Happy America Recycles Day!

by

All of us at Live Green Be Green are proud to celebrate America Recycles Day.  This holiday was started in 1997 to promote awareness of the need to recycle.  This is a day of celebration and recognition of everyone who has done something along these lines.  A recycling effort could be as small as sorting trash so as not to put plastics in the garbage, recycling used printer cartridges or donating no longer used clothing to charitable organizations.  We all are getting pretty good at this; however, we still have a long way to go.

Over the years since recycling promotions have begun, we have witnessed the institution of both voluntary and mandatory practices put into place by local and federal legislative bodies to enforce recycling.  These include fines for littering, deposit taxes on returnable bottles and cans and supervises use of landfills.  As a result, many recycling practices have become habitual to most us.  Also, we now reap rewards from recycling.  These include rebates on ink cartridges and tax credits for donations of electronics that we no longer want but still are useful and are accepted by charities.

Over the ensuing year, let’s try to take our recycling efforts at least one step farther.  In addition to recycling plastic bottles, we can purchase reusable bottles.  Also, we can downsize our purchases of clothing and household goods.  Let’s learn to live with less.  When making purchases, especially for the home, do some research and purchase products, such as flooring, tiles and even paper products made from recycled materials.

We hope everyone who recycles will give themselves a pat on the back today for taking that extra step to save our planet.  We applaud your efforts to live green, be green!

English: Recycle logo

English: Recycle logo (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Licensed Women Drivers Overtake Men

by
"The world turned upside down" (gend...

“The world turned upside down” (gender-role reversal) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

According to a study by the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, female licensed drivers outnumber their male counterparts for the first time in automotive history.  This study examined gender trends in driver’s permits between 1995 and 2010.  As of 1995, male registered drivers outnumbered female drivers with permits 89.2 million to 87.4 million.  By 2010, however, 105.7 women had driver’s licenses compared to 104.3 million men.  Results indicate that “[w]omen are more likely than men to purchase smaller, safer and more fuel-efficient cars; to drive less, and to have a lower fatality rate per distance driven”.  These findings effectively place women in the driver’s seat, having assumed a position to take control over the country’s direction in matters of efficient affordable transportation and clean energy relative to it.

Certainly, these findings also impact automobile design.  However, it is noteworthy that the role of women in car design is not a new phenomenon.  In the period of more than 120 years since cars have been on the road, women have been instrumental in automobile design but largely were rendered invisible in this role by automakers.  In the 1960s’, auto companies, such as Ford, advertised cars for women, but the “woman’s car” generally was either smaller, cheaper and cuter than cars geared to male buyers, or it was the oversized family transport vehicle.  This notion directly reflected the perceived role of women in society in terms of participation in financial contributions and decisions.  Volvo set out to court women car buyers in 2005 with the “Your Concept Car“, which addressed automotive design features important to women, showing that these same features, i.e., interior space, position of front end and windows for better field vision, etc., also were important to men, thus leveling the playing field regarding cars in this price range.  Other than this, the role of women in the automobile industry basically was reduced to a “sex sells” mentality with car show images of beautiful women alongside gorgeous cars in an attempt to lure men to buy.

Now, fast forward to 2012 where truly “you’ve come a long way, baby!”  Women now outnumber men in college attendance and are commanding higher salaries (though they still lag behind men at a rate of 77 cents per dollar).  Women now are seen in the boardroom more often and assume higher positions in Fortune 500 companies.  Also, they are behind the wheel in professional auto racing.  Women were a deciding factor in the 2012 presidential election.  It is a normal progression for women to have a major impact on economic trends in America, including the auto industry.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of discussions and compromise on legislative issues regarding clean, affordable, safe and efficient transportation, as well as other green initiatives.  Hopefully, the major organizations in the green movement will work hard to include women in the dialogue and to gain their support to advance their many causes, particularly in the area of transportation.  As the primary nurturers in our society, women are a captive audience for the message to live green, be green.

Sources for this article:

  1. http://www.insideline.com/car-news/more-women-than-men-have-drivers-licenses-study-shows.html
  2. http://herstoria.com/?p=9
  3. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/volvo-concept.htm

Green Initiatives Threatened by Looming Fiscal Cliff

by
Tax

Tax (Photo credit: 401(K) 2012)

Any discussion of the looming fiscal cliff must address the impact on green initiatives as any budget cuts or tax increases will adversely impact the efforts of both families and businesses to go green.  With the realization that compromises will have to be made on both sides across the aisle, it remains important that our elected representatives focus on the fact that governmental spending need to include investment in human and physical matters that will pay dividends in the future.  A green economy qualifies for such investment because its tenets lead to a healthier society and an environmentally friendly world.

Several of the tax incentives for living green were derived from the Bush era tax cuts, which are scheduled to expire at the end of this year if not renewed by Congress, thus creating the looming fiscal cliff.  A few notable ones to mention are as follows:

  • The residential energy efficiency credit.  This credit is given to homeowners who purchase high energy-efficient appliances and home improvements.  Many Americans have received reductions in tax liability through the use of these credits while at the same time making their homes more energy-efficient.
  • The American Opportunity Credit.  This credit provides a $2500 tuition tax credit, thereby enabling more people to go to college.  This opportunity directly affects the potential pool of trained people needed in the research and development of green technology and the direct training needed for operation of green industries.
  • The payroll tax credit.  Taxpayers will see a decrease in their take home checks if this credit expires, thus impacting their ability to exercise healthier choices in the purchase of foods and organic products.
  • The production tax credit (PTC).  This credit subsidizes wind power by 2.2 cents a kilowatt hour.  This is important to states and localities working hard to establish wind power as an alternative energy source.

As the discussion and bargaining proceed over the next few weeks, it is important that we advocate our positions on green initiatives which will be affected by budget decisions.  Now is the time to contact your congressmen by phone or email and state your position on these issues.  Today’s investment of time will reap tomorrow’s dividends.  Let’s live green, be green.

Sources:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324073504578104464153878672.html?mod=rss_economy

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/energy-environment/wind-power/index.html

 

The New Green Agenda Taking Shape

by

Last night, during his victory speech, President Obama made note that in the coming years we must take notice and attempt to neutralize the threat posed by global warming. Of course, this raises the question of how this will be undertaken and how it will affect the economy. When we looked at this election cycle, we did not see climate change brought up as a campaign point, so to sketch out the next four years, we must look at the past four. With regards to climate change and the economy, we can see some key areas that Mr. Obama has at least focused on, if not attempting to enact policy, namely fuel efficiency, green energy and jobs, high-speed rail, and oil subsidies. Let’s take a quick look at each one of these and see how the President’s policy regarding them could affect the economy.
The Obama administration set new standards in fuel efficiency. These standards will increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light duty trucks by the model year 2025. These standards are projected to save US consumers $1.7 trillion at the pump, while decreasing US oil consumption by 12 million barrels.  The adoption of these measures alone will cut down on one of the most painful costs for American families, allowing them to spend more on more beneficial sources of consumption. Furthermore, these standards increase incentives for hybrid and electric vehicles, as well as charging stations. These incentives could help to reduce costs, and as such, decrease barriers to entry into the market. Government assistance also could help propel the US into the coveted position of world leader in the electric vehicle market. The President has made a point to increase exports and promote electric vehicles, and this certainly could play into this.
Concerning green jobs, the President had in the past secured a tax credit for clean energy jobs, research, and production. Many manufacturers awaited the outcome of the elections with trepidation, as Gov. Romney stated multiple times he would end all subsidies to green energy. We will likely see the President push for a continuation, if not an expansion, of these tax credits over the next four years. Justification for these subsidies would be the infant industry theory, wherein the industry would likely not survive for the time being without the subsidies. Another green sector in the economy would be mass transportation. The Administration has laid plans for national high speed rail lines in the past. The stimulus included funds for the upgrading of creating “high speed railroads” as they are known in the rest of the world. The Administration will likely push for high speed rail for both economic and political reasons. Politically, the promise of jobs and a more centralized connection and access to major population centers could entice blue collar voters to go Democrat in rural and economically depressed counties.
Finally, the President has made a continuous push over the last year to end subsidies for oil and gas companies. While it was not discussed much in the election, the fiscal cliff is still on the horizon. It presents a perfect opportunity for the President to press for an end to oil subsidies. Simultaneously extending and or increasing green energy tax credits, while getting rid of oil subsidies, could give the green energy market more of an advantage and make costs of production and prices more competitive.
Regardless of what’s undertaken, transitioning one’s economy is a difficult task. Climate change is very much real, and it presents a very credible threat to our standard of living and economy. However, it also presents new opportunities for economic success. We can either go down with the sinking ship that is fossil fuels or we can jump ship and transition to a green economy. The US has been the hegemonic power for the past century because of its economic might, which has been driven by an innovative spirit and position as the most competitive player on the world stage in the most important industries. For the 21st century, that is green energy. I believe the Administration sees it this way, yet the realities of the world may replace restrictions on what can be done. The President has made climate change an issue.  now he must convince the people and Congress it really of the same.

Sources for this article are:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-administration-finalizes-historic-545-mpg-fuel-efficiency-standard

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-06/green-jobs-depend-on-obama-win-as-fiscal-cliff-approaches.html

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/03/obamas-day-going-after-oil-subsidies/1#.UJp_BcX7J8E

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/politics/oil-subsidies/index.html

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2012/0821/Obama-plan-for-high-speed-rail-after-hitting-a-bump-chugs-forward-again

http://www.politico.com/morningtransportation/1112/morningtransportation9414.html?hp=l6_b7

By Sean McGuire

Food Labeling Controversy

by

I think it is amazing that in the year 2012, there would be a contentious debate going on in this country regarding the rights of consumers to know whether or not their food contains genetically modified organisms (GMOs).  This controversy will appear on the ballot in the upcoming California general election.  If passed, it will require “labeling of foods sold to consumers made from plant or animals with genetic material changed in specific ways”.  It also would prohibit “marketing such foods, or other processed food, as ‘natural’.

Proponents of Prop 37 voice concerns that GMOs have been linked to allergies and other health problems, while opponents of the measure state that there is no scientific evidence that processed food with traces of GMOs pose a danger to humans.  The major issue posed by the opponents lies in the costs of regulation and verification, which would be the responsibility of the retailers and an undue burden to smaller stores and businesses.

The amazing part of this debate is that there is such a discussion going on questioning consumers’ rights to know what is in their food.  Also, I find it interesting that this is a big issue in America while 50 other countries in the world (which represents 40% of the world’s population) presently require GMO labeling.  These countries include all of Europe, Japan, India and China.  Also polls here show that 90% of Americans want to know if their food is genetically engineered.

In our present tumultuous political climate, we hear politicians at all levels making promises about what they will do for us and our country if elected.  Maybe we all should take a step back and question how these people want to help us in all these other areas but are willing to bend to big business and violate such a basic right as access to information regarding the contents of the food we eat.  We have the right to make informed decisions about our nutrition and it is up to us ensure this is the case and that our rights are not violated.  This is 2012, not the dark ages.  Access to facts on our food content is crucial to being able to live green, be green.

 

Green Jobs Propel Economy Forward

by

Despite the criticism of skeptics and conservative politicians, the green job movement is moving forward and progressing.  In fact, a report issued last week by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) states that the growth and benefits of green jobs are even stronger than previously expected.  After its analysis of employment data from the Brookings Institution and the Pew Center on the States, who undertook the task of categorizing green jobs on a detailed industry and occupational level, the EPI concludes the following:

  • Green industries are growing faster than the overall economy, at a rate of 2,5 times as fast as other jobs.
  • States with green jobs withstood the recession and fared better than those without green jobs.
  • Approximately 20% of all green jobs are in the manufacturing sector, which is great for the economy because roughly 5.5 million jobs in this area have been lost since 2000.
  • Green jobs offer pathways into the middle class.  These jobs tend to require less education but pay better wages.  This is good for people who cannot afford to go to college but still need good jobs that pay well, enabling them to support their families in a wholesome and healthy manner.

Now we need to adopt the appropriate governmental policies on all levels–local, state and federal–to support the positive movement in the green economy.  This includes investing in storm water infrastructure and supporting energy efficiency programs in cities and states.  We need long-term commitment to businesses involved in solar and wind energy.  Most importantly, we need a change in mindset.  Only through education and technology with demonstrated successes in improvement of air and water quality and reduction in adverse health conditions attributed to pollution will we reverse our dependence on coal and fossil fuels, which are so detrimental to our environment.

A green economy is a win-win situation for everyone.  We can keep moving forward by practicing healthy living, educating our families and communities on green initiatives and demanding that our elected officials support the green movement through public policy.  We know that these strategies are important ingredients in the recipe to live green, be green.

Green economy pays off

Climate Change Ignored in First Presidential Debate

by

As everyone analyzes last night’s first presidential debate, it seems that a focus on the important and often urgent concerns of voters were sidelined by concern with style and appearance, resulting in a journalistic award of a “victory” for Mitt Romney.  This win for Romney clearly signals an ideological loss for the green movement.

First and foremost, Mr. Romney brazenly misstated President Obama’s investment in “green energy”, erroneously claiming that the administration had spent $90 billion on “green energy”, but that half of the companies that he had spent the money on had failed.  A report by the Washington Post declares this is a “flat-out false claim”.  Rather, the $90 billion was the sum set aside for “green” tech and research in the stimulus bill.  A substantial portion of these funds was used for efficiency projects, research and development, carbon sequestration, and upgrading the nation’s electric grid, among other projects.  Only a small percentage was spent on direct loans to clean energy companies, and contrary to Romney’s statement, very few of these companies have failed.

Secondly, to the dismay of the electric car industry, Romney called electric car companies “losers”, specifically Tesla, which is well on its way to becoming a successful and profitable business.  While President Obama did not call Mr. Romney out on the importance of clean energy and electric cars, he did look the camera in the eye and spoke to the American people, noting that he differed from Romney in that he was more interested in the development of renewable energy sources.  Additionally, he voiced the need to end federal oil subsidies.  Perhaps Romney summed up his commitment to the protection of the environment and the health and safety of its inhabitants by stating, “I like coal”.

Proponents of the green movement also are disappointed that Jim Lehrer, as moderator, disregarded climate control as an issue even worthy of discussion in the debate.  Despite receiving 160,000 letters from a coalition of nonprofit organizations dedicated to green initiatives requesting discussion on climate change, Mr. Lehrer ignored this issue.  Supposedly, the purpose of the debate was to give millions of voters an opportunity to “hear how the candidates plan to address the nation’s most urgent challenges”.  It appears that the moderator does not consider the climate crisis that important or urgent.

The green movement is a strong and dedicated one that is not going to go away.  It will not and cannot be dismissed alongside Big Bird.  While it cannot force a discussion of its issues at a debate, it can ensure that it is a force to be reckoned with at the ballot box.  It is clear to the green movement that climate change is devastating and a threat to our very existence.  Any discussion on education, construction, health care, or job creation must include climate change and environmental concerns to be effective.  Any voter who is concerned about health, welfare, employment and family issues and who wants to make sure there will be a healthy planet around for their children to inherit has a clear choice.  Hopefully, we will live green, be green.

Mitt Romney clearly takes a stand against green.

Organic Farming Lessons From Anatolia, Turkey

by

A recent New York Times article notes that farming, the second oldest profession in the world, is making a comeback.   Many liberal arts college graduates seem to be avoiding the extreme and intense competition for entry level office jobs with its accompanying drudgery and taking up organic farming.  The consideration of farming as an occupation after college for today’s graduates is logical because this generation generally is more eco-conscious.  During their college years, many of these students were active in campaigns concerned with climate change, as well as the quality of food served on campuses.  As a result, sustainable farming is in vogue.

An interesting article by activist, Ellen Freudenheim (Sustainable Farming, Organic Food:  8 Lessons for America from Anatolia, Turkey) is a great starting place to get involved in sustainable farming.  This article presents eight valuable tips that the author learned about organic farming while visiting Turkey “where such ideas as ‘small farm,’ ‘organic,’ and ‘locally grown’ are so old hat that they predate the fez.”  These lessons are as follows:

  • Plan ahead.
  • Keep it simple.
  • A college education isn’t enough.
  • If you want to eat what you sow, think systems.
  • Sustainable gardening takes multiple hands.
  • Plan a winter vacation in Florida to recover from making hay while the sun shines.
  • Don’t underestimate how much skill and knowledge are needed.
  • God’s gifts—faith and optimism are important ingredients in a lifestyle in which food for sustenance depends on the sun, rain and natural elements beyond one’s control.

In conclusion, Ms Freudenheim offers a recipe for change that combines traditional farming techniques with modern technology, guided by savvy college students committed to address the current problems of quality of food supply and the obesity epidemic.  Hopefully, this sustainable farm movement will grow and appeal to the public at large so that we all can live green, be green.

Commentary on NBC Education Nation Summit

by

Earlier this week, I commented on the 2012 NBC Education Nation Summit in New York City.   I voiced concerns that the education dialogue failed to address green issues, which potentially could be affected by its suggestions.  After a lively discussion with other “green” bloggers, I feel that I should qualify some of my stated concerns.

First of all and perhaps most importantly, I agree that technology is a key element in the education of America’s youth.  Tablets, computers and smart phones definitely deserve a place in the hands of students because they offer immediate global access to knowledge.  The exercise of using these devices in itself aids in the development of skills in critical thinking and problem solving.  Nonetheless,I stand by my concern that any movement to supply these devices to all students carries with it a responsibility and accountability for the proper management of these electronics in order to avoid pollution of the environment.  A plan has to be in place to properly recycle and/or dispose of obsolete devices.  Students simply cannot “throw them in the trash” and move on to the latest and greatest device.  Landfills simply cannot tolerate the potential volume of debris.

Secondly, any dialogue on the incorporation of digital instruments in the educational system must include concern over the lack of access to Internet service by many communities in this country.  An examination of recent statistics by the Federal Communications Commission indicates that 19 million Americans still have no access to high-speed Internet.  Approximately 14.5 million of these individuals or around 5% of the total U.S. population, “live in rural areas, where Internet providers do not offer services because ‘there is no business case to offer broadband’ services”.  Although the Telecommunications Act of 1996 required the FCC to ensure that broadband was rolled out on a “reasonable basis” to all corners of the country, the current report indicates that this is not happening.  It now is the FCC’s goal to have “universal broadband deployment” in the country by 2020.  Any recommendations by education summits and conferences, as well as any national education benchmark programs to incorporate digital technology through the use of electronic devices for all students will need to address the problems of the digital divide so as to guarantee the availability of these services to all public school students.

Another issue in my previous blog addresses the subject of online courses for all students.  While I do agree that there is a place in the educational system for online courses as a learning tool, and I acknowledge that they positively impact the green movement with reduced transportation of students to classrooms, I still believe that we need to be careful about initiating programs that potentially limit or eliminate the requirement for face-to-face interaction between students and teachers.  We have to proceed cautiously here to avoid overzealous efforts of some government administrators and elected officials to adversely impact the public education systems through harsh budget costs and elimination of teacher positions, books and supplies.  Also, while it would be great for students to meet at area museums, galleries and other cultural centers to get a hands-on experience in many subject areas, the proponents of these ideas must face the reality that there are many towns and even counties in this country that either do not have these cultural attractions or who have eliminated them because of economic restraints.  Access to cultural centers for hands-on education is great, but any dialogue must address the availability of this for all students.

In conclusion, any education summit or conference that aims to improve America’s education system must be mindful of the needs of all students served by the system.  The respected experts who are entrusted to establish the guidelines for programs to improve public education must be fair and just in their decisions.  Education and the green movement go hand-in-hand.  The green movement strives to preserve our planet for future generations, and “education is simply the soul of a society as it passes from one generation to another” (G.K. Chesterton).  Let’s learn green, live green, be green!

NBC Education Nation Fails on Green Initiatives

by

This week’s NBC Education Nation was touted as a must-attend/must-see event for anyone interested in the education of America’s youth.  This summit, hosted by NBC in New York’s Rockefeller Center brought together more than 300 leaders in education, philanthropy, government and the media.  Guest speakers included President Barack Obama, Presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, U.S. Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, and a host of other CEO’s, politicians, journalists, etc.

I have followed this summit online, reading excerpts from town hall meetings and blogs, as well as watching reports on the local news stations.  A lot of problems with the education system have been mentioned, but the subject noticeably avoided was green initiatives.  In fact, some of the suggestions offered may conflict with the green movement.  Primarily, there is an emphasis on technology in education, which endorses equipping students with tablets, laptops and smart phones to be used in the classroom.  While this may sound like a great idea on the surface, one can only imagine the magnitude of the negative impact of this huge amount of electronic debris on the environment.  Of course, such ideas are great for Microsoft and other computer and electronics manufacturers, who make large notations to schools or who sell these products to students at a discount, thereby reaping large financial gain and tax credits.  Their bottom line is different than that of the green movement.  Also, one must question the equity in this suggested program.  To effectively address the issue of education, any program would need to be inclusive of all children irrespective of station in life.  It would be unfair for students in the poor school districts to be left out of these programs because they do not have access to Internet or other systems necessary to support the use of these devices.

Another topic not addressed at the summit was learning environment.  To be successful in school, students need access to physically healthy structures.  This summit seemed to ignore the fact that there are a lot of “sick” school buildings still in use, once again predominantly in poor communities.  Many children in this country attend schools that are polluted with mildew, mold, outdated structures or inadequate/no heating system or air conditioning, thereby making learning difficult or impossible.  The provision of a suitable learning environment has to be part of the education nation dialogue.

A third topic of the summit was online learning.  There are two sides to this story also.  Access to online courses is beneficial to some people, but it should not replace the traditional classroom, which presents a valuable opportunity to ask questions, and more importantly, to hear the questions and comments of other students and instructors.  I can recall times that a student did not ask a question, but a teacher recognized a confused look and addressed concerns of that individual.  Online courses potentially remove the ability of a teacher to recognize the need for additional help from a student who may not be able to verbalize this need.  Any online course programs definitely should incorporate a hybrid component, which require some face-to-face group meetings.  Additionally, school attendance presents an opportunity for the school systems to guarantee healthy meals for breakfasts and lunches.  This is important for so many children and must be continued.

The issues discussed here represent only a few of the issues that needed to be addressed at the NBC Education Nation Summit.  There was some discussion of curriculum, but the Summit should have included experts in the green movement, as these individuals are well aware of the environmental issues that need to be addressed through education.  Discussion could have included the need for commitment to develop and implement educational programs to build the workforce to find solutions to green issues threatening the planet.

This writer thinks the NBC Education Nation has earned an F for its grade for this year’s summit.  Our very existence mandates that we learn green, live green, be green!

Green initiatives were not well represented in 2012 NBC Education Nation Summit