Show You Care With Green Valentine Gifts

by
Happy Valentine's Day...

Happy Valentine’s Day… (Photo credit: Јerry)

Valentine’s Day is just around the corner, and we here at LGBG wanted to offer a few suggestions for green Valentine’s Day celebrations that show how much you really care.  With a little imagination, you can plan a celebration that is romantic, affordable and more exciting than that usual annual Hallmark moment, complete with a card, cut flowers and large crowds and long lines at restaurants that are anything but intimate.

For starters, a written expression of love is a must.  It does not have to be a store-bought card.  It could be a letter, a poem or a list of all the things you love about the person receiving the gift.  It could be a handwritten IOU for a special event upcoming in the future.  Your special person definitely will appreciate the personal touch, thoughtfulness and creativity.  If you must give a store-bought card, make sure it is made from environmentally friendly recycled paper.

Flowers are perhaps the gift given most often on Valentine’s Day.  This year, break out of the box and try something different.  Rather giving “toxic” cut flowers that will die in a few days, choose a potted plant that will continue to grow for a long time (if cared for properly).  A perusal of websites on environmentally friendly plants reveals a lot of suggestions.  One of my favorite sites is:  http://www.thenewecologist.com/2009/07/top-10-natural-eco-friendly-and-anti-pollutant-houseplants/.  There you can find beautiful and often colorful houseplants that also are eco-friendly and anti-pollutant.  This gift could mark the start of a special activity in your relationship that fosters intimacy.  It also is a great gift for children, creating a learning opportunity on caring about nature.

Next, who doesn’t like chocolate, particularly on Valentine’s Day?  This year, try organic chocolate.  This is a great time to shop from fair trade vendors, who guarantee their products are organic and were made by workers who were treated fairly. Organic chocolate is made from cocoa beans that have not been treated with fertilizers, herbicides or pesticides.  Additionally, the other ingredients in the mix also are grown by organic methods– sugar, nuts, spices, etc.  Domestic organic chocolate are clearly labeled as such with a USDA Organic seal and with an organic percentage of 70% to 98%.  To earn this seal, this product must be free of preservatives, artificial color and GMOs.  Organic chocolate is more expensive than conventional chocolate, but the quality shows that you care.

If jewelry is on your list this year, consider antique jewelry or something retro that has very special meaning.  This presents another great opportunity to shop from fair trade vendors.

To cap off that romantic Valentine’s Day celebration, celebrate with organic wine.  Organic wine is made from grown with 100% organic ingredients that have been monitored closely throughout the growing process.  Domestic organic wines carry a USDA seal.  A great website with brands of organic wines is: http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/latest/best-organic-wines#slide-1.  Also, when I visited my local spirits shop, the salesperson was eager to “educate” me on organic wine, and I left the store with a great bottle of reasonably priced vino.

We hope you find something interesting to try in  these suggestions for a green Valentine’s Day.  Every little step towards a greener lifestyle helps to reduce our carbon footprint.  Use the opportunity of this upcoming Valentine’s Day to celebrate love, life, the earth and to live green, be green.

Violence Against Women– Perception Of Double Standard

by

This week’s Senate vote for the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is being viewed by many as a referendum on the issue of violence against women in America.  We here at LGBG know that the problem of violent crimes against women, such as rape, physical abuse, intimidation and stalking are both social and health issues that must be adequately addressed in America.

Since the recent mass shootings in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, Aurora, Colorado and Tucson, Arizona, combined with the discovery and outrage over the sexual abuse of young boys at Penn State, the arguments for and against gun control, as well as the need to address the problem of mental illness in America have been loud and clear.  It is unfortunate that we have remained quiet and less emotional about the violence against women in the home, schools and armed services.  The House of Representatives chose to vote against the reauthorization of thus much needed legislation, and now we are waiting for the Senate to act.  Why must there be so much resistance to reauthorize an act already on the books that seeks to protect women?  In other words that are more direct and simple—why the double standard?

Statistics by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and UN Women indicate that:

  • Approximately 20% of American women have been raped or have experienced an attempted rape;
  • Greater than 15% of American women have been stalked;
  • Approximately 25% of American women have reported physical abuse by an intimate partner.

Despite these disturbing statistics, Congress has chosen to become mired down in technicalities when discussing this issue, rather than acting on the urgency of the matter.

Legislators seem to give a lot of lip service to support for women and issues relative to them, but often when the time to act arises, that strong support quickly dissipates or becomes lost in bureaucratic rhetoric and entanglements.  For instance, we claim to fully support our military.  If that is the case, that support should extend to the protection of females in the military from violent sexual attacks and intimidation at the hands of fellow soldiers.  We now boast that women can go into active combat.  Imagine being able to boast that we keep our females in the military completely safe sexual attacks by other soldiers.  Also, legislators tout the need to curb the deficit to ensure the fiscal health of the nation for our young people.  Considering that so many young women and even girls, particularly students, experience rape, stalking and intimidation, it is just as important that we stop violence against women in this country to ensure the physical and mental health of these citizens.

Interestingly, it was reported that the Super Bowl celebration historically has resulted in the single largest day of human trafficking.  Amazingly, on this day of records, this one significant dark statistic is never mentioned.  Once again, this points to a double standard by our leaders and our society on both the value of women and their right to protection from violence.  We understand that VAWA does not address the issue of human trafficking, but we know that the reauthorization of this act can be the lightning rod to ignite meaningful discussion of all aspects of violence to women, thus leading to increased awareness of the problem and solutions.

It is important that we reauthorize the Senate version of the Violence Against Women Act because in addition to funding crucial grant programs, it makes critical improvements in the former act and strengthens the program to protect all victims of domestic and sexual abuse.  The purpose of the reauthorization of VAWA is simple:  To ensure that “college students, immigrants, Native Americans, gays, lesbians and transgender people have access to anti-abuse programs”.  The Violence Against Women Act contains programs that work to prevent violence and to help victims of violence and their families remain safe and self-sufficient”.  We urge you to contact your U.S. senator and ask that he/she support this bill on the floor and oppose any harmful amendments to the current act.  Hopefully, the perspective of a double standard will be a myth, and this week the Senate will show that by its vote to reauthorize this act.

For your convenience, we are providing a link to the list of the phone numbers and addresses for the members of the U.S. Senate.  It is as follows: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/peace/senate.html.  You also can email your opinion or a message on the topic of VAWA to your senator at the following site: https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/s47/comment/support.

Sources for this article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/03/super-bowl-sex-trafficking_n_2607871.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/riane-eisler/violence-against-women_b_2584808.htmlvawa_poster_image

 

Ekocycle Delivers Recycling Message Through Dramatic Visualization

by

We constantly hear about the benefits of recycling, and now Ekocycle has taken the delivery of this message to the next level by going on a mission to provide a remarkably informative and entertaining visualization of the possible results of this effort.  Ekocycle is a collaboration between the Coca-Cola Company and Will.i.am, which educates consumers, particularly young people, on the benefits of recycling and encourages “recycling behavior” and sustainability among consumers”.  We here at LGBG first wrote about this project back in August (http://livegreenbegreen.com/?s=Ekocycle), and after seeing the work done by this group, we would like to talk about it again.  First of all, we salute Ekocycle’s mission to use awareness of the issues with plastics as a tool to effect social change.

The goal of the Ekocycle project is a simple and direct one– “zero waste“, an innovative way of

.  Plastic bottles can be recycled to make so many other items, with the possibilities limited only by the lack of imagination.  What makes this effort really special is the visual and auditory appeal to the senses in the form of commercials set to music, which begins with an empty soda bottle being morphed into numerous popular items that we use everyday, some of which, are in very high demand.  This approach to recycling is very refreshing because in the past we have been bombarded with the negative effects, or punishment, for not recycling.  We read about plastic pollution, and we witness increased bottle taxes and added costs for plastic bags, along with local ordinances banning the use of plastic bags totally.  Also, we see large landfills packed with plastic materials that will take forever to break down.  Now Ekocycle has introduced commercials, which shows in dramatic fashion products we can make from recycled plastic bottles, thereby protecting the environment and still having fun.   These commercials are set to the characteristic beat of the music of Will.i.am, and the recycled products includes furniture, phone cases and accessories, and even the ever-popular Levi jeans.

Since we first announced Ekocycle last August, this project has gained momentum and is becoming a social movement dedicated to sustainability.  It has attracted the attention and resulted in partnerships with major brands, such as Limited edition Levi’s 501 Waste<less jeans, Beats by Dr. Dre (headphones),  Case-Mate Barely There phone cases (available at Best Buy and at www.bestbuy.com/casemate and New Era caps.

Will.i.am so fittingly states, “All good things must end, but an end can be a new start”.  Ekocycle is the embodiment of the spirit of sustainability.  With its positive message and reinforcement of the need to be environmentally friendly, combined with the encouragement to use technology to address environmental issues, such as plastic pollution and waste, it is mounting a social movement which makes us want to jump on the bandwagon to witness the possibilities.  It’s like magic tricks, which turn objects into new things.  We all love magic, and Ekocycle is eager to deliver a world were we can live green, be green.

Sources for this article:

http://livegreenbegreen.com/?s=Ekocycle

http://www.coca-colacompany.com/media-center/press-releases/recycling-fashion-william-coca-cola-launch-new-brand

Credit: Will.i.am at Ekocycle

Credit: Will.i.am at Ekocycle

The Keystone XL Debate Is Back, But The Facts Remain The Same

by

A debate that many once thought was done and settled has reared its head again recently, the Keystone XL oil pipeline.  Like many issues in America, it has become a partisan rallying point, with Democrats (for the most part) and Republicans setting up camp on different sides of the issue. Many, no doubt, recall the continuous news coverage over this very divisive issue during the previous two years, and they also may recall that news coverage then suddenly stopped.

The issue was brought back into the spotlight earlier this week by (R) Gov. Dave of Nebraska when he endorsed a revised pipeline going through his state.[1]  Before we go any further let us refresh our memory on the basic facts about the pipeline:

“The full proposed pipeline, which would cross the U.S. border in Montana, is designed to bring between 500,000 to 700,000 barrels a day from the Canadian oil sands region to refineries on the Gulf Coast. It would shortcut to an existing pipe that goes through much of Canada before cutting into the United States in North Dakota on the way to Cushing.” [2]

The important thing to take away from this is that already there is a pipeline in place. The proposed additions would shorten the distance that the oil needs to travel, while allowing it to be shipped to Gulf refineries, instead of those in the Midwest that currently are used. Another major point to understand before we truly dive into this debate is that part of this proposal already is being put into effect. The part of the pipeline that would take the oil from Cushing, Oklahoma to oil refineries in Texas is going forward.  Since this portion of the pipeline does not cross an international border, it does not require federal approval.  Furthermore, the Obama administration was never in opposition to this segment of the pipeline, which is expected to be fully operational sometime later this year.[3] Now for many who read this blog, it is obvious on the environmental side why one would be in opposition to this pipeline. Unfortunately, many people find environmental and economic concerns to be mostly incompatible.  Consequently, I cannot stress the importance of showing why this pipeline does not only make sense from an environmental perspective, but also from a long-term economic one.

The debate over the Keystone pipeline, like many things, has been caught up in the current contentious disputes raging in America. As such, for many, the debate over the pipeline boiled down to one word– jobs. TransCanada, the company behind the pipeline, estimates that if the entirety of the proposed pipeline were to begin construction, then it would, “would create 20,000 “direct” jobs. That includes 13,000 construction jobs and 7,000 jobs producing commodities, such as pump houses and the pipe itself.  [They] also project nearly 120,000 ‘indirect’ jobs — think restaurant workers and hotel employees to support the construction”.[4] Since the Cushing-to-Texas part of the pipeline already is moving forward, we should note that TransCanada states that this segment, in particular, would create 4,000 jobs.2  

However, we must take these numbers with a grain of salt as they come from a company that desperately wants the full project to gain approval. When we put these numbers under the microscope, it becomes obvious that they do not add up:

“But TransCanada numbers count each job on a yearly basis. If the pipeline employs 10,000 people working for two years, that’s 20,000 jobs by the company’s count. The estimates also include jobs in Canada, where about a third of the $7 billion pipeline would be constructed. The U.S. State Department, which must green light the project, forecasts just 5,000 direct U.S. jobs over a two-year construction period. Even according to TransCanada, the amount of permanent jobs created would be only in the hundreds.”4

We see now that they are not necessarily lying, but presenting the truth in a misguiding way, to put it lightly. That being said, these are the numbers we should be analyzing if we are to bring jobs into this debate. While jobs are undoubtedly appreciated, we cannot keep jumping from temporary fix to temporary fix.  In this country, we do have an employment problem interwoven within our greater economic issues. However, these greater economic problems did not arise from a temporary scenario.  Our country and our world have been resting on a structurally flawed economy that needs dramatic restructuring in order to be stable and more beneficial to all. When we pour energy and resources into these temporary beneficial programs, we blind ourselves from the true debate generally and specifically from the trued argument regarding employment. No doubt there will be temporary gains in employment, but we must begin to think in the long-term, and in regards to this perspective, “one study from Cornell University said the pipeline could actually lead to a decline in jobs in the long run. One reasons given for this phenomenon  is that the pipeline would lead to higher fuel prices in the Midwest, the study said, and that would slow consumer spending and cost jobs”.4 This brings us to the other argument advocating the construction of the pipeline, gas prices. Why would we turn away this new supply of oil when gas prices are so stubbornly high?  The answer is that the argument that this oil will decrease gas prices is a logical fallacy.

The cost of gasoline in this country has risen steadily over the past decade, followed closely by the calls for less oil imports and more domestic oil production. This is a natural conclusion since the price of gas determines the price of so many other products in this country, while dependence on the price restricts or opens up our travels.  In my previous posts, I have discussed the increase of domestic oil production; however, simply concluding that increasing the amount of oil brought into the country would automatically lead to lower gas prices is an all-out rejection of the facts.  If this pipeline was about getting more oil into this country for cheaper domestic gasoline prices, then the Cushing-Texas part of the pipeline would be unnecessary. Regardless of whether or not the controversial section of the line is finished, connecting to the Gulf refineries would enable up to 700,000 barrels/day of Canadian oil to now have access to global markets.  Of those 700,000 barrels/day, Valero has signed a contract for 100,000 barrels a day until 2030. Valero is operating with the full intent of converting these barrels into diesel to export. [5] Furthermore, the lack of a connection to Gulf refineries has led to a glut of gasoline in the Midwest, reducing competition and depressing prices. Cheaper gas prices directly benefit consumer spending and have a beneficial effect all the way down the supply chain. 2

For the President to approve the construction of this pipeline, it must be proven that doing so is in the best national interest. Let us then check the facts and see this truly is the case. When we really focus on the job numbers, we find that despite grand claims by TransCanada, the stark reality is different. While there would certainly would be job creation, the majority of these positions would be temporary. The actual tally of long term jobs created numbers only in the hundreds. In all likelihood, there is a chance that in the long run it could decrease in employment due to higher gas prices throughout the Midwest. When we take these two outcomes into account, it becomes clear that the benefit to the economy and the long term energy independency of this country has been highly overstated.  Furthermore, we have not even taken into account the environmental effects of tar-sand oil. On average, emissions from tar sands are 23% higher than oil from more conventional fossil fuel sources.[6]  These already higher than average emissions are compounded by the extraction of the oil, which amplifies the environmental effect. Through the process of extracting the tar-sand oil, acres upon acres of carbon absorbing peat lands would be destroyed. Recently, Scientists from the University of Alberta found that, “10 operational oil sands mining projects would destroy enough peat lands to release 11.4 million to 47.3 million metric tons of stored carbon into the atmosphere. That release is the equivalent of seven years’ worth of emissions from the oil sands mining region”. [7]  The damage continues even beyond this initial carbon release.  What were once carbon absorbing peat lands will be replaced by dry forests which will take in significantly less carbon.

When we consider all the factors, combined with and all the facts concerning the Keystone XL pipeline, it is easy to see that it is not in the public interest. Not only the controversial international section, but the Cushing-Texas portion as well. We have a company, TransCanada, which has skewed the facts and has allowed falsehoods (i.e. the jobs and cheap gas argument) to be publicly displayed as truths. It is true, as many of the columnists of my sources have noted, that stopping this pipeline is not a silver bullet for global warming. However, the point also is continuously made that if we cannot stand up to projects such as these, then what hope do we have? To end global warming and to possess more economic security, we must begin cutting our dependency on fossil fuels altogether, both imported and domestically produced. If we do not pick a point to begin pushing back, then we never will do so. If we allow one project such as this to go forward, while recognizing the overall dangers, how can we stop others? The pushback has to begin somewhere and what better way than against a pipeline dedicated to one of the most polluting fossil fuels in the world?  Let’s work hard to push this project back now so that we may live green, be green.

By Sean P. Maguire

seanpic

[1] http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/keystone-pipeline-decision-tests-president-obama-jobs-climate/story?id=18292687

[2] http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/22/news/economy/keystone-pipeline/index.htm

[3] http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/27/news/companies/keystone_pipeline/index.htm?iid=EL

[4] http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/13/news/economy/keystone_pipeline_jobs/index.htm?iid=EL

[5] http://dirtyoilsands.org/files/OCIKeystoneXLExport-Fin.pdf

[6] http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2011/february/tar-sands-creates-more-pollution-than-other-fossil-fuels-/70152.aspx

[7] http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=oil-sands-co2-emissions-higher-than-thought

Australian Scientists Eye Potential End To AIDS

by

For this good news Monday, we here at LGBG are happy to report on a research project by Australian scientists that has been successful in its method to modify a protein in HIV so that it protects cells against infection as opposed to replicating the diseased cells.  This process potentially signals the cure for AIDS.

It is important to note that this treatment would not cure HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.  As stated by Associate Professor David Harrich from the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, “[w]hat we’ve actually done is taken a normal virus protein that the virus needs to grow, and we’ve changed this protein, so that instead of assisting the virus, it actually impedes virus replication and it does it quite strongly.”  The very presence of this protein in immune cells provides a defense for patients to fight normal infections, which often prove deadly to those with AIDS.  This cutting edge research is representative of a human gene research approach to treat diseases and disorders, as opposed to pharmaceutical therapies, which generally treat one protein or symptom.

To date, the tests on this procedure have been successful in the laboratory and now are expected to proceed to animal trials soon with early indications showing positive results.  The scientists involved in this research expect some hurdles to overcome in the process, but they are confident that the results will be positive.

The potential impact of successful treatment of AIDS through protein modification is monumental.  If this study is successful, it would mean that HIV patients possibly could undergo one treatment for their illness, thereby freeing them from multiple drug therapies, which in addition to being expensive, are physically burdensome and often carry their own serious side effects.  This new treatment would greatly improve the quality of life for HIV patients.  It is estimated by the World Health Organization that more than 34 million people are living with AIDS, and more than 1.8 million people died from AIDS-related illnesses in 2010.

This research project,if successful, will truly be a game changer in the health of people all over the world, signaling a greater opportunity to live green, be green.

Resources for this article:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-16/scientists-hail-potential-cure-for-aid

s/4466766

http://www.who.int/gh

English: The Red ribbon is a symbol for solida...

English: The Red ribbon is a symbol for solidarity with HIV-positive people and those living with AIDS. Français : Le Ruban rouge, symbole de la solidarité avec les personnes séro-positives. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Celebrate Inauguration With Commitment To Green

by
Washington DC - Capitol Hill: United States Ca...

Washington DC – Capitol Hill: United States Capitol (Photo credit: wallyg)

 

Today’s presidential inauguration presents a wonderful and unique opportunity to celebrate and recommit to living a healthy green lifestyle.  Inauguration is defined as “the beginning of a system or period”.  As such, this period of transition to a new administrative period in Washington, DC, represents a chance to start fresh to accomplish the work of the people.  As stewards of the earth and protectors of the environment, today is the day for us to celebrate our victories, thank our many foot soldiers and heroes, identify our challenges and band together as one voice to promote our causes and pursue our agenda.  The observance of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday on this day, with its focus on service to our country, serves to bolster our spirit and commitment to the Earth.  I find it extremely poignant that President Obama will take his oath on Dr. King’s travel Bible facing the direction of the King Memorial,  creating a dramatic reminder of our duty to this land, as the scripture admonishes us to replenish the Earth.

 

As we listen to the oaths, speeches and commentaries at today’s inaugural events, let’s take our own oaths to continue to do the seemingly small, but effective things to reduce pollution and waste, such as recycling, reducing our gas and meat consumption, supporting businesses that are kind to the environment and calling out those who violate the earth.  Also, be that voice that speaks out to identify issues and brings elected officials to task when they fail to represent the constituents as they should.  Rally around organizations who lobby for green initiatives in Washington, DC, who often ask for no more than that you lend a signature to a petition to show support for that eco-friendly position on a particular issue. Additionally, let’s support our organizations who are working hard to effect change.  Please consider donations of time and/or money to their wonderful causes.  They truly are the foot soldiers of this movement.

 

We at LGBG feel honored to work for all things green.  We are grateful for the many friends and associations we have made, and we enter this inaugural period with a stronger sense of urgency and commitment to a green lifestyle.  We hope that this day will be a day of reflection, happiness, peace and celebration for our nation and for all things green.  This is the day that we reinforce our commitment to “be the change we want to see”.  Happy Inauguration Day!  Let’s live green, be green!

 

Deconstructing Traditional Construction

by

On numerous occasions, we here at LGBG have gone into detail on the burgeoning relationship between the green movement and architecture. Whether it’s sprucing up your living room or assessing the value green initiatives may have on your home, the worlds of being socially responsible and architecture are now becoming firmly intertwined.

Occurring in sporadic movements throughout the years, deconstruction is coming back with a greater vengeance than Denzel Washington’s character John Creasy in Man on Fire. In its simplest form, deconstruction is where a demolition crew, “Carefully dismantles an older property by hand instead of using bulldozers.”[1] The movement has been around for decades and allows for the reusing of materials from older homes for the construction of newer ones. The end result is hundreds of thousands of tons of potential trash is diverted away from landfills.

With that said, you might be asking yourself: Why has this beneficial movement waxed and waned through history more than Mr. Miyagi and why is it suddenly back? The first question is a bit more puzzling to decipher, but can primarily be explained by the fact that deconstruction, even in today’s generation which focuses on green building and initiatives, is nonetheless five times more expensive in comparison to a traditional obliterate-your-home-with-a-wrecking-ball demolition.[2] In addition, the process of deconstruction takes about twice as long as the more destructive alternative.

Image

You said you needed to replace your windows right?

So why is the movement suddenly back? That question, while also complex, warrants a simple solution: A tax-credit from Uncle Sam. Yet, this same tax credit, which occurs when a homebuilder donates materials to a qualified 510(c)(3) charity, has been around for decades and arose in tandem with deconstruction itself.[3] More recently however, contractors are placing a greater emphasis on the financial benefits of deconstruction to potential home builders. For example, the Weiss family who were featured in the Wall Street Journal Article: The Demolition Discount, “Paid more than $20,000 for the disassembly, roughly double what they would have paid for a wrecking crew.” However, as a result of the tax credit through donations of materials to charities, the family will have saved more than $66,000 in taxes. As a result, despite the higher upfront cost and greater length of time to complete the project, the tax shelter and socially responsible benefits have outweighed these side effects in many homeowners’ eyes.

I believe what has really catapulted the movement forward is our nation’s greater awareness, and emphasis of green initiatives. Our society has begun to recognize that sustainability is a difficult and slow-moving process, yet can be achievable in anything and everything that we do. Whoever you want to credit for the successes of the green movement, the consequences are that as a whole, nations have a top-of-the mind awareness of green initiatives. So couple people’s awareness of sustainability, with the availability of deconstruction, and sprinkle in a nice tax incentive, and the end results are that citizens are more willing to listen to green ideas, and sustainability projects like deconstruction are experiencing greater success rates than ever before.

Obviously deconstruction is not ideal for everyone. You have to initially lay down more capital into a house that is already expensive enough as it is, while also having to wait longer to live in the home you purchased. However, there are some real social and financial benefits to deconstruction for homeowners that may outweigh the negatives. That being said, here are some more tips related to this conversation for homeowners to keep in mind:

  1. Persuade others to use deconstruction if possible.
  2. Donate used goods from your home to charities and shelters. You don’t have to be building a new house to live by the ideals of deconstruction.
  3. If building a new house, try to use eco-friendly materials and alternative energy sources like solar panels for the home’s construction.

Through these actions and the right knowledge, we can all strive to live in a world where we live green, and be green.

[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324407504578185762234289162.html?KEYWORDS=landfills

[2] http://portlandpreservation.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/on-old-buildings-demolition-deconstruction-and-reuse/

[3] http://www.epa.state.oh.us/portals/30/Brownfield_Conference/docs/Barry%20Franz.pdf

A Race To The Top For Our Infrastructure

by

The typical picture of Washington currently is that democrats say yes, republicans say no, and vice versa. What then if I were to tell you of a government reform that inspired the exact opposite, an Obama administration proposed reform that had states painted both red and blue competing for federal funds, while taking the reform of an antiquated and failing system seriously? You would most likely point me to a calendar and tell me that the fifties are over, and I would merely show you the Race to the Top.

The Race to the Top program was a product of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), commonly known as the Stimulus Bill. It provided $4.35 billion dollars in federal funding for states’ education systems. However, this was not a simple funding provision, but a competitive grant program. States would compete against each other for these funds by engaging in education reform.[1]For many, the results were somewhat muddled, with different groups focusing on different aspects of education. Regardless the perceived inadequacies of the program, it did accomplish two things: it caused states to recognize and evaluate failures in their education systems, formulating ways to fix them, while also injecting much needed funds into school systems that were facing dire budget cuts and setbacks. As I previously said, the actual results of the program are still hard gauge and likely will not be quantifiable for years to come. That being said, admission of a problem is always the first step to recovery.

With that notion in mind, we can no longer ignore America’s crumbling infrastructure.  This is a subject that I have touched on in the past and which many of us notice on our commutes to and from work every day.  As I stated in my November 27th post, America needs roughly $2.2 trillion dollars in infrastructure investments.[2] The need for these investments could not come at a more opportune or inopportune time. As of December 2012, the unemployment rate stands at 7.8%.[3] Any infrastructure project would be beneficial to increasing employment, not only through the jobs required to complete the task, but also through the multiplier effect. While government infrastructure projects are typically, and sometimes rightfully so, decried as pork-barrel projects, their economic benefit greatly exceeds the majority of government spending.  A report from the fall of last year found that, “each dollar of infrastructure spending increases the GSP by at least two dollars”, and furthermore, “that the multiplier increases during a downturn. Leduc and Wilson found that the multiplier in the wake of the 2009 stimulus was ‘roughly four times’ more than average. That means infrastructure investments offer more value during busts than booms, which should encourage policymakers attempting to counteract high unemployment in the construction sector by increasing spending on highways, roads, and bridges”.[4] However, Washington is driving with its eyes not fixed on the road at the moment, but instead on the debt ceiling crashing through the skies.

The debt ceiling is typically raised by Congress every few years, but over the course of the Obama administration, it has become a partisan sticking point. A majority of America agrees that not raising the debt ceiling is liable to cause economic damage to the United States, but many people are more divided on which outcome is the best, with, “39 percent of [AP-Gfk] poll respondents support[ing] the insistence by House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., that deep spending cuts be attached to any measure increasing the debt ceiling. That is more than the 30 percent who back Obama’s demand that borrowing authority be raised quickly and not entwined with a bitter fight over trimming the budget. An additional 21 percent oppose boosting the debt ceiling at all”.[5] Not surprising, the survey goes  on to find that the two top issues for Americans are the economy and the federal deficit. The point to take away from this is that the great recession is still firmly locked into the minds of many Americans and that we are not likely to see any significant spending comparable to what our infrastructure actually needs. As such, if we are not going to be able to spend more to dig out of this hole, then we have to spend wiser, and there is no better way to get the best ideas then through competition.

We have in this possibility an intersection of resounding truths: America’s infrastructure is in desperate need of repair, the health of the economy is seen as still in balance, and the concern for the federal deficit will likely curtail spending increases. We’ve already shown that infrastructure investments are one of the most efficient ways that the government can spend. With our constrained ability to spend, but a desire for a healthier economy, we must choose the investment with the greatest track record for success. By making it into a competition in the spirit of the Race to The Top, we are increasing the economic benefit of the spending even more. By cutting out the pork, we are targeting the projects and the plans that would be the most beneficial, the best of the best, one could say. Furthermore, it has been noted that in downturns that the multiplier effect is even more resounding. While the recession may be officially over, unemployment remains high. When we break unemployment down by state, we see states like Mississippi (8.5%), New Jersey (9.6%), and California (9.8%) with unemployment levels well above the national average.[6] What you will also find in these states are infrastructures with extremely low ratings that are in need of drastic improvements. [7] The recession may have ended but for many of these states the wounds have yet to heal. An increase in infrastructure spending would provide a much needed injection of cash into their economies and likely a multiplier effect above the average.

Inspirations for new investments are appearing in the news every day, most recently out of the Netherlands.  While we are attempting to get our infrastructure to meet the standards of the modern day, this nation already is planning and getting set to build the needed infrastructure of the future. Construction is set to begin soon on glow in the dark highways, “treated with a special ‘foto-luminising powder’ that is charged up during the day and illuminates the contours of the road and lane markers at night for up to 10 hours… [And] dynamic paint [that] responds to changes in temperature. A pattern of snowflakes, for example, appears when it is cold and slippery… [While] other innovations to debut in the coming years include an induction priority lane that will charge electric cars as they drive, presumably via induction coils that are powered by wind”.[8] State and national leaders would also be wise to take note of the success of the Dutch bike system, with, “ 27 percent of all daily trips [being] made by bicycle”.[9] In all likelihood America faces a tough road ahead, torn by somewhat contradictory desires and opinions.  Nonetheless, we still possess the capability to determine the difficulty of that road ahead. We can determine this by being smart, spending smart, and letting the spirit of competition drive us down the best road.  Creating a competitive program to improve the nation’s infrastructure indeed is a way to live green and be green.

By Sean P. Maguire

 

[1] http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

[2] http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

[3]http://www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm

[4] http://www.businessinsider.com/infrastructure-economic-multiplier-2012-11

[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/17/debt-limit-poll_n_2498441.html

[6] http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

[7] http://www.asce.org/Infrastructure/Report-Card/State-and-Local-Report-Cards/

[8] http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/futureoftech/futuristic-highway-glows-dark-reports-weather-1C6670949

[9]http://www.yesmagazine.org/planet/how-to-make-biking-mainstream-lessons-from-the-dutch

Obama Gun Control Policy Triggers Massive Outcry From Guns-Rights Supporters

by

In response to the outcry following the Sandy Hook Elementary School killings on the heels of several other incidences of gun violence in schools and public arenas, the Obama administration unveiled a substantial proposal to address the issue of gun violence in America, triggering objections from guns-rights supporters, but gaining the support of millions of American citizens.  The President’s proposal has four principal components:

  • Law enforcement.
  • The availability of dangerous firearms and ammunition.
  • School safety.
  • Mental health.

To effectively impact all four of the principal elements of the sweeping proposal, President Obama made the following recommendations:

  • Requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales.
  • Reinstating the assault weapons ban.
  • Restoring a 10-round ammunition limit in magazines.
  • Eliminating armor-piercing bullets.
  • Providing mental health services in schools.
  • Allocating funds to hire more police officers.
  • Instituting a federal gun trafficking statute.

Many political observers and gun lobbyists are voicing complaints about the massive effort to address the gun violence problem, which is leaving a huge black mark on our society today.  Complaints range from disagreement with the attempt at such a massive overhaul of the current ineffective gun regulations to outcries of political overreach by the current administration and violation of citizens’ second Amendment rights to bear arms.

It appears that some key points are being overlooked here.  The level of gun violence should send a distress signal to each and every one of us in this nation, particularly when we peel back the layers of each past instance and see the consistent pattern of mental illness, social maladjustment, bullying, etc., all toxic ingredients woven into the fabric of this ridiculous mayhem.  This is an awful testament to any society, let alone one such as ours, which consistently touts our civility, intelligence, Christian values, and sense of humanity.  We consistently show pride for our liberty and rights, as we should; however, we need to stop and consider the rights of others to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Surely any parent who sends their children to school or to a public place, such as a shopping center or a movie, should have the reasonable expectation that their children will return to them.  Acknowledging this right and working to enforce it will not take away from the rights of law-abiding citizens who want to own weapons, not by any means, and that is not the intent of any gun legislation.  If done the right way, gun owners will still have their guns, if they are legally entitled to do so.

In the height of the emotion and standoff over the proposed gun regulations, we need to stop and think.  The families of Sandy Hook Elementary School, as well as the Giffords and other families who were affected by mass killings have taken this opportunity to stand together for a safer world from gun violence at a time that is anything but convenient for them as their wounds and hurt are so raw and real.  It is awful, an abomination, that we declare our rights to take up arms so loudly because of potential possibilities of aggression that may or may not happen when these wonderful people are speaking up trying to convey the message of the reality of gun violence, a stark and dismal reality for them that will haunt them for the remainder of their lives and a reality that they are trying to prevent the rest of us from every experiencing.  Why can’t we listen–  “Be still and know.” (Psalm 46:10).

It was poignant to see the nation rally and support the communities that have suffered horrible attacks of gun violence.  Now let’s really help by working to save America’s children.  We can put an end to the senseless acts of violence going on in America today.  As the victims of these tragedies reach out to our legislators and communities to solve the issue of gun violence and its impact on the American family, let’s listen and accept the message that this has to stop.  To do so is to protect our family and definitely is a great way to live green, be green.

Sources for this article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/obama-gun-control-proposals_n_2486919.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cipad%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D258011

America

America (Photo credit: acb)

Ecological Surveys?

by

What is an Ecological Survey?

 

An ecological survey, commonly dubbed an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), is an evaluation of the possible outcome (both positive and negative) that any proposed project is likely to impose to the environment. These impacts are not only viewed in relation to the environment, but also in regard to their social and economic outlook. These reports are very essential especially when establishing new structures or projects, and must be presented to the local authorities for approval. They, the local authorities, with regard to the report presented to them, can either decide to abort or approve projects on the basis of their impacts. If your projects do more harm than good to the environment, then they are more likely to be rejected by the local authorities.

 

What are the common types of Ecological Surveys Available?

 

Ecological surveys are carried out by well-established Arboricultural and Ecology Consultancies, and mainly provide information on both the botanical and zoological aspects. For example, they provide information regarding the welfare of animals living in certain habitats. Is your project endangering or threatening their lives (animals)? Is it going to benefit them in anyway? Or is it going to deplete the natural resources available hence making them migrate? Some of the common ecological surveys conducted include:

 

Protected Species Surveys-Protected species surveys are studies aimed at ensuring the wellbeing of certain protected animal species. Therefore, reports released (after conducting protected species surveys) mainly provide information regarding to whether certain species of animals are present in those particular habitats or not. For example, the report will highlight whether bats, lizards, owls, Newts or badgers are present or not. And if not, what mainly caused their absence?

 

Protected Tree Surveys-These are surveys conducted to establish the impacts of designing new projects especially to trees. Such surveys mostly put into consideration the welfare of trees as well as other animals depending on these trees as their natural habitat. Are the new projects going to permanently deplete tree cover? If they are, how will it affect the wellbeing of other animals living in such habitats? Are there any socio-economic related outcomes?

 

Marine Surveys-These types of surveys are in most cases related to marine life. They aim at investigating and if possible alleviating the probable effects of establishing projects with regard to marine life. For example, the study will assess the pros and cons of establishing a project maybe to fish or sea whales, the risks involved and maybe the strategies that are likely to be used to avert such risks.

 

For more information on how to conduct Tree, Bat and Habitat surveys check http://www.arbtech.co.uk/ for more and detailed information.