put diesel in his heavy equipment. He has four tractors that each run on 120 gallons a day.

“We have to have these machines running. If we don’t have these machines running and we don’t have diesel fuel, we don’t produce our crops,” he said.

So, for now, Beer is taking a stab at growing his own fuel. Jatropha won’t be a replacement crop for him, but it may help him fill up his tractor.

“To be a better America, we are going to have to have a secondary source besides oil,” he said.

Tapped Out: The True Cost of Bottled Water

Tapped Out: The True Cost of Bottled Water
by Solvie Karlstrom

From childhood, we’re told to drink at least eight glasses of water each day. Unfortunately more and more Americans drink those eight glasses out of plastic bottles—a convenience that stuffs landfills, clogs waterways and guzzles valuable fossil fuels.

Last year Americans spent nearly $11 billion on over 8 billion gallons of bottled water, and then tossed over 22 billion empty plastic bottles in the trash. In bottle production alone, the more than 70 million bottles of water consumed each day in the U.S. drain 1.5 million barrels of oil over the course of one year.

Banning the Bottle

Though the sale and consumption of bottled water is still on the rise, certain policy makers and activists have taken steps to reduce it. San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order in June that bars city government from using city money to supply municipal workers with bottled water, and New York City launched an ad campaign this summer encouraging residents and tourists to forego the bottled beverage for the city’s tap, long considered some of the best water in the country. “New York waste and pollution is on a massive scale,” says Michael Saucier of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. “Considering that the average New Yorker consumes nearly 28 gallons of bottled water each year, New York clearly hasn’t been doing enough to encourage residents to drink tap.”

Even restaurateurs are doing their part to keep water bottles out of landfills. Upscale eateries in Boston, New York and San Francisco have taken bottled water off the menu, offering filtered tap instead. At the Italian restaurant Incanto in San Francisco, carafes used to serve filtered tap water are refilled 2,000 times on average before they’re cracked and retired. Owner Mark Pastore explains that leaving bottled water off the menu is “a tiny thing that we can do to be a little more sustainable.”

Avoiding Chemical Intruders

Not only does bottled water contribute to excessive waste, but it costs us a thousand times more than water from our faucet at home, and it is, in fact, no safer or cleaner. “The bottled water industry spends millions of dollars a year to convince us that their product is somehow safer or healthier than tap water, when in fact that’s just not true,” says Victoria Kaplan, senior organizer with Food and Water Watch, a nonprofit that recently launched a Take Back the Tap campaign to get consumers to ditch bottled water. “As much as 40 percent of bottled water started out as the same tap water that we get at home,” she adds. A 1999 Natural Resources Defense Council study found that, with required quarterly testing, tap water may even be of a higher quality than bottled, which is only tested annually.

Water aside, the plastic used in both single-use and reusable bottles can pose more of a contamination threat than the water. A safe plastic if used only once, #1 polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE) is the most common resin used in disposable bottles. However, as #1 bottles are reused, which they commonly are, they can leach chemicals such as DEHA, a known carcinogen, and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP), a potential hormone disrupter. According to the January 2006 Journal of Environmental Monitoring, some PET bottled-water containers were found to leach antimony, an elemental metal that is an eye, skin, and lung irritant at high doses. Also, because the plastic is porous you’ll likely get a swill of harmful bacteria with each gulp if you reuse #1 plastic bottles.

While single-use water bottles should never be used more than once, some reusable water bottles simply shouldn’t be used. The debate continues over the safety of bisphenol A (BPA), a hormone-disrupting chemical known to leach out of the #7 polycarbonate plastic used to make a variety of products, including popular Nalgene Lexan water bottles. New studies keep cropping up that don’t bode well for BPA, demonstrating that even extremely low doses of the chemical can be damaging. Recent research has linked the chemical to a variety of disorders, including obesity and breast cancer, and one chilling 2007 study, published in the journal PLoS Genetics, found that BPA exposure can cross generations. Pregnant mice exposed to low levels of BPA led to chromosomal abnormalities, which possibly cause birth defects and miscarriages, in grandchildren.

Yet, in spite of mounting evidence, polycarbonate water bottles don’t seem to be losing popularity. A 2006 Green Guide reader poll found that roughly a third of respondents still preferred the Nalgene Lexan over other reusable bottles. If you’re partial to the brightly colored containers, Nalgene does manufacture safer alternatives made from #2 high density polyethylene (HDPE).

Avoid the perils of plastic altogether with a metal water bottle that can handle a variety of liquids, including acidic fruit juices, and won’t leach chemicals into your beverage. Klean Kanteen’s stainless steel bottle is lightweight, durable, and entirely chemical free. Avoid detergents that contain chlorine when cleaning Klean Kanteens; chlorine can corrode stainless steel. Another attractive alternative to plastic is the aluminum Sigg bottle with a taste-inert, water-based epoxy lining. Independent lab tests commissioned by the company found that the resin leached no detectable quantities of BPA, while other unlined aluminum and polycarbonate bottles subjected to the same conditions did.

Noting that the federal share of funding for water systems has declined from 78 percent in 1973 to 3 percent today, Kaplan urges consumers to “support public policies that promote safe, affordable, public tap water for future generations.” Visit http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/ and take the pledge to take back the tap, promising to choose tap water over bottled whenever possible and to support policies that promote clean public tap water for everybody. And meanwhile, invest in a safe, reusable bottle.

Better Bottles

Kleen Kanteen stainless steel water bottle w/ cap, 27 fluid ounces ($17.95; http://www.kleankanteen.com/)

MLS Stainless Steel Thermos Bottle, 1 liter ($22.16; http://www.mls-group.com/)

Nissan Thermos FBB500 Briefcase Bottle, 1pt ($35; http://www.coffee-makers-espresso-machines.com/)

Sigg resin coated aluminum sport bottle, 25 ounces ($19.99; http://www.mysigg.com/)

Platypus #5 polypropylene 2+collapsible water bottle, 2.4 liters ($9.95; http://www.rei.com/)

Nalgene HDPE Loop-Top Bottle, 16 ounces ($4.53; http://www.nalgene-outdoor.com/)

q