Top 5 Green Myths

­­Turning off your computer when it's not in use is a great way to save energy. But did you know that some devices and appliances, including your computer, continue to use power even when they're off?

It's a phenomenon called vampire power, sometimes called standby power or energy leaks. Vampire power is the energy a piece of equipment continues to use even after it's been switched off. In a study done at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, researchers found that vampire power may consume as much as 15 to 30 watts per appliance [source: California Energy Commission]. Totaled up, it's estimated that more than 5 percent of your power bill can be attributed to appliances in standby mode, which equals about $4 billion consumer dollars spent to feed vampires each year [source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory]. Contributors include any device that relies on standby power, such as televisions, refrigerators, air conditioners, computers, cell-phone chargers and any appliance that maintains (and displays) a clock.

Off is not enough. The stake in the heart of vampire power is to unplug devices.

­­Each one of us consumes energy as part of our everyday lives. We heat and cool our homes, commute to work or school and flip on lamps or televisions through­out the day. Conserving energy and choosing energy-efficient products are both key to energy sustainability. They may sound similar but, in fact, they're two different things.

Energy conservationis any activity where the outcome is the consumption of less energy, such as choosing to turn off the lights when you leave a room. Energy efficiency is any technology that requires less energy to carry out the same task. Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) provide the same illumination as standard incandescent bulbs but use just one-quarter of the energy and last 8 to 12 times longer [source: International Herald Tribune]. They're an example of energy efficiency.

­The result of choosing energy-efficient products may be energy conservation -- but not always. Think about it like your favorite cookie: just because they started making a low-fat variety doesn't mean you should consume the whole box.

­Which came first? The chicken or the egg? These days, it ­seems that's not the only chicken riddle we have to solve while food shopping. Were the chickens treated humanely? Were they kept free-range? Are these eggs from organic, cage-free birds?

Choosing organic fruits, vegetables, dairy and meats is smart. While there's no definitive ev­idence that organic foods have any significant nutritional benefits over conventional foods, they must be produced without antibiotics, growth hormones, and synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. This lowers your exposure to potentially toxic substances. And because organics are grown and produced using sustainable, regenerative farming methods, they're good for the soil and good for the planet.

Except when they aren't.

Organic foods are only good for the planet when they're not trucked, shipped or flown around the world before landing at their final destination. Food miles are the distance your food has traveled from farm to store. The idea is the higher number of food miles traveled, the greater amount of energy consumed and pollution released -- both of which contribute to the problem of global warming. On average, most of our meals have traveled about 1,300 miles (2,092 km) before they arrive on our table [source: ATTRA]. Think about it: How did fresh strawberries get to your local store in the middle of winter? In 2005, the total amount of fruits and vegetables that were flown into California alone released more than 70,000 tons of CO_2­­, the same amount of pollution produced by 12,000 cars on the road [source: National Resources Defense Council].

­What to do? Choose locally grown foods -- and, even better: locally grown organic foods. Visit your farmers' market or join a local CSA (community supported agriculture) group, and you're guaranteed to get foods that have taken the road less traveled.

The ­recent rapid spike in gas prices may have you thinking about trading in your gas-guzzler for a hybrid. Since it's estimated that hybrids cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than one-third compared to many non-hybrids, that's hardly a bad decision [source: Natural Resources Defense Council]. But a little research before you buy could lead you to the used car lot instead.­

First, consider the amount of energy needed to make a new car. To make a new Toyota Prius, or a new gas-only vehicle for that matter, roughly 113 million BTUs of energy are used -- that's equal to 1,000 gallons (3,785 liters) of gasoline [source: Wired].

Also consider gas consumption. Small hybrids are some of the most fuel-efficient cars on the roads, and not all hybrids are equal. Some gas-only used cars may actually have smaller carbon footprints. Take, for example, large hybrid SUVs and trucks. Sure, they're made with hybrid technologies but their gas mileage doesn't measure up against some of the conventional fuel-efficient compact cars on the market. A gas-only Honda Fit gets an estimated 33 mpg compared to the estimated 27 mpg of a hybrid Toyota Highlander [source: Edmunds].

­The smart choice depends on what type of car you need, as well as your driving habits. For people who really do need to own a truck or large car, swapping a gas-only model for a hybrid is potentially a better option. But if, like many of us, you're hauling nothing more than you and your family around, consider your options. Or you could always trade your car in for a bike, assuming you could pedal enough to offset the initial carbon footprint associated with making the bike.

­Forests have a three-pronged effect on our climate: They cool the air through the process of evapotranspiration; they reduce air pollutants (including CO₂, a known greenhouse gas) through photosynthesis; and their dark, dense leaves absorb sunlight that warms the planet.

Most people are familiar with the idea that trees and vegetation help to defend our planet against global warming. However, recent scientific studies show those benefits depend on where those trees are planted. Plant in the wrong part of the world and you may be wasting time and money.

Forests in the tropical belt around the equator benefit the planet. They absorb CO₂­, in a process called carbon sequestering, which helps lower temperatures. It's the forests outside of the tropics that may have little or no impact on climate change.

The farther away from the equator forests are, the more likely they are to trap heat in their dense canopies, raising temperatures. This is known as the albedo effect. In a study conducted by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Carnegie Institution and Université Montpellier II, scientists found that forests in mid-to-high latitudes could increase temperatures by up to 10 degrees F (5.5 degrees C) in the next 100 years than if those forests were not there [source: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory].

While supporting forestry projects remains a popular carbon offsetting option, it's important to be smart about which programs you back: Helping to mitigate the effects of tropical deforestation is a sound choice. And you can't go wrong when you keep your community green and beautiful by planting saplings around your neighborhood.

­­It's always admirable to choose to make your life greener -- especially when you do a little research beforehand. Each step we take as individuals, no matter how small, helps add up to a healthier planet.