Looking To Pope Francis To End Factory Farming

by
Inside a Barn on a Chicken Factory Farm

Inside a Barn on a Chicken Factory Farm (Photo credit: Socially Responsible Agricultural Project)

 

The Vatican’s election of Pope Francis hopefully will signal an era of increased awareness and activism that will culminate in the end of factory farming.  Taking the name of Francis, after St.Francis of Assisi, the patron saint of animals and the environment, the new pope has set the stage for his agenda, which features compassion for animals and a commitment to the poor.

 

This attention to the plight of animals is needed desperately in light of the cruel practices of factory farming, whereby animals raised for food are crammed together in close quarters, barely able to move.  Chickens and turkeys raised for market spend their entire lives on beds of excrement, while pigs, cattle and calves are raised on slatted floors, which permit their feces to drop below into manure pits.  These environments are toxic, with the resulting ammonia fumes from the animals’ waste circulating the enclosed environment, weakening their immune systems and burning their respiratory tracts.  Also, penning animals in close quarters results in fighting with pecking and biting, causing injuries, sores and infections. This whole scenario is indicative of the extreme cruelty to animals and deserves the attention of the world and the passage of laws to end these practices.

 

Additionally, the practice of factory farming, with its inherent contaminated and toxic environment, poses an ever-present threat of disease, necessitating the routine use of antibiotics to treat animals.  This is particularly alarming at a time when there is a major concern about the overuse of antibiotics by humans, which is suspected to lead to antibiotic resistance and the development of mutant virulent strains of bacteria and viruses.  Permitting the commercial marketing of meat products laced with antibiotics for human consumption is hazardous to human health and should not be outlawed.

 

Pope Francis also has voiced his commitment to the poor and the Church’s need to address the issue of poverty all over the world.  It is noteworthy that factory farming practices are more likely to impact the poorer segments of the population because these individuals are less likely than their wealthier counterparts to have access or means to meat and poultry raised organically, largely due to cost.  Nutritionally insufficient diets have been identified as a major contributor to poor health, and the ingestion of products of factory farming clearly is a part of this cycle.

 

With this new era in the Catholic Church, social activists, farm animal welfare activists and environmentalists look with optimism to Pope Francis and the Vatican to lend a voice to the need to protect animals and humans by adopting the necessary legal measures to end factory farming.  To do so is to live green, be green.

Sources For Article:

1.  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/sue-cross/antibiotic-resistance-veganism_b_2874898.html?utm_hp_ref=health-news&ir=Health%20News.
2.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/16/pope-says-wants-poor-church_n_2889991.html.
3.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_of_Assisi.

 

Whole Foods Commits To Consumers on GMO Labeling

by
Whole Foods Market

Whole Foods Market (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Whole Foods has stepped into the ring in the fight between consumers and the government over food labeling of GMOs.  The company recently announced that by 2018, “all products in U.S. and Canada stores must be labeled if they contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs)”.

This announcement to require labeling of GMOs speaks loudly to the food industry and the government on industry practices.  A clear message is being sent that people have the right to know the contents of their food they purchase and that a company which markets food as being certified organic has a duty to assure the truth of any such statements to that extent.  Without mandatory labeling, it is impossible for stores such as Whole Foods to guarantee non-GMO products to their customers; however, forging business relationships with companies who are willing to truthfully disclose the contents of food products will go a long way to identify and support worthy businesses.  This is not to say that a product cannot contain GMOs.  Rather, they will not be sold at Whole Foods.  There are some people who do not even read food labels or show concern for such issues, and there still will be places for them to shop.

Recent efforts to require GMO labeling in California was defeated, largely as a result of millions of dollars in advertising against the ballot measure by corporate proponents of GMOs, namely Monsanto and PepsiCo.  It is difficult to understand the controversy over food labeling and the government’s failure to require labeling on foods containing GMOs.  Additionally, it is puzzling that the government opts to block the consumers’ right to know what is contained in the food they purchase.  To this end, Gary Hirshberg, the CEO of Stonyfield Yogurt and chairman of the Just Label It campaign noted that “there are . . . lots of reasons to label these foods:  health and environmental concerns, ethical/religious views or just people want to know”.  Statistics on the need to know whether or not foods contain GMOs indicate that an overwhelming majority of Americans (92%) want food labeling.

The decision by Whole Foods to require labeling foods if they contain GMOs is a major step forward for the green movement and for people who insist on making informed choices on food purchases.    This decision also reinforces the commitment of stores such as Whole Foods to sell food that is organically grown.  This plan offers much-needed support to the suppliers of certified organic products.  It is a clear indication that the proponents of healthy living will not be dominated or defeated by big corporations on the issue of right to know and to choose the food they want to eat.  Hopefully, many more companies will join Whole Foods and manufacturers, such as Stonyfield, in supporting consumers’ right to know whether or not their food contains GMOs.  To do so is to live green, be green.

 

Source for this article:

1.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/08/whole-foods-gmo-labeling-2018_n_2837754.html?utm_hp_ref=green.
2.  http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/about-our-products/product-faq/gmos.
3.  http://justlabelit.org/.

Trickery, Cruelty and Greed: The Untold Story About Horsemeat

by
Seal of the United States Department of Agricu...

Seal of the United States Department of Agriculture (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Over the past few weeks, we have witnessed a media frenzy with repeated disclosures on the commingling of horsemeat with beef in frozen food products distributed in Europe and possibly here in the United States; (3) however, the real discussions on the problems of horsemeat production with the details of trickery, cruelty and greed—  have been noticeably absent.  We have been given the names of some of the perpetrators in these violations of public trust, namely Nestle, Sodexho, Ikea, Burger King and Tesco, but there are many more out there yet to be identified.  It is important to note that to date, U.S. officials state that they doubt that horsemeat has been sold in any beef products in the United States. 

Aside from the deception by not revealing the contents of these food products, the more heinous act here is the introduction of a product into the food system that is not intended to be consumed by humans and, in fact, is deemed unsafe for human consumption.  Horses, after all, are “raised to be companions, competitors or work partners.” (1)  They routinely are administered medications that are toxic to people, including wormers, fly treatments and pain-killers.  All of these products contain chemicals that are prohibited for food ingestion by the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA).  Additionally, many of the drugs routinely given to humans have never been tested.  It appears that this problem of commingling horsemeat with beef is not merely a sleight of hand and harmless trickery of consumers.  Rather, it is a criminal violation to knowingly taint the food supply, and it is done simply for the purpose of financial gain, constituting pure greed with no regard for the health and safety of the consumer.  Simply stated, in the United States, commercially marketed meat is monitored and inspected by the federal government (USDA) and horsemeat is not approved for human consumption.

Another issue here is that of horse slaughter.  Ed Sayres, President of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) notes that there is little demand for horse slaughter in the United States, and horses are trucked to Canada and Mexico for such purposes.  He states, “These trips involve slipping, trampling injuries and death for many horses.  Those who survive then must suffer at the hands of the butcher.”  In other words, this is a very cruel industry.  Inasmuch as many of the horses that go to slaughter are not “aging, unwanted or sickly”, this abhorrent industry is simply making money while ignoring the suffering it causes to the horses and now it presents a threat to the health of humans.

It has been disclosed that the USDA intends to move forward to process pending applications on file for horse slaughter operations in the United States.  We here at LGBG say that this is not who we are as Americans.  We totally oppose this effort and support the ASPCA in its fight to spread the word about this effort which is gaining momentum and which must be stopped.  All eyes should be on Roswell, New Mexico, which is expected to be “ground zero” for this industry.  We urge all of our readers and supporters to unite to fight to ban the horse slaughter industry in America.  Also, please be particularly mindful of the meat products you buy and do not give your money to companies which participate in this practice.  Let’s advocate for a ban on horse slaughter.  To do this is to live green, be green.

Sources for this Article:

1.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-sayres/moving-in-wrong-direction_b_2790418.html
2.  http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-01/usda-says-horse-slaughter-plants-may-open-after-ban-lifted-1-.html
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/business/horse-meat-passes-through-texas-advocacy-groups-say.html?_r=0

Sustainable Energy Movement Belies Climate Change Critics

by
Scientific studies on climate helped establish...

Scientific studies on climate helped establish a consensus. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As the debate over the reality of climate change rages on in Congress and in the news, the details of a promising series of events are emerging that belie the arguments of climate change critics, who deny the existence of climate change and the negative consequences of inaction to address global warming.

Objective data now available clearly indicates a steady movement towards sustainability practices by many businesses.  For instance, recent statistics show that there has been a major shift away from the use of coal and towards natural gas to generate electricity in America.  This shift is documented by a major decline in coal transported by railroads.  This trend is concerning to railroads because coal is the most important commodity for them, accounting for 43.3 percent of  freight railway tonnage and 24.6 percent of gross rail revenue in 2011.  It is important to note that the decline in coal transport by rail, for the most part, is directly attributable to electric utilities’ needs “to take advantage of more price-competitive natural gas“.  While the production of natural gas does pose issues, particularly with fracking, it is a cleaner source of fuel, releasing fewer global-warming gases, such as carbon dioxide, thereby resulting in a reduction of greenhouse emissions in America.  As scientists work to make the fracking procedure safer, natural gas definitely competes against coal as a preferred fuel source.

A look at events going on in Alaska also provides evidence of belief in climate change, a willingness of people to accept its existence and the need to protect the environment.  A recent story chronicles Sarah Palin‘s efforts to address the issues of climate change while she was governor of Alaska.  Palin’s recognition of global warming and its effect on her state and its citizens led her to establish a climate change sub-cabinet to produce ideas on “how Alaskans can save energy and reduce greenhouse emissions”.  During this period prior to her interest in higher political aspirations, Palin was dedicated to find solutions to “protect Alaska’s most at-risk communities“.  Now fast forward to today where we find that current Alaska Republican governor, Sean Parnell (previously a lobbyist for oil companies) has quietly dismantled Palin’s Immediate Action Workgroup.  As a result, it is noted that there are 12 small indigenous communities on Alaska’s coast that need to relocate because of global warming.  Currently in Alaska, the voices are getting louder in support of these displaced communities and in recognition of the reality of global warming and climate change.

A third interesting series of events pointing to acceptance of global warming and the need to seek alternative energy solutions can be seen in the NFL’s increased use of solar energy for stadiums.  Of course, we just witnesses the major power failure at Super Bowl XLVII in New Orleans, Louisiana.  While it may come as a surprise to some people, for the past 18 years the NFL has been pursuing green energy solutions.  It recognized long ago that the sheer  size of most NFL venues were outpacing the infrastructures, thereby taxing the electrical grids and at some point resulting in power failures.  To date, several NFL stadiums are equipped with solar panels, including Gillette Stadium (New England Patriots), MetLife Stadium (NY Jets and NY Giants), FedEx Field (Redskins), and Century Link Field (Seattle Mariners).  The company responsible for most of these projects is NRG Solar Company (www.nrgsolar.com).  These efforts clearly are indicative of the NFL’s recognition of the importance of solar energy and the role it can play in business today, particularly for industries with very large energy burdens at any particular time.

We here at LGBG feel empowered by the efforts of individuals, businesses and organizations who refuse to be deterred in their efforts to seek solutions to global warming.  We know that climate change is a reality.  As we enter the weekend, we are posed to witness another reminder of the reality of climate change and global warming by two huge storms coming from the west and the south and expected to result in a major blizzard in the Northeast, which still has not recovered from Sandy.  We wish the best for everyone in the path of these storms.  They truly are Mother Nature reminding us to live green, be green.

Sources for this Article:
1.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rhone-resch/nfl-solar-power_b_2592901.html
2.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/06/sarah-palin-climate-change_n_2630262.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green
3.  http://www.climatecentral.org/news/new-rail-traffic-data-reflects-big-shift-away-from-coal-15555

LGBG Spotlight: Michele’s Granola – Seriously Green Granola

by

For all of our readers out there who are serious fans of granola, like I am, here’s a LiveGreen article for you! This week’s spotlight comes on the heels of a trip to my local grocery store, Wegmans. While there, shopping like I would on any other Saturday morning, I came across something that was not the norm for me and my Wegmans — there was a promotional stand set up in near the grains section. Immediately sparking my interest, I rode my curiosity on over to the stand to see what was up.  I met a great guy who offered me samples of and explained the mission of Michele’s Granola, a small Maryland company who is vegan, organic, and most inspiringly, GREEN. Needless to say, between the small talk and the tastings, I fell in love and walked away with two bags myself. But now, I’d like to delve a bit deeper into who Michele’s is…

Michele's Granola

Photo Credit: www.michelesgranola.com

Born from the experimentation sessions of a granola-crazed, self-taught baker, Michele’s Granola has grown from a one-woman stand at local farmer’s markets, to an operation which now produces about 5,000 pounds of product to serve its nearly 200 community retail outlets (markets, grocers, & other food service facilities).  Michele’s is dedicated to using 100% organic whole grains in its homemade style processes of production, guaranteeing the best tasting and most healthy granola possible.  But the brand’s mission does not end there.

Its baking facility currently runs 100% on wind power!  Amazing right? Yes. But what is even more amazing is that Michele’s also uses delivery vehicles that run on re-used vegetable oil from the deep fryers of local eateries.  Outstanding!  And as if this all weren’t enough already, Michele’s estimates that not only does 40% of its waste get recycled by traditional methods, but another 40% is sent to a local composting center to be used in the production of fertile soils (that are then used in Baltimore’s urban farming projects).

It is amazing that a young company like Michele’s Granola can be so committed to making a difference in the ways of green, especially within their local ecological and business environments.  They are a testament to the notion that the triple bottom line business methodology — Profit, People, and Planet — can prove successful beyond measure.  Here at LiveGreenBeGreen, we would like to firstly acknowledge the company’s great work and great product, and secondly, we want to extend the utmost respect and gratitude to Michele’s Granola for its initiatives and actions to do greener business.  Good luck, and God speed!

To read more about Michele’s Granola, or to enquire about how to get your hands on this scrumptious and socially-evolved health snack, visit the company’s official site at: https://www.michelesgranola.com/.

LGBG SPOTLIGHT: VerTerra – Dinnerware from Fallen Leaves

by


Photo Credit: http://www.verterra.com

While deep in my search for outstanding companies of all kinds the other day, I stumbled upon this sustainable gem — VerTerra.  I immediately decided that I must write this week’s spotlight article on it, to let all LiveGreenBeGreen readers know about this amazing company.  So, here it is:

VerTerra is a manufacturer of single-use dinnerware, an undoubtedly saturated industry.  However, unlike nearly all competitors out there, VerTerra operates with a special spark at its sole.  The company is completely focused on the environmentally and socially conscious consumer, as it sustainably produces its eco-friendly, high-quality products using fair wage labor practices.  But that does not mean its only customers are those environmentally and socially bleeding hearts — anyone can and should use their products!

Striking the perfect balance between smart and sexy is one of the most daunting and difficult tasks, and VerTerra makes it look effortless in their products.  What is most amazing, though, is exactly how the seed of this business idea came to be planted in the mind of its founder, Michael Dwork.  On a trip to India, Mr. Dwork stopped to buy some food from a street-vendor of sorts, not an unpopular practice.  To his amazement and delight, he found the woman serving him simply took fallen leaves, soaked them in water, and with a fairly primitive waffle-iron-like device, pressed them into serving plates!  He knew he wanted to bring this concept to full manufacturing fruition back home, so he fittingly set out on a journey to do just that.  And with one of the best ideas and founding stories in the industry, LiveGreenBeGreen agrees, he has gloriously succeeded.

To find out more about this eco-friendly entrepreneur’s brand, please visit and explore VerTerra’s Official Website at: http://www.verterra.com

And to explore and purchase the eco-friendly, disposable dinnerware solutions of VerTerra and other brands, please visit: http://www.joannehudson.com/disposable-plates-green-dinnerware.html

A Green Movement Requires A Green Body

by
High-fructose corn syrup for sale

High-fructose corn syrup for sale (Photo credit: Steven Vance)

 

The fact that America has an obesity epidemic is no secret. Apologists argue that this is a product of the world in which we live.  Americans, today, live a more sedentary lifestyle than in the past, and as a consequence, we have become fatter. Of all of the member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), America has the largest population percentage (30.6%) that is obese.  Coming in at 23%, the United Kingdom is the second most obese nation, and interestingly, of all the other OECD countries, it is comparably most similar to America in terms of cultural aspects.  Following the sedentary lifestyle argument, it would only follow that the world’s most developed nations would have comparable obesity rates. However, in reality, this is not the case. The G8 countries are the most affluent in the world, yet none have an obesity rate close to that of America.  Having already listed the obesity rate of two G8 Nations, now allow me to name the rest: France: 9.4%, Russia:  Anywhere between 16.2% and 20 %; Russia does not actively report on obesity)[1], Italy: 8.5%, Germany: 12.9%, Canada:14.3%, and finally Japan: 3.2%.[2]

 

Despite having very similar levels of living, America’s obesity rate is staggeringly higher. However, it would be factious of me not to say that there is not a correlation between income levels and obesity rates.  The OECD has taken note and has released some staggering facts such as, “until 1980, fewer than one in ten people were obese. Since then, rates doubled or tripled and in 19 of 34 OECD countries, the majority of the population is now overweight or obese. OECD projections suggest that more than two out of three people will be overweight or obese in some OECD countries by 2020”1. Nonetheless, the question must be asked: despite obesity being on the rise, why does America appear to have such a huge head start? While a sedentary lifestyle does undoubtedly play a role, there is another dominant factor as well. Your good old Uncle Sam is determining what you are and aren’t eating through laws and taxes.

 

America was founded as a democracy, but that has not stopped the establishment of kings in this country. The first and most famous king was, of course, King Cotton. The economic power of this cash crop helped propel the economic success of America in a pre-industrialized world. While it is uncomfortable to think that the forging of cotton and slavery together helped establish America on the world stage, it is a reality, and it is our duty as Americans not to shy away from our past. However, our King today started out in a more humble fashion and ascended to the throne over the course of American history. I am, of course, talking about King Corn, present in America at the first landing of settlers and saturating American culture today, quite literally might I add. Agriculture in America is a business that is heavily supported and subsidized by the federal government. While we will be primarily discussing its negative consequences, we must recognize that it was started to help farmers in the Great Depression, and many programs, such as crop insurance, are beneficial. However, this government support has morphed over the years and skewed the market in favor of corn and corn-based products. So how does this all work? It works through the rather bluntly titled Farm Bill:

 

“The 2008 Farm Bill approved $300 billion in mandatory spending (this figure does not include discretionary spending measures that are approved separately). About two-thirds (67%) of the spending measures were allocated toward nutrition, followed by agricultural subsidies (15%), conservation (9%), and crop insurance (8%). The remaining three percent included credit, rural development, research, forestry, energy, livestock, and horticulture/organic agriculture.”[3]

 

The Farm Bill is typically renewed every five years, but has yet to be renewed in whole. At the moment, it is a victim of Congressional gridlock, a reexamining of its benefits, and the pull of the corn lobby.

 

farm-bill-allocation1

 

This pie chart details the percentages of the bill from 2008. As you see a majority went towards the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), more commonly known as food stamps. We, however, are to focus on the 14% that went to crop subsidies. With regards to the 2008 Bill:

 

“The [2008] bill [gave] some $4.9 billion a year in automatic payments to growers of [corn and soy] such commodity crops, thus driving down prices for corn, corn-based products and corn-fed meats. Cows that are raised on corn, rather than grass, make meat that is higher in calories and contains more omega-6 fatty acids and fewer omega-3 fatty acids—a dangerous ratio that has been linked to heart disease.

 

Cheap corn has also become a staple in highly processed foods, from sweetened breakfast cereals to soft drinks, that have been linked to an increase in the rate of type 2 diabetes, a condition that currently affects more than one in 12 American adults. Between 1985 and 2010, the price of beverages sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup dropped 24 percent, and by 2006 American children consumed an extra 130 calories a day from these beverages. Over the same period, the price of fresh fruits and vegetables rose 39 percent. For families on a budget, the price difference can be decisive in their food choices.”[4]

 

Here are some more numbers to put the effect of corn syrup into perspective:

 

  • Percentage of high fructose corn syrup in Americans’ daily caloric intake: 7
  • Percentage of U.S. caloric sweeteners made from high-fructose corn syrup: ~40
  • The year that high fructose corn syrup became available in the U.S. food supply: 1967
  • Percentage U.S. consumption of high fructose corn syrup rose between 1970 and 1990: 1,000%
  • Percentage of obese Americans in 1960-1962: 13.4
  • Percentage of obese Americans in 2005-2006: 35.1
  • Approximate ratio of obese Americans in 2007-2008: 1 in 3

 

One could argue that America itself has been the test subject since 1967 concerning the effects of high fructose corn syrup. Actual clinical studies are starting to point in the same direction as well. As stated in a recent study published in the journal, Global Health:

 

“Researchers compared the average availability of high-fructose corn syrup to rates of diabetes in 43 countries. About half the countries in the study had little or no high-fructose corn syrup in their food supply. In the other 20 countries, high-fructose corn syrup in foods ranged from about a pound a year per person in Germany to about 55 pounds each year per person in the United States. The researchers found that countries using high-fructose corn syrup had rates of diabetes that were about 20% higher than countries that didn’t mix the sweetener into foods. Those differences remained even after researchers took into account data for differences in body size, population, and wealth.”[5]

 

This all begs the question of what we as the public can do about this. There are a wide variety of answers. Some argue for getting rid of the subsidies altogether or extending them to fruits and vegetables. Both arguments rest on the notion of the even playing field upon which capitalism is built. Let the consumer vote with his/her wallet, and the invisible hand will choose the one that is more beneficial. However, we must recognize that corn has a huge head start in this affair, and as such the two hardly can be deemed to be on even footing. This should be taken into consideration during the debate itself, the debate which is still ongoing. This is still a debate which the public can affect, whether you support the status quo or seek change of any kind. Your voice  still can be heard by your Representative and your Senator. Of course this is America, home of the ‘do it myself’ attitude. If you’ve lost faith in the political process in this country, and I think there may be several of you out there, why not break the chain, if only a little, by planting your own garden? Democracy is and should never be a top-down process. If a bill is to become law or if something is to be given preference, it should be initiated at the behest of the people. This helps to ensure that we live green, be green.

 

 

 

By Sean P. Maguire

 

[1] http://www.oecd.org/health/49716427.pdf

 

[2] http://www.aneki.com/countries2.php?t=Countries_with_the_Highest_Obesity_Rates&table=table_obesity&places=2=*=*=*=*=*&order=desc&orderby=table_obesity.name&decimals=–1&dependency=independent&number=all&cntdn=asc&r=-373-404&c=&measures=Country–obese%20population%20aged%2015%20and%20over%20(OECD%20Countries)&units=–&file=obesity

[3] http://www.snaptohealth.org/farm-bill-usda/u-s-farm-bill-faq/

[4] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fresh-fruit-hold-the-insulin

[5] http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20121127/high-fructose-corn-syrup-diabetes

 

Silver Lining in Fiscal Deal for Commuters

by
MONROE STREET PARKING LOT IN CHICAGO HOLDS 2,7...

MONROE STREET PARKING LOT IN CHICAGO HOLDS 2,700 CARS FOR COMMUTERS AT LAKE SHORE DRIVE. NEW CONSTRUCTION IS UNDERWAY… – NARA – 556196 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

While most of the conversation on the recently passed fiscal cliff deal has focused on large-ticket items, such as tax rates, tax breaks, and unemployment benefits, the deal did address and enhance a subsidy for commuters, which is a silver lining for the green movement.

Over the past year, the tax code has provided a subsidy for commuters who drive to work. Under this provision, an employer could cover up to $240 per month in parking expenses tax free for drivers.  Conversely, commuters who took public transportation were only covered for up to $125 of their monthly expenses.  Under the new fiscal cliff deal, the two benefits are set at equal levels, retroactively for 2012 and for 2013.

This provision definitely is a victory for the green movement, which stresses the need to reduce gas consumption and the number of cars on the road.  Also, the argument to increase the benefit to those who take public transportation brings to light the realization that subsidized parking is a distortion because there is a cost involved to provide and maintain parking facilities for drivers, thereby causing an adverse impact on land use.

Hopefully by equalizing the benefit for parking and taking public transportation, more people will opt for the latter.  Discussions on programs such as these now entertain the possibility that commuters who opt for the parking subsidy would be allowed to take the cash benefit.  The goal here is to encourage car or van pooling, which still goes a long way to reduce the number of automobiles on the road on any given day.  Also some jurisdictions are considering plans to increase the cash benefits for commuters who bike to work.

Given that transportation is the second largest household expense for America’s workers, along with the fact that most commuters drive to work alone, provisions to increase commuter subsidies for public transportation and to provide cash benefits for carpooling are very important.  They provide strong incentives for people to adopt behaviors that protect the environment, reduce our carbon footprint and successfully live green, be green.

Sources for this Article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/how-congress-shapes-your-commute/2011/10/19/gIQA7GHOxL_blog.html
http://odenton.patch.com/articles/marc-commuters-could-benefit-from-fiscal-cliff-deal

 

 

The New Year Ushers in New Green Laws

by
Bill Daniels getting chicken feed from the fee...

Bill Daniels getting chicken feed from the feed bags which he must store in one of his three rooms. Panther Red Ash… – NARA – 540999 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The New Year ushered in new legislation in many states, including some “green laws” that we find worthy of comment today.

The state of Maryland enacted a new law that prohibits the use of chicken feed that contains arsenic, a known carcinogen.  This is the first law of its kind in this nation, which bans the use of arsenic-containing additives, specifically roxarsone, in chicken feed.  The bill to prohibit arsenic-containing chemicals in chicken feed was sponsored by Del. Tom Hucker (D-Dist 20) of Silver Spring.   Del. Hucker notes that this new law is “a win for all Marylanders.”  Historically, arsenic-containing additives were added to chicken feed to protect the birds from parasites.  However, this chemical can build up in the birds’ bodies and manure and then can be washed into the Chesapeake Bay.  it is important to note that arsenic has been linked with diabetes, heart disease and cancer.  This win comes with a caveat as the poultry industry expresses concern that roxarsone (previously manufactured by Pfizer and voluntarily suspended in 2011) could be marketed again as a similar product by a different company.  It is important that we watch for any new developments that may occur in response to this new legislation.

A second piece of legislation worthy of mention is New York’s new law that exempts the sale and installation of commercial  solar energy system equipment from state sales use tax.  This law was enacted in response to the state’s commitment to “achieve the goal of 45 percent of New York State’s electricity needs through clean renewable energy and improved energy efficiency by 2015.”  Sen. George Maziarz (R-C, Newfane) Chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Telecommunications, notes that eliminating all state sales tax on solar systems equipment and installations and providing local municipalities the option to do the same should serve to stimulate the economy with increased commercial solar installations and the creation of more jobs to complete the work.  This law definitely should serve as a model for other states to increase the use of clean renewable energy while simultaneously stimulating the job market.

energy

energy (Photo credit: Sean MacEntee)

Our third selection of legislation to discuss can be found in the state of Iowa, which enacted a new law that allows the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to permit anglers to fish with three poles and a total of six hooks for an additional $12 licensing fee.  This law is aimed to spur ice fishing which is trying to rebound after a poor showing last winter.  Additionally, the Iowa DNR passed a new law that makes licensing more convenient by permitting hunting and fishing on a combined license.  The goal of these laws are to promote more outside activity, which definitely is green.

There are so many things we can do to protect the environment and promote healthy living.  Today we at LGBG salute the states of Maryland, New York and Iowa for the steps they have taken to protect the environment and to help us all live green, be green.

English: Iowa Department of Natural Resources logo

English: Iowa Department of Natural Resources logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Sources for this article:

http://www.gazette.net/article/20121231/NEWS/712319987/1122/bethesda/New-Maryland-laws-target-veterans’-licenses-chicken-feed-elections&template=gazette

http://bellmore.patch.com/groups/politics-and-elections/p/laws-taking-effect-on-jan-1-2013#

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/viewart/20130101/NEWS10/301010068/Updated-5-new-laws-new-year-take-effect-Iowa

House Failure to Aid Sandy Victims Sends Distress Signal

by
FEMA Trailers

FEMA Trailers (Photo credit: Urban Sea Star)

The recent action by the House Republican leadership to allow the current Congressional term to expire without voting on an aid package for Hurricane Sandy victims speaks volumes about the GOP‘s commitment to fight climate change and help those hurt by its severe weather.  Moreover, this Congress’ lack of action represents an abandonment of responsibility and duty to American citizens.

To date, there still are thousands of people whose homes and businesses were damaged or completely destroyed by the storm.  Many families are caught up in bureaucratic entanglements and local ordinance conflicts that prevent them from repairing their homes and businesses or finding accommodations close to their former schools and businesses so that they can regain some sense of normalcy while trying to get their lives back on track.  While FEMA trailers are being delivered, there still is a process required to secure such lodging.  Once approved, the families have to wait for the trailers to be delivered, secured to a pad and hooked up to utilities.  As many families as possible are being placed in local rentals, and as can be expected, there is now a scarcity of available properties.

With that said, the result is that the storm was emotionally and financially damaging to so many people with the massive loss of property and life.  The resulting homelessness and uncertainty have pushed the scales to a tipping point.  The victims of this storm need help now, and our government is capable of providing that help.  Shame on any Congressman who chose to leave without making this right.  If the House of Representatives cannot not act on this because they want to go home on vacation, we as citizens must rally together and use the vote to send them home for good.

Climate change is real and its adverse weather occurrences is equally damaging to the financial and mental health of its victims.  Super storm Sandy struck the New Jersey/New York/Connecticut area in November.  The next storm could be anywhere in this country.  The face of each Sandy victim is the face of any American citizen.  Let’s stand together to protect ourselves by seeking solutions to climate change and global warming with its severe weather.  Let’s all live green, be green.